Sitting of 13 December 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRAYER BOOK MEASURE, 1927.
Mr. REMER: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of the League of Loyal Churchmen and other Protestants against the Prayer Book Measure.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DOMINIONS).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether negotiations are taking place between his Department and the various Dominion Governments with the object of passing legislation in the Dominions similar to that embodied in the Cinematograph Films Bill; and can he give particulars of the progress made?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Imperial Conference of 1926 passed a Resolution calling attention to the importance of an increasing proportion of Empire-produced films being exhibited throughout the Empire. Legislation has been passed in Victoria, taking effect from the 1st July this year, and a Bill has recently been introduced into the New Zealand Parliament. As soon as the Films Bill has passed, full particulars of its provisions will be communicated to the Dominion Governments.

    PROPRIETARY ARTICLES TRADE ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the investigation, on behalf of the Canadian Government, into the operations of the Proprietary Articles Trade Association in Canada and to the Report of the Commis-
    2064
    sioner to the effect that the association is an organisation which has operated, and is likely to operate, to the detriment of and against the interests of the public; and whether he proposes to conduct a similar investigation into the operations of the association in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part in the negative. The fixing of retail prices through the Proprietary Articles Trade Association and otherwise was inquired into by a Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since then the operations have been extended and the principle is now applied by the Association to scores of articles, to the great detriment of the consuming community?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The hon. Member, who has been at the Board of Trade, will remember that the whole position was inquired into by a Committee under the Profiteering Act, and a very comprehensive Report was presented.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what became of that Report? Was it shelved, like all the profiteering reports?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No it was not. It recommended that nothing should be done.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very important addendum to that Report, which was signed by Mr. John Hill, of the Ministry of Labour, covered the malpractices of the Association?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If I remember correctly, seven to one were in favour of the Report.

    IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total weight of iron and steel, and manufactures thereof other than pig-iron and ferro alloys, imported in the first 10 months of 1927, or longer period, compared to the like period of 1922 from the countries embraced in the steel cartel of Europe; and what were our total exports to those countries for the same periods?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is rather long, and contains a table of figures. Accordingly, my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The complete particulars of imports and exports of the various items of iron and steel manufactures imported info and exported from the United Kingdom, from and to the countries indicated, during any period other than a calendar year would involve a considerable

    —

    Imports from

    Exports to

    (a) All countries.

    (b) Cartel group.

    (a) All countries.

    (b) Cartel group.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    717

    581

    2,603

    170

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    2,434

    2,268

    3,171

    88

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    3,246

    3,002

    2,675

    62

    1927 (Jan.-Nov.)

    …

    3,537

    Not available

    3,561

    Not available

    Colonel BURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of tons of iron and steel imported into Great Britain during the past 12 months; and what would have been the consumption of coal in the production of this quantity in Great Britain?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The net imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland of iron and steel and manufactures thereof in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1927, amounted to 4,629,930 tons. It is not practicable to make a close estimate of the amount of coal which would have been required if this additional quantity of iron and steel could have been and had been produced in this country, but the amount would probably be between 12 and 15 million tons.

    FOODSTUFFS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the 45 weeks' food supplies imported annually into Great Britain come from South America, Canada, and She United States?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member is, I think, applying to foodstuffs as a whole a figure that relates to breadstuffs, when he calculates the pro-
    amount of labour, and corresponding expense, to prepare.
    The total imports from all countries, and from the countries understood to be covered by the steel cartel, and exports to all countries, and to the group in question in 1922, and in each of the years 1925 and 1926, were as shown below. The figures apply to all iron and steel and manufactures thereof other than pig-iron and ferro alloys; and the countries covered by the columns marked (b) are Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
    portion of our food supplies which is imported. For different kinds of foods that proportion varies, and for food as a whole is substantially less than 45 weeks' supply. Probably 30 weeks or less would represent the position more accurately. Of the total imported foodstuffs, the consignments from Canada have represented about 10 per cent. in the last three years, and consignments from the United States and from South America slightly over 13 per cent. in each case. These percentages relate to the money value of the imports after deduction of re-exports, and cover drink as well as food.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITION (ABOLITION).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has read the Report presented by Mr. Colijn, the Netherlands president of the International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, to the Council of League of Nations at Geneva; if he is aware that the president stated that the Convention had been signed by 18 States; if he will state whether the

    2067
    British delegates of the Council have signed the Convention on behalf of the Government; and, if not, can he state the reason?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, the Report has not yet been received. The British delegate to the Conference signed the Convention.
    Mr. THORNE: Are we to understand from that reply that eventually, instead of increasing the duties, the right hon. Gentleman will reduce them?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not a question of duties; it is a question of prohibitions. The British delegates received instructions from His Majesty's Government that we were anxious to get a unanimous Report, and I am glad to say that already some 20 countries have signed it.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Do we prohibit anything coming into this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, a very limited number of articles.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any possibility of persuading the other countries in question to reduce their tariffs by at least 25 per cent.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Nobody would be more delighted than I if we could achieve that result. I sincerely hope that the countries with high tariffs who subscribed these resolutions of the Economic Conference will give effect to them. This country, as is well known, has taken the lead by imposing duties on only two or three per cent. of its imports. This particular Convention deals with prohibition and not with tariffs.

    POISON GAS WARFARE (PROTOCOL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister why His Majesty's Government has not ratified the convention against gas and bacteriological warfare agreed upon at Geneva and initialed or signed by our representatives in view of the ratification by the French Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have decided not to ratify until all other important Powers have ratified the protocol or have signified their intention of doing so.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If every Power is to take this view, how are we to make any progress at all? We shall never get anything done.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPS0N: This is no new precedent. There are agreements of this character. Our attitude is that we do not ratify except in concert with the other chief Powers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting a very bad name for initialing agreements and then refusing to honour the signatures of our representatives for one excuse or another?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARTILLERY PRACTICE, TYNEMOUTH CASTLE.
    Mr. RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations with regard to the proposed by-laws in respect of artillery practice from Tynemouth Castle; whether he is aware that if these by-laws as drafted come into operation they will cause annoyance and inconvenience to navigation in that area and will involve various interests in serious losses, particularly that of the Cullercoats salmon fishermen; and whether he will cause a local inquiry to be made into the whole matter before anything further is done?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received several objections to the proposed by-laws, as a result of the advertisement in the local and shipping Press of the intention to make them. The objections are based chiefly on grounds of interference with the interests of navigation and fishing, and they are now under the consideration of the War Office, to whom they were referred. As soon as I learn the War Office views I will consider whether a public inquiry is necessary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does it mean that the nets will be up at the mouth of the river when the guns are firing?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.

    CRIMEAN VETERANS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any records showing the exact number of

    2069
    Crimean veterans who are at present living; whether they are in receipt of pensions; and, if so, the amount?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): I regret that I am unable to say how many Crimean veterans are still living. They are not necessarily in receipt of pensions, nor would it be possible to state, without considerable labour, how many of the existing pensioners served in the Crimea.

    ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (WARRANT OFFICERS).
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of a recent Regulation issued to the Royal Army Ordnance Corps calling upon warrant officers to qualify as clerks, Class I, before promotion to the rank of conductor; and whether, seeing that the only effect of this order is that these warrant officers who are ammunition examiners and have been many years in the service must now qualify in shorthand and typewriting, which should be the work of junior clerks and not of men so senior in the service, he will reconsider the Regulation?
    Commodore KING: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. There has been no recent change in the Regulations as to the qualifications required for promotion to the rank of conductor in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, nor is it necessary for candidates to qualify as clerks, Class I. But there are two rates of pay for which conductors are eligible, and the higher, or tradesmen's rate, is only granted in the case of men, who are not already tradesmen, provided that they qualify as clerks, Class I.

    COLONEL-COMMANDANT (CHANGE OF TITLE).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the clumsiness of the title Colonel-Commandant, he will consider the change to the title of Brigadier?
    Commodore KING: It has been decided to substitute the rank of Brigadier for that of Colonel-Commandant and Colonel on the Staff, when the necessary statutory provisions have been made in the Army Act by means of next year's Army and Air Force (Annual) Act.

    RECRUITS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits between the ages of 18 and 21 who were taken into the Army during last year and the proportion this bears to the total number of men recruited in the same period?
    Commodore KING: Out of approximately 27,200 recruits taken on the strength of the Regular Army during the recruiting year, 1926–27, some 20,550 were between the ages of 18 and 21 years.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the Financial Secretary say whether his Department are expecting an increase in this class of recruit as a result of recent legislation in the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
    Commodore KING: I think the proportion is already very high.

    STAFF, JAMAICA.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for War what is the military staff now employed in Jamaica?
    Commodore KING: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the information given on page 138 of the current monthly Army List.

    REMOUNT SERVICE.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and other ranks in the remount service for the years 1924, 1925, and 1926, together with the total cost of their pay and allowances, and also the numbers employed at the present time?
    Commodore KING: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    The figures are (including civilians)—

    —

    1924.

    1925.

    1926.

    1927.

    Officers

    77

    83

    83

    82

    Other ranks

    79

    72

    39*

    5*

    Civilians

    462

    490

    530*

    550*

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Pay and allowances.

    88,000

    92,800

    88,800

    84,800

    * Civilians have to a great extent been substituted for soldiers.

    STONEHENGE (ARMY HUTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the purchase by the War Office of a further 6,300 acres of land in Wiltshire, he is now in a position to have the Army huts and other buildings near Stonehenge moved to a place where they will not be visible from the monument?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. The area purchased would not be convenient for the Larkhill ranges.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will you be able in any way to remove these huts out of the vision of Stonehenge?
    Commodore KING: I think I informed the hon. and gallant Member some time ago that the cost of the developments has already reached £150,000 to £200,000 on that site, and it would be impossible to sacrifice that money.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the position of these huts really makes a wholesale monstrosity on that skyline and that there is plenty of land in the possession of the War Office on other skylines near which would not interfere with the amenities of Stonehenge?
    Commodore KING: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement

    WAR FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).
    17. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers have been employed with his permission to assist in the making of the so-called cinematograph war films; whether it is contemplated supplying more soldiers for further films in the future; and, if so, how many more of these films has it been arranged to make?
    Commodore KING: I cannot give the figures asked for in the first part of the question without calling for returns from the Commands, and I hardly think the value of the information would justify the time and labour expended in preparing it. It is the Army Council's intention to continue to give assistance to British film companies in accordance with the policy, and subject to the conditions, explained by the Prime Minister in his answer to the hon. and gallant
    2072
    Member's question on the 29th November. There are at the present moment three films for which military facilities are being given or have been promised, and three other cases are under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the soldiers volunteers, or are they compelled to act for the films?
    Commodore KING: It is by arrangement between the units and the film companies.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the officers and soldiers volunteers for this service, or do they have to do it?
    Commodore KING: I understand that they are volunteers. There is no force used to make them take part.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether the War Office participate in the huge profits that are made out of these films?
    Commodore KING: That question is answered in the answer to which I have referred. It is either a payment or a percentage in the shape of royalties.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the payment is a substantial one, or whether the property of the State is used for practically war propaganda?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does it not go to British films and not to American films?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Minister aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is always photographed in his uniform in his election campaigns, and does not that show that soldiers like to be photographed?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the original answer that it is now the settled policy of the Government to continue with this war propaganda in films?
    Commodore KING: It is not war propaganda. It is instructional work in films.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that I have not worn my uniform at elections for nine years?

  SCOTLAND.

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, CUPAR.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated average number of weeks' employment per person employed, with total average wages per person employed, at the Second Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation, Limited, works at Cupar, Fife; and the average amount of subsidy per person so employed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I cannot at present give the information requested. I am, however, making inquiry on the subject and will communicate further with the hon. Member when information is available.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is still the case that men are being employed by this firm for 81 hours per week?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say without notice.

