Sitting of 6 December 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Renfrewshire County Council (Giffnock Railway Bridges) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Perth County Buildings Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.
Perth County Buildings Order Confirmation [Stamp Duties],
Resolution reported;
"That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or instruments which in case the Perth County Buildings Order had not been confirmed, would have been required to pass to and vest in the county council of Perth certain lands, buildings and other heritable property, there be charged a Stamp Duty of £5, and such duty shall be impressed upon a copy of the Act confirming the Order to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the fourth section thereof."
Resolution agreed to.
HERIOT-WATT COLLEGE AND GEORGE HERIOT'S TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust," presented by Secretary Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CHICKEN (IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA).
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many chicken, frozen and otherwise, were imported from Russia into the United Kingdom in 1913 and in each post-War year; what are the principal ports of departure and arrival; and what is the value of this trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer contains a number of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Viscount SANDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total figures?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will read the answer: "There are no such figures relating only to chicken. In 1913, 119,944 cwts. of dead poultry (which includes geese, turkeys and ducks, as well as fowls) were imported from pre-War Russia. As regards more recent years, 5,109 cwts. of dead poultry were imported from post-War Russia in 1924; 20,148 cwts. in 1925; and 26,241 cwts. in 1926. The corresponding importations from Latvia were 9,176 cwts. in 1924; 50,750 cwts. in 1925; and 37,906 cwts. in 1926. Small importations have also taken place from other countries which formed part of pre-War Russia, but these cannot be distinguished."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the patriotic lieges being warned about the Christmas geese and turkeys coming from Russia?
    Viscount SANDON: Can some steps be taken to help the British producers against this trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes; British consumers should buy British chickens.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it be possible to have a safeguarding duty on caviare?

    SHIPPING RATES.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the names of the shipping companies referred to in the last Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on Canadian flour who combined to charge a freight rate of 19 cents per 100 lbs. of Canadian flour from New York to Liverpool while charging only 15 cents if the flour was American;
    (2) whether the British shipping firms engaged in the North Atlantic trade have given the undertaking referred to in paragraph 10 of the Imperial Shipping Committee's Interim Report on Canadian flour freights that they would no longer discriminate by higher freights in favour of American as against Canadian flour?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The shipping companies referred to were those comprised in the North Atlantic-United Kingdom Freight Conference. The hon. Member will remember that the United States rate was reduced because the United States Shipping Board gave what was in effect a subsidised rate. As stated in the Interim Report on Canadian flour, the principal British lines engaged in the trade gave assurances that they would in future quote the same rates from United States ports on Canadian flour as on American flour; and this was done. I understand that the lines represented in the Conference were: Anchor Line, Anchor Donaldson Line, Bristol City Line, Canadian Pacific, Cunard Line, Donaldson Line, Ellerman's Wilson Line, Furness Withy, Head and Lord Lines, International Mercantile Marine Lines (White Star, Leyland, etc.), Lamport and Holt Line, Thomson Line. The United States Shipping Board Services were admitted at a later date.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there are any other Canadian products which are being discriminated against by British ships?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; it is only fair to say this. The question referred to something which happened in 1924, and it is not a case of any desire to discriminate against Canadian goods. The United States Shipping Board, which is a Government undertaking, gave a subsidised rate for American flour, and, if our ships were to be able
    1152
    to compete for that trade, it was necessary that we should be on equal terms with the subsidised rate.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the freight rate per ton of pigiron from Glasgow to Buenos Aires and from Antwerp to Buenos Aires; and if the Imperial Shipping Committee has made any representations to the British shipowners on the subject?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the freight rate for the carriage of pig-iron from the United Kingdom to Buenos Aires is the same as the freight rate from Antwerp to Buenos Aires, namely, 22s. 6d. per ton. I am not aware that any representations on the. subject have been made by the Imperial Shipping Committee to British shipowners.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Shipping Conferences require any person or association with whom they negotiate to maintain strict secrecy, both as to the fact that negotiations are taking place and the results of such negotiations, and that an individual or an association making a public statement will be disqualified from any subsequent negotiations; and, in view of the importance of adequate publicity in order that combinations of traders may work more effectively, will he submit for the consideration of the Imperial Shipping Committee the desirability of obtaining from leading shipowners a declaration to refrain from such requirements or to in any way penalise exporters who may, either as individuals or in combination, publicly oppose the freight rates now current?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is no doubt the case that confidential negotiations take place, but I am not aware that exporters are penalised as suggested in the question. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with information to this effect, I will have inquiry made. As regards a reference to the Imperial Shipping Committee, it is open to any representative body of traders to lay any general complaint before the Imperial Shipping Committee.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the difficulty

    1153
    Which traders have, because of the secrecy which is imposed by Shipping Conference lines, of making representations or having any combination among themselves?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am not aware of that. If there be any complaint by traders, they have the right to go to the Imperial Shipping Committee and formulate complaints. Surely, if the traders feel that they are being discriminated against in the matter of rates or that rates are unduly high, then that is just the kind of case which in the past has been taken to the Imperial Shipping Committee and should be taken to that Committee in future.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that, if the Shipping Conference lines would have more publicity among those with whom they negotiate, there would be far less cause of complaint?
    Mr. RADFORD: In view of the very grave menace to the British export trade which has been revealed in the answer to this question and to others, will not the Board of Trade have a searching inquiry into the whole matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; surely the body to make the inquiry into these rates, where it is alleged that the rates are unduly high, is the Imperial Shipping Committee, which makes its report to all the Governments of the Empire, and which as a result of the Imperial Conference years ago was set up to deal with exactly these points and to report to the Governments of the Empire. It would surely be extraordinarily unwise to set up an ad hoc inquiry in this country alone, when there is the Imperial Shipping Committee to deal with it.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the fact that a whole range of cases is being brought to the personal notice of the right hon. Gentleman in the House, will he now refer them to the Committee, and call for a report?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If any body of traders presents a case which ought to go before the Committee, they can either take that direct—which they have a right to do, and in thousands of cases have done—or they may ask the
    1154
    British Government to make representations, and there is not the least difficulty in doing that.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said he would make inquiry about specific cases? Did he make any inquiry into the specific case mentioned in a Debate a month before the House rose?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot answer a hypothetical case like that.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: It is not a hypothetical case.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My answer referred to an allegation contained in this question that shippers generally were, or some shipper was, disallowed some rebate by a shipping line if they gave some information. I have no information about that, and therefore I asked my hon. Friend to give me some information; and, if he does, I will make inquiries.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Imperial Shipping Committee is? Are they a Government-appointed Committee, and, if not, where do they derive their power and authority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down.

    TIN SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the possibilities of a world shortage of tin; and whether, in view of the importance of this metal to the industries of this country, he will confer with the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Dominions and Colonies with a view to active geological surveys being undertaken to attempt to discover new sources within the Empire?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 28th November to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), a copy of which I am sending him. The importance, from the point of view of our mineral resources, of geological surveys within the Empire has not been lost sight of, and arrangements are in progress for further surveys in certain areas.

    WHEAT OFFALS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wheat offals imported, if any?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Norfolk (Mr. Christie), a copy of which I am sending him.

    COTTON TRADE (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
    Mr. BETHELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability, in view of the depressed condition of the cotton trade in Lancashire, of issuing Regulations that all cotton cloths imported into this country shall be accompanied by a consular licence issued in the country of origin with a sample of the cloth, stating width, number of threads per inch in warp and weft, actual counts, and price per yard, and arrange that these shall be available for inspection by any British manufacturer who desires to take effective means to meet foreign competition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no power to make the Regulations suggested; nor do I think they are necessary or desirable. If information is required as to cotton cloths of foreign origin which compete with British goods in overseas markets, I may remind my hon. Friend that the Department of Overseas Trade from time to time collects samples of such goods, and I understand that collections of the kind have been shown recently to manufacturers in Manchester.
    Mr. BETHEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lancashire cotton manufacturers will be obliged if they can be furnished with these particulars?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know that it is done in some countries, but the whole policy of the Board of Trade at the League of Nations and elsewhere has been to get this kind of interference abolished. I do not think the best way of getting it abolished by other countries is to start it ourselves.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that to give this information makes for greater accuracy in statistics and more reliable data for manufacturers to work upon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I should have thought that if there were any kind of cloth which has been largely imported into this country, manufacturers here would know what it is.

    GRANITE SETTS AND CURBS (IMPORTS).
    Major OWENasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of granite setts imported into this country in 1913 and during each of the last three years for which complete figures are available?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The imports into the United Kingdom of granite setts and granite pavement curbs (which are grouped together in the official Trade Returns) amounted in 1924, 1925 and 1926 to 233,000 tons, 176,000 tons and 127,100 tons respectively. The corresponding values were £613,100, £504,400 and £346,700. Similar information in respect of the year 1913 is not available.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the quantities of merchandise in the various classes of goods, such as oil, machinery, foodstuffs, and partly manufactured goods, etc., exported from this country to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and imported by this country from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, in quantities and values, for October, 1926, and October, 1927, respectively?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Owing to the cost involved, detailed particulars of trade with individual countries are compiled in respect of calendar years only. Figures as to some, however, of our imports from, and exports to Russia, during October, 1926 and 1927, are given in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for October last.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the approximate amounts and the value of oil imported in the years 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926, respectively, from Russia which was obtained from oilfields confiscated by the Soviet Government from British companies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information is not available.

    CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK.
    Mr. LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a statement setting out the tariff and sanitary restrictions imposed upon the importation of condensed skimmed milk into foreign countries and British Dominions, Colonies and Possessions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not in possession of information beyond that which has already been communicated to the House by the Minister of Health; and to give a complete statement of these restrictions in all foreign and British overseas countries would involve very considerable labour. If my hon. Friend desires, however, I would endeavour to obtain further information in respect of the most important of these countries, and would communicate it to him when available.
    Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these countries this article is excluded as being undesirable?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think a list of the countries from which it is excluded was given by the Minister of Health, but, if my hon. Friend would see my Department and see if there be any further information not given in these answers which would be useful, I will do my best, within reason, to get him anything that I can.

    BRICKS AND TILES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade the causes of the large progressive increase in quantity and value of imports of bricks and tiles; whether he has made any inquiry into the question whether this increase is in any degree due to restriction of output and cost of transport in this country; and, if so, will he state his conclusions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware that the imports of both articles have risen considerably in recent years, though in the case of bricks they appear still to be very small as compared with the home production, which has also shown very considerable increase. The question of the price of bricks and tiles in
    1158
    this country has been continuously under review by the Committee on the Prices of Building Materials, but my right hon. Friend has not received any reports which would indicate that the factors referred to by my hon. Friend have had special influence on the volume of imports.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that many large local authorities had to resort to the importation of bricks in order to try to break the prices of the home combine?
    Mr. RILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence of a restriction, of output, as implied in the question?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the foreign article is infinitely inferior to the British?
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Has any application been made by this industry for a safeguarding duty?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter entirely.

    EMPIRE TOBACCO.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the monthly Returns of Imports for the present year, to the latest month available, of tobacco from Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Canada, and the corresponding monthly figures for the last two years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am having particulars extracted from the official records, and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT when they are available.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the figures for last year were in excess of those of the previous years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When I have the figures, which are being got out for the official return, I shall be better able to draw a deduction.

    IRISH FREE STATE (JEWELLERY).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in certain circumstances gold and silver watch-cases and gold and silver jewellery manufactured in England for sale in the Irish Free State have to be imported into the Irish Free State in the unfinished state to be Irish hall-marked, then exported to Great Britain to be finished, and re-imported for sale in the Irish Free State; and will he look into this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it about time we made some representation to the Irish Free State Government to discontinue fatuous regulations as indicated in the question, especially as we find a market for 90 per cent. of their exports?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the Dominion status of the Irish Free State, are these questions really in order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The questions relate to imports into this country. I do not think that there is any interference.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It arises in this way. When the United Kingdom was a whole, there were three assay offices for the United Kingdom, one in London, another in Dublin and another in Edinburgh, and each of them had equally the right to assay and apply the hall mark. We in this country have always insisted on applying the British hall mark to all gold and silver, whether made here or imported. It is because the Irish Government is maintaining now that position identical with our own that the difficulty arises. If it could be possible to arrange for reciprocity on the basis that we accept each other's marks as equivalent, that might be very useful; but I am afraid it would require legislation in both countries. If we could do it by Order I should like to do it.

    COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGUEES).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the index figures for the cost of living for November, 1927, in comparison to what they were in November, 1913?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The latest cost-of-living index figure, namely, that for 1st November, shows an increase of 69 per cent. as compared with July, 1914. I regret that figures are not available to provide a comparison with November, 1913.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this figure is computed on food prices only, or whether it takes in other things?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It includes food, rent, clothing, fuel, lighting and certain other small miscellaneous items.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DOMINIONS).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received any official information from any source of any films that have been banned altogether or censored in any of the Dominions during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he give full particulars?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only official sources of such information are the proceedings of the censorship authorities in the various Dominions, and their published reports which have reached my Department do not give particulars of the individual films censored by them.
    Colonel DAY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to this censorship?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by doing so.

    LIGHTHOUSE TENDERS (LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made for

    1161
    the supply of life-saving appliances on the tenders of the Northern Light Commissioners?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question of the life-saving equipment on lighthouse tenders has been discussed with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and arrangements have been made under which the life-saving equipment on these tenders is substantially equivalent to that which obtains on ordinary merchant ships of their class.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LAND ACQUISITION (WILTSHIRE).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many acres of land have been acquired by the War Office in Wiltshire during the last 12 months and for how many acres are they in treaty at present;
    (2) how many acres of the land acquired by the War Office during the last 12 months in Wiltshire were corn land; and how many farmers and how many farm labourers will be displaced in consequence?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): Some 6,300 acres in Wiltshire have been acquired, or are in course of acquisition, by the War Department, of which approximately 2,500 are arable land. Twelve farms are in course of acquisition, but they will be re-let, subject to military requirements, to the farmers at present in possession, and in the circumstances, I trust that any immediate disturbance of the labourers will not be necessary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that with our much smaller army we require all that extra land?
    Mr. HURD: In view of the strong feeling on this subject in Wiltshire and Hampshire, and, following the precedent established in the case in Surrey in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) were concerned, would the War Office be willing to confer with a strong representative local body from those two
    1162
    counties, so that the amenities of the district may be preserved and no more land taken than is realy required?
    Commodore KING: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that we shall certainly not acquire more land than is necessary. As was stated by the Secretary of State for War on the Estimates, this is part of a comprehensive policy of the sale of land which is not required, and the acquisition of more land, so as to obtain adequate facilities for the training of the Army.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the huts near Stonehenge be moved to this newly-acquired land?
    Commodore KING: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. HURD: Will the hon. and gallant Member answer my question? Will the War Office be willing to confer with a strong representative local body in order to deal with this matter in a spirit of good feeling?
    Commodore KING: If my hon. Friend will see me, I will see what can be arranged in the matter, but I believe that local opinion has already been obtained.

    MILITIA INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Secretary of State for War what intention he has regarding Militia units?
    Commodore KING: There is no intention at present of reconstituting the Militia infantry battalions.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are a great many officers on the establishment of the Special Reserve or Militia who have held pre-War commissions and are at present in receipt of an annual gratuity, who do no training whatsoever?
    Commodore KING: The supplementary officers are constituted Militia officers.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Does not this practice of giving gratuities for no service whatever constitute a great and unnecessary expense to the taxpayer?
    Commodore KING: The Supplementary Reserve officers are liable for mobilisa-

    1163
    tion under certain special conditions, and therefore their pay is in the nature of a retaining fee.

    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (OFFICER'S LETTER).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a circular letter, signed by the colonel of the South Wales Borderers and issued from Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, inviting ex-regular soldiers to organise a regimental association with a club house at Newport (Mon.); whether he is aware that in the circular letter an attack is made on Labour leaders, and that the proposed headquarters of the association is the Junior Constitutional Club, Newport; and what action will be taken with regard to the issuing of such a letter, in view of the recent Regulations prescribing the political activities of officers and men in the services?
    Commodore KING: I have seen a copy of the circular in question which was an appeal for funds to found a regimental association and employment bureau. Although the letter was marked "private," some of the expressions used were unfortunate and ill-advised, and the attention of the officer who signed the circular and who is at present serving in India is being called to this fact.
    Mr. AMMON: Can the Financial Secretary say what has been done with regard to the Regulations dealing with the activities of officers in reference to political offences?
    Commodore KING: Yes, the attention of this officer has been called to the Regulations. This officer has been nearly the whole of his service in India, and he is now serving in India.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether in addition to calling the attention of the officer in question to this matter any disciplinary action will be taken against him?
    Commodore KING: I think calling his attention to the matter will be sufficient.

    RECRUITS (EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits in the years 1925–26 and
    1164
    1926–27 who were reported illiterate, and the definition of that term as used in the Army?
    Commodore KING: The term "illiterate" is not now applied to any class of recruit. A table showing the educational attainments of recruits enlisted during the year ended 30th September, 1926, is given on page 76 of the General Annual Report on the British Army for 1926. Figures for 1926–27 are not yet available, but they will be included in the Report for 1927.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for War what replies have been received, to his recent communication to the Territorial Associations suggesting further economies; and what action is resulting therefrom?
    Commodore KING: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 22nd November to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper).

    RESERVISTS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the men of Section A of the Army Reserve who were called away from civil employment for service in China, and are now returning home and have no jobs to go to, will be retained on the Army strength in some capacity until they can obtain employment?
    Commodore KING: I regret that it is not possible to give effect to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir F. HALL: Does that mean that these men who have been taken out of employment to go to China, when they come back, are to all intents and purposes in many cases, to be thrown upon the scrap-heap?
    Commodore KING: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it would be impossible for us to hold either those Reservists or the men leaving the Colours until such time as they obtain employment. We do our best to obtain employment for them, but we cannot hold them.
    Sir F. HALL: Surely you can keep them a little longer in the Army at this

    1165
    period. You appoint 32 officers in the Army to distribute 28,000 medals in sis months, and why cannot you do something for these men?

    EXPENDITURE.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the percentage increases in the Army Votes for effective and non-effective services between 1914 and 1927, and the proportion between the Vote for non-effective services of the total Army Vote in each of these years?
    Commodore KING: Comparing the provision in Army Estimates 1914–15 and 1927–28, effective services show an increase of 35 per cent. and non-effective services an increase of 102 per cent. In 1914–15, non-effective services represented 13.8 per cent. of the total provision. In 1927–28 they account for 19.3 per cent. of the total.

    SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE (EXPENDITURE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War the estimated total expenditure which will fall on his Vote on the fortifications and other military works, including barracks for the garrison, required for the new naval base at Singapore?
    Commodore KING: The military portion of the scheme is under review as a result of a recent examination on the spot of certain technical problems involved, and I regret that no estimate of the expenditure involved can at present be given.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made by the Treasury of the total expenditure that will fall on various Votes for the cost of the works at Singapore for the new naval base, including the cost of works that will fall on Votes other than the Admiralty Vote?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 23rd November, the cost of the base is estimated at £7,750,000. I am not in a position to give an estimate for other ancillary works and
    1166
    costs falling on other Votes: they are now, and will be continuously kept, under review.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has approved of the work on this base without knowing the total final cost falling on the War Office and Air Ministry Votes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Every definite expenditure of money receives an actual sanction at a particular time, but the rate at which this base will be developed, spreading, as it does, over a good many years, cannot at every stage be accurately foreseen.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he is evading the Question? In my Question on the Paper I asked for the final estimate. Could not the final cost of batteries and other military works have been arranged and the Treasury asked to sanction them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There have been several final estimates like that, and I am glad to say that continued scrutiny has led to their continued reduction.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the figure given include the cost of maintenance of troops, naval or otherwise, now stationed at Singapore?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WAR OFFICE (MEDALS BRANCH).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for War (1) the total staff of the medals branch at the War Office for the past three years and the total number of medals issued during the respective periods, together with the total cost of the department for each of those years;
    (2) the ranks of the officers employed in the medals branch at the War Office included in the 32 members of its staff; the total cost of pay and allowances of the officers employed and the total cost of salaries and bonuses of the civilian staff; what is the total cost of the administration of the branch; and what was the average cost of issuing each medal for the past six months?
    Commodore KING: The total staff of the branch at the War Office which deals with the issue of medals and the approximate cost of their pay and allowances for the past three financial years were as follow:

    Numbers.

    Pay and Allowances.

    £

    1924

    113

    21,000

    1925

    67

    15,000

    1926

    49

    12,000

    The approximate total number of medals issued during the three calendar years 1924, 1925 and 1926 is 182,000, 154,200 and 84,000. The ranks of the officers at present employed in the branch are:

    1 Colonel (Assistant Adjutant-General).

    1 Captain (Staff Captain).

    The pay and allowances of these officers amount to £2,050; the salaries and bonuses of the civilian staff to £5,700 a year. I am not in a position to give any separate figure for the cost of administration of the branch. It is administered as part of the War Office. Nor am I in a position to give the average cost of issuing each medal. The actual work of issuing medals is not separately costed, and is, in any case, only a part of the duties of the branch, which has also to deal, for example, with the examination of claims which are not allowed. The number of medals issued, therefore, is not a true measure of the work which has to be done.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that this is a most excessive staff to have for the issue of medals? It works out at only three or four medals—on an average—per-day per member of the staff. In view of the great need for economy at the War Office, will the hon. and gallant Member look into the matter and see how many other Departments of the War Office are similarly overstaffed?
    Commodore KING: I do not think that it is quite fair to take the number of medals issued. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not like going into a shop to buy a pound of tea. You do not draw a medal out of a drawer. The War Office have to take every precaution to see that a medal is not issued to any man unless he be really deserving of it, and therefore many applications have to be turned down.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not the fact that during six months only 28,000 medals were dealt with, and does my hon. and gallant Friend think that it is reasonable that a staff of 32 should be kept for that purpose?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue that question now.

    CHEISTMAS BANK HOLIDAY, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that through a Proclamation declaring 27th December a Bank Holiday not applying to Scotland a distinction arises as between English and Scottish Government servants; and whether, if it is impracticable to make the Proclamation apply TO Scotland, measures can be taken to secure that the advantage arising out of the Proclamation to English Government servants shall be enjoyed equally by Government servants in Scotland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Measures have been taken to secure that Government servants employed in Scotland are given a day's holiday in lieu of the Bank Holiday authorised in accordance with the Proclamation referred to for Government servants in England and Wales.

    COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
    Mr. HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that advertisements are appearing in the public Press of what is termed an important competitive examination for civil servants, minor and manipulative grades, for appointment to clerical class, general and departmental, to commence in London and at numerous provincial centres on 27th March, 1928; and whether he will defer the appointments of this character until the staffs of the Departments have been reduced to meet the needs of national economy?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): This competition is being held under agreed arrangements for affording an opportunity of admission to the clerical classes to members of established minor and manipulative grades in the Civil Service who comply with certain conditions. With regard to the latter half of the question, reductions in staffs are being, and will continue to be made, but a complete suspension of competitions for entry to

    1169
    the clerical grades of the Civil Service is neither feasible nor desirable in the public interest.
    Mr. HURD: Is that answer quite consistent with the desire to reduce officialism?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, because we must have a Civil Service to carry out the business of the State?
    Mr. HURD: Why have new entrants?
    Major PRICE: Could not the hon. Gentleman absorb the ex-servicemen who have experience in Government offices?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That has always been done.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, while the staffs are as large as they are now, it is a good thing to continue to take in large numbers of young men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not quite the correct way in which to state the case. These persons under discussion are already members of the lower grade of the Civil Service. They are already in the Civil Service.

  SCOTLAND.

    WATERWORKS (VALUATION).
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the recent observations of Lord Hunter and Lord Sands in the Court of Session, dealing with the case of the burgh of Denny, in the Valuation Appeal Court, affecting the determination of the annual value of waterworks, and pointing out that the revenue principle is obscure and unsatisfactory and involves innumerable anomalies; whether he has received representations from local authorities, the Convention of Royal Burghs, and other representative bodies in Scotland, directing attention to these anomalies in the valuation of waterworks and other public utility undertakings; and whether, having regard to these facts, the Government will promote legislation to amend the present law and practice?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of the observations on the present method
    1170
    of valuing waterworks referred to in the question, and I have received a number of representations on the subject. The question of introducing legislation to amend the Valuation Acts with regard to the valuation of waterworks and in other respects is at present under consideration.

    POLICE STATION, ALEXANDRIA, DUMBARTONSHIRE.
    Lieut.-Colonel THOMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the proposal to build a new police station in Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, notwithstanding that the present station is suitable in every respect and of ample accommodation; and if he will refuse to sanction this expenditure, which will increase the burden of local rates?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the police station at Alexandria is in an unsatisfactory condition, and that additional accommodation is required for cells and other purposes. The question whether the necessary accommodation can be obtained without the erection of a new building is receiving consideration.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland consider the difficulties of a police force obtaining the efficiency certificate when working under antiquated and inefficient conditions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am looking into this particular case, and steps are being taken to remedy the deficiencies.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION, BUDHILL, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that no provision is made for advanced division and secondary education at Bud-hill, Lanarkshire; that post-qualified pupils must attend Uddingston grammar school, which is outwith the three-miles limit for such education; that the Lanarkshire education authority refuse to pay travelling expenses or provide travelling facilities for such pupils; and that their parents have refused to send their children from Budhill to Uddingston unless expenses or travelling facilities are provided; and what action does he propose to take to ensure that all pupils in Lanarkshire below the compulsory age for attending school are provided with post-qualifying education?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My own information, however, is not quite in accord with that on which the rest of the hon. Member's inquiry is based. The Department are in correspondence with the Education Authority as to the points of difference and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of recorded dwelling-houses actually built and tenanted for the years 1914 to 1926, inclusive, for Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: During the period in question the recorded number of houses erected in Scotland with State assistance was 52,936. No accurate record is available of the number of houses erected in Scotland during the same period without State assistance, but it is estimated that between 1919 and 1926, inclusive the number was approximately 10,415. I am unable to say whether all the houses built have been tenanted.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    AMALGAMATIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have been arranged and completed in the mining industry since the stoppage of last year; the amount of capital involved; how many pits are concerned; and the number of men employed?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) onT4th November.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he has referred gave no information at all, and is he also aware that all the questions which have been asked upon this subject have not elicited the smallest amount of information? Is it not time that we were told something about this matter?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The answer was that there would be, under the Mining
    1172
    Industry Act of last year, a Report made on the whole subject next summer, and that the information was then incomplete. That being so, it would have been misleading to have given an answer which would have been incomplete and, therefore, misleading.
    Mr. PALING: Is that any reason why the number of amalgamations which have taken place, and which the Secretary for Mines must know have taken place, should not be given to the House, so that we may know what is going on?
    Colonel LANE FOX: As I have already stated, the information would be in a very incomplete form, and, if it were given when a good many transactions are still pending, it would have a very misleading effect.
    Mr. PALING: Is the real reason that the policy of the Government has failed so much that they are ashamed of telling the House what has been the result?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Whatever the reason is, it certainly is not that.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Secretary for Mines give us any idea of the effect, if any, that these amalgamations have bad on the economics of the mining industry.
    Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. Member had read the newspapers he would have realised that there are much bigger things under discussion than have yet been completed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the knowledge obtained from reading the newspapers is not compatible with the knowledge that one gets by living in mining areas?
    Mr. POTTS: Is it not time that we should have a Minister of Mines?

    BOYS.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines how many boys between the ages of 14 and 16 have been received for employment into the mining industry since the conclusion of the stoppage last year?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I regret that the information is not available. The statistics are collected by my Department annually, and relate only to boys under 16 years of age, of whom 35,654 were em-

    1173
    ployed in the coal-mining industry in December, 1926, the latest date for which information is available.

    RETAIL PRICES (LONDON).
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision of many of the coal merchants of London to increase the price of coal by 2s. per ton; and can he explain the cause of this increase?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am aware that the retail prices of house coal in London were increased by 2s. per ton on the 29th November, except for best coal and anthracite. I am making inquiries as to the cause of the increase.
    Mr. OLIVER: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any of this increase in price can be in any way attributed to any increase in the cost of production of coal?
    Colonel LANE FOX: That is one of the circumstances into which I am inquiring.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do when he has made his inquiries? Does he propose to make a statement to the House?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand that this increase is due to the eight-hours day?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I shall be better able to say what is going to be done when I know what the results of the inquiries are. As to the eight-hours day, that has obviously nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in pit costs does not amount to more than a few coppers per ton, and does he not think that immediate action ought to be taken against these people who are exploiting the public?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am asking some of the gentlemen concerned to come to see me about it.
    Mr. MORRISON: If I put down a question in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman then have completed his inquiries and be able to make a statement to the House as to the reason for this increase of 2s. a ton?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Certainly, I wilt tell the hon. Gentleman all I can.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the wholesale prices between the mines and distribution in London, now and a month ago, in order to find out whether there is any increase of any kind that gives ground for making an increased charge?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir, that is exactly the sort of thing that is being inquired into, but it is not easy to know the exact wholesale price of any particular class of coal.
    Mr. HARDIE
    Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

    WAR FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in giving assistance, with officers and other ranks of the fighting forces and the loan and use of ships and materials, to film companies engaged in making war films; what payment is made to the Treasury for such services and assistance; and whether any benefit accrues to the officers and other ranks engaged?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is the policy of the Board of Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council to give assistance, by way of loan of personnel and material, to approved British film companies engaged in making war films, provided that—

    (1) the method of production is entirely approved by the Department;

    (2) nothing secret is divulged;

    (3) the films are submitted unconditionally for censorship;

    (4) they involve no undue interference with the normal duties of the personnel concerned;

    (5) any additional expenditure incurred by the Department is repaid by the company;

    (6) a reasonable charge is made to the company for the facilities granted to them, in the form of a fee or a percentage of the profits.

    1175
    The following financial arrangements have been made with the approval of the Treasury, provisionally and subject to review hereafter in the light of experience.
    The Admiralty and the Air Ministry appropriate one-half of the profits payable by the company in aid of their respective Votes, the other half being paid to the Departmental Sports Fund, but no payment is made by the company to the naval or Royal Air Force personnel engaged.
    The practice of the War Department is different. The whole of any sums received from the company is appropriated in aid of Army Votes; but the Army Council stipulate that the personnel taking part in the production shall, in addition, be paid by the company at current civilian rates when the circumstances justify it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this duty, in the case of the naval personnel, at the full option of the officers and men concerned, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many officers and men object to the Navy being used in this way?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put any questions relating to any particular Service to the Minister representing that Service. I have given all the information in my power.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this as a matter of policy, in view of the use to which these films may be put?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money has accrued to the Treasury from this source?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I should require notice of that question.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that the Admiralty have a contract with these different companies to participate in the profits, and has not the right hon. Gentleman the means of giving the House that knowledge? We have asked different Ministers, but none of them will divulge it; does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the House is entitled to have it?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not much better that the British public should see British ships and British sailors, rather than American ships and American sailors?

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONTROL OF NATIVES).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Prime Minister whether the Southern Rhodesian Bill for the control of natives has yet been passed by the Legislative Assembly of Southern Rhodesia and presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent; and whether opportunity will be given to this House to discuss the Clauses in that Bill which confer upon native commissioners the right of indicting, trying, and punishing any native whom they deem guilty of certain offences against themselves, with the permission, in the case of children under 16 years of age, of sentencing them to a whipping, before His Majesty's assent is given thereto?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Act was assented to by the Governor on the 29th July, but contains a Section suspending its operation until His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow it has been proclaimed. Correspondence on the subject of the Act is still proceeding, and His Majesty's pleasure has not yet been signified. In reply to the second part of the question, it will be appreciated that in the present state of Parliamentary business it is impossible for me to give time for discussion this Session.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Am I to understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that the assent will not be given next Session until we have had an opportunity of discussing this matter, particularly as this Bill seems to create a new offence of contemptuous behaviour, and to make the Commissioners prosecutors, judge and jury in their own case, and is liable to cause grave native unrest?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter, as I have said, is under discussion; I cannot say how long the discussions will proceed, or what will be the end of them. I could not give such an undertaking as is desired, but obviously, whether the matter be ended or not, it will be perfectly possible to debate it on the Dominions Office Vote in the spring.
    Mr. THURTLE: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, at Question Time, you rather rebuked me for asking a question relating to this matter. May I submit to you that it was perfectly proper for me to ask that question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is one of those difficult matters of jurisdiction over parts of the Empire which have almost complete responsible government. I understand that the hon. Member was right in this case, and that there is a reservation dealing with native affairs in Southern Rhodesia; but the hon. Member will appreciate that I am not always able to bear all these things in mind on the spur of the moment.

    DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance, particularly for agriculture, of the deposits of potash and bromine in and around the Dead Sea to the British Empire, he will take steps to obtain financial control of whatever company is formed to work these deposits, as in the case of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the answer given on the 30th November by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply to a similar question addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman be as far-seeing in this case as those who took shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company or in the Suez Canal, which have brought a good deal of money to his Department, besides ensuring an independent supply of oil for the Navy, and will he not similarly secure an independent supply of potash for the Empire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter was fully dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State on the 30th November, and it is his Department to which questions dealing with these details should be referred.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Have not questions been put to the Treasury also?
    Mr. BRIGGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that financial control does
    1178
    not necessarily mean that these fertilsers will be brought to this country, and will he, therefore, see that that end is assured in any concession that may be granted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a rather different question.

  INCOME TAX.