    REGISTRATION OFFICE, FALA AND SANTRA.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many places in Scotland registration work is carried out in licensed premises; if it is the policy of the Department responsible for registration to have such work done in licensed premises; and, if not, will he take action to have the registration work in Fala and Santra parish, Midlothian, carried out in other than licensed premises?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Nowhere in Scotland is registration carried out in a licensed public house or hotel. In two parishes it is known to be carried out in a grocer's shop to which a grocer's licence is attached. The Registrar-General has no authority to prohibit the use of licensed premises for the purpose. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 23rd ultimo.
    Mr WESTWOOD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    CURED HERRINGS (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of barrels of cured herrings exported from
    2074
    Scotland to Russia for the year 1926 and the first 10 months of 1927?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As regards the first part of the question the answer is none. As regards the second part the number of barrels exported from Scotland in the period referred to was 7,185, all despatched in January.

    SUGAR-BEET CULTIVATION, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total acreage of land under beet cultivation upon which subsidy is paid in Scotland and the amount of subsidy paid; and whether the cultivation of subsidised beet has increased employment in the agricultural industry?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In 1926 the area returned to the Board as under sugar-beet was 3,649 acres. The estimated by the companies in January, 1927, from which sugar-beet was delivered to the factories was 3,390 acres. The amount of subsidy paid was £74,058 13s. being in respect of sugar £63,980 8s. 10d., and in respect of molasses £10,078 4s. 2d. The area in 1927, as returned to the Board is 10,352 acres. The amount of subsidy paid for the crop of 1927 up to the present date is £32,316 1s. 9d., being in respect of sugar, £32,088 1s. 7d., and in respect of molasses, £228 0s. 2d. It is estimated that where a considerable area of sugar beet is grown on a farm, its cultivation requires, as compared with that of turnips, which it generally replaces, additional labour to the extent of one casual worker for 1½ weeks per acre.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, GLENSHIEL.
    Mr. MACPHERS0Nasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in dealing with the application for small holdings of the ex-Service men at Glenshiel?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Investigations are not yet complete but I hope to be in a position to announce a decision at an early date.

    LIME SUPPLIES.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps have been taken by the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Scottish Agricultural Conference in relation to the supply of lime for agricultural purposes?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Board of Agriculture have recently made surveys of typical areas in Scotland which will assist in the consideration of this question. The matter is of importance to Scottish agriculture; but I can hold out no hope of a State subsidy for the establishment or reopening of lime kilns as recommended by the Agricultural Conference.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds are available, during the financial year 1927–28, for drainage grants in Scotland; and whether legislation enabling drainage areas to be delineated and drainage boards to be constituted will be introduced next Session?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The funds made available at 1st April last for agricultural drainage in Scotland during the year 1927–28 amounted to £10,950. I cannot at present give any undertaking as to legislation on this subject.

  AGRICULTURE.

    LAND DRAINAGE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture if it is intended to promote legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Report has been available for a few days only, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement. The recommendations of the Royal Commission are under consideration.
    Mr. RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any intimation as to when we may expect a statement?
    Mr. GUINNESSI could not give any date at present.

    CATTLE PRICES.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the financial condition of the farmers and the disparity which exists between the prices paid for beasts and the prices charged to the public by the butchers, he will consider the re-establishment of the system of grading animals which prevailed during the War?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The grading system to which the hon. Member refers was incidental to a comprehensive control of the meat trade which involved the Government purchase of cattle from fanners on the basis of maximum prices, the fixing and pooling of intermediate charges, the pooling of other expenses and the re-sale of beasts or meat to butchers at fixed prices. I am, at present, exploring the possibility of introducing an improved system of price recording based on the weight as well as on the quality of cattle sold, but no sufficient grounds exist for placing the meat industry of this country under a form of State control which could only be justified in a national emergency and is not seriously demanded by any of the interests concerned.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that during the War this system was very unsatisfactory as regards prices and costs?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the difference between the price which the farmer receives, and the price which the butcher receives, is due to the fact that the farmer sells the animal alive and as a whole, while the butcher cuts it up into small pieces?

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Lord APSLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now any definite evidence as to the origin of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which have spread through the New Forest and into Wiltshire; whether the recent outbreak near Southampton has been traced to the same or to a different source; and whether the source of any outbreaks have been traced to feed or bedding given to store cattle landed at Southampton docks?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Foot-and-mouth disease existed so long in the New Forest before it was reported to the Ministry that it has been impossible to obtain definite evidence of the cause of the original outbreak. The recent outbreak at Southampton was due to an infected cow which was purchased at Salisbury market on the 15th November, and it is probable that infection originally came from the New Forest. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
    Lord APSLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore say that the infection did not come from Southampton at all, but originally from the New Forest?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is impossible to dogmatise about it, but we have recently found pigs in the New Forest the feet of which are growing again after foot-and-mouth disease, and it would seem that the disease existed in the New Forest without any notification to us before it was found in Southampton.
    Lord APSLEY: Is there any evidence of any infection coming from Southampton?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, I think the evidence is the other way.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Have proceedings been taken against the people who failed to notify the disease?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That is a matter for the local authority, in consultation with the veterinary department of the Ministry. In all these cases, prosecutions are brought where prima facie cases are established.

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, GLASGOW (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of street accidents in the City of Glasgow caused by the increase of privately-owned omnibuses running on the public streets of that city; and whether he is prepared to hold an inquiry into the matter, with a view to the better control of street traffic, in the interest of public safety?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. The control of omnibus services with due regard to the safety of the public is primarily a matter for the licensing authority concerned. The provisions of the Draft Road Traffic Bill which I caused to be circulated some time ago would increase the powers of licensing authorities in this respect.
    Mr. MACKINDER: If that is the ease, why does the Ministry compel local authorities to grant licences when they
    2078
    think it is against the interests of the public and where they think they will create more danger?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not follow the connection between the hon. Member's question and that on the Order Paper. It is stated in the question that privately-owned omnibuses are responsible for these accidents. They are not more responsible than publicly-owned vehicles.
    Mr. MACKINDER: But if a municipality considers that a large number of omnibuses is likely to create more danger, why does the Minister compel them to issue licences when they do not want to do so?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Sometimes it is in their own interests that they do not allow private omnibuses to run.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of certain municipal omnibuses the braking system recently introduced is much above the average adopted by private omnibuses, and they are, therefore, safer to run. In that case, why does the Minister continue to insist on the inclusion of private omnibuses, when better omnibuses can be run?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the streets of Glasgow are much congested by the tramways, which are, like all other tramways, out of date; and that they are really the cause of the trouble?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Have any official representations been made by the City of Glasgow authorities to the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I must have notice of that question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

    MOTOR DRIVERS' LICENCES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to an inquest held on George Sturgess, at Finedon, Northamptonshire, at which it was proved that the driver of a lorry, named Alfred Seamarks, who had been the cause of the deceased's death, had been suffering from defective eyesight from childhood; and when it is proposed to introduce legislation governing the issue of driving licences to persons suffering from physical defects?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has already been called to this accident. My proposals with regard to the conditions with which applicants for driving licences should comply are contained in Clauses 14 and 15 of the draft Road Traffic Bill which I caused to he published and circulated some time ago. I am unable to say when this Bill will be introduced.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the very great urgency of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman get some more satisfaction from the Prime Minister or the Whips so as to get this Bill introduced fairly quickly?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member had better wait until next Session and see what happens.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Seeing that in that Bill there is a provision for the carrying of lights

    —

    Number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury.

    Number of persons killed or injured.

    Population(1921 Census).

    Percentage of (2) to (3).

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    1,658

    1,801

    420,264

    ·428

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    …

    3,886

    4,170

    1,034,174

    ·403

    London (Metropolitan Police District and City).

    44,621

    48,227

    7,480,201

    ·645

    TYNE (CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC).
    Mr. RUSSELLasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the inadequate facilities for cross-river traffic on the River Tyne below Newcastle; whether, having regard to the conflicting local interests and the need for a comprehensive scheme to ensure that questions of particular communications will be placed in their proper perspective and considered in relation to the larger general problem which affects a wide industrial area, he will appoint a Committee to go into the whole matter and advise the authorities concerned?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This subject has been studied by the North and South Tyneside Joint Town Planning Committees, and a grant was made from the Road Fund towards the charges of the consulting engineers who were appointed to advise upon the matter. Their Report was presented in April, 1925. Having regard to the activities of these town
    at the rear of cycles cannot something be done to hasten legislation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question that has just been put.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Minister of Transport if he can state the number of accidents to life and limb caused by vehicles in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and London, respectively, with the percentage of accidents to the respective populations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the Home DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an extract from the Return for the year 1926 which was presented to Parliament on 11th April, 1927. No later figures are available.
    Following is the extract:
    planning authorities there appears no reason for the appointment of a Committee.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extent to which congestion exists on the Tyne below Newcastle, and what a relief to trade and industry it would be if this work were done?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I know; but the estimate for that bridge is about £1,000,000, and no one seems willing to contribute towards it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the East coast communications call for reorganisation, and would it not be better to use the unemployed for this work?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if it had not been for the Chancellor pinching the £26,000,000 there would have been that money available for this work?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire producing coal on the latest available date and for the corresponding dates for the years 1924 and 1925; the total wages paid per week to the workpeople employed at the coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire on the latest available date and for the corresponding dates for the years 1924 and 1925; and the number of workpeople employed at the coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire for the same periods?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): At the middle of November, 1927, 250 pits were producing coal in Lancashire and Cheshire and 86,900 wage-earners were employed. The corresponding figures for 1924 were 274 and 105,000 and for 1925, 254 and 95,500. During October, 1927, the latest date for which information is available, the estimated total weekly wage-bill was £187,000. The corresponding figures for 1924 and 1925 were £257,000 and £216,000.
    Mr. SUTTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard that during the past few weeks a number of mines have been closed down in this district?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. I believe some have closed down, but I should require notice of the question.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: Do the wages paid for this year take into account the fact that the miners in Lancashire owe a debt to the owners of about 10 weeks' wages? Has that been taken into account?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked for the amount of the wages paid, and I have given the figures that have been paid.
    Mr. PALING: If this be taken away, it lowers the wages paid by exactly that amount?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. That is not the fact at all.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that if the miners had only received what the ascertainment provided they would have received no wages for approximately 10 weeks?
    Colonel LANE FOX: That has nothing to do with the question asked on the Order Paper, which I have answered, If the hon. Member wants that information, perhaps he will put down a question.

    AMALGAMATIONS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have been proposed under the Mining Industry Act, 1926; how many have been sanctioned; and how many have actually been carried through?
    Colonel LANE FOX: As the reply to this question is a long one, and involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us some information as to the amalgamations that have taken place?
    Following is the reply:

    Number of Amalgamations since the passing of Number of Approximate the Mining Industry Act, 1926, including number confirmed by the Court as shown in brackets.

    Number of Collieries involved.

    Approximate Annual Output.

    Tons.

    8(3)

    70(32)

    18,746,000 (5,543,000)

    The hon. Member will understand that it does not necessarily follow that only those amalgamations confirmed by the Court result from the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, as the possibility of using the procedure under the Act is undoubtedly facilitating voluntary amalgamations. In addition, the following selling agencies or other organisations for a similar purpose have been formed or are under discussion:
    District arrangements:

    South Wales.

    Yorkshire, Notts. and Derby.

    North Staffordshire.

    Amalgamation of existing selling agencies:
    L. Gueret, Limited, with D. R. Llewellyn, Merrett & Price and A. J. Pope & Company.
    The above statement does not include any information which has reached the Department confidentially, and therefore, as I have previously suggested to the House, this answer if taken by itself must necessarily be misleading and incomplete.