    PALESTINE LOAN.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the new Palestine 5 per cent. loan, what is the position of foreign investors as regards Income Tax collection?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Exemption from British Income Tax in respect of interest on the Palestine Government 5 Per cent. Guaranteed Stock, 1942–1967, may be claimed, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, by a person who is not resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

    FOREIGN ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the question of making provision whereby foreign subjects who take engagements as musicians or in other capacities in this country shall have the Income Tax due to be paid by them deducted before they receive their salaries, so as to prevent the evasion of tax payment that now takes place in some of these cases of foreigners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given considerable thought to the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. As I have previously stated, the great bulk of the Income Tax due from foreign artistes performing in this country is ultimately recovered, and I may add that steps recently taken to accelerate the working of the existing Income Tax machine in these cases will still further reduce the comparatively trifling amount of tax which is at present not collected. In these circumstances I do not think it is necessary to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal, which would involve considerable difficulties in practice.
    Sir F. HALL: Instead of it being ultimately recovered, would it not be much easier and save much trouble to collect it at the source?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman studies my answer, he will see that it covers, though perhaps not to his satisfaction, his supplementary question.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the case a little while ago where an artist owed the Income Tax authorities £8,000, and, when they pressed him for it, he left the country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have a great many disappointments of that character.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Do these people have to sign a paper before they leave the country that they have paid their Income Tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not sure that their not signing such a paper would be an effective bar.
    Sir F. HALL: To save himself further disappointments, will not the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter can be given further consideration, but we are satisfied in this respect at any rate, that there is no serious loss.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is it not a fact that no artist can leave America without producing an Income Tax receipt?
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the same practice exists in our own Colonies, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman introduce the same system here?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter further. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Eastbourne (Sir R. Hall) has a great deal of knowledge on a lot of subjects.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the trade advertisements on Government publications have to be first sanctioned by the different Departments connected with the issue of these publications; whether there have been any objections on the part of such Departments to any specific advertisements; and, if so, of what nature?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, Departments have from time to time exercised their right to withhold their sanction on the following grounds:

    (a) that the acceptance of the proposed advertisement was contrary to general, or departmental, policy;

    (b) that the advertisers were regarded as unsuitable for official publications;

    (c) that the matter advertised was regarded as unsuitable for official publications, or for the particular publication in question.

    Viscountess ASTOR: Did they definitely protest against the advertisement of drink?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is all a question whether they are considered unsuitable or not.

    NEW SILVER COINAGE.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the new silver coins are to be issued to the public, and the conditions under which they will be obtainable?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The general issue of the new coins will be made in the New Year in the ordinary way through bankers. The first issues of the specimen sets of the new silver coinage will be made during the present week. Applications for these sets should be addressed to the Royal Mint, and be accompanied by a remittance of either 15s. for a set in cardboard box or 21s. for a set in leather case. If delivery by post is required, the remittance should be increased by 6d. or 9d. respectively to cover the cost of packing, postage and registration. Applications are dealt with strictly in the order in which they are received.
    Colonel DAY: Is the difference in the price the difference between the cost of a leather case and a cardboard box?

    CABLE AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS.
    Mr. OTHO NICHOLSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of money spent by the Pacific Cable Board in duplicating

    1181
    its Pacific cable; the amount of profit made by the Pacific Cable Board during the last complete year; and what effect the wireless competition is having on the revenue of the board?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The duplication of the Pacific cable was carried out between 1923 and 1926 at a cost of £2,641,000, which was met out of Reserve Funds. The Board made a working profit of £178,284 on the year ended last March and, after paying £77,545 for interest and repayment of capital, devoted £100,739 to its reserve and renewal fund. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool.

  TRANSPORT.

    CANAL BRIDGES.
    Lieut.-Colonel THOMasked the Minister of Transport why he is preventing certain local omnibus proprietors taking their omnibuses over the canal bridges on the Fort William-Inverness Road; and when he intends to under take the reconstruction of those bridges?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): It has been found necessary recently to take action to restrict the use of these bridges to loads which they are capable of carrying with safety. I have the whole matter under consideration.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the condition of many of the canal bridges in the Midlands is such as to cause inconvenience to road transport users; that, whilst many of the local authorities concerned are willing to assist in a scheme for putting these bridges into a condition suitable for modern traffic, there is difficulty in initiating a comprehensive scheme; whether he has given any consideration to this matter; and whether he can hold out any hope of immediate action being taken in conjunction with the local authorities?
    Mr. J. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to traders who make use of road transport as a result of the condition of many of the canal bridges in the Midlands; and
    1182
    whether, in view of the fact that these bridges are only maintained in a condition strong enough to bear the weight of traffic customary at the time of their erection, and are thus inadequate for present-day needs, he can take any steps for the immediate promotion of a scheme to strengthen these bridges?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the inconvenience caused to road users by the weakness of numerous canal bridges in the Midlands and elsewhere. I have received representations from various deputations on the subject and the matter is engaging my close attention. While there would obviously be great difficulty on financial and other grounds in dealing immediately and comprehensively with all weak structures of this kind, I am always ready, in appropriate cases, to give assistance to highway authorities from the Road Fund towards the cost of bringing bridges on important roads up to a modern standard.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is not the Minister holding up his action until he gets statutory powers? Is not that the main reason for much of this delay?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes and no. A certain amount is now being done. If canal companies and local authorities were in agreement, then I should be able in appropriate cases to give assistance from the Road Fund.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (FOOD MARKETS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Transport whether the advantages of the railway companies establishing food markets, either separately or in combination, have been investigated with a view to public convenience and relieving traffic congestion?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not at present considering any proposals such as those my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have in mind, and, as at present advised, I doubt whether it would in general be desirable that the control of markets should be in the hands of railway companies.

    ROAD REPAIRS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to which men engaged in road repairing are exposed by the high speed at which some

    1183
    motor vehicles pass; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to impose a speed limit at all places where the road is being repaired?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If a driver of a motor vehicle disregards cautionary signs indicating that road works are in progress, and does not proceed at a speed which is safe in the circumstances, he would be liable to conviction under the law relating to dangerous driving, as laid down in the Motor Car Act, 1903. I do not think that the substitution of a speed limit for the usual cautionary signs is necessary or desirable.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making compulsory the lighting of vehicles in foggy weather in the day time, especially in London?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That question can be brought up on the Road Traffic Bill.

    ROAD GRANTS.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Minister of Transport whether it will be possible to make an earlier notification to county councils of approved 75 per cent. grants for roads than is at present the case?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member's question appears to refer to the special grants made in respect of certain Class I roads in the Highlands. I can assure him that every endeavour will be made to give to local authorities the earliest possible indication of the grants to be made in the next financial year in respect of approved works.
    Major PRICE: Does that apply to all county councils both in England and in Wales?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but I assumed that the hon. Member was dealing specifically with the Highlands.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we to understand that there have been no grants made since the Budget dealt with this matter and that they will not be made until January of next year?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no, the hon. and gallant Member must not assume that no grants have been made. Of course, as regards the future, I cannot indicate grants until the Road Fund Budget has been declared.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no grants would be made after July of this year?
    Colonel ASHLEY: To what grants does the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am referring to the 75 per cent. grants.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that there are other reasons why his particular works cannot be undertaken.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received applications from certain county councils in Scotland for a revision of the method whereby payments of grants towards road maintenance are made quarterly in arrear, so that in future they should be made in advance in order to save the cost to the councils concerned of bank overdrafts; and whether he is now prepared to reconsider the present system of payment?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I regret I do not see my way to adopt the revised method of payment advocated by the hon. Member, and I am sending him a copy of an explanatory letter on this subject addressed on the 21st July last to the Secretary of the Association of County Councils in Scotland.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great expense to which these county councils are put by having to make their payments before they receive the grants from the Board?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but I do not think it is unreasonable. We pay promptly every quarter, and I do not think that I should be justified in paying for work until I knew that it had been done.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that from the point of view of the county council the opinion is the opposite?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member must remember that what you have to

    1185
    pay for at once are the wages and that, as regards materials, they probably have not to be met for some months.
    Major PRICE: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give grants on account?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, not in advance.

    ELECTEICITY SCHEME, SOUTHEAST ENGLAND.
    Captain WALLACEasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the borough of Hornsey can generate electricity at a cost of ½d. per unit as against the proposed charge of 63d. per unit under the south-east England electricity scheme; and if he will undertake to hold a public inquiry before adopting a scheme which will increase the price to the consumer?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I must not be taken as accepting the figures put forward by my hon. Friend as comparable, but I would refer him to the provisions of Section 14 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, from which he will see that a station cannot be compulsorily closed down unless the Central Electricity Board are in a position to supply at a cheaper rate. Parliament has placed on the Board the duty of investigating schemes submitted to them, and I understand that they are at present discussing in detail representations with the undertakers concerned.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Central Electricity Board have insisted upon a power station being closed down where it has been possible under local people to produce electricity cheaper than that produced by the Electricity Board?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot accept for a moment the statement of the hon. Member.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a case was brought to his notice referring to the Mexborough Urban District Council station?
    Captain WALLACE: Who is going to be the official authority to say which can produce at the cheaper rate?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Central Electricity Board under the Act of last year.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that these grievances and these questions are due to the working of the Act which was passed by the present Government?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but I do not agree with the figures put forward by the hon. Member.

  POST OFFICE.

    CORRESPONDENCE (POST-MARKS).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Post master-General whether arrival-hour post-marks can be stamped on all postal correspondence in future as formerly; when was it given up; and why?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The date-stamping of correspondence with the hour of its arrival was discontinued about 10 years ago in the provinces and nearly five years ago in London, mainly on grounds of economy. I am afraid that I cannot see my way to reintroduce the practice, as it would not only entail considerable expense but would delay the commencement of deliveries.

    TELEPHONE CORDS AND FLEXIBLE CABLES (TENDERS).
    Mr. BETHELasked the Post master-General whether, in inviting tenders for telephone cords and flexible cables, the forms of tender invite in formation as to the source of origin of the goods and if they are wholly or partially of British manufacture; and, seeing that in one small centre of Lancashire the number of operatives engaged on the production of polished cotton yarn has decreased from 5,000 in 1919 to less than 500 in 1927, if he will consider the desirability of stipulating that materials supplied for use in the Post Office shall be entirely of British manufacture?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Tenderers for telephone cords and flexible cables, like all tenderers for articles supplied to the Post Office, are invited to state the origin of the raw material used, and also the place of manufacture. I can assure my hon. Friend that articles of British manufacture and materials are invariably purchased when their quality is satisfactory and their price not unreasonably greater than corresponding articles of foreign manufacture or material. In the case of

    1187
    these cords the specification calls for English spun yarn.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Solicitors Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Mitchell Banks, Sir Evelyn Cecil, and Major-General Sir Newton Moore; and had appointed in substitution: Major George Davies, Sir Robert Newman, and Mr. Radford.
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Solicitors Bill): Mr. Bowerman, Colonel Clifton Brown, Sir William Bull, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Major Alan McLean, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Oliver, Sir Henry Slesser, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Withers.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3rd December].
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Rates of contributions in case of young Men and young Women.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments on the Paper—that in the name of the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. Members, in page 12, line 6, to leave out "6d." and to insert instead thereof "3d."; and that in the name of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), in page 12, line 6, to leave out "6d." and to insert instead thereof "1d."—should be discussed together, and the second one may be moved if hon. Members accept the principle.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that your ruling, for the guidance of the Committee, is that we should speak on both Amendments and have a separate division on each.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the two Amendments are so interwoven that we cannot have a separate discussion on them, but, if desired, we can have a separate division.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, to leave out "6d." and to insert instead thereof "3d."
    I do not expect that this Amendment will meet with much opposition from the Government Benches. I do not think that this is an Amendment on which there can be any real opposition. One of the main principles in this Bill—it has been the subject of discussion not once but many times since the Bill was introduced, both during Second Reading and in Committee—is that we are now creating a new class of persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and that these persons are to be in receipt of benefit differing entirely from the benefit they formerly received. I should like, briefly, to state, not because the Committee need
    1208
    it but in order to co-relate my own facts, that the benefits for young persons between the ages of 18 and 21 were 18s. in the case of men and 15s. in the case of women. The Government have now come along and have proposed sweeping reductions in benefit in respect of these persons, namely, from 18s. to 10s. and from 15s. to 8s. respectively. It is quite true that by amendment these have been modified, but they still remain substantially true. If the benefits are to be reduced by such sweeping reductions we are entitled to ask that the contributions should be reduced in proportion. I do not speak for my own party, nor have I consulted them, but I think I should be speaking for them if I said that if they had to choose between the contributions and the benefits remaining as they were and the proposed benefits and a reduced contribution, they would prefer the former. We would, of course, prefer a non-contributory scheme, or that contributions should generally be lower, but if we had to choose between two evils I should say, unhesitatingly, that the great majority of our party, if not all of them, would, sooner than face the evil of the low benefits now proposed in respect of this class of insured person, accept the lesser of the two evils, namely, the payment of the higher contribution.
    We wish to say to the Minister in charge of this Bill that he ought to justify the position which he has taken up. How can he propose sweeping reductions of benefit in respect of insured persons between the ages of 18 and 21 and not, at the same time, equivalently reduce their contributions? Surely, if it be the case that he can justify the reduced amount of benefit he will only be doing common justice if he decides to reduce the contribution. Under the old Act the contributions paid by a person over 18 between 18 and 21 was in the case of a man 7d., and in the case of a woman 6d. Now the Minister says, "we are taking 7s. a week from you in benefit in the case of a woman, and 8s. in the case of a man." And yet they do not propose to reduce the amount of contribution by 1d. The percentage basis is totally unjustifiable. They are roughly speaking proposing to reduce the benefit by 45 per cent., but in the case of the contribution they only reduce it by less than 10 per cent. The Minister cannot justify that and we ask that the contribution ought to be reduced from 6d. to 3d. in regard to the persons

    1209
    concerned. That reduction of contribution would be more equivalent to the reduced benefits to be paid.
    The Blanesburgh Committee's Report, whatever its faults or its value may be, cannot be quoted in this connection. I hope the Minister will justify his attitude on the two joints I have raised, namely, that if sweeping reductions of benefit are justified he ought to make a corresponding reduction in contributions. Another point emerges. Under the Bill as originally drafted there was one class of persons between the ages of 18 and 21, but he has now divided those persons into three classes with different grades of benefits but the same contribution. A person between the age of 18 and 19 will pay the same contributions but receive less benefit than a person between the ages 19 to 21. We desire that the ratio of contribution to benefit should approximate more nearly to the justice of the case and we hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept our Amendment in that spirit.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: This Amendment is conceived on unsound insurance principles. The rate of contribution in the earlier periods of life are not intended to be exactly proportionate to the benefits likely to be drawn during those periods of life. Though it is true that the upper years do not have quite the same adverse effect upon employments as they do upon health, nevertheless it is true that there is a tendency for the older people to suffer more from unemployment than the younger people. Therefore, when the fund is running normally we should be building up some reserves out of the contributions of people when they are young which will help the same people when they become old. The fund is in debt and is not running in the normal way, as we hope it will do eventually, but the principle is sound that the contributions during the earlier period of life ought to be used to build up a reserve against the increased unemployment which people suffer during later years. There is no strict ratio between the contributions paid and the benefits received in particular years, but as the younger people do not earn as much as those older their contributions should be rather less. The broad principle remains, and it is sound, that the contributions paid in the earlier years should go to
    1210
    build up the reserve against unemployment in the later years, and the attempt of this Amendment to fix the rate of contribution in proportion to benefits on the lines suggested is unsound.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I was anticipating that the Minister would have risen to reply. Two points have been raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). He suggests that it would not be within the scope of a proper scheme of insurance to reduce the contributions in these cases because of the youth of the insured person, and, secondly, that when the Fund was running normally there might be some justification for the revision. I would like to know whether there really has ever been, strictly speaking, an insurance scheme at all in the sense of insurance since 1920. On account of the bewildering methods of succeeding Governments we have got the business into its present terribly tangled condition. I would like to tell the Committee something of the progress made and the variations adopted from time to time in regard to contributions. I do not agree with the idea that because you are suggesting a lower scale of benefit you should suggest some correspondingly lower scale scale of contribution. The Fund and the scheme has got into its present position through the unbusinesslike methods of different Governments from 1920 onwards, with the exception of the short period of Government in 1924. I think I can justify that statement. The scheme was started in 1920 with a 4d. contribution from the worker, 4d. from the employer and one-fifth from the State. Benefits were then fixed for which no financial provision had been made. The State had only one-fifth obligation of the whole amount contributed. You had no sooner got into 1921 than you had to come to the House and ask for money. You had to do that, otherwise there would have been great difficulties in the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "The coal dispute!"] It had nothing to do with the coal dispute. It was at the end of 1920 that you passed your Act, and you passed it knowing that there was going to be an attack made on wages in 1921.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS Mr. H. WILLIAMS rose—
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I would rather the hon. Member did not intervene now. The Guillotine, which has been a most unfair method, has stifled discussion, and I am

    1211
    desirous of making my point. In 1921 you raised the contribution. In November, 1920, the amount of contribution was 4d. In April, 1921, it was increased to 5d. You put one penny on the man's contribution and 2d. on the employer. You put the employer's payment up to 6d. as against 5d. for the man; but the State still said: "We will stick to our one-fifth proportion of the whole." You had not got through 1921 before you came again to the House with the No. 2 Bill, and you said to the workmen: "At the end of 1920 we asked for 4d. from you. We are going to raise your contribution to 7d." From April, 1921, until towards the autumn of 1921 you put another 2d. on the men and made their contribution 7d. and the contribution of the employer 8d., but the State contribution remained at one-fifth proportion of the whole. During the discussion of the Act of 1921 the Government speaker said that they expected the deficiency period to be wiped out by the end of July, 1923—about as hopeful a proposition as that made by our present Minister, that he hoped to get down to 6 per cent. of unemployment by the early part of 1930.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I never stated that.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I am sorry if I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. I have no desire to do so, but I understood him to say that on the figures he had got out as to the 30 contributions and so on, he would expect by April, 1930, that the proportion would then be about 6 per cent.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Eight per cent.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I stand corrected. It is about as hopeful; I remember the Minister saying that any figure would answer the purpose in order to arrive at your average.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must not willingly misrepresent me, and I hope he does not.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I have no desire to do so.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I did say was something like the last sentence the hon. Member has used, although it
    1212
    is difficult to recognise it. In my statement with regard to the 6 per cent. figure, taken by the actuary, as the basis of his scheme, I was talking as between 5 per cent., 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., and I said that it seemed to me that 6 per cent. was at least as reasonable, or the most reasonable figure to take.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I stand corrected by the Minister, but I still believe that he said one figure was as good as another.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Then the right hon. Gentleman expected the deficiency period to end by July, 1923, by making a heavy contribution, but by the 1922 Act the contribution was again raised. The figure was 4d. at the end of 1920, but in 1922 they introduced a Bill to increase contributions up to 9d. for men and 10d. for employers, and the State then said, "We can no longer go on, and we will now undertake to pay one-fourth of the contributions of man and employer combined." Still the deficiency was not likely to be cleared off, and in the 1923 Act they arranged for a continuance of those rates, namely 9d. for men and 10d. for employers, and the State's one-fourth until the deficiency period was cleared off, and afterwards to go to one-fifth. That was the definite pledge embodied in an Act. The contributions of the insured person and the employer had to remain the same, because of the deficiency then showing. But the Labour Government in 1924 said, "We can no longer go on with this one-fifth or one-fourth. We must now be a one-third partner in every sense of the word," and in order to help the fund the general taxpayer had to pay his share, one-third of the total.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In 1922.
    Mr. HAYDAY: If the hon. Gentleman will hunt up the Acts, he will find that it is not so. In Section 5 of the Act of 1924 it will be seen that, for the first time, the State raised its contribution to one-third. The 1925 Act made a variation. Twopence was taken off the worker and the employer, and merged into the 4½d. chargeable under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and then again they went back to the one-fourth. That was

    1213
    followed by the Economy Act. I want to show that the state of the Fund—I suppose it is the only argument for reducing the benefit of these young persons—has been deliberately brought about by the attitude of the Governments since 1920, with the exception of the Government of 1924, for in April, 1926, when the Economy Bill was introduced, we all remember very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a White Paper, in which he said:
    "The Exchequer contributions in 1925–26 at the 6¾d. rate is estimated to amount to £13,550,000. Under the Act of 1925, it would during 1926–27 have been £15,900,000, taking the 8d. rate, or, if the 9d. rate had been payable throughout the year, £17,750,000. Under the proposals in the Economy Bill the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund in 1926–27 is estimated at £12,160,000, a saving as compared with the provisions of the Act of 1925 of £3,740,000 per annum at the minimum or £5,590,000 per annum at the "maximum."
    That is the present state of affairs as far as the Government are concerned. In 1920, they said 4d. would meet the responsibilities and obligations. They used up £22,000,000 from the previous Unemployment Fund accumulated since 1911. They had continually to raise the contributions until they reached the sum of 9d. for men and 10d. for employers, right away through, with the one exception that they only paid from the Exchequer one-fifth of the contribution. They got into a much greater hole until they eventually raised it to one-fourth. In 1924, it was raised to one-third, and then, under the Economy Act, because they had impressed the desire for economy on the Fund with sufficient emphasis, they took another £5,500,000 a year from it, and then, when they are confronted with the results of their inquiry, they say, "Here is the deficiency which we thought would end in July, 1923. We charged a high contribution in the hope that it would be cleared off. We are now at the end of 1927, during which year the deficiency has gone up almost to its limit, £22,000,000 now and £23,500,000 in June of the present year." They are gradually wiping it off, but in order to wipe it off, and cover up the sins of their omission to pay their fair quota to the Fund, the Government search round and create a new class, and on that new class must fall the full force
    1214
    of meeting, or hoping to meet, the deficiency on the Fund.
    They are reducing the benefit because they think it is too much money for a man between 18 and 21 to live upon, and they are reducing the amount to a woman between 18 and 21 because they feel that she has too much money, or too much inducement to refrain from genuinely seeking work. They have reduced their benefit and retained the greater part of their contribution. They have reduced the benefit to the class between 16 and 18 without at all reducing the contribution, so that the full force of the Government's Economy Act of last year, withholding £5,500,000 from the Fund, must fall upon this unfortunate class of unemployed persons, and, to my mind, it is not playing fair with the people of the country. Opportunity will be afforded at a later stage for remarks to be made of a more general and, I hope, of a more sweeping character than in this restricted area of discussion under the Amendment, but I do feel that this is a case where the Minister might not have turned the blind eye to the Blanesburgh Committee quite so much, because the evidence which the industrialists submitted—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) and myself—was that they should cut, practically, the insured person's contribution by one-half and the employer's by one-half, and whatever balance was necessary should be made up by general taxation, to which employers and workmen, like everyone else, had to pay their proportion.
    That would have eased industry; it would have taken the load off it, instead of which they still press the burden on industry, and carry it on to the unfortunate who are unemployed, and perhaps, because of this top weight, throw this taxation on the industry itself. I think it is about time for the Government to look at these things in a bigger way, and not take up the attitude of "How much can we ask for? How little can we give?" It is not to the credit of legislators such as Britain can produce in certain emergencies when money can be found to destroy. This is a case where money ought to be found to ease the burden upon the individual contributor and upon industry in general, and there should be no making use of a deficiency

    1215
    in the fund in order to bring down the standard of existence by reducing the benefit payable to unemployed persons.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In so far as the argument of the hon. Member was directed to showing that contributions had tended to increase since this scheme was initiated, I think it only right to remind the Committee, if, indeed, they need reminding, that during the period from 1911 to the present time there has been already a very considerable increase in the benefits that the scheme has provided. In other words, at the various stages when the contributions have been increased, there has been a very considerable increase of benefit. In 1921, we had for the first time the acceptance of the principle of dependants' benefits. It is true the contributions up to 1920 were only 6¾d. altogether, from the employer, the employés and the State. The employer paid 2½d., the employé 2½d. and the State 1¾d. At that time the benefit was only 7s. for adults, and 3s. 6d. for those between 17 and 18. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman points, as he is entitled to point, to the tendency of contributions to increase, it is only fair, in order to have a true picture of the history of this scheme from its inception to point out that benefits have also increased, and that other classes have been added to the scheme, such as adult dependants, and dependant children, which, of course, have increased the claims and charges upon it.
    Also, there is this further point. The Act of 1923 dealt with the special periods and gaps, with which in those days we were so familiar. The gap has been altogether abolished and we have put an end to the system of successive special periods, which were subsequently merged in the whole system of extended benefits. It is also right to point out, in regard to the Act of 1924, to which the hon. Member referred as accepting the principle of equal contributions, that in Section 5 it makes it clear that these contributions only come into effect when the deficiency period has come to an end. It was only upon those terms that the principle of equal payments was adopted. I only intervene at this moment in order that the Committee may have something
    1216
    like a fair picture of the whole scheme in relation to contributions and benefits, and in order to show that while contributions have varied benefits have varied too.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Unlike the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), I am not a representative of the industries of this country, but I am actively engaged in industry and possibly I might be permitted to intervene in this Debate in order to set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) as regards the burdens which are imposed on industry by these contributions. So far as I am concerned, and I think most industrialists will agree with me, it makes absolutely no difference to industry what we call contributions. They all come ultimately out of the productive industries of the country. It does not affect us in the least whether you call it the employers' contribution, the men's contribution or the State's contribution, and that renders a discussion such as this really quite useless, so far as industry is concerned. The hon. Member for West Nottingham also brought forward another remarkable fallacy—namely, that it is possible for a Government to be generous or mean. His peroration mainly consisted of implying great moral fault on the part of the Government for not being generous in disposing of what he terms State money.
    If there is one thing more certain than another it is that it is utterly impossible to be mean or generous in relation to other people's possessions, and I think we ought to disabuse our minds at the start of a discussion like this of the extraordinary fallacy that the State is an individual who has money which he contributes, either liberally or meanly, towards the relief of the destitute. Reverting now to the really important point, the scale on which the contributions are divided between the employers, the men and the State, I would urge on the Committee that, so far as industry is concerned—I mean the real industries of the country—it does not make any difference whatsoever whether you call them by one name or another. Indeed, if you were to consult the employers of labour in this country you would find that they would be perfectly willing to raise the wages of their men by the amount of the employers' contribution, on condition that

    1217
    the men paid the whole lot. Furthermore, I myself, and certainly very many other employers of labour, would be perfectly willing to apply the same principle to what is called the State contribution and to raise the men's wages per week by the amount of what is now the employers' contribution and the State's contribution, on condition that the men paid the whole lot. That would prevent the men thinking they were getting something at somebody's else's expense.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I do not want to intervene for more than a moment or two in the discussion between the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) has just spoken as an industrialist, and I should like to read a few words from a letter I have received from the managing director of a very large industrial firm. This firm complain very bitterly about the Schedule and take the view of the hon. Member for West Nottingham rather than that of the hon. Member for Mossley. They complain bitterly that the whole Bill was based on the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, which unanimously recommended that it should be a contribution of one penny a week for a period to wipe off existing debts; and they go on to analyse the whole of the contributions, including the one now under discussion. They object to them according to this letter on this ground that they do not carry out the principle of equal contributions. While adopting in full the principle of reducing benefits for employés between 18 and 21, the Bill, they say, only partially carries out the recommendation to reduce contributions; and ignores the general recommended reductions in contributions. These general reductions, they say, would mean a relief of £6,000,000 a year to industry; £4,000,000 to employers, and £2,000,000 to employés. With no desire to be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Mossley, who appears to think he is the only industrialist in the House, I prefer to base my opinion on the premises in this letter from the head of a large engineering firm having branches in Manchester, Leith, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other places. I disagree with the Schedule.
    Let me point out what has been happening. It is proposed in the Blanesburgh Report that for a young man or
    1218
    woman between the ages of 18 and 21 that 4d. should be the normal contribution, and Id. for the deficiency period. At present they pay 7d. The proposal in the Bill is that they should pay 6d. I take the view that benefits ought not to be cut down unless the contributions are cut down. The figures in the Schedule are wrong. It would have been much better, in my judgment, for the State to have squared up to the idea in the proposed Measure for 1928, that the man shall pay 7d., the employer 8d., and the Exchequer—and this is a point which has not yet been made—8d. It would be much better, because there can be no doubt that certain industries in certain areas are feeling the weight of this lopsided scheme. This view of a great industrial firm may tend to correct the one-sided speech of the hon. Member for Mossley.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not quite appreciate the significance of the remarks with which the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) commenced his speech. I represent my constituency; apparently he represents his own firm. I do not think it is quite right for one hon. Member to assume unparalleled virtues for himself and impute motives to others. The one point I wish to deal with is this, that the rate of contributions settled by the Unemployed Workers Dependants Act, 1921, remained unaltered until 1925. To that extent the account which the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) gave of the history of these contributions was inaccurate, and if the hon. Member cares to study the document I have in my hand at the moment he can find out the accuracy of the statement I have made. The other point to which I wish to refer is that the coal dispute of 1921 completely wrecked the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and that the new contributions came into operation actually on the 3rd July, 1921. When I put that point, the hon. Member suggested that I was inaccurate, but if he will study the facts he will find that it was the coal dispute of 1921 which wrecked the finances of the Fund.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I cannot really understand the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). I have here the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, and in regard to rates of benefit and contributions, Section 4, Sub-section (2), says:

    1219
    "Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, the rates of contribution in force at the commencement of this Act shall remain in force after the end of the deficiency period until such date as the Minister may by order prescribe, but not being a date later than the first day of the insurance year commencing next after the end of the deficiency period, and after the date so prescribed the contributions payable by employed persons and their employers shall be at such reduced rates to be prescribed by Regulations made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, but not in any case exceeding the rates set out in the First Schedule to this Act, as appear to him from time to time to be necessary for the purpose of providing for the payment of benefit at the rates in force at the date aforesaid."
    I must leave the point with the House. The hon. Member says that the Act is
    wrong, that he has further statistics which I might care to look at. I prefer to look at the Act, and I say that the 1923 Act carried over the same contributions and the same benefits as were provided in the Act of 1922. There is no getting away from that. There is the Section of the Act; I have read it. A similar statement was made during the Debate on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act last year. It was never questioned. One can never do better than quote the exact words of the Act.
    Question put, "That '6d.' stand part, of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 127.

    Division No. 439.]

    AYES.

    [4.28 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Apsley, Lord

    Fermoy, Lord

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Foxcroft, Captain C T.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Frece, Sir Waiter de

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Gates, Percy

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Bethel. A.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Meller, R. J.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grace, John

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Briggs. J. Harold

    Greene, W. p. Crawford

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

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

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Buchan, John

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Burman, J. B.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hanbury, C.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cassels, J. D.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Oakley, T.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Henri, Sir Sydney H.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Preston, William

    Christie, J. A.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Ramsden, E.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Remnant, Sir James

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Drewe, C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sandon, Lord

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Savery, S. S.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    England, Colonel A.

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

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Womersley, W. J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Groves. T.

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

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

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

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sexton. James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snell, Harry

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Stamford, T. W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromfield, William

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sullivan, J.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clowes. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dennison, R

    March, S.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    Edge, Sir William

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

    Whiteley, W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Murnin, H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Fenby, T. D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur'

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Riley, Ben

    Wright, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ritson, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes

    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "5d.," and to insert instead thereof "1½d."
    I move this Amendment formally.
    Question put, "That '5d.' stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 126.

    Division No. 440.]

    AYES.

    [4.37 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Boothby. R. J. G.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Berry, Sir George

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Bethel, A.

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

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Buchan, John

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Sandon, Lord

    Drewe, C.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Savery, S. S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Shepperson, E. W.

    England, Colonel A.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

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

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lumley. L. R.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Gates, Percy

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Meller, R. J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Grace, John

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Grotrian. H. Brent

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hanbury, C.

    Oakley, T.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Harland, A.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

    Preston, William

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Henn Sir Sydney H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ramsden, E.

    Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

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

    Dennison, R.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Dunnico, H.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Edge, Sir William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Baker, Walter

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barr, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Kennedy, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Gillett, George M.

    Lansbury, George

    Broad, F. A.

    Gosling, Harry

    Lawrence, Susan

    Bromfield, William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lawson, John James

    8rown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Lindlay, F. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Greenall, T.

    Lowth, T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lunn, William

    Cape, Thomas

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Groves, T

    Mackinder, W.

    Clowes. S.

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

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    March, S.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Montague, Frederick

    Compton, Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Connolly, M.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Murnin, H.

    Cove, W. G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnfey)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hirst, G. H.

    Palin, John Henry

    1224

    1225

    Paling, W.

    Snell, Harry

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Stephen, Campbell

    Westwood, J.

    Potts, John S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Whiteley, W.

    Riley, Ben

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Ritson, J.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Sexton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Windsor, Walter

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Viant, S P.

    Wright, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hayes.

    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, to leave out "7d." and to insert instead thereof "6d."
    Until called I thought that this Amendment was out of order. I imagined that when a new Clause which I moved yesterday was negatived, that decision would negative also this Amendment to the Schedule. The object of the Amendment is to reduce by a penny the contribution in the case of young men, and, in conjunction with the new Clause that I moved yesterday, to equalise the contributions as between employer and employé. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said yesterday that the Fund was not in a position to take the Amendment, but he did not give sufficient direction to the Committee, I think, as to whether at some future time he would be able to equalise the contributions. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee when he thinks the first opportunity will arise of equalising these contributions. It seems to me that, in equity, the contributions by the employé and the employer should be of equal amount.
    I pointed out yesterday that in the original Bill they were equal and there is no reason why they should not be equalised at the first available moment. The Minister in his reply might state definitely that when the Fund is in a position to justify reduced contributions, the first reduction will he in the direction of equalisation. If he gave some such indication to the Committee of his future policy it would be satisfactory. Many hon. Members are not very pleased that the full recommendations of the Blanesburgh Report were not put into effect in the Bill, including the recommendation for equalisation of contributions. We have been informed that it was not possible owing to the state of
    1226
    the Fund, but I hope the Minister can definitely set at rest any fears which may exist in the Committee that he has not this matter in mind as something which ought to be done at the first opportunity.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can give my hon. Friend in a very few words the answer for which he has asked. I also thought that the present Amendment was out of order, but I am glad to have the opportunity of giving the hon. Member some of the information for which he asks. These rates for young people of 18 to 21 are temporary rates, corresponding more or less to the temporary adult rates, and their reduction would follow on the reduction of the adult contributions. So far as the adult contributions are concerned, the extra penny now paid as part of the employer's contribution—that is to say the penny by which, at present the employer's contribution is in excess of the contribution by the employé—can be taken off, under the existing law, when the debt is reduced to about £7,500,000, but the revenue of the Fund at that date would also have to be sufficient, when the penny has been taken off, to continue repaying debt. I hope that position will soon be reached, but to look beyond that period to the time when both the contributions can be reduced is to look further ahead than I am prepared to do at this moment.
    Mr. T. SHAW: The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) asked a very precise question which interests Members on this side. Is it the intention of the Government, at any time, to make the contribution of the State at least one-third of the Fund or at least one-half of the joint fund provided by employers and employed? That is a plain question which the Minister might answer.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I said in the Second Reading Debate, and I say it again, that until we see what the financial situation will be in the future, we postpone a decision on that point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: It is necessary to explain that our views on this Schedule are precisely the opposite to those which have been put forward from the other side. When we hear the alarming theory advanced that it does not matter which pocket the payments come out of, we are inclined to say that our view is that it matters very much. We take the view that in so far as unemployment insurance contributions are a cost upon industry, they are bad for industry. We also take the view, which is supported by the Colwyn Committee, that taxation taken out of profits already made is not a drag upon industry in the same way as charges upon industry forming part of the costs of production. The purpose of our Amendments to the Schedule was to reduce the charges falling upon industry, whether upon employers or employed, and those Amendments were moved with the full knowledge that the balance would have to be made up from the resources of the State. That, in our view, would have been possible and would have relieved industry of a part of the burden which is now dragging it down. Just as the burden of rates is an undoubted drag upon industrial restoration, so the drag of the unemployment insurance scheme is an impediment in the way of trade revival. We hope for a substantial reduction in the contributions from the industrial contributors and the assumption of larger responsibilities by the State, but as this Schedule does reduce the contributions of certain people, obviously, we cannot vote against it. Therefore, we have no intention of
    dividing the Committee on this Schedule, but as this is probably the last opportunity I shall have of doing so, I wish to emphasise the view that these contributions are a definite charge on industry and should, in the interests of trade revival, be reduced.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I regret very much that the Government have not taken the alternative which they might have taken, by making the contributions lower as regards employer and employed and making the contributions of the State higher. It is too late now to urge that alternative, but it is not too late to make it clear to the Committee that numbers of people who look upon this question quite apart from party politics are gravely concerned about the continued lop-sidedness of the insurance scheme in the last seven years. The condition in which we are at the moment was not foreseen in 1911 or in 1920 or in 1922–24. I trust that the earliest opportunity will be taken of redressing the balance in favour of the employer and employed so that the State may share up to its proper proportion of the burden. That will be better for industry.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Rates on which, so far as relates to young men and young women, the contribution payable out of moneys provided by Parliament is to be calculated.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish to say that while we are not in a position to put down any Amendments to this Schedule because such Amendments would increase the charge upon the State, we propose to vote against it, because it actually establishes reduced State contributions.
    Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 441.]

    AYES.

    [4.56 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Barclay-Harvey C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Berry, Sir George

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Apsley, Lord

    Bethel, A.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Preston, William

    Buchan, John

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Radtord, E. A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ramsden, E.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cassels, J. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hills, Major John Waller

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

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

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Chapman, Sir s.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandon, Lord

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cooper, A. Dun

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Crookshank, Col. C. dew. (Berwick)

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cunilffe, Sir Herbert

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

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

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lister, Cunllffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Ellis, R. G.

    Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. Q.

    McLean, Major A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Fermoy, Lord

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Tinne, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Marqesson, Captain D.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Galbralth, J. F. W.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

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

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Grace, John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Womersley. W. J

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Oakley, T.

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

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hanbury, C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Harland, A.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Dennison, R.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Buchanan, G.

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Edge, Sir William

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Charleton, H. C.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Clowes. S.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Baker, Walter

    Cluse, W. S.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Barr, J.

    Compton, Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Gosling, Harry

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Cove, W. G.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Greenall, T.

    Broad, F. A.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bromfield, William

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    1230

    1231

    Groves, T.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Murnin, H.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Palin, John Henry

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Varley, Frank B.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Ritson, J.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Welsh, J. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Westwood, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sexton, James

    Whitelev. W.

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

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Kirkwood, D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Lansbury, George

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Lawson, John James

    smith, Hen (Bermondsey, Rotherhitne)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lunn, William

    Snell, Harry

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wright, W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stamford, T. w

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stephen, Campbell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    March, S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Hollox)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Montague, Frederick

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Edwards.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Weekly rates of unemployment benefit.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The first Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant)—[in page 13, line 6, to leave out "17s.," and to insert instead thereof "20s."]. Like the discussion on the First Schedule, the discussion of this Amendment can include discussion of that in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence)—[in page 13, line 7, to leave out "15s." and to insert instead thereof "18s."]. There may be a Division afterwards on that Amendment, but the discussion should take place on the first Amendment.
    Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out "17s. 0d.," and to insert instead thereof "20s. 0d."
    We feel that the payment of 17s. is by no means adequate, and we consider that for the contribution paid and for the changes that have been made in the Bill, generally of a restrictive character, we are not asking too much as a set-off when we ask that the benefit shall be increased to 20s. I quite anticipate that the Minister will say that our proposal would be a departure from the basis upon which this Bill has been built, but we feel that the restrictions in the Bill, as compared with other Measures that have preceded it, have not been taken into consideration in any way by the actuary responsible for the financial structure of the
    1232
    Bill; and again we feel that, the cost of living being such as it is at the present time, even 20s. per week is far too small. We would prefer to have gone further and suggested that it should be a good deal more, but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet our proposal in the spirit in which I am moving it, and that he will be prepared to appreciate the inadequacy of the sum of 17s.
    When a man or a woman is unemployed, at least as far as my experience goes, it often means that the expenses entailed are far heavier than while he or she was in employment, more especially in view of the fact that the majority of men and women when they are unemployed are unable to rely upon the Employment Exchange to get them employment, and of necessity have to do a considerable amount of travelling in search of work. The cost of living remains the same, and they have these added expenses as a result of their seeking for employment. We feel that these are facts which have not been sufficiently taken into consideration, and we hope that, even though these proposals may not be accepted outright, they may be received in such a spirit that some concession will be made. In that event a great deal of the uneasiness in respect of the shortcomings of the Bill will be removed, and a concession would be accepted with wholehearted gratitude by unemployed men and women throughout the country.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I wish to support the Amendment. I do not know why the Government are choosing this occasion for a reduction of benefit to men who will qualify under this Bill in the future. This reduction of benefit from 18s. to 17s. is a most harsh and un-undeserved treatment of men who are the victims of unemployment in the country. The Government have themselves acknowledged the inadequacy of these amounts in the limited number of cases where men are married and have others dependent upon them, but I am sure that they have not given full recognition to the position of the unmarried men in the industrial districts in our urban areas, living in lodgings, with no relations and no possible means of assistance from any other source, but who have to exist on the benefits given under the Bill. I want to remind the Minister that the 18s. is much less than the unmarried worker has to pay for living and lodging; he cannot possibly get shelter and a week's food for anything less than 24s. or 25s. a week. Further, these men, with frequent long spells of unemployment, have exhausted all their savings, and all their resources have been frittered away. They are unable to get a change of clothing, and they are in a very serious plight indeed. Then the Minister comes along and says to these people, "We are going to decrease the old scale of benefit and make your plight still worse." This reduction of benefit will bring additional hardship to at least 300,000 or 400,000 people who are in the position which T have described.
    In addition to the unmarried man in lodgings, there is still the worse case of the married man who does not get the additional benefit provided in this Bill for his dependants; the widower who has no housekeeper to look after his young children gets no benefit at all for a housekeeper. Those two cases are cases of especial hardship under the Bill, and I hope the Minister, before he incurs the extreme measure of displeasure which the Government are receiving from the country, will assume the responsibility of altering the scale of payments and fix them at a minimum figure of 20s. a week. We are not pressing our own ambitions or desires in this matter, for we would not assess the claims of these men at such a low figure, but we say that 20s. should
    1234
    be the very lowest that should be paid. I think the Bill can afford it, that within its actuarial limits that concession can be made; but, if not, the actuarial limits should be changed by changing the contributions. To assess the benefit at the miserable figure of 17s. a week is adding insult to injury, and I hope the Government will, at this late hour, the Bill having gone so far, find means of changing the 17s. to 20s.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There are, roughly speaking, 800,000 adult people at the moment in receipt of unemployment benefit. It is proposed by this Amendment to pay them an extra 3s. a week each, which means an added cost of £120,000 a week, or £6,240,000 a year. The last speaker suggested that the sum could be found within the finances of the Bill, but that if it could not, it should be obtained by increased contributions, despite the fact that presumably he has just been into the Lobby to vote for lower contributions. I think there ought to be some measure of consistency on the part of hon. Members opposite. The same hon. Member referred to what I think he said was the comparatively small proportion of married people, but that proportion is more than half. The reason why the 18s. has been cut to 17s. is that those who are married are getting 2s. a week more.
    Mr. MARCH: How?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should say Is. The idea of the change is that the married men may have 2s. a week more than the single men. That was why I said, in mistake, 2s., and I apologise for the slip. The one change finances the other change, and since they are all based on assumptions with regard to the finances of the Bill, as long as you take those assumptions you can only bring about this change if you cut down benefits in some other direction or if you increase contributions in some other direction; and I am certain that the last speaker is not willing to do either. In reply to his remark that 20s. is the very lowest figure that you ought to fix, I would point out that, in 1924, 18s. was taken by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and that since that was fixed at 18s. in 1924 there has been a material drop in the cost of living—some 12 points, I think. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes,

    1235
    some 12 points, I think. I will verify what was the cost of living. This Bill was introduced in April, 1924. The cost-of-living index number was then 173, and in November of this year it was 169; that is four points.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was responsible for compiling these figures, and he knows that there is a seasonable variation, and that it is at its lowest in June and, as a rule, at its highest in November; and, if you want to be fair, you have to compare corresponding periods of the year. If you do that, you will find a larger difference than I have mentioned. In any event, it is perfectly clear and acknowledged that the cost of living to-day is lower than it was at the time the 1924 Bill was introduced. That being the case, if 20s. be the very minimum now, it ought to have been 21s., to be quite logical, in 1924, but the right hon. Gentleman made it 18s. On this Amendment, as on several others, we are deciding what is the best way in which to share out the available sum of money, and I wish hon. Members opposite would consider the Bill in that spirit.
    Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask the Minister how many men of adult age are drawing benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should have to get the exact figures.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I might reply?
    Mr. SHAW: I addressed my question to the Minister.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can give the right hon. Member the approximate figure, for it is given in the actuary's report. The total number of men of the age of 21 and over is 7,200,000. The actual percentage of unemployment among them is higher than it is among other classes. I should say, roughly speaking, that the number would be about 800,000. I have not by me the actual number drawing benefit.
    Mr. SHAW: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to get the figures, because when we are starting to make calculations of the cost we should have somewhere near an accurate estimate.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I will not pursue this very elusive hare. The Minister cannot at the moment distinguish between the persons over 18 who are drawing benefit and those over 21. In consequence, the first rash assumption of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, namely, that every one of the 800,000 was drawing benefit, and that they were all over 21 years of age, seems to me—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I just correct that? I based my statement on the number of claims admitted and under consideration, which was 751,000 men and 130,000 women, giving a total of 881,000. Some of those admitted were not drawing benefit, and I assumed, to be moderate, that the number would be 800,000, and that is an estimate I think no one would challenge.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member has said that he did not know, but assumed. He assumed the number and assumed the period during which they drew benefit. He has also assumed the figure by which he would multiply the doubtful 800,000, to get his total cost. That is a pure assumption, and an assumption which is the child of another assumption, and that is not a method on which we can carry on the business of the House of Commons.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: They are the facts.
    Miss LAWRENCE: They are no more facts than that the difference between 169 and 173 is 12. The reasoning of the hon. Gentleman is as transcendental as his mathematics. I want to go quite seriously into my Amendment, which I shall move formally in accordance with your ruling. What stands behind these two Amendments is the principle, so often enunciated by the Labour party, that those for whom work cannot be found have the right to maintenance. The figures put forward here do not represent full maintenance, but anybody can understand that, in dealing with the Front Bench and a Minister who is of a remorseless character, we had better moderate our demands and try to get a little. Our point is that persons who cannot find work—I do not mind how hard that test is—should receive maintenance. Nothing has been more clearly laid down by successive Ministers than this, that the benefits are not intended to provide full maintenance. I will just

    1237
    quote on that point the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Assistance. They say what I think is true, and what successive Ministers have affirmed, that unemployment benefit is not designed to cover all the responsibilities of an unemployed person; but, they go on to say, it is paid
    "rather in mitigation of distress due to involuntary unemployment."
    I think I am right in saying that on one occasion during these Debates, the Minister in charge of the Bill reaffirmed the principle that unemployment benefit is not intended to be, and no one intends it to be, full maintenance.
    Whence then are the people to get it? The Blanesburgh Report is clear from whence they are not to get it. The Report considers
    "that it would be unfortunate if a state of things were created under which anyone whom the authorities of the insurance scheme declined to pay were paid at once by the guardians."
    Then they say this, and it is a most terrifying statement:
    "We think both from the point of view of the parties to the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and on general grounds, that, in so far as it deals with the able-bodied unemployed, Poor Law relief should retain the deterrent effect which now attaches, or may be applied, thereto."
    That is to say, the people who are not getting unemployment benefit are not to get relief from the Poor Law. So what is going to happen to these people? Hon. Members say that somebody has to pay. I have always said that in these circumstances it is the duty of the State, that is, of the taxpayer as a whole, to pay what is necessary. There are only two alternatives. Either the guardians ought to maintain them, in which case a limited number of persons, arbitrarily selected, have to foot the bill, or else the State, that is to say the nation, have to pay for it in the loss of vitality and of physical strength, and they will pay a long bill in the illnesses, which are due to imperfect nourishment and bad conditions. Who can tell how many of the deaths put down to tuberculosis or to bronchitis or to half-a-dozen of the other evils which affect the flesh of humanity, if they were properly diagnosed, would not be found to be due to hardship and bad conditions? The
    1238
    country has to pay, either by the lowering of the vitality of the great number of people whose only fault is that there is no work for them, or the burden has to be thrown on the localities. I find it difficult to keep within the limits of order, because the truth of the matter is that, as with this Schedule, so in the Bill as a whole, what Members are anxious to debate is not the Bill itself, but the question mark at the end of the Bill, and the effect on the health of our people of these low-scale benefits.
    Mr. THURTLE: I want to reinforce the case that has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The whole basis of the unemployment insurance scheme is that the State accepts the responsibility for the unemployed who are unemployed through no fault of their own. There is an implied responsibility in the very system itself, and we ought to see to it that the amount of benefit which is given is certainly sufficient to meet the bare necessities of life. We have got to realise that society has got into such a complicated state now that the unemployed men or women cannot, if they will, help themselves. In the old days before we had got this very elaborate industrial system with all its complexities, men might have been able to scramble round and get a little food, shelter and clothing. To-day, society being as it is, if you condemn a man to unemployment, unless you find him a means whereby he may live, you condemn him to starvation. The State, by its institution of an unemployment scheme, has accepted the implication that there rests on society a duty of maintaining a man or woman who cannot find work whereby he can live, and in these circumstances, it is incumbent upon us to accept the logical consequences, and make that maintenance sufficient to satisfy the bare necessities of existence. An hon. Member who spoke below the Gangway said it was merely a question of making the best possible use we could of the available fund, as though there were no other funds available in the country for giving adequate maintenance. It is true that, cast as the scheme is now, there is only a limited amount of money available, but if we are sincerely desirous of doing the fair thing by the genuine unemployed, we would not restrict our benefit to that

    1239
    limited sum of money, but would realise that there are in this country immense resources which could be tapped.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that matter at this stage. We cannot go into other sources from which money could be found. That question does not arise. The only question before us now is that of the Amendment.
    Mr. THURTLE: As I understand it, on the present financial basis of the scheme there is computed to be a surplus of £5,500,000, if the assumptions of the Minister are correct. If it be assumed that this proposal which we are putting forward for an allowance of 20s. a week instead of 17s. would involve a further expenditure of something like £6,000,000, there would only be a very slight deficit instead of a large surplus. The needs of the unemployed being as desperate as they are, it would be well worth while for the Committee to incur the possibility of there being a slight deficit rather than a large surplus, and to agree to the proposal to increase the allowance to this very modest but still inadequate amount of 20s. a week.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think perhaps it will be right for me at this stage to give the reasons why the Government cannot accept this Amendment. As I listened to the last two speeches I was tempted to ask myself how the hon. Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) and others could possibly sit behind or have any dealings with my predecessor the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). If there was anything in what she says, she can have nothing but the same contempt for my predecessor as for me. When he had the opportunity to increase them, why was he content with rates which were equal to, or, if compared with the cost of living then, inferior to, the present rates? He says that he had not the power to increase them. On other occasions, when it is a question of checking unruly debate, or prolix debate, he asserts that he had the power to deal with it. What I would ask my predecessor is whether he is going to support an increase in these rates at a time when he knows that he cannot get them, Whereas he was not willing himself to propose such increases when he had the chance of getting them, that is, when
    1240
    he was in charge of the Department and could have put the rates up? It will be interesting to see whether he himself votes for these increases.
    Mr. SHAW: I am going to speak when the right hon. Gentleman sits down.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That will be interesting. I hope he will answer us to this extent. He knows perfectly well that we are not going to assent to the rates which are proposed, and he knows, as other Members may not know, that if we were to do so it would so disorganise the whole finance of the scheme that it would break down. Therefore, secure in that knowledge, he is going to vote for an increase in rates which he himself did not propose when he had the chance of doing so, at the time when he was in authority. We would be glad to know why there is this change in his attitude, because it seems to me a somewhat disingenuous course of procedure. While it is quite true that to grant the increase would disorganise the whole finances of the Bill, and that it could not be carried out within the four corners of the Bill, it has also been made quite clear that if these rates were conceded they would not satisfy hon. Members opposite, so there would be no advantage from the point of view of having attained a concensus of opinion in Parliament. Apparently nothing can be done from these benches which is ever going to satisfy hon. Members opposite or to meet with their acquiescence. Much as one could wish that money would come like manna from Heaven, or that the Treasury should be like the widow's cruse, it is impossible to meet the expenses of such a change as is proposed. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for North East Ham, what is the extra expense involved in the Amendment? I do not know whether she would give me an estimate, or whether she has estimated the expenditure.
    Mr. MARCH: It is your place to do that.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On the contrary, I say that if hon. Members propose a large increase in expenditure it is incumbent on them to have some idea of what the total will be.
    Mr. SHAW: Is there any one in the House excepting the Minister himself who possesses the figure of the number of adult persons who are being paid benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not proposing the Amendment. It would have been perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman himself, or for any other Member on that side of the House, to put down a question when I would have given the best information I had. This is a very belated desire for information. Hon. Members are anxious enough to get information on all other points. They complain that information is not forthcoming on points on which it is practically impossible for me to get it, but now, when they could have asked for information in order to know the effect of their proposals, there is the most surprising lack of any wish to get it which I have yet seen on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for North East Ham, who is consistently scornful of any information or statistics provided by others was very trenchant at the expense of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). It is quite true he gave the difference in the cost-of-living figure as compared with early in 1924. The difference in the cost-of-living figure between November, 1924, and November, 1927, is 11 points, that is, a difference which at this moment makes the 17s. in the Bill a better sum to receive than the 18s. under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston.
    Mr. SHAW: 17s. better than 18s.!
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is another point which I would ask Members of the Committee to notice. In the first place, by the Amendments which the Opposition have proposed it is interesting to note that they have recognised the principle of differential rates for young men and young women between 18 and 21 years. They have recognised the difference in principle, and I hope that note will be taken of that, in case the question comes up in the future. On the other hand, it is also worth noting how much value is to be placed on the professions which we heard not a quarter of an hour ago from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) as to the relief which he proposes to give to industry where it is now suffering from
    1242
    the burden of the rates. The effect of what is now proposed from the opposite side of the Committee is to offset any possible effect of the decrease in the contributions which they propose by the extra burden thrown on the Exchequer by these increased rates of benefit, by the reduction in the waiting period, and by extending the bridge to 12 months. Whatever the saving on the rates, there is going to be an addition to the burden through an increase of taxation. Whatever might be said as to the desirability of the proposed increases if this country were rich enough to give them, at any rate do not let it be understood any longer that it is care for the burdens of industry and a wish to decrease those burdens which has been animating hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. SHAW: I have asked one of my hon. Friends to look up a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that I can read to the Minister the passage, with which he probably is very familiar, but which some other Members present probably know nothing about, in which I stated most precisely in 1924 that the Bill then did not represent all that I desired, but that it represented all that I thought I could get through the House. The Minister knows that perfectly well, and so do many of his supporters. The Minister also knows just as well that the position we were in at that time was, that we had supporting us, roughly speaking, one Member out of every three in the House, whereas the Minister now has behind him two Members out of every three. That is the difference between us, and it is a very substantial difference. He also knows perfectly well that the support which we had from the Liberal party was a sup port which was at times rather uncertain—
    Mr. E. BROWN: But then you had the Tories. You had their support for the cruisers.
    Mr. SHAW:—so uncertain was it that it was by a little Motion that the operation of my Bill was limited to a certain period because some of the proposals in it were regarded, I suppose, as revolutionary. The Minister knows all these things perfectly well, and it is little less than misleading the Committee to say that the terms in my Bill were similar to

    1243
    the terms in this when he knows the conditions were not the same, and when he knows, I repeat again, that I told the House bluntly that what I was proposing did not represent my desires but only represented all that I thought I could get through the House. In one of the Debates not long ago the Parliamentary Secretary, when challenged about something, admitted that I had stated in Committee that I dared not accept a certain Amendment because I was afraid if I did so I should not be able to get my Bill through. These things ought to be known and ought to be acknowledged. I do not mind Parliamentary fights, I do not mind hitting—no one was hit harder than I was when I stood at that Box—and when the hitting is clean I can stand it, but I like the hitting to be clean, and the Minister knows perfectly well that the circumstances were not the same then and that to represent them as being the same is to mislead the Committee. With regard to the question of our seeking information, it is not our business to seek information; it is the Minister's business to give it.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not the hon. Member's business to seek information on the proposals which he himself, or his friends, make to the House? It is a different thing to ask for information about what I suggest; but when he or his friends are going to submit new proposals to the House, to say that it is not their business to ask for the information which will enable them to realise the effect of those proposals seems to me to show a stupendous lack of responsibility.
    Mr. SHAW: There, again, the Minister is making a mistake. We did not ask for information regarding our proposals. We asked for information regarding a statement made by one of his supporters based on the assumption that 800,000 people are drawing weekly benefit. We ask for the actual figure, and it is the business of the Minister to give it.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I say at once that I will get those figures; if they are Departmentally available, the right hon. Gentleman shall have them with the greatest of pleasure. But that does not detract from the force of what I have
    1244
    said about the action of hon. Members opposite. Here are proposals for new scales of benefit—
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in debating subsequent Amendments while the present Amendment is under discussion?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the Amendment which is now before the Committee.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Further to that point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman persistently makes reference to Amendments on the Paper subsequent to this one. The right hon. Gentleman himself has a similar Amendment dealing with young men and young women. If he has the figures available, he ought to give them to the Committee without the Committee having to ask for them.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will give anyone the estimated results if we have them. My point is that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make proposals to this Committee, they ought to ask for the information, if they want it, to show the effect of the proposals they make. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston to burke that point.
    Mr. SHAW: I do not wish to burke any point. If the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement that a certain proposal would wreck the Bill without giving any grounds for that statement, I am sure he would have been ashamed of himself. It is the business of a responsible Minister to supply reasonable information, and it is his duty to supply any information which is required in regard to an Amendment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will give the information asked for at once. The effect of this Amendment will be to add another £7,000,000 per annum to the cost. If any hon. Member had put to me a question on that point, I should have given the figure before.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is that figure arrived at upon a 6 per cent. or an 8 per cent. basis?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is on the basis of 9 per cent. unemployment.
    Mr. SHAW: At last we have got the information. Having heard what the estimate is, I would like to point out that there is something much more important than the £7,000,000, and it is the question whether people are now living upon insufficient food, whether they are insufficiently clad and deteriorating in consequence. I think more about one workman who has been cut short of the absolute necessities of life than the troubles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding another £7,000,000. I think far more about those who have not a sufficiency of the ordinary necessities of life than I do about the troubles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point is whether £1 per week is sufficient to maintain a grown up person. We all know the amount that £1 will purchase. If we purchase one pound's worth of foodstuffs and put them on the table we should have a very much better estimate of what this means than we are apt to gather from the mere mention of the figures. What will £1 per week do? Can anyone say that a man can live and clothe himself, keep a clean bed, and live even on the plainest of food for £1 per week? I am not troubling about the £7,000,000, but I am concerned about these men having decent food and being provided with the necessities of life. If the Labour party had the majority which the Government now possess, it is quite certain that the amount would not be 18s., not if I were the Minister of Labour.
    The Minister of Labour has asked us about the contributions and he stated that he could not understand how I could support this Amendment. May I tell him that I should feel quite ashamed of myself if I did not support this proposal. If I failed to support it I could not look my fellow workmen in the face because I know how they have suffered. How could I face them if I had to admit that when there was a proposal to make the amount £1 per week I did not vote for it on account of financial considerations? Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer look after himself. Already the Chancellor has put his paw on every fund he could find. We believe that £1 per week is little enough. We believe that all those who vote against this proposal have less knowledge of humanity than they ought to have. May I tell the Minister of
    1246
    Labour another thing? If I am asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" my answer is, "Yes."
    Mr. MARCH: The Minister of Labour has told us that insurance under this Bill was going to be on the lines of a fire insurance. What is now proposed is a long way from the lines of fire insurance. I always understood that if you want to insure against fire for £100 you pay the same premium as everybody else; but under this Bill you have gone far away from any principle of fire insurance or friendly society insurance. I was greatly surprised when I heard the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) speaking about young people not getting the same benefits as the others. In the friendly society movement young men and women pay a lower contribution than those who join at a later age, and yet they get the same benefits. Under this Bill you are charging the young people the same as the old people and yet you bring down their scale of benefits.
    May I point out that that is against the principle of fire insurance about which the Minister of Labour was so persistent. Under this Bill you are charging the young men of 21 years of age and upwards, whether married or single, the same contribution, and at the same time you are proposing to reduce their benefit. Why are you doing this? The only reason I can assign is that you are under the impression that if young men and women are unemployed and receive a low rate of benefit then you will be able to force them more easily into positions where they will get lower wages, and you will cut the older men out altogether. The idea seems to be that if you get these young men out of employment at 21 or 22 years of age you will be able to force them more easily into the Army, Navy or the Air Force. Under this Measure you do not pay these men benefits proportionate to their contributions, and it is simply robbery and nothing else.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The indignation of the Minister of Labour and those behind him has been directed against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) in regard to the comparison which has been made between the present Bill and the one introduced in 1924. This indignation seems to me to be an indication of the weakness of the case put forward by

    1247
    the Minister of Labour and it is really no analogy at all, because the conditions are absolutely reversed. In 1924 the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston was entirely different from the position now held by the Minister of Labour. I think I know sufficient of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston to be able to state that had the position been reversed, and had we at that time had a majority of 200 behind us, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston would not have brought in such a Bill as he did in 1924. If he had done so, I am sure he would have met with a great deal of opposition from the members of his own party.
    On these benches we have often been accused of advocating the getting of something for nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Nobody sitting on the Labour Benches believes that something can be got for nothing. Very early in these debates the Labour party made a demand for work or maintenance and we put the demand for work first. We claimed that if society, in its organisation, was of such a character as to deny a man the means of obtaining a livelihood, society ought to make up the deficiency and provide that man with maintenance. We insisted upon work as the initial step. I wish I could see a state of society established under which it would be impossible for anyone to get a living without working for it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is an entirely different question from the one we are discussing.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I was deflected from my point by the diffuse remarks made by other speakers. I think the proposal in the Schedule which we are discussing is a disgustingly mean one. If I remember rightly, the present Prime Minister made a statement in the early part of this Parliament that, if the Conservative party did not deal with the question of unemployment in a radical way, the Conservative party would be false to its trust. I will not commit myself to the exact words, but that was the tenour of his remarks. I want to say that the Conservative party has been false to its trust; it has not dealt with unemploy-
    1248
    ment at all. The question gets worse and worse as the weeks go by, and, the worse it gets, the more people are condemned to unemployment, and the less chance there is of their getting adequate employment, the worse the proposals of the Government become. These proposals are the proposals of a. Government dealing with an alien people. They are punitive; they are designed for the purpose of punishing men who suffer through no fault of their own, who find themselves utterly unable to obtain work in any circumstances whatever. I stand here speaking for thousands of people in my Division, who have been unable for the past three years to obtain work. Everyone knows that they have been unable to obtain work, but their suffering is to be continued still further, and their resources are to be still further depleted, under this wretched contemptible Bill brought in by a Government which represents all the wealth and splendour and riches of this Empire. The benches opposite represent, in the main, the magnificence of this country, and it is a splendidly magnificent country so far as a few are concerned. This Bill bears out exactly the saying of a witty Frenchman some years ago, that England was the Paradise of the rich, the Hell of the poor, and the Purgatory of the wise. That is perfectly true; it has become a worse hell as the days have gone by—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is certainly not in order on this Amendment.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: This Amendment is designed to bring the allowance to unfortunate people who are unemployed more in accordance with the resources of the country—resources that we believe to exist. If those resources are not adequately used to their best advantage, it is the fault of the Government of the country. The Government have done nothing whatever to help these people to improve their condition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has robbed the Road Fund of £19,000,000—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That seems to be a different scheme from the one in the Schedule.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: If that money had been used for providing work, these contributions might have been on a different scale, there would have been less need

    1249
    for so great a degree of poverty as now prevails, the number of unemployed would not have been so great, the demand on the State would not have been so great, and the necessity for taxes would not have been so great. The whole thing is contemptibly mean, and I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be carried.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). There is no denying the fact that, whether the amount be 17s. or £1, 15s. or 18s., it is not sufficient to maintain any person in the degree of comfort that we should like to see. I want to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston that his party has no monopoly of sympathy for the people who happen to be unemployed, and I also want to point out to him that the only way to deal with this question, and provide men and women with proper means of subsistence, is to find them a job. During the period when the right hon. Gentleman occupied the position of Minister of Labour, I was not a Member of the House of Commons, but I was a member of an unemployment committee, in a certain part of the country, where we struggled hard to get work for the people in the district. Had we any great amount of sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Not a bit of it. Did we get anything at all in the way of reasonable help? Not a bit of it. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may have thought as regards the amount he could include in his Unemployment Insurance Bill, there were certain other schemes brought to him for providing work and employment which he turned down where he could have done otherwise, whether he had a majority behind him or not. I am not going to allow it to pass when he takes the credit for having done a great deal for the unemployed people of this country. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was the greatest asset to my party at the last General Election. One had only to quote him to get the working classes to realise that their position was not safe in the hands of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mis-quote!"] There is no need to mis-quote; you can take it from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would say, in conclusion, that the only real solution of this trouble is to get schemes into operation which will provide work.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I desire to say two things. In the first place, I desire to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was rather unkind to the party I represent about this Bill, and he was on very dangerous ground. It is perfectly true that some members of his party, when they were in office, did find our support rather uncertain—for instance, the First Lord, of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War; but, if I recollect aright, we only came into conflict with him once, and he ought to have been very careful before he raised the point, because that was on a proposal by two back-bench members of the Liberal party, who then sat for East and West Middlesbrough respectively. They moved an Amendment, not to increase the benefit to the whole of the contributors by 3s. a week, but to increase the benefit in respect of children by 1s. a week. The right hon. Gentleman turned that proposal down, and the uncertain support he received was due, not merely to those on the Liberal benches, but to some of his own backbench members who voted for the Liberal Amendment and against his proposal to turn it down. Indeed, he should have thrown a bouquet to the Minister of Labour, because, when he wanted to defend his own proposal not to give children an extra shilling, it was to those on the benches opposite, who were then sitting on this side, to whom he looked for his majority, together with those of his own supporters who voted with the Conservatives in order to prevent that extra shilling being given. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston had any cause to complain about the support of the Liberal party when he was Minister of Labour except on that one occasion. There was another occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman, one Thursday and Friday, was greatly indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for extracting him from a very difficult tangle.
    Both the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the Minister referred to the cost of living. I believe that the time has come when we ought to revise the way in which the cost of living index is compiled. It does not weigh with me, when we are considering benefits, wages, or any other sums given to

    1251
    working people, to hear the cost of living index quoted. I am aware that, for the purposes of this Amendment and Debate, comparisons between 1924 and 1927 are relevant, but the basis on which the index is compiled is not a scientific basis; it does not really meet the case of 1927. It was a rough and ready rule when it was first introduced for certain purposes before the War, but it ought not to remain the permanent basis for calculating the incomes of working people for the purpose of unemployment insurance or for any other purpose. Having said this, I hope I have restored amity in the Committee, and thrown a little light upon the dark and devious days of 1923–24.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The remarks of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the Committee appear to have been designed to divert attention from the Bill now under discussion. This is a late hour for a post-mortem examination of the Government of 1924—
    Mr. E. BROWN: Your Minister raised it.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Our case for increased benefits is stronger because of the action of the Government in deliberately discouraging local authorities from providing schemes of work. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is speaking without the book. This Government—and this makes their responsibility in regard to benefit even greater than it was—have deliberately torpedoed the St. Davids Committee; they have quite deliberately established conditions which make it practically impossible for any local authority to carry out schemes of work for the relief of unemployment. The test is this—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We really must not go so far as that on this Amendment.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I should be the last person in the world to go outside your ruling, but I was trying to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby. I will content myself with saying that the amount of work provided by local authorities in 1924 was £24,000,000 worth, as against £3,000,000 worth this year; and that very fact—
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of schemes which were approved by the late Minister of Labour, or schemes which were in operation at the time and which had been approved by his predecessor?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: There would be both, but I am giving the year's figures for 1924 and for the year ending the 31st March, 1927. No explanation can get away from the fact that the figure in 1924 was eight times as much as it is at the present time. Because of this shrinkage in the provision of work, and the long period during which unemployment has prevailed, the need for a revision of benefit upwards is stronger than ever it has been before. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) made it quite clear when he was proposing 18s., with 5s. for a wife and 2s. for a child, that that was not as much as he would have liked to give, and it was when he was dealing with this very question that he made the statement to which he has referred this afternoon. We are not asking for anything that we regard as impracticable or impossible. I would like to refer to the evidence, so often quoted against us, given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and myself before the Blanesburgh Committee, where we recognised that we were not likely to get adequate rates of benefit instituted, and stated that, without prejudice to our scheme for such adequate benefits, we suggested that there should be an immediate increase in the present rates, proposing the rates that are the subject of the Amendment now before the Committee. We did not propose those as adequate rates; we do not believe that even 20s. is adequate, and that is the considered view of the Labour movement in this country. We put forward 20s. just as we put forward the reduced contributions, as a half-way house, as something that we thought we might get. The suggested figure of 20s., having regard to the obligations that fall upon the unemployed man, and to the long period of bad trade that there has been, which has exhausted practically every trade union's out-of-work benefit fund, which has exhausted the bulk of the savings of these people—this rate of benefit is modest and not extravagant, and I should have thought that, if the Committee were left entirely free to express

    1253
    its opinion as to the desirability of that scale of benefit, we should have a majority when the matter was taken to a Division.
    Question put, "That '17s. 0d.' stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 140.