    CO-OPERATIVE SELLING.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines what action it is proposed to take on the majority Report of the Departmental Committee on Co-operative Selling?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have nothing to add to the statement made on the 22nd February last by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the Debate on a Motion by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson).

    ASCERTAINMENT.
    Mr. E, BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines what steps have been taken in the various districts since the end of the coal stoppage to adjust the periodical ascertainment in such a way as to ensure the rating at the live market price of coal disposed of to associated concerns?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The principle that coal disposed of to an associated concern should be charged at the proper market price is generally accepted, and the method of giving effect to this principle is a matter for agreement between the owners and workmen and their respective accountants in the various districts. The question is, of course, more important in some districts than in' others, and in several cases joint committees have been set up to deal with it. I have re-

    District.

    Normal daily hours of work below ground.*

    Average daily number of hours spent below ground.

    Number of pits producing Coal (Nov., 1927).

    Number of wage-earners employed below and above ground (Nov., 1927).

    Accidents at Mines under the Coal Mines Act-January to November, 1927.

    Number of persons killed.

    Number of persons seriously injured.

    Rate per 1,000 persons employed.

    Persons killed.

    Persons seriously injured.

    hrs.

    mins.

    Northumberland and Durham.

    Hewers7½

    7

    55

    312

    169,500

    148

    725

    ·81

    3·99

    Others 8

    8

    25

    Yorkshire, Nottingam, North Derby and Kent.

    7½

    8

    0

    446

    298,600

    254

    1,084

    ·83

    3·54

    Rest of Great Britain

    8

    8

    30

    1,444

    510,400

    627

    2,463

    1·15

    4·53

    Great Britain

    —

    —

    2,202

    978,500

    1,029

    4,272

    1·00

    4·14

    * In certain districts it is customary to work a shorter shift on Saturdays.

    No information is available as to the earliest time of descending and the latest for ascending.

    Information is not yet available of the number of persons less seriously injured.

    PRICES, LONDON.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to make a statement respecting the
    ceived no representations that any particular difficulty is being experienced in doing so.
    Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in which districts these joint committees have been set up?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, if the hon. Member will put down a question.

    EIGHT HOURS ACT.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines how many pits and the number employed are working under the Eight Hours Act; the earliest time for descending and latest for ascending, and the average time of the workpeople underground; how many pits and the number employed are working under a seven and a half hours' arrangement; the earliest time for descending and the latest for ascending, and the average time of the workers underground; the percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the pits working under the Eight Hours Act; the percentage of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the pits working under the seven and a-half hours' arrangements; and the fatal and non-fatal accidents in both cases?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving such information as is available.
    Following is the statement:
    causes of the recent increase in the London coal prices; and, if this is not immediately possible, will he state at what date he will be in possession of the necessary information?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I can make no statement until the replies to certain questions I have addressed to representatives of the coal merchants and co-operative societies have been received and examined. I understand that the necessary information cannot be in my possession before the end of this week, but if the hon. Member will put down a question in a week's time I shall hope to be able to give him further information.

    ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport if he can account for the fact that the Electricity Commissioners estimate a saving of only £90,276 to West Ham under the South-East England scheme, while the City of London Electric Company is estimated to save £825,182 on a smaller quantity of electricity consumed; and why, in view of the greater efficiency of the West Ham station, it is proposed to reduce the output of that station from 100 million units per annum to 5½ million units and thus throw idle a large quantity of up-to-date and efficient plant?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The saving which the Commissioners estimate will result to a particular undertaker depends on the estimated cost of the supply from the Board as compared with continued independent operation. These matters are at present the subject of representations to the Central Electricity Board. The use to which a selected station will be put in the production of electricity for the Board will depend upon the operation of the scheme by the Board and will be adjusted so as to secure the most economical use of the stations as a whole.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Shoreditch Borough Council anticipate that the South-East England electricity scheme will involve a loss to consumers in the borough of £33,700 a year, instead of the saving of £20,600 estimated by the Electricity Commissioners; and whether he proposes to ask the Central Electricity Board to hold a public inquiry before approving the scheme?
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the estimated saving of £90,276 to West Ham
    2086
    under the South-East England electricity scheme is regarded as quite illusory by the corporation of that borough, which estimates that a loss to its consumers of £153,368 in the next five years will result from the application of the scheme in its present form; and if he will refer the matter to the Central Electricity Board to hold a public inquiry, as requested by a large number of authorised undertakers in the area, before proceeding further with the scheme?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by the Central Electricity Board that all representations made to them to the effect that the savings estimated in connection with the South-East England electricity scheme are not likely to be realised will be carefuly considered before the scheme is adopted.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, whether he proposes to ask the Central Electricity Board to hold a public inquiry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the hon. Member well knows, by Section 4 of the Act of last year the question as to what inquiry, if any, shall be held, is specifically left to the discretion of the Board.
    Sir F. HALL: Have all the powers of this House been given away to the Board?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend is as well able to judge of that as I am, by reading Section 4 of the Act.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information as to whether the Board intends to hold an inquiry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, I cannot say anything on that subject.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do hon. Gentlemen opposite not now realise the effect of the semi-Socialistic Act which they helped to pass?

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Prime Minister how many male persons during 1926 were assisted by the British Gov-

    2087
    ernment to emigrate from this country and settle on the land in the British Dominions; and what was the total cost of such emigration and settlement to the Imperial Exchequer?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton):. The estimated number of male persons assisted to settle on the land overseas in 1926 was 17,000. The cost of their passages to the Imperial Exchequer was approximately £174,200, to which must be added certain expenditure, in some cases given by way of loan, which is incurred during the process of settlement overseas, and is spread over a period of years. In 1926 the total number of persons assisted under the Empire Settlement Act was 65,530. and the total net expenditure £1,046,000.

    IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether, with reference to the 400 ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland who are still waiting to retire, under Article 10 of the agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and the Irish Free State, but are unable to obtain the pensions to which they are entitled, as the compensation committee dealing with this matter has not sat for over two years, he can now inform the House as to the decision arrived at by the Irish Free State Government?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have been asked to take this question. I can at present add nothing to the answers which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend on 5th December.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been under the consideration of the Free State Government for about two years, and, having regard to the fact that these are ex-British servants, does he not think that the British Government ought to make serious representations as to the Clause of the Treaty which is not being fulfilled in this respect?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is very closely in the mind of my Department, and that
    2088
    so far from having lost sight of it the matter is actually this very day under consideration. Everything will be done to speed up the business.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that sanction has been given to legislation for indenturing native children in Rhodesia under the age of 14 years, he will consider whether it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to consult the Rhodesian Government upon the advisability of amending the legislation in order to introduce a downward limit of five or seven years below which children could be exempt from whipping or, alternatively, from the whole of the provisions of the indenture legislation?
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on this subject.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the cost of administering unemployment insurance funds for the last financial year was approximately 9½ per cent, of the total expenditure, national insurance funds 13 per cent. of total expenditure, and workmen's compensation 44 per cent., including profits; and will he consider the advisability of bringing workmen's compensation under a national administration and effecting such economies as may be possible?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The figure of 44 per cent. quoted by the hon. Member applies only to the insurance companies. A large proportion, however, of the total compensation paid under the Act is paid by mutual associations of employers and uninsured employers and the cost of administration by the insurance companies must not therefore be taken to represent the cost over the whole system. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the figure referred to compensation transactions amounted to no less than £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, and is he not aware that the cost of administration of workmen's compensation insurance more than doubles the cost of administering unemployment insurance and the National Health Insurance Fund, and does he not now think it is time to take steps to minimise the expense of this Department?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I think the hon. Member hardly realises that you cannot really compare the cost of unemployment and health insurance with workmen's compensation insurance at all, because they are on an entirely different basis. The two former are on a flat rate with regard to contributions and rates of benefit; the latter is not on a flat rate and the eligibility for benefit is a much more difficult problem.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the profits alone for the administration of the workmen's compensation exceed the proportion required either for administering unemployment or health insurance. Surely there is a comparison there?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I cannot accept that statement.

    IMPERIAL SERVICE MEDAL.
    Mr. SCRYMGE0URasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way so to amend the conditions under which the Imperial Service medal is awarded that those who have been for say 25 years on the pensionable staff of the Department, and a similar period in full-time service as scale payment sub-postmasters, would be able to claim the honour?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. The regulations governing the award of the Imperial Service medal restrict it to established civil servants of certain classes who on retirement have completed not less than 25 years of pensionable service. Service as scale payment sub-postmaster not being pensionable cannot be reckoned as qualifying for the medal. I cannot hold out any hope of an amendment of the regulations so as to extend the scope of the medal.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If two specific cases are submitted will the hon. Gentleman agree to consider the circumstances?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I cannot add anything to what I have said in the answer.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE FACILITIES (RURAL AREAS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY asked thePostmaster-General whether he can see his way to set up a public telephone box either in or outside every village post office?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The provision of a public telephone call office at every village post office irrespective of cost or probable revenue from calls would involve prohibitive capital outlay and annual loss. I am prepared, of course, to consider the establishment of a call office in any given village where the prospective user is likely to cover costs or when a guarantee can be obtained.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had there been a telephone call box available, it is quite probable that the murderers of Police Constable Gutteridge would have been caught before now?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No Sir. As far as my information goes, I do not think that is the case at all.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that the Postmaster-General will not set up public boxes unless a profit is assured beforehand, whatever the public want?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The general principle is that there must be some limitation on the unremunerative fringe. I am prepared to consider the circumstances in any particular case, but speaking generally, it is desirable either to have a reasonable assurance that the revenue will at least cover the costs, or some form of guarantee.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, if he instals these boxes, putting in the automatic system, so that people using them can get trunk calls?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not all this the result of having the telephones as a Government enterprise? They will not take any risks.

    WIRELESS SERVICE (UNITED STATES).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Postmaster-General the number of wireless calls between Great Britain and the United States of America for each of the last three months; and whether the working costs are covered by the receipts?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The figures are as follow: September 148, October 162, November 202. The present revenue approximately covers working costs, but not interest, depreciation and amortisation.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress which has been made during this period?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, on the whole I am quite satisfied.

    BEAM AND CABLE SERVICES (RATES).
    Mr. OTHO NICHOLSONasked the Postmaster-General the ordinary rates for communication by the beam services and the cable services, respectively, with India, Australia, South Africa, and Canada?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The following rates per word are charged for full-rate traffic by the beam wireless services and the cable services, respectively:

    Beam.

    Cable.

    s.

    d.

    s

    d.

    India

    1

    1

    1

    5

    Australia

    1

    8

    2

    0

    South Africa

    1

    4

    1

    8

    Canada (Eastern Provinces)

    0

    9

    0

    9

    Mr. NICHOLSON: Why is the Canadian Service so much less than any of the others?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In the case of the Canadian service, the cable rate and the beam rate are identical and are assimilated at the same figure.
    Colonel DAY: Is there any reduction of fees for the beam rate after certain hours?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is a series of reductions in respect of mes-
    2092
    sages which, for various reasons, are taken at less than the full rates. The figures which I have quoted refer to full rates.

    EXPERIMENTAL WIRELESS STATIONS (WAVE LENGTHS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he has granted permission to any amateur wireless experimenters to use other wave lengths than those previously authorised?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. There has been no recent change in the wave-lengths allocated to experimental wireless stations.

    DULWICH COLLEGE.
    Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the scheme under consideration to render Dulwich College independent of Government grants will stop the flow of scholarships from publicly-provided schools to the college; and what effect will it have on the fund set aside under the present scheme for the establishment of a girls' college?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): If the college ceases to be grant-aided it will be relieved of the obligation under the Board's regulations to offer free places to pupils from public elementary schools, but I do not anticipate that the intake of such pupils into the College would, on that account, be terminated. As regards the second part of the question, there is under the existing scheme no fund specifically earmarked for the provision of a girls' school. The draft scheme, on the other hand, provides that one-quarter of the ultimate residue of the net yearly income, or £5,000, whichever is the greater amount, shall be invested with a view to the framing of a further scheme for the establishment in or near Dulwich of a girls' school of the highest class, provided that if the whole residue in any year is less than £10,000, half of it shall be applied to the purposes of the girls' school.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not within the power of the Department to give or withhold consent to this scheme; and will the Department withhold that consent, considering that the scheme will deprive large numbers of elementary and

    2093
    secondary school-children of scholarships? Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer the question as to what would be done with the fund mentioned should the scheme come into operation?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not desirable that colleges and institutions of this kind should paddle their own canoe without sponging on State funds?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the whole income from the Dulwich estate is used for purposes of education with the exception of just a few eleemosynary pensions?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), I think, is under a misapprehension. The Board in administering schemes of this kind is discharging the functions, not so much of an administrative department of His Majesty's Government as of a trustee whose duty is to see that the purposes of the original foundation, are properly carried out. I could not contemplate the possibility that the Board of Education would refuse to act properly in the capacity of a trustee, in order to secure some particular advantage under our own Regulations. As regards the last part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Member reads the answer I have given, he will see that there is no connection whatever between the question of the free places in the college and the future possibility of a girls' school.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that the original foundation of Alleyn's College of God's Gift, was for the education of poor children, that it has now been partly taken, and is going to be further taken by this proposed scheme?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think the hon. Member's statement is accurate. If he puts down another question on the subject, I will answer it.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to answer my question whether it is not a fact that the whole income from the Dulwich estates with the exception of a few eleemosynary pensions is used for educational purposes?
    Lord E. PERCY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of a question of that kind, I shall be very glad to answer it.

    OXFORD STREET RESTAURANT (PROSECUTION).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that in a recent prosecution for theft from the staff gratuity box in an Oxford Street restaurant it was stated in Court that the money contributed by the customers to this box was retained by the restaurant proprietors, he will have an inqury made into the matter?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend cannot usefully add anything to the answers he gave on the 8th instant, except that he sees no reason for his ordering any inquiry. There are no grounds for advising interference with the sentence passed by the Court, and that is the only matter with which he is concerned.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the case, as stated by the magistrate, that the proprietors have appropriated or taken possession of the money subscribed for the staff; and, if so, why is it that the man who only steals occasionally a small sum from this box is very properly to be imprisoned, but the man who steals the whole of it regularly is to escape?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: That question was fully answered by my right hon. Friend in replying to two supplementary questions on the 8th instant, if the horn Member will read the answers.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the people in question are unorganised, and that if they were in an organisation, they would have someone to look after their interests?
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that evils such as this are inevitable under the Capitalist system?

    EMIGRATION (STATISTICS).
    Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures, for any corresponding 12 months in the last 10 years, showing the number of emigrants from the British Isles to the United States, to the Argentine, and to Australia, respectively, from

    2095
    Scotland to Canada and to New Zealand, and from England to Australia, the Argentine, and the Irish Free State?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer has been prepared in tabular form, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Emigrants of British Nationality.

    Period.

    From the British Isles.

    From Scotland.

    From England

    To the United States.

    To Australia.

    To Canada.

    To New Zealand.

    To Australia.

    1917

    …

    …

    …

    2,379

    1,147

    407

    77

    967

    1918

    …

    …

    …

    1,714

    2,010

    217

    22

    1,825

    1919

    …

    …

    …

    23 867

    12,545

    7,919

    549

    11,708

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    77,151

    28,974

    22,024

    2,130

    23,173

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    56,393

    27,751

    15,453

    2,277

    20,951

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    49,902

    39,099

    12,278

    3,282

    30,690

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    103,310

    40,164

    29,070

    2,724

    31,537

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    29,344

    39,737

    19,136

    3,072

    30,343

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    55,981

    36,082

    11,040

    3,307

    26,040

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    54,827

    45,780

    14,735

    4,852

    30,356

    1927 (8 months January-August).

    31,461

    26,135

    12,703

    1,412

    16,983

    Figures of emigrants from England to the Irish Free State are not available.
    British emigrants to the Argentine have not been classified separately from those proceeding to other foreign countries outside Europe; the number of British emigrants from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to foreign countries in South America during the eight months January-August, 1927, was 1,470, and of this number 1,271 were emigrants from England.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TUBERCULIN-TESTED MILK.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain dairymen advertise and sell tuberculin-tested milk as such without a licence to do so; and whether, in the interests of the public and of the genuine licence-holders, he will issue fresh instructions to stop this growing practice?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of emigrants of British nationality from the British Isles to the United States and to Australia, from Scotland to Canada and to New Zealand, and from England to Australia, during each year from 1917 to 1926, and during the eight months ended 31st August, 1927, are shown in the following table:
    Kingsley Wood): A case has been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice in which a dairyman advertises milk as "Tuberculin Tested Milk," although he does not hold a licence under the Milk (Special Designations) Order. My right hon. Friend is advised that proceedings under Section 3 of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922, would be justified in this case, but he has no power to take these proceedings or to give any instructions to the local authority in the matter.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: If the local authorities are not taking steps in the matter, cannot the hon. Member do something to protect the public?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in a matter of this kind. This is a matter for the local authority, and in our opinion it is a case that ought to be brought to the Courts.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: How does the hon. Gentleman expect to encourage the production of tuberculin-tested milk if he allows sales of tuberculin-tested milk by people who have not got the Ministry's licence at all?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has already brought this case to the notice of the authorities concerned, and still hopes something may be done.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Will not the Minister consider putting a mark on tuberculin-tested milk which is properly inspected, so that the public can distinguish it from improperly tuberculin-tested milk?

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health what percentage of tuberculous cases, discharged after treatment from sanatoria, die from tuberculosis within five years of their discharge; and whether his Department has under consideration any schemes for the after-care of patients who have been treated in sanatoria for tuberculosis?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, local authorities are empowered under the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Act, 1921, to make arrangements for the after-care of persons who have suffered from tuberculosis, and many local authorities have made arrangements of this kind.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department do not appear to keep any of the really valuable statistics relating to this illness, and will he take steps to see that more accurate information is collected, so that it may be available?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I should be very glad to show him the statistics we have, and to explain to him the many steps which we are taking in the matter.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has any scheme under consideration to prevent the spread of infection of tuberculosis by discharged sanatorium patients?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is the duty of the local medical officer of health under the Tuberculosis Regulations to take such steps as are necessary or desirable to prevent the spread of infection in every case of tuberculosis which is notified to him, and those patients who receive sana-
    2098
    torium treatment are instructed in the precautions necessary to avoid the risk of infecting other persons.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is customary for these ex-sanatorium patients to be sent back in a very bad condition, so that they contract the disease again and spread it?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think one can dispose of the matter in that way. In a very large number of cases these unfortunate people return home at their own desire, or sometimes at the request of their relatives, and it is very difficult indeed to deal with such cases.
    Dr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the local authorities are doing all in their power to deal with these cases?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, I am never satisfied in these matters.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health if his Department has approved the practice of boards of guardians granting outdoor relief to married men, with families, who have served sentences of imprisonment in respect of criminal offences?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. As a result of recent investigation, a few such cases have been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, and he has drawn the attention of the guardians to these cases.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it the policy of the Minister of Health not to approve the granting of outdoor relief to married criminals?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman had better read my answer.
    Mr. THURTLE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether or not his Department approve of the granting of outdoor relief to married criminals?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that we do not approve the practice of granting outdoor relief to married men, with families, who have served sentences in respect of criminal offences.
    Mr. OLIVER: Can the hon. Gentleman and his Department justify a policy which

    2099
    means that after a man has served a penalty for a crime he should proceed to starve?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is not the alternative.
    Mr. OLIVER: That is what you stated.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not advisable that criminals should not marry in case they transmit the taint of their criminal propensities?

    PRE-WAR NAVAL PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that 26,500 naval and marine pensioners who served under the Admiralty counted War service for pension and received pension of rank held on demobilisation, he will consider the claims of the 400 naval and marine pensioners who served under the War Office and did not count War service for pension and did not receive pension of the rank to which they were promoted during the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I have been asked to reply. The pre-War naval and marine pensioners who served under the War Office during the late War were in the same position as the pre-War Army pensioners who re-enlisted for service during the War, whose War service did not count for increase of their Army pensions, except as regards re-assessment, on the improved post-War scales, based on their service on original discharge to pension. I regret that the naval pensions of the men referred to cannot be further increased. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Sir P. Goff) on this subject on 17th May last.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
The House divided: Ayes, 211: Noes, 110.

Division No. 474.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Couper, J. B.

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

Apsley, Lord

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hanbury, C.

Astor, Viscountess

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Bainiel, Lord

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

Harrison, G. J. C.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Hartington, Marquess of

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Haslam, Henry C

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

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C M.

Bennett, A. J.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

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

Hills, Major John Walter

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Drewe, C.

Hilton, Cecil

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Ellis, R. G.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Briggs, J. Harold

England, Colonel A.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Huntingfield, Lord

Burman, J. B.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Hurd, Percy A.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Fielden, E. B.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Carver, Major W. H.

Forrest, W.

Iveagh, Countess of

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

Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

Jephcott, A. R.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Ganzonl, Sir John

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Gates, Percy

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Chapman, Sir S.

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Christie, J. A.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Grant, Sir J A.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Clayton, G. C.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Long, Major Eric

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Looker, Herbert William

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Grotrian, H. Brent

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Lumley, L. R.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H

Maclntyre, Ian

Radford, E. A.

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

MacMillan, Captain H.

Raine, Sir Walter

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Ramsden, E.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Macquisten, F. A.

Remer, J. R.

Tinne, J. A.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Remnant, Sir James

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Malone, Major P. B.

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

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Waddington, R.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wallace, Captain D E.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Salmon, Major I.

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

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Watts, Dr. T.

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wells, S. R.

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

Sandon, Lord

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Shepperson, E. W.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

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

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Skelton, A. N.

Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wolmer, Viscount

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

Womersley, W. J.

Nuttall, Ellis

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Smithers, Waldron

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Penny, Frederick George

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Storry-Deans, R.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir George

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hennessy

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

NOES.

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

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Scurr, John

Amnion, Charles George

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sexton, James

Baker, Walter

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

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Kennedy, T.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barr, J.

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

Sitch, Charles H.

Batey, Joseph

Lansbury, George

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lawrence, Susan

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Broad, F. A.

Lawson, John James

Smith, Rannie (Penistone)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lee, F.

Snell. Harry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lindley, F. W.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Cape, Thomas

Lowth, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Lunn, William

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cluse, W. S.

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

Sutton, J. E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Mackinder, W.

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

Connolly, M.

MacLaren, Andrew

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cove, W. G.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thurtle, Ernest

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

Morris, R. H.

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

Fenby, T. D.

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

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gosling, Harry

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Oliver, George Harold

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Owen, Major G.

Wiggins, William Martin

Groves, T.

Palin, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Grundy, T. W.

Paling, W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hardie, George D.

Potts, John S.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hayday, Arthur

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Windsor, Walter

Hirst, G. H.

Riley, Ben

Wright, W.

Hore-Beisha, Leslie

Ritson, J.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rose, Frank H.

Mr. T Henderson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

SOLICITORS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday.

WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  After the rather lengthy and good-humoured discussion which we had yesterday upon the provisions of this Bill, I do not find any reason to complain of the manner in which the case was put by members of the party opposite. Their comments upon the personal character of the Minister showed a restraint which I recognised as being as gratifying as it was good humoured. The worst thing said about me was that my methods savoured of Machiavelli, and, although it was not said as a compliment, I had the impression that it was not meant to suggest the blackness of iniquity usually associated with Italian statesmen. The speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite showed a lamentable want of appreciation of the merits of this Bill.
  Mr. MARCH: Are there any merits in it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In moving that it be read the Third time, I want to spend a little time on some considerations that became a little obscure during the early proceedings on the Bill. I think it is common ground that the present state of the law with regard to surcharges is unsatisfactory. I rather think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did mention some words used by the Leader of the Opposition on an occasion in 1924 which showed that he, for his part, appreciated the fact that under the existing law there is not satisfaction to be got for ratepayers who feel that their money is being spent in an illegal way, nor is there any sufficient deterrent for those who wish deliberately to pursue a policy of illegality. When the law is in such a condition that it cannot be carried into proper effect, it tends to bring the whole system of law into contempt, and that is a thing which no country can look upon with satisfaction or equanimity. Therefore, I think we
  2120
  must be agreed that the time had come when some amendment of the law had to be made.
  This brings me to the first point I wish to make, and one which I cannot repeat too often, that the offences which may bring members of local authorities under the provisions of this Bill are not offences invented by the Minister for the purpose of damaging his political opponents or excluding them from positions of responsibility, but are offences against the law of the country. It is the duty of the auditor, as laid down by Statute, to disallow any item of expenditure which he finds to be contrary to the law, and to surcharge those who are responsible. I do not feel any particular surprise that hon. Members opposite think I am actuated in this matter by purely partisan motives. Those who are partisans themselves are not able always to see clearly into the motives of others. But I may say on this occasion that the situation is not as simple as it may appear to hon. Members opposite. Because surcharges of large amounts, exceeding £500, have in the past been made upon members of local authorities on which Socialists are in the majority, they draw the conclusion that those people have been surcharged because they were Socialists.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the case. They have not been surcharged because they were Socialists, but because they were doing things contrary to the law. I will not say it would be much truer to say that they did things contrary to the law because they were Socialists
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN—as the hon. Member appears to agree, then he must be fair to me and recognise that I am not concerned with the party politics of the individuals who may come under the operation of this Bill, but I am clearly concerned with the effect of their actions and the legality or otherwise of their proceedings. I do not profess to be other than a party man, but I say that in the administration of the great Department of which I am head I do not regard the party politics of the people with whom I am dealing. Wherever I find inefficiency,

  2121
  extravagance, or illegality in local government, I am going to fight against it, whether those who are responsible for it belong to my party or any other party, and I should feel that I was wanting in my duty if I took any other course. But when hon. Members attack district auditors who are endeavouring to carry out their duties I must say I think that attack is both unfair and, to use a word of which they are very fond, mean, because it is an attack upon people who are not in a position to defend themselves.
  An hon. Member opposite has said that the auditors are my auditors. They are not my auditors. They are entirely independent of me. I have never attempted to give a district auditor instructions as to what he should do; I have never sought to influence a district auditor in carrying out his duties. It would not have been any use if I had. As a matter of fact, the action of district auditors has on more than one occasion been the cause of some embarrassment. But the district auditor has, in the exercise of his duty, to make up his mind as to what items, if any, amongst those which he investigates, are contrary to law, and I repeat that whilst it is true that he may have to consider, for the purpose of his decision as to its legality or illegality, whether a particular item is so unreasonable as to be illegal, he does not surcharge it because it is unreasonable but only because it is so unreasonable as to have become illegal.
  One can quite understand that an auditor may find a case where a local authority has engaged in an expenditure which is not illegal in principle. It may have incurred expenditure, we will say, in giving a luncheon to some guests visiting the city. So long as the expenditure upon the luncheon is reasonable no question will arise, but if it were proved that the expenditure were so excessive as to become illegal the district auditor would rightly find that it was his duty to disallow the item and to surcharge those responsible for it. Exactly the same consideration applies when dealing with extravagant wages or extravagant outdoor relief; and yet hon. Members opposite fasten upon the auditors a charge of partiality and, still worse, of party prejudice, Which is really unfounded. It is unfair and is based,
  2122
  apparently, upon a complete misapprehension of what a district auditor's duties really are. I remember that one of the speakers on the other side quoted the action of district auditors in the case, I think, of the London County Council and of Poplar. In the one case, that of the London County Council, certain token items were taken, and in the case of Poplar a full surcharge was made of the whole amount. That was quoted as an illustration of the partiality of the auditor and of his determination to mete out one law to the rich and another to the poor. The explanation is perfectly simple. A token figure such as that mentioned is not only taken in the case of the London County Council.
  4. 0 p.m.
  I remember there was an important case in Battersea similar to that of the London County Council. What is the sort of case in which these tokens are brought into use? It is where there is some uncertainty about the state of the law, where it is agreed between the auditor and the local authority that they will abide by the decision of the Court upon a test case, and, finally, where a similar understanding is arrived at with any objecting ratepayers that they will accept the token case as a satisfactory test of the point of law involved. That is the sort of circumstances which obtained in the case of the London County Council referred to by hon. Members opposite. But in the case of Poplar there were objecting ratepayers who were not prepared to come to an understanding of that kind, and those ratepayers were entitled, if the auditor had taken a token case on that occasion, to demand that the auditor should show cause why he should not make a full disallowance. Therefore, he had no choice in the matter, and he had to make a full surcharge.
  One of the suggestions that has been made to us has been that this procedure is going to fall with special hardship upon poor men, who will not be able to face the risks of going to the Courts and, possibly, losing their case. Whenever there is an important question of principle involved, the auditor disallows the whole item, and the surcharge, therefore, falls upon the council as a whole. Of course, if the case goes against them, the cost comes, not out of the pockets of the individual councillors but the public. Therefore, I say there is no

  2123
  foundation whatever for any charge against district auditors that they have been harsh or prejudiced in their practice in the past, and in this Bill we are not proposing to alter the law in respect of that.
  Then, a good deal of time was spent, as I thought unnecessarily, upon the question of how the selection by the auditor of what hon. Members opposite called "victims" had to be made. Some words of mine when we were discussing the question of the quorum of a council were quoted and misquoted over and over again. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said I had stated that I could not visualise a case where an auditor would disqualify more than one-third of the council. He said that "visualise" was a favourite word of mine. I resent that injurious allegation. "Visualise" is not a favourite word of mine; I detest it, and never use it. What I did say was that I thought it extremely unlikely that one-third of a council would find themselves disqualified by surcharges upon them exceeding £500. But I founded that view, not upon any speculation as to how the district auditor was going to act. I founded it upon the view that members of a council would take care not to put themselves in a position in which they were likely to be surcharged, and I am confirmed in my view on that matter by the fact that already quite a large number of members of councils have taken these precautions, and have reduced their expenditure to such an extent as to put themselves outside the possible reach of the Bill.
  Call that terrorism if you like. It is only the sort of terrorism exerted by the police upon somebody who might otherwise attempt something contrary to law. I do not think hon. Members opposite have grasped the fact that in this humane and enlightened age we do not now look upon punishment as a sort of revenge for an injury that has been inflicted. We do not call for an eye to be given for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We look upon punishment as a means of prevention of further offences of the same kind, and we value penalties as deterrents. They are intended to act as deterrents, and if they fail to deter, then they have failed in their purpose.
  2124
  It is the object of this Bill, not to inflict severe penalties upon anybody, but to substitute for penalties, which hitherto have failed to deter, other penalties which will be more effective for that purpose.
  It is suggested that the penalties cannot be effective, because there will be such a state of uncertainty as to what the law is, that people will commit offences unintentionally. Hon. Members even went as far as to tell us that the country would be scoured in vain for candidates to come forward because of the terrible risks which would necessarily be incurred under the Bill. If that really were so, it certainly would not apply only to members of the party opposite. All parties would find an equal difficulty in securing candidates, unless, indeed, hon. Members opposite think that the only people who are likely to persist in these illegalities are members of their own party. If it were true that the effect of this Bill would be to make it impossible to find men and women to come forward and undertake the responsibilities of local government, then I should regard the Bill as being in effect, though not in intention, a very dangerous attack upon local government. But who are the persons who are specially responsible for maintaining the interests of local authorities? They are the great associations of local authorities—the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the associations which deals with urban district and rural district councils and Poor Law guardians. Have they come forward with any alarmist view of this kind? Not at all. Not a single one has entered any protest against the principles of this Bill. They can look with equanimity, and even with approval, on a Measure of this kind. Surely, then, we need not be under any apprehension as to its injurious effects upon local government.
  The fact is that, in practice, there will not arise any serious doubts in the future as to what is or is not likely to bring such a surcharge as would disqualify a member of a local authority from service for five years. I think no man who takes reasonable care, who understands his business and responsibilities, need be the least afraid of any dire consequences resulting from this Bill. No one who can show that his action was reasonable, or that, in his belief, it was justified,

  2125
  will be disqualified, and if he can show that he ought fairly to be excused, apart from the disqualification the surcharge itself will be remitted. On the other hand, those who cannot show either that their action was reasonable or that they thought they were acting in a justifiable manner, that is to say, those who must admit that they were deliberately and intentionally acting in defiance of the law, cannot be fairly excused from the surcharge, and ought to be taken out of the local administration of this country. I am sure that hon. Members of the Socialist part; have not gained any credit from the general public for its association with Poplarism, whether in Poplar or anywhere else. If, by means of this Bill, practices which have become associated in the public mind with Poplar, are put an end to, I think they will have reason to be grateful to the Minister who has saved them from what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition called "That terrible nightmare," which he hoped would soon become a thing of the past, and local government in general will have regained something of that confidence which has been seriously shaken in the past.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual patronage, has congratulated us on our good behaviour during the sitting yesterday. It is that sort of frame of mind which characterises him in his relationship with those who sit on these benches. I want to say that I am here, at any rate, his equal, and I do not want to be patronised by him. As for my behaviour, or the behaviour of my colleagues, we behave ourselves as we think right, and we take not the slightest heed of either his praise or his censure. I consider that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and his party in regard to this Bill, aided by the forms and procedure of this House, has been brutal and ruthless towards his opponents, that the Bill has not been discussed, either upstairs or downstairs, in the thoroughgoing manner that a Bill of this kind ought to have been discussed. It is perfectly true that every Amendment raised similar questions, and, consequently, the discussion, to some extent, was necesarily
  2126
  one of repetition, but this Bill contains more mischievous legislation than most other Bills of its size that I have seen introduced in this House.
  The right hon. Gentleman has probably had as much experience of auditors as I have. I think it is very nearly 35 years since I met the first Local Government auditor. During my period of service I have found that, generally, auditors are gentlemen who receive their appointments because of patronage tempered by ability. That is the definition which was given by the late Sir James Davey, the Principal Secretary of the Local Government Board. Very often, these auditors are irresponsible and totally ignorant of the work which they have to do, and those with whom I have come in contact never would have received those appointments but for the word "patronage." Once I came into contact with an auditor who was the nephew of one of the most celebrated men this country has produced—I will not mention his name—but, as an auditor of local government finance and administration, he was totally and completely incompetent. That is the kind of auditor who, over and over again, surcharged myself and my colleagues for our expenditure, and brought upon us when we were not a majority either on the board of guardians or the Poplar Borough Council the name of "wastrels," which was also applied to the Progressive members of the London County Council. To have a slogan of that kind attached to our policy is nothing new, and, therefore, when we hear of our policy being called "Poplarism," it is only like having the word "wastrels" invented as applied to the Progressives on the London County Council. It has never annoyed me that we should be associated in the minds of the party opposite with the word "Poplarism." Up to the present, no one has attempted to define it, and nobody here has yet taken the trouble to tell us what they mean by "Poplarism." Even the Minister of Health has not told us this afternoon what it means.
  What is the origin of this Bill? The reason it was brought in is to be found in the Clause of the Bill which takes power to excuse the Minister of Health and others from having made a great mistake and permits them to disallow a surcharge after it has been to the Courts. The Minister of Health has been at some