    Division No. 442.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McLean. Major A.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Apsley, Lord

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Meller. R. J.

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldan)

    Bainlel, Losrd

    Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gates, Percy

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Bennett, A. J.

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

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Grace, John

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

    Bethel, A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Oakley, T.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Perring, Sir William George

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hanbury, C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Preston, William

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harland, A.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ramsden, E.

    Buchan, John

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Burman, J. B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Chapman. Sir S.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Christie, J. A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Churchman. Sir Arthur C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Savery, S. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cope, Major William

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

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

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

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lamb, J. O.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lumley, L. R.

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

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

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

    Drewe, C

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Tinne, J. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Wells, S. R.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Vaughsn-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Waddington, R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Bowyer.

    Watson, Sir F. (Purfsev and Otley)

    Womersley, W. J.

    NOES.

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Groves, T.

    Scurr, John

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

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

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Hardie, George D.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr, J

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sullivan, J.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbre. W.)

    Clowes. S.

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

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lansbury, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Townend, A. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Viant, S. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

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

    Duckworth, John

    March, S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh. J. C.

    Edge, Sir William

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

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    England, Colonel A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea. East)

    Forrest, W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifle)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Gosling, Harry

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Greenall, T.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Rose, Frarfk H.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Whiteley.

    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, to leave out "15s. 0d.," and to insert instead thereof "18s. 0d."
    Question put, "That '15s. 0d.' stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 141.

    Division No. 443.]

    AYES.

    [6.25 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T

    Balnlel, Lord

    Blundell, F. N.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Albery, Irving James

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Beamish Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Apsley, Lord

    Bennett, A. J.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Berry, Sir George

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Bethel, A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Buchan, John

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Radford, E. A.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ramsden, E.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Campbell, E. T.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rye, F. G.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Christie, J. A.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Clayton, G. C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cope, Major William

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

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

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

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

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

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

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R,

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

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Drewe C

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Fermoy Lord

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fielden' E B.

    Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Foxcroft Captain C T.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Frece. Sir Walter de

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Waddington, R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Meller, R. J.

    Walace. Captain p. E

    Galbraith J F W.

    Meyer. Sir Frank

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

    Ganzoni Sir John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Gates Percy

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gibbs, Col Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

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

    Watts, Dr T

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cower Sir Robert

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Wells, S. R.

    Grave John

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w. E)

    Oakley, T.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Oman. Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset Bridgwater

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Hanbury, C.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Harland, A.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Preston, William

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Broad, F. A.

    Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Barnes, A.

    Bondfield, Margaret

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

    Barr, J.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Batey, Joseph

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Baker, Walter

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cape, Thomas

    1258

    1259

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Clowes. S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Compton, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Connolly, M.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snell, Harry

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Duckworth, John

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

    Duncan, C.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dunnico, H.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edge, Sir William

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    England, Colonel A.

    Mackinder, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Rees, Sir Beddot

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Groves, T.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvli)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wright, W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scurr, John

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Whiteley.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In regard to the discusion on the next Amendment standing in the name of the Government we must at the same time have a discussion on the four Amendments to it. There are four Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I propose to have a single discussion on them all.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I suppose that, after taking a general discussion, there will be the formality of voting on the several Amendments if we go to a Division.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Committee wishes to go to a Division on them they will be at liberty to do so. The various Amendments put down to the Government's Amendment I shall take separately, but the discussion should be a single discussion.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
    "2. Persons who have attained the age of 20 years but are under the age of 21 years:

    s.

    d.

    Young men

    14

    0

    Young women

    12

    0

    3. Persons who have attained the age of 19 years but are under the age of 20 years:

    s.

    d.

    Young men

    12

    0

    Young women

    10

    0

    In moving this Amendment, if it be your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, and because it forms part of the same general subject, I shall deal with the Amendment which stands in my name lower down the Paper—in page 13, line 9, to leave out "21" and to insert instead thereof "19."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that if it be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, it will be desirable for the Committee to discuss these Amendments together.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I imagine that Members of the Committee would wish, as the second Amendment standing in my name is part of the same scheme and with this Amendment forms part of one graded system, that the discussion on the whole subject should take place now. These rates are the rates which I indicated at an earlier stage in our proceedings on the Bill that I would

    1261
    move when we came to the Schedule. The original rates inserted in the Bill were 8s. for young women and 10s. for young men. They were the rates which were recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee, and I wished to follow the findings of the Committee as exactly as I could. At the Second Reading I stated quite frankly that I was unable to do so in the matter of finance. In the other Clauses of the Bill I followed their recommendations, and the provisions originally inserted in the Bill followed their unanimous findings. I had some misgivings as to the rates, and when I found that it was the general feeling of the House that there should be some alteration, I indicated that I would move the rates contained in the Amendments which stand in my name. Under these two Amendments the rates for young men will increase between 18 and 21 from 10s. to 12s. at age 19, and from 12s. to 14s. at age 20. Similarly the rates for young women will increase from 8s. to 10s. and from 10s. to 12s. On arriving at the age of 21 they will get the adult rates.
    That there should be a differentiation for the ages between 18 and 20 was not only the finding of the Committee but was also, as has been expounded more than once, in accordance with the preponderating opinion of those best qualified to judge throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] The principle of it has been acknowledged by the Opposition in the Amendments they have put down on the Paper. As far as these rates are concerned, they are rates that are intermediate between the rates for boys and girls and the adult rates for men and women. I have never pretended, and I do not pretend now, that they, any more than the adult rates, are rates of full maintenance. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite will have ample opportunity of speaking later if they wish to avail themselves of it.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You have guillotined us!
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have never pretended that the rates which are proposed are rates for full maintenance whether in the case of young men and young women from 18 to 21 or in the case of adult men and adult women. Unemployment benefit rates under a State
    1262
    scheme as under trade union schemes have always been intended as a help, and, in the case of the State scheme, a very material help indeed, for people to tide over a period of unemployment. That is all that at any time is claimed for it. These rates which I now propose for young men and young women are intermediate, as I have said, between adult rates and rates for juveniles. The expense of them comes nearly to £450,000 a year in addition to the original estimate of the scheme, and they will diminish the very narow margin of income over expenditure to that extent. For young men the additional cost is estimated at about £300,000 a year, and for young women at a little over £140,000 a year. I think they are better balanced as intermediate rates than those originally in the Bill, and representing, as they do, the preponderating opinion of those who have had most to do with the subject, I commend them to the Committee.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "14s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof "16s. 0d."
    I think the justice of this Amendment will be understood by every Member of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that although he desired to follow the lines of the Committee's Report he felt, in the earlier stages, that he could not follow them as far as finance was concerned, and because he failed to satisfy himself that the figures recommended by the Committee were correct, he has seen fit to move the Amendment which is now before this Committee. But having seen fit to increase the figures we still think that the right hon. Gentleman is failing lamentably as far as young men and young women are concerned with the figures he is offering to them. He tells us, of course, that unemployment insurance benefits are not intended to be full maintenance for any person who is obliged to receive benefit through being thrown out of work. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman from what other source does he expect that unemployed people are going to receive the difference between what would be full maintnance and the figures that he offers in this Amendment? Obviously, there must be a source from which the supplementary sums should be forthcoming, and unless the right hon.

    1263
    Gentleman can tell us exactly what he thinks that second source is, I do not see how we can support him in his figures.
    There are other reasons, I think, why the Committee ought to tell the right hon. Gentleman, once and for all, that having come down to the very last penny-piece, here, at least, is one instance where the Committee cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Fourteen shillings, says the right hon. Gentleman, for a person 20 years of age, married or single, family obligations or no family obligations, is the maximum sum that we are going to give to him in case he should be thrown out of work through no fault of his own. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has questioned his own good lady as to what would have been the position if they, in their juvenile days, had contracted an early marriage—and there are no laws to prevent early marriages taking place in this country—and unemployment fell to his lot, and he was told by a Government that the only sums of money that they would be permitted to receive would be 14s. per week. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would think if, on a future occasion, the same Government that gave him 14s. a week to maintain himself and his wife and his family, should there be any family, called upon him to join the forces for the purpose of fighting for his King and country and all that that implied.
    I suggest that the young person who to-day is called upon to accept this miserable sum of money and is the victim of a disordered and obsolete economic system, is going to tell the State on some future occasion that in his hour of distress it failed to hold out a helping hand, and that, as far as he is concerned, he has as much love for his country, of which he does not own a single square yard, as the Minister of Labour had for him when he was conducting his Unemployment Insurance Bill through the House of Commons. In 1927, apparently, the Conservative Government are to go down to history as the Birth Control Government as a result of their treatment of young persons under this Bill. The proposal of the Minister is to allow 14s. a week for a man over 20 years of age. The figures are almost too miserable and contemptible to be considered.
    1264
    An argument has been used frequently during these Debates that if we move an Amendment from these benches we shall upset the whole financial basis of the scheme, and therefore it cannot be entertained. In this particular instance, the extra cost of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will be £440,000, as compared with the original finance of the Bill. On that basis, the Amendment which I am moving cannot cost much more than £200,000 per year, leaving still a balance of £400,000 per annum over the estimated expenditure. It seems to me that the usual argument that the Fund cannot provide all that we are asking for cannot be used on this occasion. The Minister has now moved an Amendment dealing with young persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and I should like him to give us the estimated number of young persons who are likely to be affected by his Amendment. A short time ago, during the discussion on another Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman chided hon. Members on these benches because they had failed in days gone by to seek information as to the number of young persons who were likely to be out of work at a given period. On what does he base the figures which he has given in connection with his Amendment? How many young persons between the ages of 18 and 21 does he estimate will be out of work in any given period? He must have some estimate on which he has based his figure of £440,000 as the increase in the expenditure on the acceptance of his Amendment. Has he based his figures upon the present 9 per cent. of unemployment or on the estimated 6 per cent. figure which he has used many times during the Committee discussions on this Bill?
    In any case, I think a young person between the ages of 18 and 21 who is thrown out of work through no fault of his own, and who must satisfy the insurance officer that he is a legitimate applicant before he can receive full employment benefit, is at least entitled to expect more than the miserable sum of 14s. a week. It is true that in my Amendment we are not asking as much as we think a young man thrown out of work is entitled to, but an extra 2s. to a person who has been deprived of his employment is a legacy in these days of destitution in working class areas. I

    1265
    think the right hon. Gentleman might well have conceived a series of Amendments so as to minimise the deadly effect of his proposal upon the mentality and morality of young persons in this country. From that point of view, I think that both young men and young women are entitled to more consideration than they have received so far. I hope that hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House will not claim credit for what they did in 1924, or for what they might do in 1929, but that they will justify themselves on this occasion, in 1927, by supporting the Amendment which I am submitting as against the Amendment submitted by the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to support the Amendment. I have sat under several Ministers of Labour and I believe the present Minister of Labour is the worst who has ever sat on the Government bench. I was in the House when Dr. Macnamara, the Liberal Minister of Labour, reduced the benefit from £1 to 15s. a week. I remember Dr. Macnamara introducing the gap period, and the six days' waiting period, and I remember the Labour party walking out of the House because he refused to give a 1s. contribution towards the maintenance of a child. I have also seen the ex-Minister for Labour, the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) moving to do away with the gap, increasing the benefit, giving 2s. extra contribution in respect of children, and also reducing the waiting period from six days to three days. We are now confronted with a proposal under which the Minister of Labour expects a young man or young woman to live on 14s. and 12s. a week respectively. I have had some experience in London and I will quote an instance. A relative of mine was in the Civil Service. She was a temporary clerk. Her father was an old civil servant, but during the War he died and the mother also died, the girl was left an orphan and I had to look after her interests. She was thrown out of employment as a temporary clerk in the Treasury. She paid 25s. a week for her board, and she could not have got it so cheaply had she not been living with a supporter of one of the hon. Members for Islington. When she was thrown out of employment, her landlord, who had a big heart and broad mind, allowed her to get into arrears. She could not afford to pay
    1266
    the 25s. a week, with the result that in 18 months she got into arrears to the extent of between £30 and £40.
    How does the Minister expect that a respectable girl, the daughter of a civil servant, can live in London on 12s. a week? I tell him quite frankly that I cannot keep my daughter on 12s. a week, and I am sure he cannot keep his daughter on 12s. a week, nor could any hon. Member opposite keep a daughter on 12s. a week. I do not see how the Minister can ask girls, the daughters of the working class, who are quite as respectable as the daughters of hon. Members opposite—we love our daughters quite as well as you love your daughters—to live in London or any of the large cities on 12s. a week. The thing is impossible. I know the reputation of the Minister quite well, and I do not believe that in his own heart he thinks that the 12s. is sufficient. I have read his history and how he went into the Poor Law institutions and slept amongst poor people at night. Consequently, he knows that it is impossible for these girls and young men to live on 12s. and 14s. per week respectively. A question was put to the Minister of Health the other day by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley), where they have a large number of steel workers who are out of work. The Minister was asked how much it cost to maintain one of these men in a Poor Law institution, and he said it cost 24s. a week. In a Poor Law institution you are prepared to pay 24s. a week for the maintenance of a man, but for a young man out of work you are only prepared to pay 14s. a week, and for a young woman out of work, 12s. a week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a broad view and help these respectable young men and young women to keep their virtue. Such a proposal as the one he has made is simply driving them down to degradation. I appeal to him to think over this matter and see if he cannot accept the Amendment to his Amendment.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I wish to draw special attention to the case of the young women. There are two Amendments on the Order Paper proposing an increase of the amount allowed in the Minister's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman heaped reproaches upon me recently because, in connection with an Amend-

    1267
    ment which I brought forward, I did not produce an estimate. I took no trouble whatever to prepare an estimate, on the grounds put forward by the Government Actuary, who stated that no materials exist, or have existed during any time since 1911, on which to frame an accurate estimate. In these circumstances, to play with an estimate is really to give a sort of ornamental nourish to your speech that is of no real use. The proper thing to do in circumstances of such uncertainty is that you should fix the contribution to be made from industry, and the Slate should make up the deficit as and when it occurs until we have gained the experience on which we can frame an accurate estimate.
    With respect to the women, I would point out that this proposal concerns more women proportionately than men, and hits them harder, for two reasons; first of all, the obvious one that the cut is a good deal greater in respect of women and, secondly, that of persons between the ages of 18 and 21 in industry the proportion of women is very much greater than that of men. I cannot give the figures for the insured persons, because they are not published, but if as an illustration we take the number of occupied persons, the women are in the proportion of 5 to 12. There are much fewer women than men, but if you look at the age groups, 18 to 19 and 20 to 24, you find that the women in those age groups outnumber the men in the same age groups. There are more women employed than men of the age of 18 to 19, and more women employed than men in the ages 20 to 24. That is taken on the whole. I am not able to distinguish the insured persons.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are in the Actuary's Report.
    7.0 p.m.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, I find they are there. My point is, and the Minister of Labour as an expert will not disagree with me, that the average age of women in industry is much less than that of the men, and that the great bulk of the women employed are very much younger than the men in the corresponding age groups. Through the whole incidence of insurance, you find that the ages at which you desire to obtain benefit is younger for women than for men. Up to the age
    1268
    of 25 the numbers of women employed is much greater than the numbers of men, but it is the reverse in the next age group, and it does not get steady again until somewhere about the age of 34. The reason is that the man who goes into industry or occupation of any kind goes in for his life, but the normal woman marries somewhere about 25 to 30. Therefore, the industrial life of women is very much shorter than that of men. If you take the age groups, there are more women proportionately than men in the earlier years who are employed. You get an altogether different state of affairs when you come to the question of insurance. A man has to pay from 18 to 21 in order that he may get benefits at the age of 50 to 60. If the whole insured population were men, we should have quite a different incidence of contributions. That is my first point, that to cut down the benefits from 18 to 21 affects proportionately more women.
    I come to my second point. Is a woman of 18 a child or a woman? A woman, because a woman does come to-day to full physical efficiency earlier than a man. That is acknowledged and reflected in the general course of wages. You find very few trades, except those trades with a long period of apprenticeship, where there is a difference in the rate of wages for women of 18 and 21. There are a whole set of Trade Board wages which have received the Minister's approval and in those wages, with the rare exceptions I have mentioned, the adult rate is given to women at the age of 18. I have sat on six Trade Boards and we have had very severe controversies on them. We used to fight every farthing and every penny, but the question on which we had very little dispute at all was the age at which the adult rate should be given to women. Those are wages for which the Minister is, to a certain extent, responsible, because he has approved of them. Again, when the War broke out and the men went away, women were put into occupations unsuitable for women and asked to take the place of the men who had gone to the front. Their wages were then regulated not by Trade Boards but by circulars issued by the Minister of Munitions.
    I would remind the Committee of the title of the very first Order in regard to wages which was issued by the right hon.

    1269
    Gentleman, who was then Minister of Munitions. That was the famous circular the heading of which was "Wages applicable to women of 18 and over engaged in occupations not recognised as women's work." In that substitute work, the work which the country thought too heavy or too difficult for women, the adult age was fixed at 18. These young women are 18, and many of them are living in lodgings. How can a woman of 18 or 19 keep herself at all on the miserable sums proposed in the Amendment of the Minister? It is much too low for comfort, for clothes, for food, and, if I know the girls, what they will do is to take it out of their food. Once during the War I had the experience of seeing the difference between women on sweated wages and women on good wages. The latter spent their money on food; directly they had a little money they ate twice as much and looked extraordinarily well. Women will pinch themselves to try to keep a respectable appearance as long as they can. These young women will economise on their food and will wreck their health.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I fully endorse the whole of the condemnatory speeches that have been made in respect of this new proposal, and I particularly desire to compliment the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) on the very lucid and splendid speech which she has made upon this matter. It really gave one much food for thought, and I would recommend Members on the opposite side to study it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. I rise particularly to correct the Minister's impression when he said that hon. Members on this side by their Amendment showed that they favoured the setting up of this class. Whatever the Amendments may portray, they only do that which can be done within the limits of Parliamentary procedure, and, as the new Clause was set up, we had to deal with it as a new Clause. He knows that we tried our best to eliminate the Clause, and were defeated in that purpose. Consequently, if we had proposed the same Amendment on this Schedule, we might have been ruled out of order as a decision had previously been arrived at. The Minister knows that the movement which we represent submitted its evidence, and it was not there suggested
    1270
    that this class between 18 and 21 should be set up. It was desired to set up a new class from 14 to 16, but that has been entirely ignored. It said that, whatever was done for the adult, 18 should always be the age limit for that general class.
    There is another Amendment lower down on the Amendment Paper to which I would like to refer, as I understand we are dealing with the whole of the Schedule. I refer to that part of the Schedule dealing with boys and girls. The benefit is reduced in the case of boys from 7s. 6d. to 6s., and in the case of girls from 6s. to 5s. There is no corresponding readjustment as far as their payments are concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago, when I pointed out the progressive increases in the contribution, pointed out here and there a progressive advance in the benefits. But these boys only paid 2d. per week when they were in receipt of 7s. 6d. and the girls only paid 1½d. per week when in receipt of 6s. The boys will now pay 3½d., and receive 6s. as against 7s. 6d., when they paid 2d., while the girl will only get 5s. for her new payment of 3d. as against her previous 6s. for 1½d. The Minister may, of course, say, "Yes, but in this case the gap is done away with; there will be continuous benefit." I would suggest to him that that continuous benefit is dependent on other considerations and conditions that enter into the obligations to be fulfilled before benefit can be received. It does appear to me that, if you flit from one point to another point of argument, you must try to make it all inclusive in its application. Certainly, whatever else may be said, that 6s. for the boy of 16 to 18 and the 5s. for the girl of that age makes a reduction, though their present contributions are nevertheless nearly 100 per cent. higher than when their rate of benefit was much higher. I suggest that that point should be dealt with before the final word is said, seeing that the Minister has revised his opinion and created this intermediate class. Can he not now re-establish the existing rates in the case of those young persons and make it 7s. 6d. and 6s. as at present, and not bring about the reduction he proposes in the Bill?
    Commander WILLIAMS: I am never quite able to understand the type of

    1271
    mind of the Member who comes down here and makes long speeches as to whether 12s. or 14s. a week is adequate to keep people living under this Bill. No one ever said it was, and it has nothing whatever to do with the whole construction of the Bill. It is either purely playing to the gallery, which I do not think is always the case, or else it is done in simple ignorance of the fact that only a very few years ago there was no Insurance Bill at all. You have got a constructive programme in this Bill, but unfortunately, in the condition of affairs existing to-day, this Bill is burdened with a debt of over £23,000,000. That is a burden which has been carried by the State. It cannot possibly be other wise than a direct addition in one way or another to the—
    Mr. HAYDAY: You are drawing interest on it.
    Commander WILLIAMS: That has nothing whatever to do with it. The more burdens you put on trade and industry, the more you drive people out of work.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is going rather wide.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I was only using that as an illustration to make the point clear why in an Amendment of this kind, where the Minister has already gone a very considerable way to meet hon. Members opposite, this Committee has some right to consider the other side of the question, that the burdens on the Bill are being increased by this Clause—although all of us welcome the fact that the Minister is able to give this increase—and that these increases will, if these burdens go on piling up, inevitably, sooner or later, hinder instead of help the people whom they wish to help. It is making it more difficult for them to find work, and it is increasing the burdens on those already in employment at the present time. Hon. Members opposite should realise that the Minister has made a very real attempt to meet them in this new Amendment. They should realise that he has gone a long way and is putting an additional burden on the Fund, and that, as we want the Fund to become solvent reasonably soon, it is impossible for him to give way much further.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: The last speaker said that Members on this side come down here and make long speeches, but we know we cannot accuse the Minister of doing that. He has made the shortest speeches that I ever remember a Minister making on an important Bill of this description. Every bit of information has had to be dragged from him. He has had to get up three or four times to answer every point, and then the Committee was not satisfied. In the last speech he made he was so heartily ashamed of it that he spoke quite shortly, although he had the honesty to admit that nobody could be expected to live on the amount of money that is to be given. That is so much to his credit, but he went on to say—and it was the only defence he made—that everybody who knows anything about this matter had recommended these amounts. I suppose he was referring to the people who composed the Blanesburgh Committee and to the chairman of one or two rota committees, who were asked to appear before the Blanesburgh Committee and give evidence. I have been looking at the composition of the Blanesburgh Committee and I know one or two of the chairmen of rota committees, and I am wondering whether they are the people who know whether a young man is able to live on 14s. a week.
    Most of these people who are supposed to know most about this matter are in positions in which they certainly have never had to depend on 14s. a week, and certainly their sons and daughters never will. The probability is that their sons and daughters will be at college until long after they pass their eighteenth year. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that these people know most about the matter. I should like know whether any attempt was made to get information from the people who are going to be affected; whether young women or young men, living away from home and entirely dependant on themselves—and there are a few thousands of them—were consulted? Was any evidence taken from them? I do not think so. I have not read any such evidence, yet I should imagine that these are the people who would know most about it. As a kind of an excuse it is said that a good proportion of these young men and women would not be dependent on the 14s. or 12s., because they are living at home with their parents who

    1273
    will be able to support them. An hon. Member opposite apparently agrees with this statement. Let me put it to him that these parents who are expected to assist these young men and women, would be able to say if it is possible to keep them on 14s. or 12s. a week respectively.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Does the hon. Member suggest that no members of the working class are on rota committees?
    Mr. PALING: I do not suggest anything of the kind, but I do suggest that if the working men on rota committees had been asked to give evidence they would not have recommended these figures. If the Minister had been anxious to get into touch with the people who know most about this problem, he would have gone to those who will be affected by this legislation and to the parents of these young people, rather than to the people who have arrived at these decisions. When he says that these figures have been recommended by well-informed persons, I disagree with him. The huge majority of those who will be affected will disagree emphatically, and the other
    people over the age of 21 who contribute to the Insurance Fund, if they had been consulted, would have been willing, I am sure by a large majority, that these young people should have higher rates of pay than they are going to get. The Minister is ashamed of the proposal himself. He has never attempted to defend it. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) gets up and says that we ought to realise that as the contribution is only 6d. a week you can only pay so much benefit out. It seems to be all a question of £ s. d. It is a question of £ s. d. as against human lives and the welfare of the people of this country. In fact, it has always weighed in the balance against any question of human welfare. It is the angle from which these amounts of 14s. and 12s. have been viewed by the Government and the Minister, and for these reasons I hope that we shall vote against the Amendment, and in favour of the increase.
    Question put, "That '14s. 0d.' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 247;. Noes, 145.

    [Division No. 444.]

    AYES.

    [7.22 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Fermoy, Lord

    Albery, Irving James

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Frece, Sir Walter dl

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Gates, Percy

    Atkinson, C.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Balnlel, Lord

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grace, John

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cevendish

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Berry, Sir George

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

    Bethel, A.

    Cooper, A. Dun

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cope, Major William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Blundell, F. N.

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

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hanbury, C.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Harland, A.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Brittain. Sir Harry

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Drewe, C.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Henderson, Capt. R-R.(Oxf'd, Henley>

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Ellis, R. G.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L.(Bootle)

    Burman, J. B.

    England, Colonel A.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.'

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Hopkinsan. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Huntingfield, Lore

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Oakley, T.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Tinne, J. A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Perring, Sir William George

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Lamb, J. 0.

    Pilcher, G.

    Waddington, R.

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Lister Cunilffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Preston, William

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Ottay)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Radford, E. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Ramsden, E.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Remer, J. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Rice. Sir Frederick

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon, Angus

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McLean, Major A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge 4 Hyde)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    woodcock. Colonel H. O.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Wragg, Herbert

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Sandon, Lord

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Savery, S. S.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Meller, R. J.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. c. Thomson.

    Merriman. F. B.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    NOES.

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

    Lawson, John James

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Lindley, F. W.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Livingstone, A M.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Lunn, William

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Baker, Walter

    Gillett, George M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gosling, Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Barnes, A.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Barr, J

    Greenall, T.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    March, S.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Montague, Frederick

    Broad, F. A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Bromfield, William

    Groves, T.

    Murnin, H.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palln, John Henry

    Buchanan, G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Harris, Percy A.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Clowes, S.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Potls, John S.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Compton, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Ritson. J.

    Connolly, M.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Cove, W. G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Rose, Frank H.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sakiatvaia, Shapuril

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vaie)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Scurr, John

    Dennison, R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sexton, James

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edge, Sir William

    Kirkwood, D.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lansbury, George

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    1276

    1277

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Townend, A E.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Snell, Harry

    Variey, Frank B.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wallhaad, Richard C.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sullivan, J.

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Sutton, J. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Wright, W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Westwood, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment: In line 5, to leave out "12s. 0d.," and insert instead thereof "14s. 0d."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]
    Question put, "That '12s. Od.' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 148.

    Division No. 445.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

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

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Albery, Irving James

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cunllffe, Sir Herbert

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Apsley, Lord

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

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

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

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

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cent)

    Atkinson, C.

    Drewe, C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    England, Colonel A.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bennett, A. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Berry, Sir George

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Bethel, A.

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Flelden, E. B.

    Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Loder, J. de V.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gates, Percy

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Grace, John

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Greene. W. P. Crawford

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w. E)

    Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Butt. Sir Alfred

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

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hanbury, C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Oakley, T.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sandon, Lord

    Waddington, R.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Pilcher, G.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Preston, William

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Ramsden, E.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Remer, J. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Roberts, E. H. R. (Flint)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

    Wood, Sir kingsley (Woolwich W.)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Thompson. Luke (Sunaerland)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Rye, F. G.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putneyi

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    NOES.

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

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S

    Lansbury, George

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtie, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Variey, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Duckworth, John

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edge, Sir William

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

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Fenby, T. D.

    Paling, W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Forrest, W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wright, w.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, T.

    Sakiatvaia, Shapurji

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment: In line 9, to leave out
    1280
    "12s. 0d.,"and insert instead thereof "15s. 0d."—[Mr. Stephen.]
    Question put, "That '12s. 0d.' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 150.

    Division No. 446.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.

    Albery, Irving James

    Fermoy, Lord

    Meller, B. J

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Merriman, F. B.

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Apsley, Lord

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gates, Percy

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Atkinson, C.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Goff, sir Park

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Balniel, Lord

    Grace, John

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Barnston, Major sir Harry

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bennett, A. J.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Oakley, T.

    Berry, Sir George

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bethel, A.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

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

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hanbury, C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pilcher, G.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Harland, A.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Preston, William

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennington)

    Radford, E. A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Burman, J. B.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Casseis. J. D.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rye, F. G.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Savery, S. S.

    Chlicott, Sir Warden

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Clarry, Reginald George

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

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

    Cobb. Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel. Major Samuel Strang

    Cope, Major William

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Tinne, J. A.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dawson Sir Philip

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Drewe. C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Vaughan-M organ, Col. K. P.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Waddington, R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    England, Colonel A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Wayla'nd, Sir William A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wragg, Herbert

    Wells, S. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

    Wilson, R. R. (Staftord, Lichfield)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    NOES.

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Saklatvaia, Shapurji

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Groves, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

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

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scurr, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hardie, George D.

    Sexton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brornfield, William

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Sutton. J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. w.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G,

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

    Variey, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison R.

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

    Duckworth, John

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Duncan, C.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Dunnico, H.

    March, S.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edge, Sir William

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Murnin, H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Fenby, T. D.

    Palln, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Forrest, W.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gosling, Harry

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Windsor, Walter

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

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

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenall, T.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 10, to leave out "10s. 0d.," and to insert instead thereof "13s. 0d."
    Question put, "That '10s. 0d.' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 148.

    Division No. 447.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Balniel, Lord

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Albery, Irving James

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Apsley, Lord

    Bennett, A. J.

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bethel, A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Atkinson, C.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Blundell, F. N.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Barman, J. B.

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

    Pilcher, G.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D,

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Preston, William

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Radford, E. A.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ramsden, E.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Remer, J. R.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Remnant. Sir James

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Chapman Sir S.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Charteris,' Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rye, F. G.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sandon. Lord

    Cope, Major William

    Jones. G. w. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Savery, S. S.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stanley. Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Loder, J. de V.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Drewe, C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Ellis, R. G.

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

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McLean, Major A.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

    Waddington, R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wallace, Captain D. K.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Ward Lt.-Col At-(Kingston-on-Hull.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Galbralth, J. F. W.

    Meller. R. J.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Merriman, F. B.

    Watson Rt. Hon, W. (Carlisle)

    Gates, Percy

    Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-

    Watts. Dr. T.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wells, S. R.

    Goff Sir Park

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern

    Grace, John

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur dive

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Greene. W. P. Crawford

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Grotrian, H. Brent.

    Nicholson. O. (Westminster)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

    Oakley T.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Hammersley. S. S.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hanbury, C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Penny, Frederick George

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Harland, A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Perrlng, Sir William George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    NOES.

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

    Barr, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Batey, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Charleton, H. C.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Clowes, S.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Broad, F. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bromfield, William

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Baker, Walter

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Compton. Joseph

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Connolly, M.

    1286

    1287

    Cove, W. G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

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

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vaie)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Dennison, R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Duckworth, John

    Lawson, John James

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Duncan, C.

    Lindley, F. w.

    Stamford, T. w.

    Dunnico, H

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Edge, Sir William

    Lowth, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Macklnder, W.

    Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Forrest, W.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gardner, J. P.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    March, S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Variey, Frank B.

    Gosling, Harry

    Murnin, H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Greenail, T.

    Palln, John Henry

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Paling, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur'

    Welsh, J. C.

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

    Potts, John S.

    Westwood, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Ritson, J.

    Whiteley, W.

    Harris. Percy A.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Rose, Frank H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)

    Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

    Sakiatvaia, Shapurji

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Scurr, John

    Wright, W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sexton, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Question,. "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Further Amendment made:
    In page 13, line 9, leave out "21" and insert "19."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]
    Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 149.

    Division No. 448.]

    AYES.

    [8.1 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Buchan, John

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Apsley, Lord

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Davies, Ma|. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Atkinson, C.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Balniel, Lord

    Campbell. E. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Casseis, J. D.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cautley, Sir Henry s.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Beamisn, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Chapman, Sirs.