  2127
  pains to try to prove this afternoon that people like myself and my colleagues at Poplar and our friends in other Labour boroughs of London have never had any cause to complain of differential treatment as between ourselves and other authorities who have been found to be in a similar position. The manner in which the right hon. Gentleman stands at that Box and makes statements like that without any authority is really very extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that until it was a case where the Poplar Borough Council was involved, this question of an appeal to his Department after the case had been adjudicated upon by the Courts had never arisen. It was only when the Poplar Council had taken their test case right through to the House of Lords and had failed in the last Court although we won in the Appeal Court, that our political opponents in Poplar brought pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman, took him to the Courts, and upset the practice of many years. That was a practice which the right hon. Gentleman knows no one had ever attempted to upset.
  If there had been any people in London willing to try to upset that decision it ought to have been done long ago when the Cockerton judgment was given In that case, there were many thousands of pounds involved. The case went to the Courts and the verdict went against the schools, but nobody forced the members of the school board to pay the money which was surcharged, and no one took the Minister who remitted the surcharge to the Court in order to prevent him disallowing the surcharge which in fact had been upheld by the Courts. The Minister of Health has attempted to prove that in our case at Poplar it was the ratepayers who forced the auditor to make that surcharge in a lump sum of £5,000. I am sorry to have to say that I do not believe that statement. I know that our opponents in Poplar are very determined and in some ways they have behaved rather meanly towards us, but I cannot believe that the people who control the Municipal Alliance forced the auditor to do anything other than bring our case to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman by imposing a surcharge. I went through the whole of that business myself. I attended all the meetings where
  2128
  this business was discussed, and the argument which the auditor put was that if he did not surcharge us he would be taken to the Court by our political opponents to compel him to surcharge us. I think I ought to point out that fact.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the auditors act absolutely independently, that nobody brings any pressure to bear upon them, that they act on their own initiative and intelligence, and so on. May I point out that the auditor who started the proceedings against us told us publicly at the audit, in the presence of hundreds of other people, that he had been forced to take the action he was taking because of the pressure brought to bear on him by our political opponents, and that for his own part he had not thought anything about it. He made the surcharge without thinking. He did not think of us as he would have thought of the Westminster City Council, because he knew that in surcharging a body like the Poplar Council he would have the backing of the Department of the Ministry of Health and the House of Commons, which was then packed by a Tory majority.
  When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the auditor has not discriminated against us and that in this matter a council of poor men have not been treated differently from a council of rich men, allow me to point out, first of all, that that statement is vitiated by the fact that the genesis of this Bill, and the necessity for it being introduced at all, is due to the fact that there is a well-established custom and belief on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors that they have a right to remit a surcharge after it has been decided that certain expenditure was illegal. The fact that that was called into question simply because it was the case of Poplar proves that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. It was proved to the satisfaction of those of us who were surcharged that the auditor did deliberately treat us differently from the manner in which he would have treated the Westminster City Council. My own view is that the auditor just found that sum, added it up, and said: "I am going to surcharge the lot of you." He surcharged all the

  2129
  49 members of our council, and in so doing punished the innocent with the guilty.
  I think that fact proves quite conclusively that the auditors are not gentlemen with judicial minds who act like Judges in an impartial manner. They do nothing of the kind. These auditors are just ordinary people who, when it is a question of corruption generally find out just what they are told. In my own experience, I have never known an auditor discover of his own volition anything corrupt. I know that we have had cases of corruption, but they have usually been discovered by some ratepayer. My first experience of an auditor was to prove how negligent he was in auditing the accounts of the Poplar Workhouse, and it was only the efforts of Will Crooks and myself that 30 years ago put an end to a state of affairs in the Poplar Work house which was a perfect disgrace to the Tories who were then administering the affairs of that board of guardians. Those guardians were not surcharged although the ratepayers were being swindled out of large sums of money. We had a Local Government Board inquiry, and in the end the persons responsible were dismissed from the public service. The Minister of Health made great play, and so did the Parliamentary Secretary, about the fact that this Bill had already had a very good effect on certain borough councils in various parts of the country and upon other people, and that is perfectly true. If someone stood over me with a big stick telling me to shut up, I should probably shut up and sit down if there happened to be a danger of getting my head smashed. By this Bill, the Minister of Health has armed himself with a bludgeon; and when he takes credit to himself that people like myself and my colleagues have given in to him, and informs people that we have succumbed to the penalties of this Bill, we admit it. As a matter of fact, that is our charge against the Bill.
  We assert that the right hon. Gentleman has put us in the position that we are now obliged to do, not what we think is right within the law, but what he thinks is right, and we have now to carry out the law according to what the Minister himself lays down. If a board of guardians writes to the Minister of Health and asks him to give them an opinion in regard to certain expenditure,
  2130
  in 99 cases out of 100, the Minister will reply that that is a matter for the discretion of the district auditor, and he will not attempt to give an opinion on such matters except in the case of a Labour board of guardians giving outdoor relief in certain cases. He is now taking power, in effect, to lay down scales of relief, but as I understand the Statute which governs him and his authority over boards of guardians, he has no right whatsoever to lay down scales of relief, and to say to them, "You shall not give more than this, or less than that." He only gets that power in a roundabout fashion. He exercises that power because boards of guardians must occasionally borrow money, and they can only borrow money with his sanction.
  I do not think that the legislation which originally set up the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or any of the amending Acts, have ever given him—in fact, I am sure that they have not—the power to act in the manner in which he is acting to-day. Much as borough councils may be despised, much as Socialism may be hated, it is the fact that the councils have had to act upon this Bill before it has become law, because a date has been put in which makes it really retrospective legislation. The date on which this Bill comes into operation, namely, the 31st October, will be six or seven weeks before it is actually on the Statute Book, and I always understood that Tory lawyers objected very strongly to retrospective legislation. The right hon. Gentleman, however, cares nothing for precedents when he is dealing with Socialists and Labour people, and so we have a Bill which will be a good precedent, I hope, for a Labour Government when it comes into power.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) called attention yesterday to what is happening, but neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary paid any attention to it whatsoever. Here is something which I say is totally illegal, but which is happening because of the bludgeon of this Bill. The auditor is now, and has been during the last four months, holding interviews with representatives of local authorities—one was held this afternoon —not to decide whether any particular piece of work that they have done was wrong, but to fix their wages and the conditions under which their men shall

  2131
  work for the next 12 months or two or three years. I say distinctly that there is nothing in any Act of Parliament which gives the auditor the right or the authority to interfere in that sort of manner, but he claims that right, again in an indirect fashion, because of this Bill. No board of guardians or borough council now knows what it may or may not pay, and, because no board of guardians or borough council, Labour or otherwise, wants to face the penalties of this Bill, they are obliged to go to the auditor and say, "Please, Mr. Auditor, do you approve of this scale of pay for these engineers, do you approve that this washer, this scrubber, this porter, this clerk, shall be paid this rate of pay or this salary?"
  In addition to that, the auditor for London is now not only claiming and exercising the right to fix remuneration, but is now claiming the right—there is no sort of argument about it—to say how the staff in a workhouse, or under a borough council working in baths and washhouses, or in an electricity undertaking, shall be graded. I say that, if Parliament wants to give a public official that amount of authority over local government administrators, it ought to be done, not in a trumpery Bill like this, but in a proper Bill setting out what the man's powers are. This, in my opinion, is a very mean and underhand method of giving the auditor such power. The right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary will probably say that the Courts have decided this, that and the other. I shall be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman—I have asked him once or twice during these discussions—if he will tell me what particular judgment has given the auditor the right to fix in advance the wages and grading of the staffs of local government authorities in London. I have read the judgments—it was my business to read them because they affected me; and what' the Judges decided, what the House of Lords decided, was not what we were to pay—they simply decided that £4 was too much and ought not to be paid. That is all that the Courts decided; everything else has been added on by the auditor himself, and at the present time this auditor in London is exercising the right of detennining wages, of determining
  2132
  salaries, and of determining the grades into which the officials and the workmen shall be put.
  Is not that the negation of local government? Does it not amount to the destruction of all initiative and all authority on the part of those who are called upon to administer; and does anyone imagine that any self-respecting people will for very long submit to that kind of dictation, from an official not appointed by Parliament to do this, but enabled to enforce his powers because of the penalties imposed by this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said, "If you make a mistake, and it is a genuine mistake, you can appeal to me, or you can appeal to the Courts." We have argued ad nauseam the question of appealing to him and of appealing to the Courts. With regard to the Courts, he knows perfectly well that, whereas it was possible for the Poplar Borough Council, as a council, to use the ratepayers' money in making their appeal to the Courts, no such power will rest with them when this Bill is on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, if I were surcharged with 25 or 30 of my colleagues on the borough council, we ourselves would have to find the money to go to the Courts. He knows, also, that the bulk of us have not the money to go to the Courts, and, when he says we can apply to him, he knows also that, on the question of wages and on the question of relief, there is a genuine difference of principle between us as to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that, because he considers that a thing is reasonable, therefore it is reasonable. I do not accept that. I think I am the most reasonable person in the world, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thinks—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: How much have I remitted already?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman, on that score, is better than when he stands at that Box. He has remitted, and has got himself into a pretty fine fix—I was going to say into a devil of a mix. He would have got himself into a most unholy mix but for this Bill, because he has remitted surcharges which he knows he has not any authority to remit. He is as bad as we are at Poplar. He has

  2133
  done wrong in a genuine sort of way. He got found out, and the Courts decided against him. He is as bad as we are in that respect. It is quite true that he has remitted a considerable sum, but it is also true that now we have come to the point where he has a conception of policy in regard to Poor Law relief which is quite different from ours. I maintain that the Minister is not the person who ought to decide that. I think the electors are the people to decide, and not the Minister himself.
  On the question of Poor Law relief, about which we have heard very little in these discusssions, there has always been a great conflict, not merely between Socialists and Conservatives and Liberals, but between men and women of all shades of thought, as to what is the proper amount, or whether anyone ought to be given out-door relief at all. There was a time in East London, when there was a big school of quite genuine philanthropists, who thought that to give out-door relief was sending the people to perdition right off the reel. The late Canon Barnett and Mr. Vallance, the clerk to the old Whitechapel Board, were the exponents of that doctrine, and the late Lord Goschen, who was at the Local Government Board, laid it down that out-door relief ought not to be given at all, but that anyone who wanted relief ought to go into the workhouse. We have advanced some way beyond that, and now the difference between us is not whether it is right to give out-door relief but as to the amount of out-door relief that should be given, and the sort of people to whom it should be given. There is now a conflict between Shoreditch and the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. A man serves a term of imprisonment, and, when he comes back home, is out of work. He has a wife and children, and, according to the answer given this afternoon, it is wrong for the board of guardians to give that family any relief.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Out-door relief.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am talking about out-door relief; I have not talked about anything else. I will accept it from the hon. Gentleman that this afternoon what he meant was—
  Sir K. WOOD: What I said.
  Mr. LANSBURY:—what he said. I would not like to say that he meant all that he said always, but the hon. Gentleman says that you may give the man and his family indoor relief. I understand that the Shoreditch Guardians think it would be better to give the man some out-door relief, and help him to get a job and make a new start. Is there not room there for a reasonable difference of opinion between the Shoreditch Board of Guardians and the right hon. Gentleman? Is not that a difference of policy, or, rather, a difference as to how the Poor Law should be administered within the law itself? Why should the auditor have the right to say to the Shoreditch or Poplar Board that they are acting illegally in doing this, and to force them —because it will be no use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman; he has already given his decision—to force them to go to the Courts in order to get a decision on a question of that kind? The auditor is not a person appointed to do the work which he will be enabled to do simply because of the penalty which this Bill imposes on people who happen to disagree with him. I say that, if this House had intended that a public official should have that power, it should have been done in a direct manner through a Bill laying it down in clear English that that was the power entrusted to him. He ought not to have this power given to him by these penalties which will be inflicted on people who happen to disagree with him. This Bill alters the law. It alters electoral law; it alters the law governing the quorums of local authorities, but I have not seen, in the Bill or in the Schedules, any provision whereby any of the other Acts, or any Sections of them, which say what a quorum shall he and which govern the question of elections, are to be repealed.
  It seems to me that this is a small Bill which in several ways interferes in the most direct manner with the law and custom of the past, without letting this House and the country know quite clearly that it is being done. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the quorum is fixed, and he is reducing it in this Bill, and in addition he is giving power to a third of the council to do the work of the whole body. I am not at all convinced by his explanation yesterday. If a board of guardians or a borough

  2135
  council, as may very well be, is completely wiped out by a surcharge, as I read the Clause there is no arrangement by which an election would take place, and with regard to a borough council there is no proper method in this Clause by which people could be elected in the place of members who are displaced, and if the whole council is wiped out there is no provision for the election of a new council. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman would find some means of getting round it, as he has done in the case of West Ham, but that is only because he is not a Machiavelli but a Mussolini. That is a role that suits him much better than the other. He is probably a little of each rolled into one.
  Again and again the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Leader of the Opposition. I want to be free of the terror and the shadow, the horror, the suffering, the misery, and the degradation of Poplarism. I have stood behind here, and I have stood at this Box again and again and have asked that this House would deal with the problem that creates all the difficulties that afflict Poplar and bring us again and again before the country. Poplarism is nothing new. It was my privilege to sit under the Gallery and hear the right hon. Gentleman's father, in 1904 or 1905, after an eloquent appeal from the late Will Crooks on behalf of the Unemployed Workmen Bill, plead with Mr. Balfour and the Government of the day to respond to it. Will Crooks tried to paint the condition of Poplar and tried to make the House understand that poverty, destitution, sordidness and all that that means in that district was the product not of some half dozen of us on the local authorities but of conditions over which they had absolutely no control.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is going to do this, that and the other. It will leave the problem of Poplar arid Poplarism absolutely untouched. The poverty and the destitution will still remain there. You may put us out of action, you may do what you please with us but the 10,000 unemployed will still remain there. The widows and the orphans created by the death of their breadwinners will remain there. Overcrowding and slumdom and all that that means will still be there.
  2136
  I feel strongly about this because I have lived my life amongst those people. I am there with them still. I see them each day. I hear hon. Members sneering about the poor. These people are human beings. Here are the other place and this place torn and divided about the Prayer Book and we can give no time or energy to consider how to deal with the poverty problem that this House has been asked to deal with for the last 40 years. For 40 years we have been knocking at the door of Parliament, and at the end of it the right hon. Gentleman can stand at that Box and boast that now he is able, through the aid of this Bill and its penalising Clauses, to make poor men bankrupt and drive men and women out of public life. That is something that this House should be proud of doing. When this Bill gets the King's Assent it will be the most despicable and the most mean piece of legislation that even this Parliament has been guilty of.
  Mr. WILFRED PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Like my hon. Friend, I was very much interested in the compliments the Minister showered on Members on this side of the House who took part in the Debate yesterday, because they were so respectable. I suppose he found out, looking at the Debate, that nothing of a really nasty character has been said about him. The worst thing of which he was accused was Machiavellianism, and even that he was sure the hon. Member who hurled the accusation did not mean in its worst aspects. Altogether he came to the conclusion that there is some hope that we might become a respectable party. I was interested also when he kindly advised us to do away with this enormously bad thing that we call Poplarism. He said the electors looked upon Poplarism as being very terrible, and we must drop it if we were to become respectable and hoped to capture the seats of others. We shall all appreciate that advice. What I was more interested in was the criticism that he hurled at this side of the House and the arguments he adduced in support of the Bill. One of the first things he said was that there was a lamentable want of appreciation of the merits of the Bill on our part. I differ from him. I think we appreciate it thoroughly. We know what

  2137
  it is really intended to do, we know how it is likely to act and we know that in the long run it is the members of our party on various authorities who are going to suffer by it, not because we are inherently wicked, not because, as has been said, we go in with a fixed determination to break the law, but because we stand for something that Is better so far as humanity is concerned than the party represented by the right hon. Gentleman and when we get in we hope to deal more humanely and generously with people than they do. We have a full appreciation of what the Bill means. He went on to say that under the law as it stands to-day there is no sufficient deterrent for those who wish deliberately to pursue an illegal policy. The Parliamentary Secretary said that yesterday.
  Sir K. WOOD: So did the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. PALING: Yes, the hon. Gentleman was very careful to quote the Leader of the Opposition several times yesterday, but he was followed by another quotation which put an entirely different construction on what my right hon. Friend said. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking about Poplarism, put the construction on it which has just been put on it by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and not the construction put upon it by the Parliamentary Secretary. If he quotes the Leader of the Opposition to-day I think he will not continue to read from what the Leader of the Opposition actually said on that occasion. So I do not think there is much in that point. When he talks about these people deliberately going in to pursue an illegal policy, I want to ask him whether there is any law that says it is really illegal that one board of guardians shall give more relief than another, or that one authority should give slightly higher wages than the surrounding authorities or that another authority, dominated perhaps by Labour party people, should give payment for holidays and payment when people are off sick. He talks about these people pursuing that illegal policy and saying definitely that they are going to do that—and that is about all they have been guilty of—and saying if ever they got control of the authority they would
  2138
  use the instrument in a more humane way than it had been used by their opponents.
  I think the whole business of this Bill is to stop what hon. Members opposite think a very dangerous trend. Liberals and Tories and the rest have been in control of local authorities for generations. They have never been met with any serious opposition from another party until late years, and for a large number of years they have laid down scales of relief and wages and no pay for holidays, and their general policy has been to give the working-class people as little as they will have without making any trouble about it. "Let the scales be as low as you can possibly make them and the wages as low as you can possibly give. Give them no holiday pay. Give them none of the things we claim for ourselves as a class." There has grown up a sort of feeling that this has become the custom of the day—low wages, no pay for holidays, no pay for illness, a low scale of relief—and the custom has become a law. The auditor goes down and if he finds any authority has dared, even though it may not be a Labour authority, to move by a single inch from the position as laid down for generations by members of his own class, he surcharges them and, perhaps, goes to the Court and gets the surcharge upheld. What applies to those who have laid down these scales applies also to the Judges who have to deal with the question when it goes there. They also say, "The great bulk of the authorities up and down the country only pay so and so, the relief is so and so and wages are so and so, and they do not pay for holidays. This kind of thing seems to have established a certain level which, in our mind, is the law at present. Here you have an authority which is departing from that practice and, to our mind, the auditor has rightly surcharged those people and we must declare that this thing is illegal." To my mind, that is how it works out.
  5.0 p.m.
  Now there is a trend in the opposite direction. Hon. Members opposite are afraid that in the next five years local authorities and boards of guardians may increasingly be dominated by Labour party people and Socialists. They can see such illustrations as Sheffield and West Ham. They can see the results of board of guardians and council elections

  2139
  each year and they are becoming desperately afraid that what is being done at Poplar and other places may become the custom, and even become the law if they do not take the trouble to stop it in time, and they consider they have not sufficient power, as things are now, to stop it. They have tried in one or two cases where larger scales have been given and they have not been successful. The only thing they have achieved is that when election time comes the electors send the same people back with increased majorities. They are now bringing in this Bill in order to make it impossible for these men and women to go back and sit on the authority at all. That is the idea of the Bill, and, when the Minister said that we have not the proper appreciation of it, I beg very much to differ. He stated, "We are not surcharging you as Socialists, but because you are doing things contrary to law." We have been asking, what law? The Minister has not been able to tell us what law, and I venture to say the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us. He would have done so before now if he could; and, when he says it is not aimed at Socialists but everybody who breaks the law, he knows that there is only a tendency towards breaking the law in the direction of giving high wages and higher scales of relief so far as a Tory Government is concerned. It is generally those people who take the broader view of the business and who have a better conception of what relief means and try to deal humanely with these people that he will say are breaking the law.
  The Minister went on to say that the auditor surcharged generally if it was so unreasonable as to become an evil. Again, there is no law laying down a definite line as to what they can spend. There is merely the custom laid down by Tories and Liberals with a wretched conception of what was sufficient for working-class people. He went on to illustrate, for instance, that you might have an authority which had eminent visitors coming within its borders. It might be decided perhaps to welcome them by a banquet. If that banquet were kept within reasonable bounds the auditor would not surcharge. But, he said, if the auditor thought the cost of the banquet had been unreasonable, then he
  2140
  might surcharge, and the surcharge might be upheld, and that authority would come under the Bill when it becomes an Act. Again, it proves that the whole business lies in the hands of the auditor. There is no line to determine what is the limit. It is merely the custom, and any auditor going down can say what pleases him and what he thinks is unreasonable, and thereby surcharge people and bring them within the four corners of this particular Act. The matter is almost entirely at the discretion of a particular man, and I think it is a very dangerous power to put into the hands of an auditor. I am pretty sure that in the case of most of these people to-day, there is a belief that any surcharge of their's would meet with the approbation of the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary, and, because there is this trend in that direction, the Bill that is brought in aims at Socialists and Labour people who try to work these things out in a humane spirit.
  He said also that members would take care not to put themselves in a position to incur penalties. I quite agree. As the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) says, then, however they may feel that they ought to do a thing, and that justice demands that it should be done, if they know that they are likely to be surcharged and have this bludgeon over them, they will not do it. The Parliamentary Secretary agrees. I ask him: Is it the way to get the best men and women to come on to the local authorities and administer the things that they ought to administer by saying to them: "If you dare to raise wages, increase scales of living, if you dare to pay for holidays, we will surcharge you, and bring you under the Clause of this Bill, and disfranchise you for five years"? That kind of argument is likely to result in a stalemate, and most of the decent people who give up their spare time and energy unsparingly in order to ensure that public administration in this country shall be a decent thing will refuse to do the thing at all, and you will have a worse type of person from one end of the country to the other as the result of the threats held over them.
  There is another question. It is said that up to the present moment penalties have failed to deter members, and fresh ones have had to be invented. The Parliamentary Secretary himself indicated