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

    Bethel, A.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Clayton, G. C.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Forestier-Walker. Sir L.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Cooper. A. Duff

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cope. Major William

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Gaibraith, J. F W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Rye, F. G.

    Gates, Percy

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macdonneil, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sandon, Lord

    Grace, John

    McLean, Major A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Skelton, A. N.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Meller, R. J.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hanbury, C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred-

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

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

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hills. Major John Waller

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

    Oakley, T.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Waddington, R.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Pilcher, G.

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Preston, William

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ramsden, E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kindersley, Major G. M,

    Remer, J. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Remnant, Sir James

    Womersley, W. J.

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

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

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Gosling, Harry

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Connolly, M.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Crawfurd. H. E.

    Greenall, T.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Dalton, Hugh

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Davies. Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Baker, Walter

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vain

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Groves, T.

    Barr, J.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Duckworth, John

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Duncan, C.

    Hardie, George D.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Edge, Sir William

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Bromfield, William

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Buchanan, G.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Forrest, W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Clowes, S.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gillett. George M.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    1290

    1291

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Townend, A. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Kennedy, T.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Varley, Frank B.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

    Viant, S. P.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sakiatvaia, Shapurji

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Lansbury, George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lawson, John James

    Scurr, John

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

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sexton, James

    Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Lowth, T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Lunn, William

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Westwood, J.

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Whiteley, w.

    Mackinder, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    March, S.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Montague, Frederick

    Snowten, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Murnin, H.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Palin, John Henry

    Stewart, J. (St. Redox)

    Windsor, Walter

    Paling, W.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Wright, W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Sullivan, J.

    Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Potts, John S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Thurtle, Ernest

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)
    Mr. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out from the word "who" in line 25, to end of line 29, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "is employed in an occupation which is of a seasonal nature and does not ordinarily extend over more than eighteen weeks in any year and who is not ordinarily employed in any other occupation employment in which would make him an employed person within the meaning of this Act."
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in considering this matter, came to the conclusion that the words in the Schedule as it stands were too wide, and he accordingly proposes to insert the words of this Amendment. His object is to give effect to a recommendation which was made in the Blanesburgh Report, in paragraph 117, dealing with seasonal and occasional work. It is quite clear—and, indeed, it has been clear to all of us who have had experience of the administration of these Acts—that there are certain classes of persons who are somewhat hardly affected by the law as it stands. There is the illustration, for instance, of persons engaged in the seasonal occupation of fishing, who are at work, say, for 15 weeks or so in the year, but whose occupation after that period comes to an end. It is obvious that their chance of ever qualifying for benefit is rather remote, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend proposes to allow exemption, if it is asked for, to those working in a seasonal occupation, assuming
    1292
    always that they come within the words of this Amendment, and assuming that the occupation does not ordinarily extend over more than 18 weeks in any year. This not only carries out the recommendation in the Report, but is also an act of justice and fairness to those engaged in this seasonal occupation.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I hope very much that the Committee will accept the Amendment, and for my own part I would like to thank the Government and the Minister of Labour very sincerely for the most valuable concession that they have made by introducing this Amendment. I would like to remind the Committee that this Amendment covers the case of seasonal workers in the herring fishing industry, and that there are 4,000 or 5,000 of such workers in Scotland alone. The position of these workers in the past has been one of very great difficulty. The normal season of the herring fishing work lasts about 18 weeks, so that they are covered by this particular Amendment. There is hardly ever unemployment among these workers during the actual herring fishing season. The demand for fishing workers is as large as can possibly be taken up.
    Therefore, they are very unlikely to be able to get any benefit for unemployed time during the season itself; but I want to remind the Committee that this is a very real concession on the part of the Government, because, not only under this Bill is extended benefit to be abolished,

    1293
    but, as they stand at present, it has been rightly decided that no other work is likely to be available for them in the districts from which they come. That is covered by the second part of the Amendment. Therefore the position was—and it was a position that had been causing some of us who are interested in the fishing industry grave anxiety for several months past—that these workers were compelled to contribute to a fund from which it was in the highest degree unlikely they would be able to obtain any benefit. The effect of this Amendment is that in future they will not have to contribute at all to the Fund, and I believe most firmly that this is by far the best solution of what has been in the past a most difficult problem. I would therefore like to thank the Minister for the concession, which will not only be a satisfactory, but a permanent, solution to what has been a very difficult and complicated problem in the past. He will get not only the thanks of myself but of others who are interested in the fishing industry.
    Mr. SKELTON: I am disturbed by the somewhat narrow definition of "seasonal worker" as one whose work lasts only for 18 weeks. Every one who is familiar with conditions in Scotland is well aware that in all our great rivers we have salmon net fishers whose work is no less seasonal, although their season is considerably longer. I am constantly putting before the Minister extremely hard cases of men whose work lasts from six to seven months and who just on that account find it even more difficult to get any other work in the remaining four or five months. It is a decision of the most arbitrary kind to say that if a man works for more than 18 weeks he is not a seasonal worker. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to carry his view to its logical conclusion, and let us include in this Amendment all those persons who, when it comes to getting unemployment benefit, are told by the local committees that they are seasonal workers. I am constantly putting before the Minister decisions of the Dundee Committee with regard to the Tay fishermen, for they are decisions that cannot be supported. I know hard working men who tramp round the country looking for work as soon as the salmon fishing closes, and who are told that they are not genuinely seeking employment. I am tempted to
    1294
    read a letter which came to my hands only a day before yesterday on this point. It is about one of those salmon fishermen who was refused benefit on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking employment. This is an account of his efforts by a clergyman who knows him very well and whose accuracy cannot be called in question:
    "This man's movements and efforts since he left the fishing work on 20th August have been as follows. He reported to the local Labour Exchange at once and still does each week at the least. Through the Exchange he obtained 3½ days' work at Dunning—11 miles away, to which he cycled daily. This work was only temporary. It was digging trenches for cable laying. …. He has appeared twice before the local board, but his claim to any unemployment benefit has not been allowed. Hence he has to go to the parish for relief. It is his custom to go out daily in the early morning seeking work, and sometimes he has secured a casual job, but not a day's employment. He regularly goes a round of coal merchants and likely firms and shops who might need a labourer. He keeps on. To use his own phrase, 'It would be foolish to give up because there has been nothing doing on other days. Some morning they will be sure to want a man and I want to be there.'"
    That man was refused benefit on account of not genuinely seeking employment. He has most unquestionably a trade which the Minister of Labour would agree ought to be defined as seasonal, and he will be kept in the anomalous position of having in five months of the year practically no opportunity of getting work, and yet he is refused benefit. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, that he should reconsider the length of the period.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: This is one of the things that shows the utter folly of the Government. A most important proposal like this is raised when there is only a short time for discussion. There is much more involved in the Amendment than meets the eye. I think the men ought to have benefit. All they will save is some weeks of contributions, amounting to 9s. The great thing of importance is to get the men benefit, and not to relieve them of the payment of 9s. It may, however, be the lesser of two evils. At the end of their season, these people are willing to take any work that is offered, and, having fulfilled the conditions, and having paid for their benefit, it was the duty of the State to keep them until they got work again.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In the past these workers have been entitled to benefit only if they were unemployed during the fishing season itself, but not after the season was over, and they never are unemployed during the season.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that. I think that was the umpire's decision. But that is all the more reason why we ought in this Bill to alter the umpire's decision. All I say is that this proposal is the lesser of two evils. The former position is bad and this Amendment will lessen the evil, but it does not provide the solution of the problem. The proper solution would be for the men to be given benefit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out from the beginning of line 34, to the word "in" in line 39.
    This is merely a drafting Amendment. It was thought at first that it was necessary to have these words in the Schedule owing to the introduction of the new classes, but on further consideration we are advised that the words are redundant, and therefore unnecessary, and this Amendment is moved in order to delete them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, in page 15, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Section 13…At the end of Sub-section (3) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
    Where a member of a court of referees is unable to attend a meeting of the court he may nominate a substitute from the same panel to attend in his place."
    I do not think this Amendment will need much discussion. The purpose of it is almost obvious. We are seeking to provide for the contingency, which arises from time to time, of one of the referees being unable to attend the Court. In those circumstances, we ask that he may be given the power to nominate someone from the existing panel of referees to act in his stead.
    Mr. BETTERTON: The reason why we cannot accept this Amendment is that our officer is responsible for the constitution of the Court, that is to say, he
    1296
    is responsible for the Court being in readiness to hear the appeal. Under the existing law he has to form a complete Court, unless the applicant is content to allow his case to be heard by the chairman alone, or by the chairman and one other member. We always endeavour to take members from the panel in their order so that everyone on the panel should, in his turn, sit on the Court. For this reason we think it would not be right if at any time any particular member who felt himself unable to attend should be able to appoint a substitute. At the same time, if the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and any other of his friends who are interested in the matter, care to discuss either with me or with my right hon. Friend the Minister any administrative difficulty which they think we might remove, I shall be only too happy to consider their suggestion.
    Mr. SHAW: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said I think, although we must press this Amendment to a Division, that we can go to a Division direct without further discussion.
    Mr. MARCH: I should like to say a word or two on this matter because of the difficulties which some of the applicants have encountered. The Court of Referees is generally set up with a civil servant as the chairman, with a—
    Mr. BETTERTON: Oh, no!
    Mr. MARCH: Well, the Chairman may be a lawyer, but he is none the better for that; with an employer on one side and a workman on the other. It may be that the employer who is selected from a panel to act as one of the referees is not in a position to attend, and surely he ought to be able to send a substitute; and the same arrangement ought to apply to the workman representative on the Court. In our local Courts of Justice, if we are on the rota to attend a sitting and cannot be present, we can always call upon one of our colleagues to take our place, and the work can go on. It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that the applicant may, if he chooses, not proceed with his case that day or may consent to the chairman acting, but when a man has been buffeted about from pillar to post for week after week he is glad to get his case dealt with. I am perfectly certain that applicants

    1297
    would prefer to have their cases tried by an employer and a workman independent of the chairman. I can quite understand an applicant saying: "Oh yes, I will submit to the chairman being the Court, I will not bother about wasting any more time," but really he is not satisfied. I thought the Minister would have accepted this Amendment, seeing there is a precedent for this procedure in what is done in local Courts of Justice.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is done at the present time.
    Mr. BETTERTON: We are very anxious, when this Bill becomes an Act. that the Courts of Referees shall be as efficient as possible and shall enjoy the confidence of those who appear before them, and I will most carefully consult with any hon. Member in any part of the House on any method by which these Courts may be made as efficient and as respected as possible. I hope, therefore,

    Division No. 449.]

    AYES.

    [8.36 p.m.

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

    Groves, T.

    Scurr, John

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

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

    Sexton, James

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Amnion, Charles George

    Hardie, George D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Harris, Percy A.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Blleton)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Baker, Walter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Stamford. T. W.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Bromfield, William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

    Townend, A. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Varley, Frank B.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Viant, S. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dalton, Hugh

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

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Mackinder, W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Westwood, J.

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Duncan, C.

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Murnin, H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Edge, Sir William

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Palln, John Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifield

    Gillett, George M.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wright, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Sakiatvaia, Shapurji

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

    the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The concession offered by the Parliamentary Secretary is interesting but it is exceedingly vague and I do not think he has made out a good case for rejecting the Amendment. If substitution is permitted, as we propose, surely that will be a guarantee that a quorum will be present to constitute the Court. The person nominated will be taken from the rota of persons who have been approved to act as referees; nothing is altered, except that we make absolutely certain of getting a quorum. I am sure this method would have the confidence of all applicants and be preferred by them to any other method which can be suggested.
    Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 13.1; Noes, 233.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Galbralth. J. F. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Albery, Irving James

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Gates, Percy

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Apsley, Lord

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Penny, Frederick George

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Grace, John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Perrlng, Sir William George

    Atkinson, C.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grotrlan, H. Brent

    Pilcher, G.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pownail, Sir Assheton

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Preston, William

    Bennett, A. J.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Berry, Sir George

    Hanbury, C.

    Radford, E. A.

    Bethel. A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ramsden, E.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harland, A.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Remer, J. R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Braithwalte, Major A. N.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Robinson. Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Burman, J. B.

    Hopkins. J. W. W.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K

    Savery, S. S.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Huntingfield Lord

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

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

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Cope, Major William

    Lamb J Q

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courtauld, Major J. 8.

    Lister', Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon.-Sir Philip

    Suetel, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnibro)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Waddington, R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    McLean Major A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Drewe, C.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D steel

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Duckworth, John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wells, S. R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Marnesson. Captain D.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Ellis. R. G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge A Hyde)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Mond. Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Ford, Sir p. J.

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Forestier-Walker, sir L.

    Moore, sir Newton J.

    Wragg Herbert

    Forrest, W.

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I beg to
    1300
    move, in page 15, line 40, to leave out the words "is liable so," and to insert

    1301
    instead thereof the words "has been ordered."
    If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will find that the new paragraph reads:
    "If the employer, being a company, fails to pay to the employment fund any sum which it is liable so to pay under this Subsection, any director of the company may be brought before the Court and may, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that he knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, of the failure or neglect to pay the contribution or contributions in question, be ordered to pay the said sum."
    The wording of that paragraph will not do, for this reason, that the directors would be called before the Court and that means the Court where the question of the penalty was discussed. That is a Summary Criminal Court and in Scotland there is no form of procedure under which this claim could be properly put forward before the Summary Criminal Court. Consequently, the words
    "any director of the company may be brought before the Court"
    are not suitable and other words have been substituted. The effect of the three Amendments on the Paper on this point is that the sum unpaid is constituted a debt against the director and that debt can be recovered summarily in a Civil Court,
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 15, leave out from the word "Sub-section," in line 41, to the word "knew," in line 45, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "that sum, or such part thereof as remains unpaid, shall be a debt due to the unemployment fund jointly and severally from any directors of the company who."
    In page 16, leave out from the word "question," in line 9, to the end of line 11, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "and proceedings for the recovery of the said sum summarily as a civil debt may be commenced at any time within twelve months from the date of the Order for payment made on the company."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, in page 16, line 46, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and Sub-section (4) shall have effect as though there were inserted at the end thereof the words and as though in each of the said paragraphs (e) twelve months were substituted for four months'"
    1302
    This Amendment also is of a formal nature. It will be seen that, at the bottom of page 16 of the Bill, referring to Section 26 of the principal Act, it says:
    "In Sub-section (1) the words 'twelve months' shall be substituted for the words 'four months'"
    That means that contributions were to have a preference in bankruptcy to the extent of four months originally, and that under the Bill it is proposed to give those contributions a preference for 12 months. The alteration proposed in the Bill only provided, however, for the case of a company, and not for the case of a private person or firm becoming bankrupt. The Amendment now proposed is simply to insert words which will have the effect of making the provision the same for a company, a private individual and a firm, and the period of priority, instead of four months, will be in all three cases 12 months.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have had some cases where firms have gone into liquidation, and the first charge, when such a case goes before the Official Receiver, is the wages of the men. Whether that is the law in Scotland or not I cannot say, but so far as Wales and England are concerned it is. Under the present Bill, as we have pointed out to the Minister, the unemployment insurance contributions are the first charge while a man is working on his wages, but I should like to ask whether, if a company or firm becomes insolvent or goes into liquidation, the Government will now have the first claim on the firm, or whether the workmen's wages will have the first claim.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: My understanding is that there are four or five different claims, including Crown claims, that have preference, and one of those claims is wages. The contribution here will be preferred, with those other claims, before any other debts, but, if there should be a deficiency, they will each have to bear a pro rata diminution. That is as I understand it, and it is confirmed by information which has just been given me. The wages would rank pari passu, equally with the contributions. If there were sufficient to pay the wages and the contributions, no question would arise, but, if the funds

    1303
    were not sufficient for that, then all the preferential claims would be reduced in the same proportion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 14 to 25.
    This Amendment, which has been put down by myself, two of my hon. Friends, and three of my honourable opponents, has reference to Sub-section (1, b) of Section 47 of the Act of 1920, which reads as follows:
    "A person engaged in temporary work provided by a central body or distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, or towards the provision of which any such central body or distress committee has contributed under that Act shall not be deemed to be an employed person within the meaning of this Act."
    The addition proposed in the Schedule to the present Bill is an extension of this principle, which was accepted as regards the Act of 1905. From our experience of the working of the Act of 1905, there have been continual complaints with regard to people who have been working on distress schemes, and everyone in this Committee must know how very indignant are those people who have worked on these schemes at finding that their labour has been put into a different category from that of other people. No matter how hard their task may have been, nevertheless, because they were in temporary employment on a distress scheme, their labour was not reckoned as insurable employment. The Minister proposes in this Bill to extend that principle.
    There has also taken place in various parts of the country—I do not think it has been on a very widespread scale so far—an extension of what was done under the Act of 1925. In connection with this problem of unemployment, it has been said right through that what people desire is not a dole. Unemployed people do not want to get something for nothing; they want to get the opportunity of working, and also of maintaining their self-respect. Members of the House of Commons belonging to all parties have said a great deal in this strain with regard to the importance of the provision of work, and in some districts this opinion has culminated in attempts to provide work on various
    1304
    schemes. Local authorities have undertaken to put through certain works on condition that they receive some assistance from the Poor Law authority in regard to the payments in connection with the scheme. It has been done in so many places, and the question has arisen as to whether the people employed on those schemes were in insurable employment. They were engaged at the trade union rate of wages for the work, they worked as if they were ordinary workmen, and yet the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether it could be considered that they were in insurable employment or whether they were to be regarded as in the same category as the people who had been employed by central distress committees under the 1905 Act. Cases have gone to the umpire, and the umpire's decisions have been in favour of the men being regarded as in insurable employment.
    I think the Minister is proposing here to settle those cases in a different way from what they have been settled hitherto. He intends that they are to come under the same category as the 1905 Act. I dare say there might be some reasons adduced for that. It might be said that otherwise there might be an attempt by the Poor Law authorities to throw their burden on to unemployment insurance. I should like the Committee really to understand how difficult that would be. Under the new scheme of extended benefit, there is not so much possibility of anything happening in the way of a Poor Law authority throwing its burden upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There is another provision in the Bill which would militate against any Poor Law authority doing something which was not in accordance with good, sound, business and ethical principles in the fact that employment under the Bill has to be bona fide employment. There was quite a long discussion with regard to the carrying of this provision that the employment had to be bona fide employment. It gives the Minister sufficient guarantee with regard to the matter. After all, if there be this opinion among all parties in the Committee that an attempt should be made to provide work, this will be some encouragement to the Poor Law authorities and the local authorities to conceive of schemes which will be useful and will

    1305
    add to the real wealth of the district, and, consequently, to the wealth of the whole community.
    I want to appeal to the Minister not only on that ground but also from the point of view of the unemployed person. If he is put into the position contemplated by the Bill he is engaged on this work. It is not insurable work, and there is, to my mind, a sort of idea of degradation in it—it is something he has been put to; he is one of the miserable people, and society has practically no place for him, and we put him on to this—whereas, if he had worked at his own job that was going to add to the amenities of the district and to be of value to the whole community, we should recognise it as insurable employment and the individual concerned might maintain his self-respect. Therefore, whether you look at it from the point of view of the local authority or of the individual concerned, it is, surely, all to the good that the Minister should accept this Amendment and regard such employment as really insurable.
    The only real difficulty I can conceive in the way of acceptance of the Amendment is what it would mean to the Insurance Fund. You do not want to burden the fund unduly. After all, it is unemployment insurance, and you do not want to take away from your district local responsibility with regard to the provision of relief. But the responsibility of the district with regard to the provision of relief should be a responsibility towards the ordinary poor people in the district, and, after all, the State has to undertake its responsibility with regard to the able-bodied unemployed in the districts which have been most hard hit by this kind of unemployment. The overwhelming opinion of local authorities is in favour of this. I think 600 out of 625 boards of guardians are strongly in favour of the Amendment. The names appended to it are a testimony to the feeling that there is in the various districts. If the Minister would take the Whips off and leave the matter to the free vote of the Committee, I am confident that there would be an overwhelming opinion in favour of acceptance.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: My name appears as a supporter of the Amendment, and I wish to state the reasons why I do support it. The hon. Member has suggested that a free vote should be taken. I am quite confident that, if the Whips were taken off, the Amendment would be carried by a large majority, but I am hoping for something even better than that. I know the Minister has been carefully considering the matter, and I believe he will accept it, and our trouble will be at an end. I have had considerable experience of dealing with relief schemes both under the 1905 Act and later Acts, and I agree that the men who were sent on to relief jobs in the old days before the War regarded it as work of a rather degrading character. What were the jobs given them? Emptying out park lakes, digging holes and filling them up. It was work that was not at all pleasant, and the people engaged on it were not looked upon in the same way as ordinary workmen. There was this further disqualification when we got unemployment insurance on the Statute Book. As regards the schemes which this proposal of the Minister seeks to bar also from the Act, I say quite unashamedly that I was a member of the Committee which was the first in the country to bring schemes of this sort into being.
    I can assure the Minister that we did not do it with the intention of pushing the responsibility off our own shoulders on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That was not our idea at all. We received a Circular from the Ministry of Health suggesting that in future schemes of relief work should be based on a co-operative principle as between the Poor Law authorities and the local authorities. There was a very sound reason for that, because we were going in various directions, both doing the same job and probably not doing it quite as well as we might have done if we had joined forces and worked in co-operation. We followed the suggestion of the Ministry of Health and formed joint Committees to consider the question. Responsibility of finding the work, the real work that could be of some use to the public, was placed on the local authority. What the Poor Law guardians could find in the way of relief work was a job which was really a mechanical sort of thing, such as breaking stones, sawing wood, or making concrete slabs, and so

    1307
    on. But the local authorities could indeed find useful work which the men could take a pride in doing, and which, after all, would be regarded as a job completed and not merely as a matter of marking time. Therefore, the scheme that was brought into operation worked out very well.
    We were faced with this position, that many of these men—and I know it from actual experience—owing to the fact that they had been out of work for so long were not in a physical condition to do the same amount of work as the trained navvy, and therefore their earning capacity was not in proportion to the amount that they were going to receive, because we had decided, and rightly so, that the standard rate of pay prevailing in the district for similar work should be observed. The suggestion had come from the guardians that they would have to pay money to men in the nature of outrelief—not sufficient perhaps to do more that keep body and soul together—and that it would be much better if they contributed that portion towards the men's wages, so that the men could receive the full wages they would have received if they had followed an occupation at the standard rates prevailing in the locality.
    This scheme worked very well indeed, and I believe that it would have continued to do so if it had not been for certain people interfering and wishing to test these questions. They brought them before the Court of Referees. The Referee decided in favour of the men. I suggest to the Minister that the Court of Referees took the matter into full consideration, and reviewed the whole facts of the case. I take it that they were men of practical knowledge, and they came to a decision that in their opinion the men were entitled to have stamps on their cards and to receive the benefit of the work that they were doing. Again, if you put men on to relief work and say, "You are doomed to remain on relief work for six months, simply because you will not, if this proposal of the Minister is put into effect, be able to go back to the Employment Exchange and draw your unemployment pay," what chance are these men going to have of ever finding a job? If a man has done work for two or three months on relief schemes, I do not care who he is, he is entitled to be given a
    1308
    fortnight, at any rate, in which to try and find a job somewhere else. Do not let us have a man kept on relief work for all time.
    I do not say this from the local authorities point of view, although I gather that they do not look upon the proposal of the Minister with favour, neither the local authorities as represented by municipal corporations nor by the board of guardians. They believe that the best way to deal with this problem and to test whether a man really does want work or not is to give work to him. We say that you should not penalise a man for being willing to work. Let us for a moment look at the question from the men's point of view. I have talked to many of them and tried to find out what is their point of view on this matter. They contend, and I think it is a fair contention, that providing the work is in the insurable class, which most of the work that is now provided is, providing that they are taken on in the normal way, and providing that the rate of pay is the proper rate for the particular job, they should not be debarred from being considered as working in an insurable occupation, receiving the rate of pay observed in that special occupation. If you can prove that the job is needed, and it is a bona fide job, and to my mind these are the main essentials, surely a man has a right to have his card stamped and qualify for benefit. I hope the Minister will take the matter seriously into consideration and that he will accept the Amendment. If he does so, he will save a considerable amount of trouble. I know that in my own party there is a very considerable feeling in favour of this Amendment. I suggest to him that, as the schemes which are at present in operation are only something like 33, it is hardly worth while to put the Clause he suggests into a permanent Act of Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Department concerned is out to find even better kinds of relief jobs on which to place our men, and that the Department will get very busy before long. Let us have more of these schemes rather than fewer.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have never imagined that many of the boards of guardians and the local authorities who have been engaged in work of this kind have done it with any intention of taking an undue advantage of the Unemploy-

    1309
    ment Fund. I know of a number of them which have quite genuinely supported schemes for an excellent purpose; where there have been unemployed whom otherwise the guardians would have felt bound to relieve, they have said, "At any rate, if our relief is going to be given, some work might be done to earn it." Moreover, if a person who applies for out-relief is willing to work, that is the best test of genuineness that he can give. That is true, and I have never disguised my view that the offer of a job is the best test that exists. That is the case, I quite agree, for these schemes, of which there are only a limited number, and, from that point of view, I recognise the strength of the case. There is the consideration on the other side that such qualifications as are imposed—in this case it is the 30 contributions qualification are intended as a test to show quite clearly whether a man, judged by the kind of work that he does in a year or in two years, really is a workman in the field that an insurance system ought to cover. That, I think, is a perfectly fair criterion.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: In normal times.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAMD: I am talking of general principles. I will come to the question of normal times if the hon. Member wishes. In normal times, at any rate, it is quite a fair criterion. The hon. Member will realise that from this point of view the value of the 30 contributions does not lie in the actual pennies worth of stamps that would be on the man's card; it lies in the fact that the man whose card has these stamps upon it has done that amount of work in the ordinary course which would enable him to be considered a proper person in the insurance field in normal times. When it comes to these arrangements between guardians and local authorities, it is very likely that, in the majority of cases or in a large number of them, it might perfectly well be that you would get people so employed who in normal times would be able to get work and who might satisfy the ordinary criterion of being in the insurance field. On the other hand, you have to look to the possibility that in some cases under a particular scheme you might get people to whom a qualification is given which does not represent their real industrial quality. They might get a qualification
    1310
    in this way, but it would not mean that they would be workmen normally in the insurable field.
    That is the real difficulty which I have to face, and my difficulty is made material and tangible by the instances which I gave in the Debate on bona fide employment. I gave a case where one half-day's work a week for eight weeks was given to a man in order to give him a qualification. Quite obviously, a qualification of that kind would not be a qualification proving that the workman was of the kind who would be normally in the insurable field. It was obviously intended, as both the hon. Members who have spoken would admit, to give a qualification, but it was not a proper test of the workman's industrial quality or a test which should give him, so to speak, a valid qualification. I am faced with this difficulty on the one hand and I am faced with a difficulty on the other that I realise that a certain number of schemes have been perfectly genuinely entered into between local authorities and boards of guardians for two quite legitimate purposes—for giving work, and for making sure of the bona fides of the people who have applied to the guardians for relief. That is the sort of dilemma which I have to face.
    I readily admit the genuineness of the difficulty on both sides, and if it is the hon. Members' wish between now and the Report stage I will consult with them and I shall be perfectly willing to try to bring forward some kind of Amendment of this Clause which will meet the difficulties of the genuine cases of schemes which have been entered into not only legitimately but, I think, perfectly rightly between local authorities and boards of guardians. T will try to do that if hon. Members wish before the Report stage.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will consider schemes which have been entered into. Am I to understand that he will include any schemes in the future which may be entered into?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have to consult the Minister of Health, and I shall have to consult hon. Members. Then I will try to remedy any legitimate grievance that there is in regard to this point, before the Report stage.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is all very well, but we are going to be placed in another difficulty on Thursday. There are only two days between now and the Report stage, and that will be a congested day, and we shall be in the same difficulty that we are now in. Why should this difficulty arise? It is some days since the Association of Poor Law Unions went to see the right hon. Gentleman to put their point. He has had days in which to consult the Minister of Health. He has had time, had he chosen, to declare his intention to introduce in the Committee stage words which would have met the position. I am sorry that we have to be put in this position, because I am in a difficulty whether or not to advise my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. If I were satisfied that the case of the Poor Law Unions was to be met substantially—I am against the faked qualification—I should be satisfied; but we must be perfectly sure that so far as these schemes between local authorities and boards of guardians are concerned, they will be covered in whatever proposal is made. It we could be sure that where there are bona fide schemes which are being carried out, they will be covered, we should be agreeable to the course suggested, but I do wish the right hon. Gentleman had taken time by the forelock. Can he state specifically that all he is concerned about is to rule out the faked qualification?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is all that I am concerned to rule out. I wish to rule out the faked qualification. The hon. Member seems to think that I have had ample time and an easy and quiet week or 10 days.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: You had the whole of Sunday.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am shocked to hear that from a Scotsman. I might have imagined it as coming from a degenerate person South of the Tweed in the days before the deposited book.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: You had the Saturday night.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is sacred to the national poet, Burns. All that I am anxious to do is to try to prevent what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has described as the faked qualification. If hon.
    1312
    Members opposite will consent to let the matter remain, I will undertake to communicate with the hon. Member before the Report stage and to see that what I have suggested is done. I should have been very glad to have done it to-day had it been possible, because I do not want any more remnants left over than I can possibly help. The question of the faked qualification, and nothing else, is my reason for saying that I would like more time to deal with the matter.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: In the ordinary way it will not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to put an Amendment on the Paper before Thursday. That might be somewhat inconvenient to hon. Members; but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman and myself may consider the matter to-morrow and that the new Amendment will appear on the Paper on Thursday morning.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND indicated assent.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Then I advise my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Before the hon. Member withdraws the Amendment, I would like to have it made clear what the right hon. Gentleman means. He says that he is going to consult the Minister of Health. He mentioned that the River Tweed separates England from Scotland. That river also separates the Ministry of Health for England and the Board of Health for Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman consults the Minister of Health for England, will he also consult the representative of the Scottish Board of Health, because it is a very important matter as far as Scotland is concerned? I hope that if there is to be an arrangement it will be one that will apply equally to Scotland as to this country.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am far too sensible, by residence if not by constituency, not to include the country North of the Tweed in any arrangements that have to be made.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I wish to speak in the interests of necessitous areas, especially in Monmouthshire. The Minister pointed out that he had been busy during the last fortnight, but I understand that a deputation representing 600 boards of guardians met him on

    1313
    the 17th of last month, and he has surely had time to discuss the matter with the Minister of Health and the other Departments. I do not know whether he has seen the circular which was sent, but this was what it said:
    "I am directed by the Executive Council of this Association to inform you that they have the gravest objection to the Amendment of Section 47 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, proposed by Schedule 4, page 17, lines 14 to 25 of the Government Bill now being considered in Committee in the House of Commons, and I am to respectfully ask you to support the Motion of which notice has already been given that those lines be left out of the Bill."
    I understand that this deputation met the Minister who was very sympathetic, and I hope that he will really do something effective in order to meet the objection which is raised in the Amendment which has been moved.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I wish to say just one word after the pronouncement of the Minister. It was my intention to speak on the Amendment, but, after the very favourable announcement we have had from the Minister, I can only say that we are delighted to hear that he is favourably considering it with a view to action on the Report stage.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 26 to 34.
    The object of this Amendment is to deal with the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to limit still further the operation of Unemployment Insurance. As hon. Members will be aware, it is possible for a number of workpeople to be excepted under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Those persons are employed under Part II of the First Schedule of the principle Act of 1920 and one of the headings of excepted employment is employment under any local or other public authority. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is to make this exception read:
    "Employment under any Government Department (including any Department or Office declared by a Minister of the Crown to be under his ultimate control) or public or local Authority."
    In short, the purpose of this Bill is to exclude from the Unemployment Insurance Act certain civil servants and
    1314
    people who only by a great stretch of imagination could be called civil servants, because it obviously applies to persons employed by Government Departments or any Department or Office declared by a Minister of the Crown to be under his ultimate control. How far that may go I have not the faintest idea, but I can imagine it might be applied to the case of certain contractors of the Government, some of whom are under the ultimate control of certain Ministers or, at any rate, of the Office of Works. The view which we have broadly taken of that is that more people should be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act and not fewer, and all the Amendments that we have put down on this point have been to prevent the Minister limiting the number of people who come under the Act. If we were to have our ideal scheme, we should have one under which everybody came under the Act, and, therefore, on principle we object to any limitation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts by restricting the number of persons to whom it applies. It may be that this Amendment will apply to a very large number of people who are engaged in occupations which normally are insurable occupations, and to men who are not necessarily people who are likely to be employed all their working lives at the dockyards or other Government establishments. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should, by extending the number of excepted employments, have limited the number, of people who may take advantage of the benefits of the scheme. It may be that the Minister has certain reasons on his side, but it has not been made at all clear, and with a view to expressing our attitude on this, and in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he should have made these exceptions, I beg to move this Amendment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The explanation is a simple one. There is no intention whatever of excepting large new classes, and, much less, people who in the normal course of employment would be in an insurance scheme, and might reasonably come under any ordinary system. I think that is really sufficiently safeguarded by the concluding words of paragraph (d) of Part II of the First Schedule of the Act, because for

    1315
    anybody to come under that paragraph the employment has got to be such that the Minister shall he able to certify that the employment is, in his opinion and having regard to the normal practice of the employer, permanent in character, and so on. That would rule out at once those classes about the exception of whom the right hon. Gentleman is apprehensive. The main scope of the Amendment really concerns what is known as the new P class of civil servants. As everyone in this Committee is probably aware, at the present moment the ordinary established civil servants are not insurable at all. On the other hand, excepted employments up to now included those who have got permanent employment under local or other public authorities. Since 1920 we have seen the new class of P employés in the Government service. They are not established civil servants in the ordinary sense, but their employment is permanent. Consequently, this is not so much the creation of a new class of excepted persons under the Act, as assimilating to those already excepted this class which has been a growth since 1920. It means that the ordinary P class—permanent but not established—of persons in the Government service shall he assimilated to the condition of the permanent employés under local authorities. That is really the whole effect of this Clause, which concerns the P class and a handful of others of a precisely similar character, for example, those in employment under the Crown agents whose tenure and prospect of employment is a permanent one. That is the whole effect of the Clause. It does not do any more than do away with what is an anomaly which has arisen, at any rate in its present proportions, since the principal Act was passed, and it gives to those permanent servants of the Crown who are not established civil servants the same advantages.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the position of those in the railway service? Is it a period of three years?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are like those in the permanent service of local authorities, and they contribute for three years to start with. That is the whole scope of the Amendment, and I hope it makes the position clearer.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: May I put a concrete case? What would happen in the case of the people at Woolwich? They are not subject to dismissal except for misconduct or neglect in the performance of their duties. Would not the right hon. Gentleman certify that they are in this particular category; and would they be insured? Are not those in the dockyards in the same position?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those in the dockyards are not established civil servants, or what are called the new P. class. I am speaking within the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who is more conversant with these matters than I. The new P. class is a perfectly distinct class. In our own employment at the Ministry of Labour we have a considerable number of them, and it is proposed to assimilate the conditions of their service to the conditions of permanent servants under local authorities.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is why I put the case. They are not in the P class, and it is not clear that they would come under the terms of the Bill.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is interesting, but what we are concerned with is how these words will be interpreted. It says:
    "Any Government Department (including any Department or office declared by a Minister of the Crown to be under his ultimate control)."
    The dockyards are under the ultimate control of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he lets us know they are whenever we visit him on questions of conditions and wages. This would certainly be interpreted as meaning that the First Lord has control as far as dockyards are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has said that men in the dockyards are not established in the same sense as civil servants, but I would remind him that Hinder the Trades Disputes Act they are established, and treated as such. We want the position made a little clearer.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I hope the Minister will answer the question that has been put to him.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think I have answered that question already.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: These men cannot be established under one Act and not established under another.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I should like to know whether there are any safeguards against dismissal. The Minister of Labour has spoken of the permanent staff in the same category as the established class, and I should like to know whether there are any safeguards against the dismissal of these permament men. I have no desire to go into the Lobby against the Government, and shall be glad if we can have a satisfactory answer and the position made a little clearer.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I fully appreciate the Minister's guarantee. My difficulty, however, is the same as that of the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). It is all very well for the Minister to give us an assurance on this point, but it is not an assurance that the Act will be interpreted in this way. The proposal of the Minister says:
    "Any Government Department (including any Department or office declared by a Minister of the Crown to be under his ultimate control) or public or local authority."
    I understand that this refers to people who approximate to the P class; a new class created some years ago. They are not pensionable, although they are in full time steady employment and are not likely to be dismissed. As regards pensionable rights they are practically civil servants. Take the case of a man employed by the Post Office, either as an electrician, or a tradesman. Is it intended that he should be included? We are quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's guarantee, but we are anxious as to how the umpire will interpret this provision. I can quite see the position of the dockyard worker and those men employed by the Office of Works, who have never been established but who have been employed for 20 and 30 years. I want to know whether they come under these provisions.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The point is that they do not, unless they belong to the new classes. It is the object of this provision to bring the P class in, together with one or two other classes like those employed by the Crown Agents, who are permanent in the same way as those of the P class. It is these distinct classes which this provision is intended to cover. Persons employed under the Crown really fall into three categories, established civil servants, the new P class and
    1318
    others, and those who are not in the new P class or in the Crown Agents' Office. The last class will continue in ordinary insurable employment as before.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We quite accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but we are anxious as to the interpretation which will be put upon the Bill itself, and we feel that the words can be read to mean a host of people whom the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to touch.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: May I most respectfully point out that under the Trades Disputes Act, with certain clearly defined exceptions, men in the Royal Dockyards are established, and under any interpretation in a Court of Law, under this provision, these men can be said to be under the ultimate control of a Minister of the Crown. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the matter should be cleared up.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite willing to make it as clear as I can. Let me repeat what I have said. You have now three classes of persons in Government employ, one, established men, including those established at the dockyards. Established people are not insurable. Then you get excepted employments, which up to now have included railways, and also permanent servants of local authorities. In that second category we wish to put the P class civil servants and those who are like them in the Crown Agent's Office, that is those who are permanent but not established. Thirdly, those who are neither permanent nor established, even though their continuity of service may have been a long one in fact; as these are not on a strictly permanent basis, they will not come under this Sub-section. Is that clear now?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is quite clear. The only point that is annoying me is that I cannot read the Minister's interpretation into the Act.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is clear from the Act, because the conditions attached to paragraph (d) are these. It is employment under the local authorities, on the railways and so on, and says:
    "Where the Minister certifies that the employment is in his opinion, having regard

    1319
    to the normal practice of the employer, permanent in character, that the employed person has completed three years' service in the employment, and that the other circumstances of the employment in his opinion make it unnecessary that he should he insured under this Act.
    "Provided that where the employed person is not under the terms of his contract subject to dismissal except for misconduct or for neglect in the performance of or unfitness to perform his duties, the foregoing provision in respect to three years' service shall not apply."
    Those are the actual terms of paragraph (d) as amended by the Act of 1921, and in view of that I think the position is clear.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I see it now.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, at the end, to insert the words
    "and at the end of the said paragraph there shall he inserted the words 'and where a person serving under any public or local authority in employment which is excepted under this paragraph ceases to serve under that authority, and on so ceasing enters the service of another such authority, he shall, on entering the new employment, be treated for the purpose of the power of the Minister to certify under this paragraph as if he had completed three years' service in the new employment.'"
    The object of this Amendment is to secure that transferability shall take place without hardship as between the different authorities. The Amendment means this: Where a person goes from one local authority to another at the present time, apart from the provisions made, it has been a question whether he would have to serve three fresh years and have stamps put on his card by the new authority to which he goes. This proposal means that if he has served for three years under one local authority and become excepted and then goes to another, he can be excepted under the new authority to which he has transferred without having to serve three years again with the new authority. I hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask a question upon a matter that was brought to my notice only late this afternoon. The case was that of a man who has left
    1320
    his position as the servant of a railway company, with whom he has been for a long number of years, and who has gone to a local authority, in this case the Glasgow Corporation, to do the same class of work. He was an exempted person as a railway servant, and now he is being asked to serve his three years over again with the local authority. It was put to me that the railways should be put in the same category as regards transference as one local authority transferring a man to another. I have no-wish to oppose the Amendment, but would like an assurance on the point mentioned. In Scotland the old local rating authorities have been or are to be abolished. The rating authority was the parish council, but now the town council is to become the rating authority.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not answer the question offhand. If the hon. Member had given me notice I could have replied to him. I cannot answer in regard to a transfer from a railway to a local authority, but I can say to the hon. Member at once that, apart from any objection that might occur to me on subsequent consideration, it would seem to be fair that where there has been the three years qualification for exception under any authority the aggregation on transfer from one to another ought probably to be allowed. I will look into the matter gladly and favourably from that point of view, but I cannot say more at the present moment.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I think that he and others may take an assurance from the Act which was passed last year, the Act which amalgamated departments in Scotland, under which definite provision was made covering all local government officers and completely safeguarding all servants of this kind. What we have before us now is the removal of an anomaly under the Unemployment Insurance Act applying to a certain group of local government officers where you have a superannuation scheme permitting the aggregation of service. Local government officers contend that the service should be regarded as an entity and that a distinction should be drawn between the position of men who happen to be employed under authorities with a superannuation scheme and men who are under

    1321
    some other authority. Very largely because this Amendment removes that anomaly and allows the aggregation to run, we support it. The position of the man whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has in view is completely safeguarded in the appropriate Clauses of the Act amalgamating these Departments in Scotland which was passed last year.
    Mr. FENBY: I should like to say how much I appreciate the action of the Minister in introducing this Amendment. It seemed a strange thing that men transferred from one local authority to another should not have the benefit of their service under the authority which they are leaving. A man in such a position is taking his administrative experience to the new authority and it seems only proper that any service that was to his credit should be transferred to him under the new authority. This Amendment will meet a grievance which has been very much felt.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that any person employed in an excepted trade who may be transferred to some other trade which comes within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act, can come into benefit under that Act in case he is thrown out of work within a period of, say, six months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. That is not the meaning of the proposal. When a man has been in the employment of a railway company for three years his employment may be considered permanent and therefore for three years he pays contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act. After three years he is an excepted employé and contributions are no longer paid in respect of him. He passes out, as it were, into the excepted area. If, however, he gives up his employment in the excepted employment and comes back into a normal insurable trade within the ambit of the Insurance Act, then he must start again to acquire his qualification. The effect of the Amendment is quite different. It is something quite particular. It deals with the case of men transferred from one excepted employment to another and its effect is that if a person serves the whole of his qualifying period of three years, that period is carried to his benefit in his employment under the new excepted authority.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Supposing a man has been in an excepted occupation and has paid three years' contributions to the fund. If he fails to find employment when transferred to another excepted occupation and has to take work in an ordinary insurable occupation, what is to be his position?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: His position is safeguarded by the fact that no employment can be certified as excepted under this Section unless the Minister can certify that the employment, in his opinion, having regard to the normal practice of the employers, is permanent in character. It means that if he gets into one of these excepted occupations then ex hypothesi his employment is permanent in character, otherwise it would not be excepted under the Act.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM Mr. D. GRAHAM rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that this Amendment only deals with persons who cease to serve one public authority and enter the service of another. It does not cover the whole ambit of excepted occupations.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the question of men who were employed in railway companies.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that was only in answer to a particular question in regard to Scotland.
    Mr. GRAHAM: May I then ask whether in this connection it is intended to issue Regulations?
    10.0 p.m.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no need to issue Regulations. All this proposal does is to confer an advantage on certain people in certain excepted occupations by enabling them to aggregate their service on transfer from one to another.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 17, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Section 5…In Sub-section (3), after the word 'shall,' there shall be inserted the words 'unless otherwise provided for.'"
    The effect of the Amendment is to enable sums due to the National Debt Commissioners to be paid direct to the

    1323
    Commissioners, instead of toeing paid first to the Treasury and then handed on to the Commissioners. This is done already with regard to other payments, and the Amendment merely means that the same practice is to be followed with regard to repayments in the matter of the Insurance Fund.
    Mr. PALING: What is the particular virtue of this Amendment? The Minister said that instead of going to one Department these payments would go to another. Are we to take it that all the time the Act has been in operation hitherto the payments have gone through this channel?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is really a simple matter. This Amendment is intended to shorten work and avoid extra trouble. It will enable the interest on the Unemployment Fund debt to be paid direct to the real lenders, who are, as a rule, the National Debt Commissioners. At present the money is paid to the Treasury who pass it on to the Commissioners. The amount of interest payable will not be affected. The Treasury lend the money to the Unemployment Fund under Section 5, Sub-section (1) of the Insurance Act, 1921. Section 5, Subsection (2) authorises the Treasury to borrow the money necessary to make advances to the Fund, and under Section 5, Sub-section (3), the interest on such borrowings is charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund. When amended Section 5, Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1921 will merely read as follows:
    "The principal of and interest on any security issued under this Section shall, unless otherwise provided for, be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof."
    These payments have to be paid to the National Debt Commissioners, and the Amendment saves trouble by making the payment direct instead of going through a sort of circumlocution.
    Mr. PALING: In addition to saving trouble, will there be any saving in money?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it has no effect in regard to money at all except insofar as it is a saving of time and trouble.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I rise at this stag© to refer to two questions of substantial importance on Schedule 4. In the first place, it seems to me unfortunate that we should have had so many minor Amendments of the law thrown upon the Committee in this Bill, especially as a number of these so-called minor Amendments raise questions of very considerable importance. I should have thought that a good many of these Amendments ought properly to have been incorporated in the Bill itself. We are presented with an Unemployment Insurance Bill which nobody can understand, as a whole series, of Acts is involved, and the matter is further complicated by a long series of so-called minor Amendments, which make the position of the law even more complicated than it is at the present time. There is hardly any subject on which the law is so complicated as the subject of unemployment insurance. The law on this subject is now embodied in a whole series of legislative enactments, going back to the year 1920, and on the top of the present complicated legislation we have this Bill imposed with a whole series of minor Amendments. But it goes further than that. This Bill is intended to be a permanent Measure, a foundation for all time for unemployment insurance, and that being so, the Bill ought to have been a readable Bill, with all these minor Amendments incorporated in the body of it.
    My second point is the character of certain of the Amendments. We have more or less disposed of one to-night which would have made a very great change in the law, as it would have affected Poor Law authorities very considerably. That is not the only minor Amendment of very substantial importance in the Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he tries to carry through any unemployment insurance legislation in the future, will have regard to the limited minds of all Members in all parties in the House on this question. Certain of these Amendments have had to be subject to amendment since the Second Reading of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that the majority of the Amendments that the Minister has had to put down have been Amendments

    1325
    to the Fourth Schedule. That is scamped legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have produced a Fourth Schedule which stood in need of so many Amendments as he has had to introduce to it, to-day. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, so far as it affects the Schedules, they will see that on Schedule 4 the greater part of the space on the Paper is devoted to the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendments, with the result that at the moment nobody knows what Schedule 4 contains, unless they have got colossal, superhuman memories, and I think there is a certain justifiable criticism to be levelled against Schedule 4 being a Schedule to the Bill, having regard to the fact that, since he introduced it, the right hon. Gentleman has had to change his mind on several points. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on this side will pause before agreeing to this Schedule.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think I was the first Member of the House to call attention to this question of legislation by reference on the Second Reading of this Bill. This Fourth Schedule is really beyond all bearing. There are references in it to no fewer than six different Insurance Acts. In regard to the principal Act, the Act of 1920, we are referred 12 separate times to it, and in regard to the Act of 1921 we are referred three times to it; and on top of that, there are four other references to other Acts. I hope this will be the last time that this House will have to deal with a Bill drawn up by a Department in this way, because when the House has passed the wording, it can never be quite sure what the interpretation will be in a Court of law. It may be good for the Department, but it is thoroughly bad for the ordinary man and for the citizens who have to obey the law, and it is bad also for free discussion in the House of Commons. It is entirely out of all reason that hon. Members who have no legal knowledge should be expected to understand what they are voting for or against in a Bill drawn up in this way. I sincerely hope this will be the last time that any party will bring in a Bill drafted by a Department with so many cross references in it as this Bill contains.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I also want to enter a mild protest against a Schedule of this description, which occupies no fewer than six pages in the Bill, and makes, approximately, 23 or 24 different Amendments to six previous Acts of Parliament. It was quite impossible for any ordinary Member, to understand the Schedule even before amended, but after the Amendments that the right hon. Gentleman himself has been obliged to make, it is a thousand times more difficult. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, although there should scarcely be any need to do so, to the difficulty that is bound to be experienced by every Member of the House when he is called upon in two days' time to deal with the same Schedule on the Report stage. It is a physical impossibility for any ordinary Member, or, indeed, for the right hon. Gentleman himself, to have a thorough grasp of the whole of the implications of this particular and most complex Schedule, and yet we shall be called upon on Thursday next to deal with this Schedule; and it is fair to assume that we shall not have had it in our hands more than a few minutes beforehand. I think, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has just suggested, that this Fourth Schedule is the last word in impossible legislation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the earliest possible opportunity of having a consolidating Bill, so that people may understand what the different Unemployment Insurance Acts are driving at. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say with regard to the possibility of dealing with the Schedule on Thursday, but I think he ought to be the first to recognise the unfortunate position in which he places hon. Members, and I hope this will be a warning and that in future, at all events, notwithstanding any urge there may be from behind, he will bring his Bills before Parliament in an understandable form, so that intelligent discussion can take place, instead of bringing in a quite impossible Bill like this one, with this most impossible of all Schedules, Schedule No. 4.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I want to ask the Minister two or three questions with regard to this Schedule. Ever since the Bill was in my hands, I have puzzled over the precise meaning of the Amend-

    1327
    ment to Section 9 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923—"After the word 'fund,' there shall be inserted the words 'or to a local education authority.'" I cannot, with the best will in the world, understand why the local education authority comes into the Clause now. Then there is another thing, which I think is merely an instance of the Minister's feeling for a perfect literary style. What is the reason for the change from "local or other public authority "to" public or local authority," in Section 11 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921? I think there is merely a question of literary rhythm here. Am I right?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I said to myself when I read it that "local or other public authority" and "public or local authority" meant the same. It really seems as if the Minister cannot bear the slightest verbal blemish in his Bill. My third question is as to what are the precise effects of the introduction of the words "or on account of" in Section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922? I think it may or may not be a very important thing.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member lost her time somewhat, because she might have put her points as they came by, but I am willing to give her the meaning of them gladly. The reason the words "public or local authority" are being substituted for "local or other public authority" is that if you have "local or other public authority" the word "other" might mean that "other public authority" was local in character. In this case we have a "P" class of civil servants who do not belong to a local authority, but belong to the Government, and, therefore, "public" in that case might be construed as having a larger connotation, including the central authority, whereas in the other case it might be construed as merely applying to some other kind of local authority, though it was also public.
    Coming to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, Section 14, Sub-section (1), where, after the words "relief to" there shall be inserted the words "or on account of," this merely gives an
    1328
    advantage to the local Poor Law guardians, because repayment is often made in the case of unemployment benefit (when it has been subsequently decided to be payable) to the local guardians who had previously advanced money to some applicant for benefit. Some person makes a claim for benefit. The claim for some reason has not been decided. The claimant meanwhile goes to the guardians. The guardians advance some money. Subsequently the claim is decided to the claimant's benefit, and some of the benefit so given is repayable to the guardians who have advanced the money. The point of the alteration is this, that if it is merely payment back to the guardians for relief given to an applicant, it does not cover all the cases. Relief is generally given to the head of the family, but it may be on account of the members of the family and therefore this Amendment authorises a repayment to the guardians of relief paid on account of members of the family, as well as of relief given directly to the head of the family. As regards the third point, that there shall be inserted the words "or to a local education authority," that merely gives to a local education authority the power to recover money when it is acting for the Ministry of Labour. That is rather a loose expression. A local education authority under some circumstances pays benefit to juveniles on behalf of the Ministry of Labour. This Amendment gives it a power of recovery such as the Ministry of Labour has under similar circumstances.
    Those are the three conundrums the hon. Member has put to me. As regards the Fourth Schedule generally, I say at once that I do not think, so far as the Amendments to-night are concerned, that there is any Member of the Committee who will read the Schedule when it has been reprinted after to-night who will have any difficulty in understanding it—any greater difficulty in understanding it after it has been printed than he has had already in mastering it before this Debate. [Interruption.] I never meant to suggest for one moment that any Member of the calibre of the hon. Member on the other side had the least difficulty in understanding it for the purposes of this Debate. I only meant that he will find it at least equally easy to read to-morrow morning when he sees it in print. The

    1329
    whole of the Fourth Schedule is perfectly justifiable. There have been only one or two Amendments of substance. The Amendment with regard to seasonal trades is one, and that is an Amendment which is not of large character. Even the Poor Law Amendment is not an Amendment of the principle of the existing law. So far as the work used to be done by distress committees it was not insurable before; the Amendment is merely carrying out the principle of the existing law perfectly logically. Those who took exception to it were trying to establish a new principle; in itself it was not introducing any new principle.
    There are a number of other points with regard to the Fourth Schedule, but all, I think, are what I should call quite minor points. They are, for the most part, small points of procedure, items of procedure shall we say, common to the Ministries under the Health Insurance Acts and under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and they make the practice between the two the same. A Royal Commission on Health have recommended certain slight alterations which at some convenient moment the Ministry of Health wish to adopt. We adopt them in this Schedule in order to have the same procedure as they when they are able to adopt it. I suggest to the Committee that this is a perfectly right and proper place in which to put in small Amendments, which are not Amendments of principle, but Amendments moved in order to insure some uniformity on similar points by the administration of different Departments. On the whole Schedule, I think only two main points have been raised. The first is that the hon. Member talked about scamped legislation. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite consider that this Measure is a more intricate Bill than the Act of 1924. All I can say is that the Government Amendments to this Bill are not greater in number than the Government Amendments to the 1924 Bill, and I confidently believe that if they were totted up they would be found to be fewer.
    Of course, Government Amendments of some kind are perfectly right and desirable, unless hon. Members opposite contend that no Government should ever be willing to make any concessions of any sort or kind. As regards the form
    1330
    of this Bill, I quite agree with those who have described it as intricate. Every Act dealing with unemployment insurance has tended to be intricate, and this Measure is not unique in that respect. If ever it could be a matter of common consent on the three sides of the party triangle in this House to pass a Consolidating Act which does not alter the law, but merely writes it out in common, plain, straight, understandable English, not necessarily metrical or beautiful, but which is clear and concise, I should be the first to welcome such a possibility.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I must ask my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee to go into the Lobby against this false step and against the blind unreasonableness of passing a Schedule of this kind. When this Bill becomes an Act the people who have to administer it will find, if they want to refer to a certain point, that they are face to face with words of this kind.
    "In Sub-section (1) after the words 'within the meaning of this Act' there shall be added the words 'or
    (d) a person who has not been employed within the meaning of this Act for the prescribed number of weeks during any prescribed period'"
    Then they will be referred to the Act of 1920. They go a little further down, and they will come across another dozen or 20 different things, and they will find themselves wandering over the Act of 1921. How is the ordinary individual with a copy of the Act of 1927 before him after it has become law, to form the slightest idea of what the law actually is? It is really an unbearable thing. I am willing to march to the penitent form and admit that I brought in a Bill myself which legislated by reference, but every Bill which has been passed since that Measure has made things worse. My crime was bad enough, and no punishment would have been too great, but that is no reason why the present Minister of Labour should commit a bigger crime because he has a larger majority. How can anybody consent to this kind of thing going on?
    Let me take a case. A trade union secretary is approached by a member of his union, who thinks he has been badly treated by the Employment Exchange, and he asks for the secretary's advice. The secretary has to refer to the Act of

    1331
    1927 to find what is the condition of affairs, and he finds himself in a jumble of words which seem to have been deliberately contrived to hide the meaning of the draftsman. I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to have language which is not understandable in order that we should have a legal document. We want a plain statement in plain English, but I have no hesitation in saying that there is no man in this country who can pick up this Bill when it becomes an Act and find out what is the law. The Schedule we are now con-
    sidering is one of the worst in the Bill. It begins with the year 1920, and finishes with the year 1926. There is nothing in the Bill that tells you what it does.
    It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 1st December, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 143.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Rye. F. G.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Oakley, T.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Perring, Sir William George

    Savery, S. S.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Pilcher, G.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wells, S. R.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Preston, William

    Skelton, A. N.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Radford, E. A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ramsden, E.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wood, B. C, (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes. Stretford)

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

    Major Cope and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

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

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

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scurr, John

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barnes. A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith. Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda. West)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Clowes, S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawson, John James

    Varley, Frank B.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

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

    Duckworth, John

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Edge, Sir William

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    England, Colonel A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Forrest, W.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gosling, Harry

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Greenall. T.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Groves, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Edwards.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
    Question, "That this be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 1st December.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th November"].
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
  CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for public loans.)
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Might I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us any idea whether any special pieces of work have been put in hand for the purpose of finding employment—
  The CHAIRMAN: This Clause has only to do with the Title.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport tinder the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the Urban District of Fleet and parts of the Rural Districts of Basingstoke and Hartley Wintney, in the County of Southampton, and parts of the Rural Districts of Guildford and Hambledon, in the County of Surrey, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 28th day of July, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Tarporley and parts of the Rural District of Tarvin, in the County of Chester, and for the amendment of the Chester Electricity Orders, 1890 and 1923, which was presented on the 28th day of July, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the Rural District of Penybont, in the County of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 28th day of July, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Rural District of Gloucester, in the County of Gloucester, which was presented on the 28th day of July, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Criccieth, in the County of Carnarvon, which was presented on the 28th day of July, 1927, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.']

PASSPORT (MR. SAKLATVALA).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House, of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. SAKLATVALA: I hope the House will be indulgent enough to allow me to give an explanation of the questions arising out of the action of the India Office regarding the cancellation of the visa to my passport. Apart from the personal aspect, the matter has a very important underlying. principle for passports for British subjects travelling in British territory, and also as regards the great temptation that a Minister may have to get round the ordinary course of law and to exercise his political bias by using the passport instrument as an instrument

1337
against an individual who has no further appeal against the Minister's decision. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for India, during Question Time the other day unfortunately misunderstood me when he thought that I was charging him as a Minister of the Crown with a deliberate misstatement. That was far from my mind, and I hope the Noble Lord will accept that assurance.
He will appreciate the position in which he has placed me when for months, after persistent correspondence, after questions in the Indian Assembly, the Minister of the Crown absolutely declines to give me any reason for his action or to state to me the charge of which I am convicted and punished; and when he puts to this House statements which he has received from his subordinate officers he puts me in the very bad position of having to describe those statements as gross misstatements if I find them so from my knowledge of the facts. I did not thereby convey an allegation that the Minister himself was making a false charge against me, but only that he was repeating something that was untrue from what was supplied to him.
There is one further point in regard to this bar which has been placed against me in regard to my passport. The Noble Lord, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) stated, when this matter was previously discussed:
"as long as I represent the Secretary of State for India I can assure the hon. Member that I shall make no discrimination between persons inside and outside this House on the matter of passports to India."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1927; cols. 13 and 14, Vol. 211.]
It is not a question of discrimination. We all realise the fact that we take the consequences in law for our own actions, whether we are Members of Parliament or not; but it cannot be denied that there is this difference that, like some other officials of the State and like some other persons associated with other organisations, we who are associated with the British Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular have, as a matter of duty in carrying out our functions, to travel in various parts of the British Empire and to investigate certain matters, and I suggest that Ministers would be acting quite wrongly if they entirely disregarded that duty which de-
1338
volves upon us. If we are carrying out our duties wrongly we may be prosecuted, imprisoned and punished for it, but we ought not to be prevented from carrying out our duties because of the personal view of the Minister, especially when we have a Party system. A Minister is not an infallible being. It is quite a different thing when a jury or a Court delivers judgment; but for a Minister to act upon his own judgment, especially in a country where we have a party system, is an entirely unjust course to take, and I ask from the House protection in those circumstances, and not for any special protection.
I am in a very difficult position tonight, because there are many things which are fundamentally wrong in principle in the action taken by the Foreign Secretary on the advice of the Secretary of State for India. Unfortunately, the India Office has thrown out such a lot of incorrect statements—I unhesitatingly call them gross misstatements—that I am compelled first to put the truth before the House. I would contend that, even if everything that the India Office has said or has believed after the reports of their subordinates, were true, that would not constitute a valid reason for stopping a British citizen's passport for going to some part of British territory. Before I leave that argument, I suppose the House will permit me to state the facts as they are.
The Under-Secretary gave three reasons last time. The first was the objectionable character of my speeches, the second was some preface that he found attached to a book, and the third was a telegram, which he described in a peculiar manner, sent in certain circumstances. I do again put it, without meaning to give any personal offence to the Noble Lord, that taking his information from his Department, and following his advice blindly, without the elementary sense of justice of asking the accused person, he has simply let himself into a fix, where I hope he will find it difficult, for the sake of his personal honour, to continue to remain. I would take the last two points first, and I will treat the first point in the end. He said—and these are his words—that the character of my speeches
"Led the Government of India and my Noble Friend"—

1339
that is, the Secretary of State for India—
"to apprehend a breach of tranquillity."
Then he goes on:
"My Noble Friend's apprehensions were confirmed by the fact—"
and then he states what were the charges. I put it to the House that, in plain English, it can only mean that my speeches were of such a character that the Noble Lord had apprehensions of a breach of tranquillity, and then when he says those apprehensions were confirmed by my two acts, that can only mean that a breach of tranquillity did take place after my two acts. That is entirely untrue, and there is not a particle of justification for giving this House to believe that the Noble Lord's apprehensions were confirmed by anything that I did after coming to this country. I would ask the House to bear in mind that it is no argument for the stopping of a man's passports to India that a man can stop here and do something, but I would point out that the way in which the case is put to this House is a most unfair and unjust one, when it is said that those apprehensions were confirmed. If the Ministers came to that position from any reports, then I must say they have not carried out their duties as they ought to carry them out, because there have been no disturbances or breaches of tranquillity even after the two alleged acts, and so I say the manner in which this was put to the House is altogether unjustifiable.
I now come to the two acts. The Noble Lord says that those
"apprehensions were confirmed by the fact that after the hon. Member returned to England, he prefixed to an anonymous pamphlet which, inter alia, repeatedly emphasised the use of force by the Chinese Nationalists, these words: 'All I have to say to the people of India on this subject is, "Go and do likewise."'"
Later on, in answer to a supplementary question, the Noble Lord said:
"The hon. Member for North Battersea has never denied that he wrote the preface to this pamphlet."
His words almost amounted to the fact of my writing the preface to the pamphlet, and he says that I never denied it. That was the first time, the very first time, I had been told that I had written it. The question I am asking the House to follow rather closely, if they will do so in fairness and justice, is this, my first
1340
complaint is that sufficient investigation was not made. When a responsible person like a Member of Parliament goes to investigate into the conduct of officers of the Crown and is charged by a secret report of a subordinate official, the least that can be done is to ask the hon. Member whether he has done it. There were grounds for investigation. The pamphlet is anonymous; that is the first reason. Secondly, the Government are trying their best to discover the author of the anonymous pamphlet, and surely they would have said: "If Saklatvala wrote the preface to it he knows the author, or he does not know anything about the preface which he is alleged to have written." There was every ground for investigation. The case was presented to this House in an entirely unfair manner, even to say that a preface is written, or that I wrote it. The author of the pamphlet does not say that I have written the preface. Nobody who has ever written a book, or read a book, can take this pamphlet and call what the Noble Lord calls a preface, supposed to be written by me. The form of it makes it perfectly clear that neither the Secretary of State for India nor any of his officials were justified in calling it a preface written by me. It is difficult for me to produce in words the exact form and appearance in which it is written. Here is the anonymous pamphlet. There is a little square in a framework, and there is a sentence put in in inverted commas. I think the Noble Lord has a copy of it.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Yes.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. SAKLATVALA: If I could show it to any hon. Member of the House who is accustomed to reading pamphlets or books or prefaces, never mind writing them, they would see that it is quite unjust to say that I have written the preface. It is a sentence culled from one of my speeches, or from my private conversation or correspondence, from somewhere, and put on to this pamphlet, and for a responsible Minister of State to say that this is a preface written by me, then get hold of me and hang me at once, without trial or investigation, is exactly how the India Office treat Indians. For the Government, with their judicial officers, with the whole of their paraphernalia of Law Officers, to

1341
come to this stupid conclusion and to call it a preface written by me, is entirely untrue. This pamphlet as it stands was never known to me. This pamphlet as it was printed was never sent to me. I was not requested to read the preface. I had not written a preface nor does the author say I have written a preface. A sentence is here in inverted commas and that is called a preface by the Secretary of State for India. The Under-Secretary said "Why did I not refute it? How can I refute a thing when I have not the faintest idea that anything requires refutation? Was it known in England? I doubt it very much, because as soon as the pamphlet was published it was "pinched." The Government deprived the public of the opportunity of reading it and passing remarks about it. In between bouts of my work and my unfortunate illness I did hear from my secretary later on, towards the end of September, that two or three copies of the pamphlet were sent to me, addressed to me at the House of Commons, anonymously, without anything in them, and I began to look at it then, not because of the preface or anything at all, but because it was forming part of a case of sedition against a young Englishman—the first time, as far as my memory goes, that an Englishman has been charged with sedition against British rule in India, because for the first time he happens to be an Englishman belonging to the Socialist movement. He was not a member of the Communist party but of the Socialist movement.
A day, or perhaps a couple of days, before the Minister brought this subject forward in the House, the decision in this case was not given, and at any rate, if I were even ignorant of the fact that I should refute it, the Minister of the Crown ought to know that no one can go and refute something in a pamphlet on the subject of a very serious charge against someone. Not only was it a serious charge, but the man was not released on bail; he was kept for six weeks in prison before his trial. It was said to be a most serious offence that was going to issue in a sentence of transportation for life, and most exaggerated descriptions were given by the Government prosecutor. Then the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary very gravely
1342
asked the House why I did not, when the proceedings were still in progress, say something about the pamphlet, though that would certainly and undoubtedly prejudice the minds of any judges. But, apart from that, it would never dawn upon anyone. What am I to search for in the whole world, from my birth until to-day? It has been mentioned that the pamphlet contained a sentence about civil war and the reign of force in China, and the words "Go thou and do likewise." A father might give his son a life of Napoleon and say to him, "I hope you will be like Napoleon." Would that be seditious? Napoleon made war on England.
Without any sense or rhyme or reason or investigation they stopped me from going to India, and they try to make this House believe that an Indian who uttered the words "Go do likewise" is a most dangerous person to enter Indian territory. I have an Indian newspaper containing a speech by a gentleman who is a persona grata with the Government and who helps the Government in enabling them to make blood-thirsty speeches about communal differences and divisions in India. This speech was made before the Government had confiscated or tried to confiscate my passport—because I do not believe even now they are legally right. I do not believe their action is constitutional or even legal. The newspaper says that this gentleman
"who was the last speaker, spoke for more than an hour and a half. He urged every Moslem to carry a lathi"—
that is a big stick—
"and to keep a knife in his pocket and to eat beef to gain muscular strength. The Moslem women, he said, should not wear costly gold ornaments, but instead always keep knives with them."
A man can deliver a speech in India asking people to carry knives and he can stay in India, but because somebody gets hold of a pamphlet on Chinese civil war and a sentence is quoted "Go do likewise," therefore another person cannot go to India. Worse still, the Englishman who wrote the pamphlet which the Government describe as seditious and dangerous was brought before a Court of law, and the Judge and jury have laughed out of Court the contention of the Secretary of State and have discharged the accused. Thus the man who

1343
wrote the pamphlet can stay in India. The Judge and jury have declared that there is no danger in it, but the man, who in the imagination of a hasty-minded Secretary of State, has said something about that book is dangerous and is not allowed to go to India. Now comes the other point.
"Secondly, he sent in July a telegram conveying congratulations to an individual who had recruited a body of armed volunteers styled soldiers of the republican army of Nagpur and who had consequently been convicted on a charge of sedition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1927; col. 13, Vol. 211.]
I submit that the Under-Secretary of State for India is not a prosecuting counsel. Prosecuting counsel might be justified in misrepresenting or exaggerating cases, but I think it was very unfair for the Under-Secretary, with the facts before him, to have put that sentence to the House. The House trusts him to lay before them the facts. I cannot get complete copies, but I have here incomplete copies of leading newspapers in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras—the "Forward" of Calcutta, the "National Herald" and "Bombay Chronicle" of Bombay, and the "Swarajya" of Madras. I would pass on the whole bunch of them. The man who was prosecuted was the president of an extreme pacifist society, a Quaker of Quakers. It was the movement which Gandhi started even on top of what he called his non-violent, non-co-operation movement. From the first day of the news of the arrest, the newspapers had given great headlines to say that this was a pacifist movement. I am not going to quote at length, but there are newspapers from day to day each and every one of which said that it was a technical breach of the law to expose the partiality of the laws made in India as between white men and Indians. I would quote just one sentence from the speech of the Congress Leader who came specially to investigate this matter. He said:
"He has clinched the issue to the release of Bengal detenus and organised civil disobedience of the Arms Act for that purpose. The All-India Congress Committee owes a debt to the country now to take it as an All-India question."
There is not a single newspaper which from the first moment to the last day
1344
of the trial, and even for a couple of months subsequent to the trial, had not taken it as nothing else than the passive resistance of an extreme pacifist as a protest against the unjust character of a certain law when he took that action. Some of the accused, who merely apologised to the Government and said, "We will not do it again," were released, and 80 persons walked in the streets a month after the trial and challenged the Government on the same issue, and no action was taken against them. In Madras simultaneously there are reports in the paper to the effect that two persons walked in the streets with swords, and the people garlanded their swords, and there was no movement of armed volunteers for the purpose of killing; there was no such thing as armed recruits. At the same time there was another State prisoner who was released, and the whole of the country was honouring that prisoner. My telegram—I have not kept a copy of it—on which the Secretary of State took action, was a protest against the treatment of one man who happened to be a Parsee. It is the policy of the Government to pursue venomously, and with a spirit of vindictiveness, any Parsee who dares to go against the British Government, because they want to present to the world that the Parsees are worshippers of British rule; and while several women following the same procession were fined 10 rupees, and, when they refused to pay, were given a penalty of 15 days' imprisonment, this Parsee was punished by four years' rigorous imprisonment.
My telegram was to convey congratulations to the Sikh prisoner, who was unjustly imprisoned, and who, from pressure of public opinion, was released, and, secondly, to express my detestation at the barbarous and savage sentence of four years on this prisoner, and to convey my congratulations on the fighting spirit he had shown in carrying out civil disobedience against an unjust law. The Secretary of State knows all these facts, and he ought to resign if he does not. For the Under-Secretary to say that I sent a telegram of congratulation to someone who was raising armed forces is really misleading the House, and he is not carrying out his duties towards the House in a proper manner. The last

1345
point raised by the Under-Secretary was that my speeches were of an objectionable character. If my speeches were of an objectionable character, there would have been prosecutions. If there had been no prosecutions, there are English newspapers in India which have been bitterly opposed to me for the last 20 years. They would have created an uproar and exposed the dangerous character of my speeches. I challenge the Secretary of State to say there was one article produced, even in the most bitterly hostile Press about the dangerous character of my speeches. If anything, I was charged by the English papers with being so cunning that in India I explained Communism in a constitutional manner only.
I do not consider that the Under-Secretary, by making some further charges, can wipe out this question. I appeal to the House to demand from the Government the production of all the papers which the Indian Assembly demanded and which they refused, and of the correspondence between the Indian Government and the Secretary of State for India; and I am confident that, if impartial investigation is made with the assistance of some Members of the House, it will be found that it is nothing but a continuation of the policy which has been pursued to persecute me for the last 15 years of my life. The India Office has been in constant communication with my family, and my family has been in constant communication with the India Office; they kept me as a pauper and prevented me going to India. Now, with the assistance of my hon. Friends, I find a way to India. It is all in accord with the policy of personal vindictiveness against a Parsee who dares to explain the real and true character of the tyranny in India called the British rule.
Earl WINTERTON: A short time is left to me to deal with the case, and I want to make it clear at the outset that anything I have to say on behalf of the Secretary of State for India is directed, not against the hon. Gentleman personally, but purely in respect of the views which he holds in regard to India, not in regard to this country. I shall endeavour in the 12 minutes at my disposal to answer the charges that he has brought that his passport has been refused on insufficient grounds. In
1346
the first instance, may I explain what the procedure in this matter has been. The Secretary of State for India accepted the recommendation of the Government o£ India that, in view of the speeches made by the hon. Member, and the action he subsequently took when he went to India last year, it was undesirable that he should be given a visa for his passport to India. My Noble Friend passed on that recommendation to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with a strong recommendation on his behalf that the visa should be refused. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accepted the recommendation, and my Noble Friend has instructed me to explain to the House that he accepts full responsibility for the recommendation which he made. When the hon. Member went to India in 1926 he explained that the purpose of his journey was as follows. I am quoting from the statement which he made on applying for the passport:
"Settlement of important personal affairs and safeguarding the interests of my English-born children, and a family settlement of a Trust existing in India. Also a study of up-to-date political situation and atmosphere in India and of the present position of Indian labour in large industries of Empire importance."
Further, the hon. Member said:
"I am now a fully domiciled British subject. Since 1907 I have had no home or address in India, nor my parents had any in the later stage of their lives, and on death both my parents have been buried in England. Since 1906 I have continually resided in England, except for two or three visits, 1912 and 1914, to India."
My first contention is that the hon. Member's statement, unintentionally, no doubt, distinctly conveys the impression that he was going to India mainly for private business reasons and not for political reasons. [Interruption.] In point of fact, he made a long series of speeches in India, which the Government of India and my Noble Friend regarded as inflammatory, and it will be my duty to-night to quote to the House for their judgment some of the speeches which the hon. Member made, as reported in a number of Indian newspapers. Speaking at Bombay on the China situation on 6th February he asked his hearers to let the world know that Indians were being sent to China against the wishes of the whole of India to fight an unjust war. He reviewed in scathing terms Mr.

1347
Patel's acceptance of the Viceroy's decision to disallow the motion of adjournment of the Assembly to draw attention to the despatch of Indian troops to China. Mr. Patel is, of course, the President of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. J. JONES: Quote Lord Birkenhead's speeches in Belfast.
Earl WINTERTON: In the course of a speech which he delivered at Karachi on 10th February, 1927, he spoke of Communism and, referring to a visit he had paid to the national schools at Nagpur, he said the boys in these schools should filter into mills, factories and all avenues of labour and should unobtrusively spread Communism in preparation for civil disobedience. The meaning of civil disobedience is disobedience to law. Speaking in Calcutta, when addressing the All-Bengal Young Men's Association, he said—[Interruption]—I am sure the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) will appreciate the fact that I have a case to answer.
Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order.
HON. MEMBERS: Order!
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) must remember that some 35 minutes were taken in putting the case and only 10 minutes are left for a reply.
Mr. JONES: As we are having the quotation of speeches, I would like to know if we can quote similar speeches afterwards?
Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the sense of fairness of the hon. Member for Silvertown will allow me to make my statement in the few moments that are left to me. Speaking at Calcutta, the hon. Member urged young men to possess
"not only an open mind, not only a brave and courageous mind, not only an iconoclastic mind, but with it an almost revolutionary new mentality which would welcome any change."
He called his audience's attention to the extreme youth of the boys serving in the Cantonese Army and participating in the British Communist movement, and recommended that the youth movement in India should link up with the Young Communist League in England under the title of the Young Comrades League of India. After a
1348
eulogistic reference to what he claimed had been done by the Soviet Government in Russia in the cause education, the hon. Member spoke on the Bengal Ordinance. He said that the Ordinance was not the only form of terrorism.
"If you had a burglar in your house you had to make up your mind to put your wife in a place of safety, go upstairs and turn the fellow out, fully prepared for the rough time which he would very likely give you. There was only one law in this country, and that was that Might would continue to be Right."
He said that
"they could get Swaraj in a month; it required a revolutionary mind, a mind prepared to sacrifice everything, even life if required, for the sake of the country."
If that is not an inflammatory appeal, I do not know what is. There are a great many other quotations which I could give from the hon. Gentleman's speeches, but I will now turn to the question of the pamphlet. I gather from the hon. Member's speech that he denies he wrote the foreword to this pamphlet. The pamphlet is here and I am prepared, if any hon. Member wishes, to lay it as a Paper in the Library. It is called "India and China. With a Foreword by Shapurji Saklatvala, M. P." Inside is the foreword:
"All I have to say to the people of India on this subject is 'Go and do likewise.'"
[Interruption.]
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my sentence. He has taken up 35 minutes in delivering his case and has left me 12 minutes in which to deal with mine. If the hon. Member did not write the foreword, and if the statement on the pamphlet itself is a forgery, why did he not deny the fact weeks and months ago when Mr. Spratt, to whom he referred in his speech, was being tried, and when both the prosecuting and defending counsel accepted as a fact that the hon. Member did write the foreword; and will he now take legal action for the unauthorised use of his name against the gentleman who published the foreword? [Interruption.] Let me tell the House this: It is published by a gentleman who is a political associate of the hon. Member for North Battersea. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he did write the foreword and sent it to Mr. Mirajker, who is the gentleman who published it. Does he deny it?
Mr. SAKLATVALA: I entirely deny it and say that in the pamphlet itself the sentence is culled from somewhere and put in in inverted commas.
Earl WINTERTON: If that is so I hope the hon. Gentleman will take action against—[Interruption.]
Mr. J. JONES: Why do you not take action? [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members might allow the House to hear what the Minister says.
Mr. TOWNEND: Is it possible for any action to be taken?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is dealing with the denial of the hon. Member for North Battersea.
Earl WINTERTON: Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the statement on this pamphlet that he wrote the foreword is untrue, and all I say is that I hope he will take action. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; you take action!"] If the hon. Member is not prepared to take action against the friend who published the pamphlet with the foreword in it—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a quotation!"] It is not a quotation. Will hon. Members allow me to read it? The pamphlet is published as follows:
1350
"India and China With a foreword by Shapurji Saklatvala, M.P."
I will make it my business to put a copy of this pamphlet in the Library so that the whole House can see it. [Interruption.] There is only one other point, and I have only a minute in which to deal with it. The hon. Member sent the following telegram of congratulation to a Communist who was convicted of a most serious offence, and who is now undergoing imprisonment. He says:
"The Communist party of Great Britain denounces the Government's sentence on the brave citizen Mr. Manchersha Avari, and offers congratulations to Sardar Avari and Captain Chatoorbai on the new movement against the Arms Act, and hopes that every true Congressman will join it."
I say that in these circumstances the Government of India were fully justified in not allowing the hon. Gentleman to go to India and exacerbate the already serious situation there. Let me tell him that as long as he continues to take the action he has taken in the past in India, he will be refused a visa for his passport.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question, put.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY.
  AGED EMPLOYÉS.
  AGED EMPLOYÉS.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CARPETS (IMPORTS).
  CARPETS (IMPORTS).
  SHIPPING RATES.
  SHIPPING RATES.
  LOCAL RATES.
  LOCAL RATES.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SHOREDITCH).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SHOREDITCH).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (ADMINISTRATION).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (ADMINISTRATION).
HOUSING.
  SHOREDITCH.
  SHOREDITCH.
  RURAL WORKERS ACT (SCOTLAND).
  RURAL WORKERS ACT (SCOTLAND).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS OFFICERS, DEVON.
  TUBERCULOSIS OFFICERS, DEVON.
  CONDENSED AND DRIED MILKS.
  CONDENSED AND DRIED MILKS.
  SMALL-POX (LINCOLN).
  SMALL-POX (LINCOLN).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  OUT-RELIEF.
  OUT-RELIEF.
  AGED WORKERS.
  AGED WORKERS.
  SCHEMES.
  SCHEMES.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  STATISTICS (DEWSBURY).
  STATISTICS (DEWSBURY).
  ALIENS ACT.
  ALIENS ACT.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  BAND CONTEST, CRYSTAL PALACE (BROADCASTING).
  BAND CONTEST, CRYSTAL PALACE (BROADCASTING).
POST OFFICE.
  CHRISTMAS ARRANGEMENTS.
  CHRISTMAS ARRANGEMENTS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
SCOTLAND.
  EDUCATION (COST).
  EDUCATION (COST).
  SCIBERSCROSS FARM, SUTHERLAND.
  SCIBERSCROSS FARM, SUTHERLAND.
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (WAGES).
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (WAGES).
  EDINBURGH VETERINARY COLLEGE (GRANTS).
  EDINBURGH VETERINARY COLLEGE (GRANTS).
  AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT.
  AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT.
  DESTITUTE PERSONS (RELIEF).
  DESTITUTE PERSONS (RELIEF).
  WOMEN POLICE (BARNES AND MORTLAKE).
  WOMEN POLICE (BARNES AND MORTLAKE).
  LICENSING LAWS.
  LICENSING LAWS.
  IRAQ (LEAGUE OF NATIONS, MEMBERSHIP).
  IRAQ (LEAGUE OF NATIONS, MEMBERSHIP).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS).
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  COTTAGE AND SMALL HOLDINGS (LANCASHIRE).
  COTTAGE AND SMALL HOLDINGS (LANCASHIRE).
  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  SOUTH-EAST ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
  SOUTH-EAST ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
  ROAD TRAFFIC (STATIONARY TRAMCARS).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (STATIONARY TRAMCARS).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Annesley (V. Valentia)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, in accordance with a promise which I made yesterday I have furnished myself with a few notes as to the business which it is intended to ask your Lordships to transact before the Christmas Prorogation. I am afraid the bill of fare which it is my duty to offer to you does not err on the side of being too small, and I would only beg your Lordships to realise that I am not, nor is any member of your Lordships' House, responsible for the crowding of the business at this period of the Session to the extent to which I shall have to call your attention.
As the House is already aware, on Thursday and Friday of this week we intend to get through the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill, and on Friday, I am afraid, I shall have to ask your Lordships also to take the Report stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill. Of course we shall be prepared to sit after dinner on Thursday, but that depends on what your Lordships wish. On Friday we shall meet earlier, namely, at the ordinary-morning sitting time of 11 o'clock, and we will continue as long as is necessary in order to finish the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill and get through the Report stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill. That will finish this week. As to next week, the first three days, as the House is aware, have been allotted to the Prayer Book Measure—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday, we are able to assure your Lordships, we shall be able to present the Unemployment Insurance Bill for Second Reading and on the same day I shall

515
try to get the Report of the Landlord and Tenant Bill. I put it in that tentative way because it is obviously possible that the discussion on the Unemployment Insurance Bill may take so long that it will be impossible to take the Report of the Landlord and Tenant Bill that day. In that case it will have to be put off till the following day—Friday of next week.
I come now to a number of other Bills, not of the first importance, yet matters of substance. There are the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill and the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill. Those Bills are not yet through the House of Commons and therefore one cannot say with certainly when they will be ready for consideration by your Lordships, but I hope that they will be ready by Friday in next week for Second Reading. In that case they will all be put down on the Order Paper so that, if possible, we shall be able to take them. Then on Monday, the 19th, we hope to take the Unemployment Insurance Bill in Committee. That, as your Lordships will see, will leave a considerable time between the two stages—not too much, but still the Second Reading will be on the Thursday and the Committee stage on the Monday. On Tuesday, the 20th, we propose to take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in Committee and other Bills, on the 21st, the Unemployment Insurance Bill on Report and other Bills and on the 22nd the Unemployment Insurance Bill on Third Reading. That will leave only one day, and I do not think that that is more than enough margin considering the very large amount of legislation which is presented to your Lordships. Of course it is always possible that your Lordships may amend these Bills. Indeed, in regard to many of them it is to be hoped that you will. I have no doubt you will do them good. Then they would have to go back to the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, one thing is obvious and that is that the Government began these autumn sittings much too late having regard to the very large programme of Bills with which they were loaded. Well, that is over and we say no more about it now, but it is a warning to us in future. The programme
516
which the noble Marquess has put before us is certainly one which is likely to last up to the 23rd. If necessary we shall have to sit after Christmas or into Christmas to do it. For myself, lather than that these Bills should perish, I am quite prepared to come here on Christmas Day. But at any rate we have got to get through these Bills somehow, and I think it is no use trying to make forecasts just now of how things may stand. There were four Bills to which the noble Marquess alluded, four minor Bills which ought to go through very quickly. I have observed that the prospect of an impending vacation does accelerate the progress of Bills through this House more than any other consideration which I have experienced. Anyhow, we must hope for the best. We must use up the time. The Unemployment Insurance Bill is a very serious Bill, which may require a good deal of discussion on the Second Reading and in Committee, but except for that I do not think the estimate which the noble Marquess has made is an extravagant one. Anyhow, we of the Opposition will do our best to assist the general purpose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount has said in regard to the minor Bills enumerated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. The real difficulty which I think may occur is in regard to the possibility of Government Amendments. I am very glad, if I may say so in passing, that the noble Marquess corrected what I thought at one moment was his intention, that there should be an after dinner sitting on Friday. An after dinner sitting on Thursday, yes, but an early sitting on Friday is the usual custom of the House. The real difficulty may be in regard to Amendments which the Government may desire themselves to introduce. On one or two of the Bills which have lately come before your Lordships' House—the Cinematograph Films Bill, for instance—there has been a long list of Amendments proposed by the Government. The Amendments may not necessarily be on points of importance, but there were a number of them.
I doubt a little bit whether in these circumstances we shall be able to get through the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill in a single day. If the Second Reading is taken on

517
the Thursday we only have the one sitting day in which we may put down Amendments in order to consider them before they come up for discussion in the House. The suggestion I would venture to make is that perhaps the Report and Third Reading stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill might be taken on the same day. I do not think there would be very much objection made to that. The fact of the matter is—and it does case the situation—that we are living, as my noble friend Lord Carson pointed out, under a system of single chamber government at the present time and Amendments moved in this House are not generally accepted by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will gladly consider, if it is the wish of the House, whether it would be possible to save time by telescoping two stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill together according to the suggestion of the noble Earl. If that is found possible I would certainly avail myself of it. I am encouraged by what has been said by the noble Earl and the noble Viscount as to the facility of getting through the smaller Bills, to mention what I hardly dared mention before, that there are one or two other smaller Bills which it will no doubt be in the interests of the country to get through if there is any possibility of doing so. I am sure your Lordships will realise that I speak of them in a very doubtful sense, but I may just give the titles of them. There are the Destructive Insects and Pests Bill, the Road Transport Lighting Bill—your Lordships are probably familiar with its main provisions, which are very simple—the Mental Deficiency Bill and the Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill. These Bills are not yet through the House of Commons of course and one cannot speak with any confidence about them, but supposing they were non-contentious in your Lordships' House perhaps the Government may ask you to agree to them.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I would ask in regard to that last list whether the noble Marquess has considered a Bill which has already, I think, passed this House, for adding two Indian Judges to the Judicial Committee? That would not delay us much. I hope that Bill will be passed this Session. It is very vital.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
ROYAL EDINBURGH HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL AND NERVOUS DIS- ORDERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Schedule, page 3, line 4, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-division").
Page 4, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("article").
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("section") and insert ("article").
Page 17, line 6, after ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of article 7 of this Order").
Page 17, line 7, leave out ("December 1927") and insert ("January 1928").
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("November") and insert ("December").
Page 18, line 30, leave out ("December 1927") and insert (""January 1928").
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("October") and insert ("April")
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("Twenty-seven") and insert ("twenty-eight").
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SUTTON COLDFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Schedule, page 4, line 16, leave out ("compilation")
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("of each")
Page 18, line 22, leave out ("Act of 1894") and insert ("Poor Law ACT, 1927")
Page 20, line 15, alter ("1888") insert ("as set out and modified in the Third Schedule to the Poor Law Act, 1927")
Page 20, line 16, leave out from ("adjustment") to end of line 18.
Page 21, line 9, leave out ("twenty-seven") and insert ("twenty-eight")
Page 21, line 13, leave out ("twenty-seven and of later registers") and insert ("twenty-eight")
Page 21, line 16, leave out ("twenty-eighth") and insert ("twenty-ninth")
Page 21, line 17, leave out ("twenty-seven") and insert ("twenty-eight")
Page 21, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 25 inclusive.
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)")
Page 21, line 38, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)")
Page 21, line 45, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)")
Page 22, line 1 leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)")
Page 25, line 2, leave out from the second ("the") to the end of line 3.
Page 25, line 2, line 4, leave out ("of")
Page 25, line 2, line 6, leave out ("or") and after ("1894") insert ("or the Poor Law Act, 1927")
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the proposal of the
520
railway companies to use road transport without any restriction, and to ask what is the attitude of the Government towards such a radical change in the powers of the companies; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this subject this afternoon in no spirit of hostility to the great railway companies but as a matter of considerable public interest. No doubt your Lordships will have noticed that the four great railway companies have given notice that they intend to apply through Bills which they have deposited for the removal of all restrictions on road transport run by them. This is not the first time that they have made that application. In 1920–21 there was an inquiry by Sir Balfour Browne as to the road conveyance of goods by railways, and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, in 1922, applied for the removal of restrictions and the enlargement of their powers. In the second case the application was withdrawn eventually because the Ministry of Transport, through Sir J. G. Beharrell, then an official of that Ministry, decided that it would be fair to the railway companies to charge for road transport the same rates as they were charging for rail transport. The company decided that in those circumstances it was not worth while to proceed and so the matter was dropped.
I have said that I bring this Motion forward in no spirit of hostility. From the point of view of the railway companies I think they are quite right to ask for an enlargement of their powers, and my only wonder is that they did not do so long ago and bring it to an issue. The position to-day is this. The railway companies now can run any road transport service they like so long as it is in connection with their existing rail services. We know that in London and all big towns and in many country districts the railway companies employ their own vans and deliver from the terminus or the local station to your door. But it has been held that they cannot, for instance, take a parcel or any form of goods from places in which the traffic does not originate on their own railway. As a matter of fact, I am informed that at present this restriction, such as it is, is being daily infringed in a good many instances. I presume that the Ministry of Transport on large public grounds are winking at this infringement and, as in many cases

521
it is in the public interest, nobody has yet raised any serious objection to it. There is a popular impression, which, like many popular impressions, is erroneous, that the railways have been hardly dealt with in this matter and that they cannot run road transport. To-day they have well over 35,000 of their own vehicles using the roads of which between 3,000 and 4,000 are motor vehicles and the balance are horse-drawn vehicles. This will give your Lordships some idea of the size of the present road transport industry carried on by the railways. They are in fact many times bigger as a road transport organisation than any other single transport organisation in the country.
It is worth noting that the railway companies already make this considerable use of the road. No doubt your Lordships know that they have in many cases done useful work in coupling up their local services with main line stations. In the West of England the Great Western Railway and the Southern Railway have an excellent system of motor coaches, and in many other parts of the country the railways are branching out into this class of business. If this process is to be carried on it is only fair that the position should be regularised and that Parliament should be asked on what conditions the restrictions are to be withdrawn. At present the restrictions are not uniform. There are companies, like the North Staffordshire Railway Company, which have full powers and do not require any extension. There are others which have hardly any powers. Conditions differ with the various companies.
It has been claimed by the railway companies with some show of justice that they ought all to be allowed to have unrestricted powers because they pay a considerable amount in highway rates. It should be remembered in this connection that the 31,000 or 32,000 horse-drawn vehicles which they employ on the roads, unlike motor vehicles, pay nothing towards the upkeep of those roads, and this may be regarded as a considerable set-off against the highway rates that are paid. I may go further than that. When this question was threshed out before a Parliamentary Committee on May 17, 1922, Mr. Macmillan, counsel for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, admitted that out of a total of £2,106,000 paid by his
522
company, only £325,671 was for highway rates, or about 15½ per cent, of the total paid. Less than one-half of that sum of £325,671 was paid on the actual track. Most of it was paid on buildings, warehouses, hotels, houses, cottages, and so on, owned by the company. In other words, any other person or company owning such buildings would have had to pay those rates.
The amount of the contribution of the railway companies to road rates has been given at various figures, but I find after careful investigation that out of £8,000,000 paid annually in rates by the railway companies, £1,200,000 at the outside is paid in road rates. Not more than 50 per cent. of the road rates is paid on the railway tracks, or £600,000. That is just over 1½ per cent., or 3½d., in the £ of their net revenue of £41,000,000, and is quite a small proportion of their total expenses—so small a proportion of the sum which they spend annually that the point becomes insignificant. I do not think that this can be considered an unfair contribution for the railway companies to make, since their traffic both in goods and passengers is entirely dependent upon access by road to their stations and depots. It is not an extravagant contribution to the roads of this country that they should pay about £600,000 a year in road rates. I wanted to give the House some idea of the position of the railway companies in regard to road rates, because it has been quoted by some of my noble friends who are railway directors, and by the Press, as an argument for the wide extension of their road-using powers.
The application for wider powers only follows the precedent set in almost every other country in the world. For instance, in France you see the amount of road transport used by railway com panes increasing every day. We see the most excellent services for tourists run by the P.L.M. Co. from Central France to the Alps, to the neighbourhood of that well-known place, Geneva, and right away to the Mediterranean. They have shown great enterprise. In other countries the same kind of development has taken place, and in the United States the motor trucks operated in connection with the railway services number 225, with a route mileage of 4,226

523
miles, but the motor trucks taking goods in competition with railway services number 43,207, with a route mileage of 607,000 miles. While the motor omnibuses are comparatively little used the motor truck has established itself already very well in connection with the railway companies' services. In the United States also there are 1,253 omnibuses operating in connection with railway services and 19,099 in competition with the railways; and, without going into long details, I may say that there is a great tendency in the United States towards friendly working between the road transport interest and the railway transport interest. There are over sixty steam railroads in the United States which have these powers, and in many cases instead of being hostile to the road service they regard it as of more value to them than a branch line, because the expenses of detailed distribution are not so heavy.
In this country the number of motor vehicles is increasing at a very great rate. Over 4,000 more vehicles a week are being placed upon the roads, and the railway companies are right in trying to face the competition, or to find a way round or out of it. In many other ways motor transport is producing curious and novel effects. It is said to be emptying our churches on Sundays and our theatres on week-days. It is said to be diminishing the receipts of race courses, and the proprietors of pleasure boats on the Thames complain that their traffic has diminished because of the wicked motor omnibuses. It may also be accused by noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench of being an enemy of municipal enterprise, because it is in many cases killing the tramways and preventing them from being municipal assets. I think that the tramways will die in any event in the end. This all means that a natural evolution of transport is taking place. As soon as any old-fashioned concern feels the effect of competition there is great talk of co-ordination or co-operation, dislike of competition, and an endeavour as far as possible to curb the activities of the new enterprise. That has been so in all other forms of commercial enterprise. In the same way there is the competition of cable versus beam telegraphy. It is the natural evolution going on, and nothing that this House or Parliament
524
can do will stop industrial evolution going on all over the world. Whatever be the fate of railway companies that evolution will still go on in road transport.
Road transport, after all, has been developing for centuries past. Originally, I suppose, in the dark ages goods were carried on men's backs, as to-day they are carried on the backs of slaves in Central Africa. Then came the pack animal days. Then you had animal-drawn wheeled vehicles on the roads, then mechanically-drawn vehicles with flanged wheels on rails and now mechanical vehicles on rubber wheels on the roads and air transport as well for long distances at high speeds. It is interesting to note that about 100 years ago, or a little less, James Macadam objected to the development of railways because he said it stopped the development of roads and would prevent him from improving the roads of the country as much as he wished. He talked of the calamity of railways, whereas the railways talk of the calamity of roads. Time thus brings its changes, and to-day the boot is entirely on the other leg. The real competition is just beginning, and the companies have not yet got accustomed to this new phase of competition. Both before and since the recent amalgamation competition has not really been very severe. In the case of most long-distance journeys, such as between London and Edinburgh, as your Lordships know, minimum times have been agreed between the parties, just as in former days the run from London to Portsmouth was agreed on between the two companies concerned. Whether that was in the public interest I will not discuss, but this sort of agreement was widespread and existed all over the country.
Real competition has now come, and has come in many directions in which it is very difficult for the companies to meet it. It has come not only on lines parallel to their own main lines, but where there are large centres of population between which centres the railroad transport has perhaps been bad and in some cases non-existent. There are a certain number of towns in a circle round London between which the railway service is extremely bad. Take an outer ring of twenty to thirty miles from London, and you will find that between the towns there is either

525
no service at all, or it is one which goes a very long way round and is very bad. Take, for instance, Chatham, Redhill, Guildford, Windsor, Watford, St. Albans, Hertford, Romford and Tilbury—I could go on multiplying such instances. Then take eighty to a hundred miles away. There is no proper communication or fitting in of trains between Bournemouth, Salisbury, Oxford, Northampton, Cambridge, Ipswich, and so on. These towns, when the railways were started, had a much smaller population. Now, the population near these places is very large indeed. There has been no effort to couple up these towns and indeed I do not see how they could be coupled up by railway without considerable loss.
There has been on the part of railway companies, naturally, dislike of road competition, and the sort of indignation which proceeds from the idea that they have the first right to all traffic. We have heard in the past of the "divine right" of Kings. There is no divine right of railways to traffic. They are just industrial companies to whom Parliament has given a monopoly to run on rails in certain directions. Even in 1920, before the amalgamation of the railways into four great groups, there was, I Venture to say, more traffic of all kinds on the roads of this country than on the railways, and to-day that preponderance is even more marked. We have also to think of the public benefit in this matter. The public has undoubtedly gained by the fierce competition of road transport. We have seen how fares have come down, we have seen the extension of cheap excursions, and now—I think it was stated in The Times this morning—the companies are cutting parcel rates by practically 50 per cent. The same cause has led to the initiation of new cross-country services, to the institution of cheap, midweek tickets, and to the great quickening up of the delivery of goods. A very distinguished member of the railway world, Mr. Bell, assistant manager of the London and North Eastern Railway, a short time ago in The Times was reported to have said that the speed at which goods are taken from place to place by railways is a disgrace to modern transport methods. I entirely agree with him; but it is to a large extent inherent in the rail system. When you have a
526
large number of handlings of goods you must necessarily get delay.
I may be asked what the attitude of the road transport interests is towards this application of the railways. They have not met and really decided yet, and I am certainly not authorised to speak on their behalf. They will no doubt meet later on and come to some decision. But I personally say quite openly that I am not opposed to the railways going on to the roads, provided there are some safeguards which I will enumerate later on. The railways, in referring to this matter, always talk of it as being a means of co-operation. I do not see how this co-operation is to come about. One big concern can co-operate with another because then you have some definite organisation with which to co-operate. But, as regards road transport, I think I am putting the figure low in saying there are a million individual owners of vehicles which can carry goods and passengers, besides private motors. How are you going to make any bargain with a million separate people? It is also rather a curious tendency in the road transport business that rates are always being undercut by the small men. It happens in this way. The ordinary cycle agent gets a motor cycle. He then establishes a small repair shop. Then he gets a petrol pump, or at any rate a shed in which to put a petrol can or two. Next he blossoms out with a little car, and becomes a small garage owner, and, purchasing perhaps a one-ton Morris commercial car, begins by doing small hauls and carrying goods for hire. It does not matter in what part of the country you are—and I speak as having myself some knowledge of road hauling of goods—there is always a little man round the next corner who will undercut the proper rate. These small men, with whom I have great sympathy—for as a rule they are industrious, intelligent and enterprising—work their businesses extraordinarily cheaply. They generally drive their vehicles themselves, or get their sons to do it. They have no big overhead charges, and they can probably convey goods, for short distances at any rate, more cheaply than the bigger companies. How can the railway companies ever escape from that competition?
Then again, can the railway companies hope to prevent some of the great commercial

527
mercial undertakings of this country from conveying their own goods? Messrs. Lyons's vans go all over the country delivering tea and other things to thousands of grocers, taking away empty cans, receiving the money, and returning to headquarters. I cannot imagine anything so cheap or efficient as that. Take Lever's large fleet and the fleet of the great meat importing companies. It is quite clear that Parliament will never prevent owners, whether individuals or companies, from running their own transport, and unless the railway companies get back their traffic by lowering rates or being more expeditious in their delivery, that traffic is bound to go on increasing, because it is cheaper, more convenient, and quicker. So that, taking it as a whole, the outlook for railways in regard to many aspects of transport is not a particularly brilliant one. On the other hand, what is the outlook for road transport? I am bound to say that it becomes brighter every year. Fuel and tyres are becoming cheaper every year, greater loads are being carried compared with tare weight, and the running costs are coming down all the time. The roads are better, and higher speed and less wear and tear on the vehicles are the result. But when I say this I admit that the railway companies, when they go on the roads, will have the same advantages, and I am sure they are welcome to them, but I shall look forward with great interest to the time when the railways will tell us what they mean by co-operation. I have never been able to get an explanation of that on paper, and I shall look forward in this debate or in the future to some railway magnate getting up and telling us what is meant by it.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships went to that most extraordinarily interesting show at Olympia a month ago, the commercial motor show, which was infinitely more interesting than the motor show about a month before. A friend of mine told me that he was walking out of that show with one of the most able railway officials of our time. My friend said: "Well, what do you think of the show?" His companion turned round and said: "It is a most depressing sight." I entirely agree with him. From a railway point of view it was a depressing sight, but I am glad he had the imagination to realise what the show
528
meant. The last form of London General Omnibus vehicle takes 68 people, or only four fewer than are conveyed in the average nine-compartment third-class bogie carriage on the railways. That carriage weighs, roughly, 30 tons and conveys passengers at the rate of about 8 cwt. per passenger, as against 3 cwt. per passenger in the case of the London General Omnibus vehicle.
Further, long-distance motor coach traffic is increasing. There are many people who have not a motor car of their own but who desire to go quite long distances, several hundred miles, and the comfort provided nowadays on some of these motor coaches would surprise many of your Lordships. They serve refreshments en route, they provide comfortable chairs to sit on, and quite good accommodation at night, and some of these long-distance journeys from the South of England to the North of Scotland are quite a revelation. Some little time ago I was at Braemar and I saw in the road there a motor coach from Bournemouth. I asked the man in charge: "Do you run up here?" and he replied: "Yes, we run regular services; five day services and four nights on the road." That is a very wonderful development, especially when your Lordships consider that the man told me that they were booked for weeks ahead and hardly ever have a seat to spare. This is a new kind of traffic and it shows at least one direction in which road transport has developed. The railways themselves could, no doubt, do a great deal more in that direction. I believe that the Great Western did something in the way of arranging long trips, the passengers sleeping the night somewhere and going on; but the idea did not catch on and I do not see how it could have done in comparison with a road service.
I come now to the question as to what sort of stipulations should be made if wider powers are given to the railways. It is clear that the railway companies should not be given unrestricted power unless some bargain is made as to what they are going to do with the money which is derived from their monopoly of rail traffic. I would suggest that four stipulations should be made by Parliament. The first is that, as in the case of docks and shipping, the accounts of the railway road traffic should be kept separate

529
from the accounts of the rail traffic and that the profit made on that part of the railway undertaking which is a monopoly—the rail traffic—should not be used in financing the road transport part of the business. We have a precedent for that in the railway shipping accounts, and there is a very recent precedent in connection with the Hull docks. When the L.N.E.R. took those docks over it was stipulated that the accounts must be kept entirely separate.
The second stipulation would be that every road on which the railway companies propose to run road traffic should be approved by the Ministry of Transport as fit for the purpose; otherwise they might run over roads which are not main roads or even secondary roads but third-class roads and unclassified roads, thus causing enormous expense to the rural ratepayers. There might, for instance, be two towns connected by a railway and the company might shut up the railway and divert all their traffic to the roads between those towns. Therefore, I think the Ministry of Transport ought to have power to say that the diversion of such traffic, especially of the heavy traffic, should be subject to that stipulation. Then, thirdly, they should be subject to the ordinary law of extraordinary traffic; and, finally, all railway sidings and stations should be open to all transport vehicles whether railway-owned or not. That is the case at present, and it would not do to give the companies these powers upon the roads and also to allow them to close their sidings and station yards to the ordinary road traffic.
The public have been led to expect, I think, that great profits will accrue to the railway companies if they are able to get out on the roads to a larger extent. I might be wrong, but I am of opinion, and I am supported by a much greater authority than myself, Sir George Beharrel, who gave evidence on this point, that probably there will be no profit to the railways from road transport, at any rate at first. Road transport is a very different thing to work from railway transport. You have to be much more flexible in your management of it. The business of many of these road transport companies has been built up by many years of experience and by the special application of brains and intelligence to this class of work; while, as I mentioned to your Lordships' House
530
before, it is all subject to undercutting by small independent owners of vans and lorries. As to the increase of traffic on the roads, I do not think there need be very much fear on that score. I think there is room for all. But there is a danger that if the profits made by the railway companies in the monopoly part of their business are used in the road transport part of it they will be able to give lower rates and so to put the small men out of business. I do not think for a moment that Parliament would allow that.
There is one thing in which road transport in this country differs from road transport on the Continent and in the United States. In the United States there are really long hauls of from 500 to 1,000 or even more miles to the ports. But it is a curious fact that in this country no great industrial centre is more than a hundred miles from a port and thus is within seven or eight hours by road. It is natural, therefore, when an exporter who makes goods in Birmingham wants to ship those goods at Liverpool or at Tilbury, let us say, that he should send those goods by road unless the railway company give him fair facilities and fair rates. If they go by road he knows more or less when they will arrive, but he does not always know when they will reach their destination by rail. In that way railways in this country will always be subject to much greater competition than is the case on the Continent or in America.
It is not my intention nor is it my desire to teach the railway companies their business. They run their business fairly well and it is not my place to interfere with or to make suggestions to them; but, in all friendliness, I am sure that their improvement will not come as the result of any one remedy. Many remedies will have to be tried. I think, for instance, that a reduction of fares would be advisable in many cases. It is better surely to run full trains at comparatively low fares than half-empty trains at higher fares. Everyone knows that the competition of road transport at lower fares has emptied many trains, especially on local lines. Then it seems to me that the rolling stock is too heavy. A weight of nearly half a ton per passenger is not an uncommon one; but it is a ridiculous weight in these

531
days. It might be possible to build much lighter rolling stock, and in that case bridges and rails of less strength would be needed and, possibly, less powerful locomotives. Then, railway travelling generally might be made more comfortable. We all know that on the main line services travelling is very comfortable; but it is not at all comfortable on many of the other services; the compartments are not comfortable to sit in and there is much jolting and jarring. Such coaches compare very badly with motor charabancs and motor coaches.
When this subject comes up again later there will be, no doubt, a further debate, but I ask the Government to give some lead to-day if possible. It is important that we should know what is the attitude of the Ministry of Transport to this matter. As I have said, I speak to-night in no hostile spirit to the railways, but as a candid friend. It is often said that the candid friend is more unpopular than an open enemy. So be it. I have no financial interest in road transport. Equally I am not a railway director. But I try to see the evolution of transport in its true light and to realise what the future may bring forth. We live in a time of rapid change, of new inventions and developments that necessarily must provoke a struggle on the part of the older systems and concerns against new competition, but this competition, from a national point of view, I feel sure is healthy. In transport matters rivalry is essential to our national prosperity. I hope the noble Viscount who answers will be able to give us some indication of the attitude of the Ministry of Transport. I beg to move.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, we have just listened to a most interesting and suggestive speech from a noble Lord who, I think, it would perhaps not be unfair to describe as an enthusiast and expert on the subject of motor traffic. For myself I must admit that I am an out-and-out believer in railways. Your Lordships may have gathered from recent remarks which I have made in this Assembly that I do not completely approve of the way in which railways are at present managed, but it is because I am such an ardent believer in railways that I regret to see so many things are not done which might be done in order
532
to get the best out of the railways. I hope the Government in dealing with this question will keep quite clear in their mind the limitations of road transport and will not let the question of road transport usurp the attention that ought to be devoted to the development of all kinds of transport, each in its proper sphere.
The increase in the use of motor vehicles since the War and the intense energy that has been put into the development of motors and motor roads may well divert attention from the subject of railways, on which, unfortunately, no similar process is to be observed, and lead to an exaggerated belief in motors and motor roads as a panacea for all traffic ills. I am far from seeking to belittle the achievements of motors and the immense benefit they confer upon the country in their proper sphere of action. I should think that the progress of the internal combustion engine and its accessories is the most remarkable development in engineering that has ever taken place within a similar period, but I do feel that this dazzling progress has aroused expectations that cannot be fulfilled.
On a larger scale it is something like the question of the electrification of railways. That also was a panacea. Twenty or twenty-five years ago the first tube been built, the smoky underground had been electrified and the electrical enthusiasts had spread the idea that electrification was about to do away with all the troubles and defects of railways. The time that has since elapsed has served to fix our ideas. While the brilliant success of electrification in most kinds of underground services is manifest and while it seems that it is often advantageous for open air lines with extremely heavy suburban traffic, it can almost be said that main line electrification has definitely been shown to be a failure unless the conditions are abnormally favourable—very cheap water power, very dear coal and extremely severe gradients. Some years ago a scheme to electrify a large section of the North Eastern Railway was suddenly dropped. The huge scheme to electrify most of the railways in Central and Southern France has been brought to a standstill when only a quarter complete. Similar news has been received from Austria within the last few weeks and in America, so far as I know, no scheme of

533
main line electrification is now being proceeded with. It appears that the expense of electrification is so immensely greater than was foreseen in the estimates that even in districts like Central France, where there is very little coal and a good deal of water power, the steam locomotive is economically superior to the electric motor.
In the same way it appears to me almost certain that there is very little traffic that can economically be transferred from the railways to the roads. I understand this is the particular point that railways make. They say that traffic is being filched from them by the roads and that is why they want to go on to the roads. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has given us instances of what I may call radial traffic—traffic passing between towns like Croydon and St. Albans. I do not suppose there is a great deal of that. When you get further away to places like Birmingham and Salisbury, I do not know that the motor is going to help us much. I imagine that what traffic is in question is for the most part summer pleasure traffic and, as regards goods, small consignments sent over short distances. I should be extremely surprised to learn that the total amount of traffic concerned affects more than 5 per cent, of the gross receipts of any railway.
Railways have two advantages with which motors simply cannot compete. The rolling friction of a steel wheel-tread upon a smooth steel rail is so small as to be negligible, while the rolling friction of any kind of motor tyre over even the best motor road is a serious matter. Even more important is the fact that a railway provides complete automatic control over the direction of movement with consequent enormous economy in the man-power required to work a train. I have read of an experimental run in the United States where a train which, so far as I can remember, weighed 17,000 tons and measured one mile and three-quarters in length, was worked by a single engine. I have myself travelled in a train, also drawn by one engine, which can hardly have contained less than 2,500 passengers. When, in addition to this, it is remembered that railways easily lend themselves to an increase in speed of which it is impossible to foresee the limits and that the control of traffic moving in large units—train
534
loads—is immensely easier than the control of motor traffic, there does seem to me to be serious danger of the waste of a great deal of money unless a very sharp and carefully drawn line is put between the spheres of action of railway trains and motors.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words by way of caution at the present moment, because it appears to me that this matter will have to be considered in much greater detail, probably before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House or, possibly, a Joint Committee of the two Houses, before any final decision can properly be reached. I may say, in passing, that we were discussing the other day various forms of tribunal. I have been before a good many and on matters of this sort I have not found one equal to some of the Committees—the old Committees—in your Lordships' House. I recollect, for instance, how the late Duke of Richmond presided over the hearing of the Ship Canal case. The noble Lord has stated, quite rightly, that at the present time, apart from special powers, the rights of railway companies in regard to road traffic are limited—that is to say, the companies are only empowered to use road traffic as ancillary or incidental to their railway purposes—but I do not for a moment myself desire to say that that limitation ought to be preserved. It is entirely a question of public interest, and if it can be shown that it is in the public interest that additional powers should be conferred on the railway companies I have no doubt that in accordance with ordinary precedents those powers will be conferred. But we cannot deal with that as an abstract proposition.
Let me refer to one or two of the cases which Lord Montagu of Beaulieu mentioned. Originally a railway company was looked upon as only a toll taker. Its original powers were framed to put the company in the same position as turnpike roads were in when turnpikes were started. That was found to be altogether too limited, and I recollect, for instance, the case to which the noble Lord referred, that of the Hull docks. In many instances railway companies' powers have been extended so that they can deal with docks, particularly at railway termini. That power is not

535
universal. It is not so in London, and it is not so at Liverpool, but at Garston and Hull and many other places you have railway docks. How far the obligation to which the noble Lord referred to keep separate the accounts is universal I do not know. It is so, I happen to know, in the particular case to which he referred. The position is the same as regards ships and hotels. In the first instance railway companies had no power either to run ships or manage hotels, but no one can doubt the great advantage of the cross-Channel traffic in the hands of railway companies, or of such traffic as passes, for instance, between Ireland and England. But this is not a matter with which I wish to deal at any length at the present moment.
I see in the Notice on the Paper the words "without any restriction." I suppose the noble Lord means an increase of powers beyond those which railways now possess, but the question will be whether it is in the public interest. I believe it would be so in many cases, but my opinion is of no value on that point. When the question is considered whether those powers are to be conferred, there will also have to be considered what restrictions are necessary in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has pointed out that some very stringent restrictions may probably be necessary in the user of either special or public roads, more particularly having regard to the congestion of some of our main roads, and so far as expense is concerned, of course, all additional expense incurred by granting powers of this kind will have to be provided for. I will not go into that. There may be a large number of restrictions necessary in the public interest.
What I hope is that when the noble Viscount replies he will bear in mind that the overriding principle is that of public interest. That will have to be considered. So far as I know it has not been considered in detail at the present time. If public interest requires that this concession should be made—which I think is very likely, I say nothing more than that about it—we shall have to consider carefully at the same time what corresponding restrictions are necessary. Those points were considered in every railway case in the old days. Now, of
536
course, the era of new railways has gone by, but as regards the utilisation of existing railways, let us utilise them to the utmost. We all want our resources utilised to the utmost, but a mere statement of that kind does not bring conviction unless one is first of all convinced of the public interest and how that public interest can best be served. I do not wish to say anything more, but I hope that full consideration will be given to the matter before any official determination is arrived at.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but I cannot resist making a few observations after the speeches which I have heard this afternoon—speeches which seemed to me to have been delivered about a year too soon. As I understand the question, the railway companies are reported to intend to bring in a Bill to carry out certain purposes in the course of next Session. Well, nothing that is said by my noble friend beside me, or by the noble Lord upon the Cross Benches, or in fact by anybody else, can prevent the railway companies bringing in a Bill should they choose to do so. But here we have my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu calmly asking what is the attitude of the Government towards such a radical change in the powers of the railway companies. I sincerely hope that my noble friend who speaks for the Government will make no pronouncement of any kind. Indeed, the last thing he will do will be to gratify the curiosity of my noble friend beside me, because it seems to me it would be a most improper proceeding. What is an inquiry for? It is to determine the rights and wrongs of a particular question, and yet here is the noble Lord calmly asking the Government to pronounce in advance whether they are for or against these proposals. I do not like to be disrespectful—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I want to know their attitude.
LORD NEWTON: Exactly—what their attitude is and what they are going to do about it, whether they are in favour or not. I sincerely hope that what the Government will do is that they will wait to hear what is said when the Bill is brought in. In the meantime I hope the noble Viscount will say nothing at all.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I feel myself in some difficulty in this matter, because I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, in his interesting speech, for details about the working of railways in this and other countries, and to define the attitude of the Government towards certain proposals of the railway companies But I have been exhorted also with great vigour by the noble Lord behind me to say nothing at all. It is a little difficult to please both the noble Lords in the observations I may make. I should gratify my noble friend Lord Newton if I sat down at once, but then I should be guilty of some discourtesy to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. In those circumstances, perhaps, he will allow me to remain a few minutes addressing your Lordships.
I received further advice from the noble Lord opposite. He asked me to exercise patience and caution. I thought I always did. I did not know that I required that, special advice to be given me. He further exhorted the Government to examine this proposition from the point of view of the public interest. Again, of course, everything is examined by this Government from the point of view of the public interest. Therefore I think he was only pushing an open door when he tried to enforce this advice upon me. But I quite agree, if I may say so, with some of the observations he made. We are told what is the interest of the railway companies and what is the interest of the motor and transport and traffic companies. Of course those interests will be considered as part of the general interest, but I quite agree with the noble Lord that the overriding question is that of the public interest, which includes and is much larger than either of those interests.
I do not think my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu really expected that I should define exactly the attitude of the Government towards these proposals. If I did so, I think he would be one of the first to condemn me because all that has happened at present is that notice of certain Bills has been given by the railway companies. We have not seen the Bills and I am quite sure that my noble friend would not ask me to deal in detail with Bills which I have not seen yet. I do not know whether
538
they have been drawn up, but at all events they have not been seen by the Government and certainly they are in a very inchoate stage. I need hardly repeat that these Private Bills will come before Parliament at the proper time next Session, and when they have been carefully studied by the Government the Government will give their opinion upon them in the ordinary course. I have no doubt that my noble friend—I do not blame him at all—was anxious to influence the Government beforehand, thinking that when the Government have come to a decision it is more difficult to influence them, while before they have done so my noble friend has his opportunity. I need hardly say that all the points that he and other noble Lords have made will be considered very carefully indeed. The noble Lord gave certain figures about the number of motors on the road which, I gather, are not exactly consonant with the figures with which I have been supplied. He gave the total number of motor vehicles owned by the railway companies as 6,000.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No, I said 3,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to correct that statement, but if the noble Lord says that it is 3,000 I have no more to say on that point. I did not, however, find much comfort for the railway companies in the noble Lord's speech. I gather that he took rather a gloomy view of the future of the railway companies. He said that even if they did come on to the roads they would find it very difficult indeed to compete with the present providers of transport, that they would be undercut, by individuals, that there is nobody with whom they could co-operate and that the great firms would still be able to run their own motors and would undercut the railway companies. On these grounds, though my noble friend showed, if not quite an affection for the railway companies, at least no hostility, he did not seem to think that much advantage would be gained by the railway companies. That being so I do not quite understand his anxiety about competition, for he seemed to fear that unrestricted competition by the railway companies might be allowed. If he thinks that their competitors will be so much more powerful, I am not sure that I understand why he is nervous of unrestricted competition from the railways.

539
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote an observation made by the noble Lord when he was visiting the commercial motor show at Olympia and had this illuminating conversation with a railway chairman. I gather that he then observed that the railways would have a very hard time to live. If that is so, though I do not think that the Government can take the same gloomy view as the noble Lord, it is obviously a matter of very great moment, because it is worth while observing that something like £1,100,000,000 are invested in our railways and, quite apart from the loss which would be incurred if the railways suffered, the effect on the trade of the country would also be very unfortunate. The noble Lord referred to the heavy traffic in coal, minerals and so on carried by the railways. If there were to be a considerable diversion of traffic from the railways to the roads, it would follow that, instead of making these reductions in the cost of carriage on which my noble friend has commented, the reduction of traffic would have the effect that the overhead charges would immensely increase upon heavy traffic and far heavier rates would have to be borne than are borne at present. There are two considerations that arise as a consequence. The first is that the effect upon the trade of the country would have to be very carefully considered; and the second that the railway companies would not. I imagine, be very anxious to divert to the roads a very large proportion of their traffic if the result was that they were going to be obliged to charge far heavier rates on heavy traffic that remained with them.
I am well aware, as are your Lordships, of the very great importance of this problem and of the question of adjusting the proper relations between these different forms of competing transport, but on that point I need say little because it is really common knowledge. I should like to remind your Lordships, however, of some very remarkable figures regarding the extent, to which the roads are now used by different forms of motor transport. On August 31 last there were licensed to run upon our roads nearly 800,000 motor cars, to say nothing of some 670,000 motor cycles. There were in addition 273,000 commercial goods vehicles and over 95,000 motor hackneys, which includes taxi-cabs, omnibuses and charabancs. This immense addition to
540
the means of transport is undoubtedly affecting the traffic of the railway companies, and it is not surprising that they are attempting in some way to meet that competition.
My noble friend also referred to the inquiry that has already been made into this question by the Balfour Browne Committee, which reported in 1921. Looking at the record of that Committee, I notice that there were three separate Reports, and it cannot therefore be called an entirely unanimous Report. It dealt with various points concerning safeguards and so on, and the Chairman came to the rather remarkable conclusion that the railway companies could not expect to recover traffic that had been diverted from their systems or to keep the traffic that might be diverted in future by giving greater facilities or lower rates upon the railways. That is a remarkable conclusion, which I mention on account of the value attached to that gentleman's opinion. The Committee came to the further conclusion that the railway companies ought to be allowed to carry goods by road, and ought to be given statutory sanction for that course. Those were, I think, the two most important conclusions that were arrived at by that Committee.
My noble friend also made reference to the extent to which this problem is engaging the attention of other countries. This is not very remarkable, since the systems of traffic in those countries resemble each other very closely. In the United States, where the railway companies have been seriously affected by the use of motor cars and motor transport generally, there is a growing tendency to extend the use of motor trucks and motor coaches by the railways and a process of substituting motor services by road for freight trains on the local traffic branch lines already appears to have begun. In other cases motor vehicles are being successfully used by the railways to take the place of or to assist freight trains in congested areas. Motor transport services are also being started as feeders to the railways in undeveloped areas. In most European countries, again, similar questions are pressing for solution. At the World Motor Transport, Congress held in London last month papers were read by experts from various foreign countries. The representatives of Hungary, France and Germany submitted papers dealing

541
with the motor vehicle as an extension of the railway, and the necessity for co-operation between road and mil transport. The steps described covered a very wide field, from the direct operation of motor vehicles to agreements with other persons or companies to operate motor services. Those are the directions in which railway companies all over the world are giving their attention, and it is not, I think, very astounding that railway companies in this country are also giving consideration to that particular problem.
The noble Lord asked if I would lay Papers. I hope he will be satisfied with having discussed this question, because I understand that there are no Papers to lay. He has also asked me a definite question as to whether I think any unrestricted service would be allowed. As I have already said, I cannot, of course, define the action of the Government at the present moment, but all these questions must be considered by the Government as connected with the public interest, and I think your Lordships are very well able to judge as to whether a completely unrestricted service by the railway companies would, or would not, be in the public interest. I think I can answer the noble Lord's question best in this way.
The noble Lord has also spoken of many safeguards or restrictions. All those safeguards or restrictions that he has mentioned, and a good many others, must, of course, be considered. I hope, however, that he will not ask me to define at this moment what particular safeguards and restrictions ought to be proposed, and that he will allow me to wait before I give an answer, and allow the Government to form their opinion when they know what are the Bills which are deposited by the Railway Companies, and the terms in which they are drawn. I trust, therefore, that he will permit me, if he raises the question again, to answer that question at a later stage, or at any rate to wait until these Bills have been introduced. I hope that he will be content with the answer that I have given, and not seek to endeavour to make me probe further than is necessary into futurity.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I make no complaint of the caution of the noble Viscount and his indecisive reply to the question, for I find myself in agreement
542
with Lord Newton's comment that it is clearly too early to expect the Government, to commit themselves to a definite statement. I think, however, that Lord Newton went a little too far in deprecating the raising of this question at all, because it is a very important question, and this preliminary canter, brought about by the noble Lord's question, may, I think, give those of your Lordships who are interested in this subject an opportunity for considering, before the Bills are actually before us, some of the various considerations which should influence Parliament in deciding the way in which those Bills should be dealt with. I am bound to say that personally I find it very difficult to give a clear answer, in my own mind, at present, "Aye" or "No" to the question whether railway companies should have unrestricted road facilities.
There are many considerations on both sides. There are considerations of the railway companies' own finances, and I think Parliament would probably be very loath to prevent the railway companies from running such services as acted as feeders to their own lines. On the other hand, if the result would be that they were going to compete with their own selves and take the traffic which would otherwise be carried by their own goods trains, then Parliament might in the railways' own interests prevent them from cutting their own throats. Therefore I think it is necessary to see what is proposed before one comes to a decision. Another question has been hinted at—namely, railway competition with municipal enterprise, such as tramways, which my noble friend so much dislikes. You may dislike tramways, or take what view you like about municipal enterprise, but here you have a certain amount of national wealth invested in an enterprise, and it is not for the country's good to destroy wealth, if it can be kept alive by using it. You do not want to scrap the tramways any more than you want to scrap the railways, and injure national assets, if you can keep these things going.
There is one thing which has not been mentioned, but which I have always in mind, and that is the way in which the railways have treated the canals. The canals are a very valuable carrying agency for heavy goods, and chiefly owing to the

543
action of the railway companies they have been practically destroyed. The noble Viscount will remember perfectly well that a very interesting Canal Commission was appointed many years ago, which made a voluminous and interesting Report. The effect of it may be summed up by saying that the canals ought to be used. Nothing has been done about it; the canals are not used; and I have always felt that the enormous price of coal, which is always ascribed by the coal industry to the wicked railways and by the railways to the wicked coal-owners, might very likely be decreased in the South of England if there were more cheap traffic by canals. The same thing might be said with regard to bricks, and stones for roads, the transport of which is now a very important thing, thousands of tons being carried from one part of the country to another.
Another thing which has occurred to me, and which I think ought to be considered at the proper time, is that if the railway companies are to be given very large and extended powers for developing what is likely to be practically a new business, they will be given something which in America is called a "franchise." They will be given a right to exploit the roads for their own purposes. No more right, it is true, than any individual company now has, but a right from which as statutory companies they are debarred. Because, however, they are statutory companies, and have great privileges, I think it ought to be considered whether they should not be put on some kind of terms with regard to the public, because the public are sometimes treated—particularly the passenger traffic—rather scurvily by the railway companies. I think it is time that some definite check should be put upon them, particularly when they do not provide seats for those who have paid for them.
Then there is a matter which the railway companies have not developed, or done anything about. That is the possibility, as it seems to me, of running much shorter and smaller goods trains, perhaps drawn by some sort of petrol engine instead of a steam locomotive. There is also the point that Lord Monkswell made, that on a steel rail you have practically an invaluable road for transporting heavy things, and it would be a thousand pities if that road, upon which so many
544
thousands of pounds have been spent, were not used to the full. I should be sorry to see any traffic which could properly be carried there taken off the railways and put on the roads, thereby involving a heavy increase in the burden of road expenditure.
I express no definite opinion, any more than did the noble Viscount. I only make this suggestion, which I dare say will be the course followed when these Bills reach this House, or the other House. This is a matter of such great importance that I feel that probably by far the most convenient course of inquiry—seeing that such large interests are concerned, that so many details have to be considered, and that so many conflicting opinions will have to be reconciled and understood—will be for all the Bills when presented to be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, by whom a large amount of evidence can be taken, and in whose Report both Houses would be able to place confidence.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Viscount for his answer, which contained a good deal of useful and interesting information. I am afraid that it pleased me more than the noble Lord on my right (Lord Newton). There are no Papers in the ordinary sense probably which could with advantage be laid, but I have asked the noble Viscount if a Return could be made to this House of the number of vehicles employed by the railway companies, mechanical and horse drawn, for road transport, with some details about them. If he could arrange for that Return I should be much obliged.
One word about what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Though I generally agree with him on transport subjects, I am afraid I cannot agree that the decline of canals was really due to the railways. It may have been the case here and there. The fact is that water carriage by canals in this country, where the canals are of very limited capacity—unlike the great canals abroad—is an inferior method of conveyance to transport by road or railway. Except in special cases it cannot compete successfully. The Manchester Ship Canal is, of course, of a different character. The noble Viscount said that the capital of the railways was £1,100,000,000 and that

545
it would be a pity to waste that capital. I think I pointed out the other day that the valuation of that capital on the market is already well under £800,000,000. I am sorry to say they have lost one third of their capital, and their net earnings on the valuation to-day amount to about 5 per cent. I think that our debate has been useful, or at any rate has produced some very interesting speeches, and I do not apologise to my noble friend (Lord Newton) for introducing the subject.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROFESSIONAL CLUCKETEKS' BENEFIT MONEYS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had given Notice to call attention again to the procedure adopted by the Income Tax authorities in the matter of professional cricketers' benefit moneys; and to ask what is the justification for the retention of moneys accruing from illegal taxation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also do not apologise for again bringing this matter before your Lordships. I addressed a letter to the public Press on the particular case to which I will refer presently, but no notice was taken of it, and I hardly expected that any would be. But I regard Parliament, and this House particularly, as a place which presents an opportunity of bringing forward the grievances of subjects who are suffering, and therefore I am now drawing attention to what I conceive to be a very serious grievance on the part of a few individuals only.
Some months ago I brought up the case of a professional cricketer who was being forced into litigation by the action of the Revenue authorities. Having won his case in two Courts, he was forced into a third, where there was a majority of the Judges against him, and it was at that stage that I drew the attention of your Lordships to the case, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack very kindly promised to bring the matter to the attention of his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he did. The offer that was made by the Revenue authorities, however, was so ludicrously useless, and from our point of view unfair to future eases, that it was impossible to accept it. The case was therefore fought in your Lordships' House, where
546
a great majority of the Law Lords was in favour of the appellant's case. Therefore that particular individual was exempt from paying tax on his benefit money, and I take it—and I hope—that professionals in future will not be assessed for Income Tax on that particular money.
That was all right, but it was not all right as regards those who have already paid the tax. I will give your Lordships a particular instance. This is the case of a professional whose benefit brought him in about £650. Only once in his whole career does he receive that benefit, which the House of Lords has now decided is a present from his employer. The effect of his receiving that was to bring this man's whole receipts for the year into the taxable limit, and he was therefore called on to pay £126 odd in that year as Income Tax. If he had not received the benefit in that year he would not have been taxed. Seeing the case of his comrade and the decision of the House of Lords, he appealed for a return of the tax he had paid. It was refused because he had not appealed in time. These are very simple, humble men, and the Government official addresses an official document to them demanding payment of the tax due to the Government, and this man, believing that the Government Department was justified in making this demand, very incautiously paid it. Quite a number of others did the same. They paid the tax instead of fighting it, as was done in the case of the professional, Seymour. If they had waited, and if those who have advised them had known earlier that these, demands were being made, they no doubt would have fought them very much earlier; but they did not know that the demands were being made until the matter was brought to their notice by Seymour's case.
It is now decided by the highest Court in the land that the Revenue authorities have no right to assess these men for that particular item of income. It was an illegal demand, but the Government are going to stick to it, because the men did not appeal in time. What can one say of such action as that? Surely it is rather ignoble that these poor men, who receive these rewards for their skill and prowess once in their lives (as a rule it is once in their lives; there are very exceptional cases where a man gets it twice) should have so much of it taken away

547
from them upon a ground which is not justified in law. I am sure that my noble friend who is going to reply will have nothing to say except that the man did not appeal in time. I do not suppose he knew the law very intimately, and it was his business to know it. At the same time it was a very severe hardship and I nope your Lordships will think that I was justified in bringing it to the notice of the public
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I naturally wish to be as sympathetic as possible in respect of this question which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised this afternoon. I regret that owing to some misunderstanding I was not aware of the actual point to which he wished to call attention and, therefore, I have not been able to look into the case itself. But I feel certain that we shall all feel very sympathetic in a case of this kind. I ought, I think, to draw your Lordships' attention to one fact and that is that the noble Lord has raised this question as the result of a decision which was come to in your Lordships' House with regard to a Kent professional cricketer named Seymour, in respect of the money he had derived from a benefit match. After the case had passed through several Courts the House of Lords decided that the money which he had received was not taxable. But that does not mean that all future cases of this sort are necessarily governed by the decision in that case; because the facts vary considerably in different cases. It is generally agreed, I think, that in the case of Seymour the reason why the majority of those sitting in the House of Lords decided that this money was not taxable was that the money which he received was not received as a contractual right but was, as it were, a testimonial and not a perquisite. It was not remuneration for services but a personal gift. That is not always the case in regard to benefit matches or the proceeds of benefit matches awarded to professionals. In fact a case such as this case came before the Courts in reference to a football professional.
LORD HARRIS: That is quite different.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is different, I admit. I merely wished to point out that it was held in that case that the proceeds of the match were taxable
548
because the professional in question had a right, a contractual light practically, to those proceeds. I agree that this does not apply to the case which the noble Lord brought before your Lordships this evening. I wanted merely to enter a caveat that this case of Seymour which was decided in the House of Lords must not necessarily be taken to govern all future cases.
With regard to the particular case which the noble Lord has brought forward this evening, I would certainly like to say that I will look into it and will see that it is gone into more carefully; but I feel practically certain that the answer will be that the payment by this professional had been made and completed before the Seymour case was decided in the House of Lords. I think it is a well-known rule of law that a decision of the Courts does not operate retrospectively to disturb cases which have already become final and conclusive in law, and it must be plain to everybody I think that if a rule of law such as this were to operate retrospectively it would lead to the re-opening of innumerable cases because it could not apply only in regard to professional cricketers' benefit matches, but would have to apply to all judgments that were given, and would lead, as I say, to the reopening of a great number of cases and to a great deal of confusion. It really requires very little from me to emphasise the point that a decision of the Court does not operate retrospectively.
May I draw attention to a comparatively recent case in which this was made perfectly clear? In this case the plaintiff, the owner-occupier of a house had been, as he alleged, rated by the water company in excess of what was held to be legal in another case, Dobbs' case in the House of Lords. He paid the amount demanded of him under the impression that he was bound to do so, and now he sued the company to recover the excess. The company set up that it was a voluntary payment and not recoverable. The plaintiff set up in answer that it was paid by compulsion. But the Court found as a fact that the payment was voluntary and that the money which had been paid under a mistake of law could not be recovered. In the course of the argument Mr. Henderson, who appeared for the plaintiff, urged that it was a payment in ignorance of law, and should be returned.

549
Lord Chief Justice Coleridge then interposed:
"Of what law? I was ignorant of it before the decision of the House of Lords. I had held the contrary and two eminent Judges agreed with rue. Can that be put as ignorance of law? Just see what consequences would follow—that wherever there has been a reversal of judgment all the money that has been paid under the previous notion of the law can be recovered back! Has that ever been held? Can it be that every reversal of a decision may give rise to hundreds of actions to recover back money previously paid?"
That, I think, is almost an analogous case to this one.
This payment was made before a definite decision was come to in the Seymour case, and it really would set a very dangerous precedent if the case was reopened on this occasion. It would, I think, give rise, as I said before, to the reopening of hundreds, I may say thousands, of other cases and lead to great confusion. Those are probably the facts of the case. But owing to the fact that I sympathise, as I am sure the whole House does, very warmly indeed with what I may describe as the hardship inflicted in this case, I will certainly undertake
550
to have it gone into more closely and see whether anything can be done in the matter.

HARROGATE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Knaresborough in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

RIPON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the City of Ripon and part of the rural district of Ripon in the West Riding of the County of York and part of the rural district of Wath in the North Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.