  2141
  that, whereas previously it had been possible to surcharge these people, the penalties ought to be increased, proving thereby that in most cases where surcharges are being made, these people have felt so much the justice of their position that the penalty of having their goods distrained and themselves sent to prison was not sufficient to stop them from doing what they thought was right. To stop them he said, "We must create another penalty," and the result is that you disfranchise these people for five years if the surcharge is over £500 they can be bankrupted. I think it was advanced as argument that this question of bankruptcy would not be such a brutal business as distraining their goods and sending them to prison. It was said that it was not so brutal or so old-fashioned as to send them to prison. What lay behind the Minister's mind was that bankruptcy was a more efficient weapon than distraining, or sending them to prison. By disfranchising these people, you prevent them from sitting on these authorities. You will have whole hordes of people, if surcharged, being disfranchised and so the party opposite will be able to get rid of people in the Labour party who are so inconvenient at the present time. I suggest that is a very mean and despicable way to deal with these things.
  The Minister went on to say that there are county council associations, urban district associations, Poor Law associations, municipal authority associations, and he asked whether one could find a single instance in which any of these associations had objected to the Bill, indicating that none could be found. We have not yet a strong enough following in the municipalities, the boards of guardians, and the county councils to dominate the associations; they are dominated by the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs. As a matter of fact, if one knew the bottom of the business some of them may have been asking for legislation of this particular kind to be brought in mainly because they view these things from the Tory rather than from the Socialist angle.
  I would like to ask him another question. It was asked yesterday. I listened very carefully to the reply of the Minister in explaining his new Amendment and how it was likely to act. The Minister took exception to what was said yester-
  2142
  day about one-third of the council perhaps becoming disfranchised, and said: "What I did say was that I think it is very unlikely." But the question was put to him four or five times how, if wages were raised or pay for holidays given, or sick pay given, as indicated by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), an auditor, when going through the accounts, could pick out one or two and surcharge them instead of surcharging the whole council who had been responsible for putting into operation the policy objected to? So far as I can see, if they pursue the policy, it is very likely that in the near future a majority of the council will be disfranchised because of the operation of the Bill. We said, supposing, as it might well be, that the majority of the council were so large and supposing the whole council were surcharged, what would become of the council? How was the work going to be carried on? Had anything been done to make provision for such a state of affairs?
  I am hoping the Minister of Health is going to give us some more detailed explanation of how a quorum is going to be formed. The Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members opposite talk of the poor ratepayer. We are suspicious when they talk of him, because we think they mean the big ratepayer, and it is generally these people who are objecting to the things that have been done. When he talks of the poor ratepayer, I would like to ask him whether in the majority of cases which have cropped up and upon which this Bill is based, it is not a fact that, if the whole of the ratepayers concerned had been approached by a referendum or election, a big majority of the ratepayers would not have agreed with the policy laid down and carried out. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that, if he will. He may hope, and the Minister of Health may hope, as I dare say they do, that by bringing in a Bill of this description they are going to stop the tendency to work these authorities in a humane way; that they are going to cut down relief, that they are going to prevent the raising of wages and the paying for holidays, and so on. They may think that this Bill will put an end to all these things, and that henceforward there will be very plain sailing. If they think that, they are very much mistaken. If a Tory Government can use

  2143
  its powers in such a way and in such a class way as this to the detriment of the people of this country, I am sure that the people of this country when they have the opportunity will tell this Government, in no uncertain manner, what they think about them. So far from this Bill adding to the strength of this Government, it will be another indictment in the long count of indictments against them, and at the earliest opportunity the people will sweep them from office, as they deserve to be swept.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has challenged hon. Members on this side to give a definition of the word "Poplarism." He said that he did not know what we meant by "Poplarism." I will try my best to define it. It may not be an absolutely sound solution of the meaning of the word, but it is one which I commend to the attention of hon. Members. "Poplarism," in our view, means the pauperisation of the people by lavish misapplication of other people's money. At the present time, one of the very few checks that we have on "Poplarism" is the auditor's surcharge which is not, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) suggested, a new thing; it is an old thing. The object of this Bill, as I conceive it, is not to introduce anything new as far as the auditor's power of surcharge is concerned; but it gives for the first time a real and effective sanction behind the surcharge. It is high time that such a real and effective sanction was given. Hon. Members opposite have used all sorts of adjectives of an appreciative character, which they have applied to those members of public bodies against whom this Bill is directed. They say that those people have acted in a humane and generous way, that this Bill is a blow against their kindness and must operate against generosity. One expression used by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was that this is a brutal and ruthless attack upon generous administration by local authorities, and the hon. Member for Doncaster asked what right has an auditor to come down and surcharge at all? The answer to these questions is simple. No doubt a man can do what he likes with his own, but he cannot do what he likes with other people's property. The members of these public authorities do not own the money
  2144
  which they distribute; they are trustees, and when hon. Members ask what is the law which prevents them from applying these monies for any purpose which they think fit, the simple answer is that they cannot do it because they are trustees.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer did with the Road Fund.
  Mr. HURST: The ordinary law in regard to trustees is that trustees can only apply their money according to the trust which governs their holding of those funds and their disposition of them. It is no good coming to people who are trustees and who hold money for certain purposes and saying, "Will you not spend the money in furthering certain policies or in benefiting certain charities?" They cannot do it if it is outside the orbit of their trust. The reason the auditor surcharges local authorities who have misapplied money is not because they have done it for immoral or other dreadful purposes, but simply because they have applied the money for purposes which are regarded in law as illegal, because the expenditure is, in his judgment, so completely unreasonable and on a scale so outside the orbit of the trust, that it cannot be justified within their duties and capacities as trustees. That is the simple answer to the question which hon. Members opposite have put.
  Mr. MACKINDER: What is the dividing line between where it is misapplication and where it is not? Can the hon. and learned Member tell us where it is laid down what is the dividing line? Is it fair to give an auditor powers beforehand, when the people do not know where the dividing line rests?
  Mr. HURST: I quite see that it is very difficult to lay down a clear and definite line. You have to take each case on its own merits. I think experience shows that there will never be any surcharge unless the expenditure is so unreasonable and on a scale so extravagant that it cannot be regarded as being within the ordinary ambit and purview of the powers of the local authorities. You must take each case on its merits, and when the line of reasonableness is exceeded a payment which has hitherto been legal becomes illegal.
  Mr. PALING: Is it illegal to make payments for the sick?
  Mr. HURST: If the payment is on a ridiculous scale, it becomes unreasonable. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but it is not their money which is misapplied.
  Mr. PALING: It is as much ours as yours.
  Mr. HURST: I am not saying that it is mine. The money belongs to the general body of ratepayers.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Of which you and I are members.
  Mr. HURST: It is the duty of those who are in a fiduciary capacity towards the ratepayers to have regard to their interests in connection with the money which they have to administer. What are the dangers which this Bill is designed to meet? First of all, the danger of illegal payments obviously means that an extra burden is placed upon the rates. The hon. Member for Doncaster did not say it in terms, but he suggested that that does not really matter. In actual practice these great burdens on the rates affect not only the large ratepayers, who are as much entitled to consideration as the small ratepayers, not only the individual, but the whole character and well-being of the district. It is well known that where rates are high in a district works will not be established, because nobody will bring works into a district where there is any very great overhead charge in the shape of rates. Therefore, it is surely the duty of everybody who has the interest of working people at heart so to frame their policy that it does not involve high rates. I cannot conceive how hon. Members who represent very poor working-class constituencies can in any way condone excessive illegal payments, when the result of such payments is to increase the rates, to the detriment of the whole district, and when those who are hit the hardest are those who seek employment within those areas.
  A second great danger of the misapplication of these funds is the growing irresponsibility of candidates for, and members of, local authorities. Under a complete system of democracy like ours there can be no doubt that there is a tremendous lot of vote-catching. Those who offer most in the shape of generosity at other people's expense are the people
  2146
  who hold out the greatest attraction to ignorant voters. That is not confined to the constituencies which hon. Members represent; it is to be found all over the country, and even in my own district of Manchester and Salford the habit is growing. The more people promise, the more extravagant the relief, the bigger the dole, the bigger the subsidies, it is inevitable that the attractiveness of their platform is enhanced in the minds of injudicious electors. That is a great danger. The people who make these offers are quite irresponsible, because they know that when they are in office it would be a breach of duty to fulfil such promises. There is no check under the present system on these two dangers —the danger of excessive rates and the danger of irresponsible appeals to the masses. This Bill by disqualifying for a period of five years people who are guilty of these practices, gives the real sanction of the law in this respect and will add very greatly to the purity of local administration and to the practice of economy, of which we hear so much and of which we see so little in local affairs.
  Hon. Members opposite have suggested that this Bill will keep good men and good women out of public life. On the contrary, in my opinion, it will increase the attractiveness of public life to good men and good women, because so many men and women at the present time who would be quite willing to take up public affairs are too honest to come forward as candidates at elections where the appeal to the electors is simply a matter of competing bribes. If people find that they can no longer cajole the multitude by offering all sorts of illegal subsidies and doles which they have no right to give when they are in office, and which are simply held out as baits for the unwary; and that lure is taken away, more good men and good women will come forward, because they will realise that they have not to fight against this dishonest method of propaganda.
  The House ought to welcome the substitution of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Law Courts in cases where the surcharge is over £500. I believe that the only good tribunals in these cases are the Law Courts. Although at the outset, decision in these matters will be largely a matter of discretion, discretion crystallises in time and, finally, the decision of one Judge is regarded as binding on

  2147
  another Judge. Thereby you obtain what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) expressed his desire to obtain—you get a really hard-and-fast rule laid down as to what is legal and what is illegal.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I do not want to lay down a hard-and-fast line.
  Mr. HURST: The system of the Law Courts, where one judge accepts and follows the ruling of another, is far more likely to give a complete code than the discretion ad hoc of the Minister of Health, because one Minister's decision does not necessarily bind the decision of the Minister who succeeds him. It is far better to have the decision of the Law Courts. It is perfectly clear that the check which formerly existed upon the legal expenditure of public authorities will be wholly illusory until we get tribunals entirely detached from party politics and from all political attachments. That being so, I maintain that in that respect also this Bill adds a real weapon to the armoury in our public life which safeguards economy, honesty and fair administration of local affairs. For these reasons, I think that this Bill is the best thing that the Government have brought in since the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act.
  Mr. BATEY: It is refreshing to listen to an hon. Member on the other side who is prepared to defend the suspicious legislation of the Government. During the time that the Government have been busy with legislation of this description it has been the practice for hon. Members opposite to slip quietly into the Division Lobby and not to defend the legislation. The hon. and learned Member adduced two arguments to which I should like to reply. He said that we must understand that we cannot do what we please with the money of other people. He ought to have said, "My impression is that Labour cannot do anything which it please with other people's money, but Toryism can." It comes with bad grace from the other side when they say that we cannot do anything we please with the money of other people. The hon. and learned Member forgets that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending £43,000,000 more than the Labour Government spent in 1924. If a Labour Gov
  2148
  ernment had been doing this hon. Members opposite would be condemning them. Hon. Members opposite say that Labour cannot be trusted with public money, because it squanders it. If they would look at their own policy, to their own Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would not be so ready to use an argument like that.
  The hon. and learned Member also talked about the irresponsibility of candidates in making promises. I submit to him that a poor man is just as fit as a wealthy man to sit upon a local authority. The fact that a man is poor is no proof that he is irresponsible. My experience on local boards has taught me that generally the man who understands public business best is the poor man, and I am prepared to trust the working man just as much as a man who claims to be wealthy. But when the hon. and learned Member talked about the irresponsibility of candidates in the promises they make, he implied that Labour candidates alone made these promises. Hon. Members opposite make promises, too. Only last year the Prime Minister, during the general strike, said to the miners: "Cannot you trust me to see that the miners get a square deal?" That was a promise; but it was never carried out. When it comes to a question of carrying out promises just as much blame attaches to hon. Members opposite as to any Labour Member or Labour candidate.
  I am opposing this Bill. I am not surprised at it. Nothing this Government can do will surprise me. Nothing is bad enough for this Government to do. If it is a question of injuring the working classes, the present Government are capable of doing it, and this Bill is only in line with all their reactionary legislation. Thousands of working men and women were foolish enough to vote for the Tory party at the last election, but none of them could have imagined when they gave their votes that this Government would be as bad and as vicious as it is. This Measure is simply in line with the Measures which the Government have already passed—the Eight Hours Act, the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, and the vicious and mean Unemployment Insurance Bill. They have a big majority, and can use it for the purpose of putting this reactionary legislation on the Statute Book, with the object of pulling down the standard of life of the working

  2149
  classes, of pushing them into poverty. There is a judgment day coming for this Government, just as I believe there is a judgment day coming for the individual, and when that judgment day comes they will be judged by what they have done, by the actions they have taken, to drive the working classes deeper into poverty. There is an old saying that "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members opposite cheer it, because there is not the slightest doubt that the gods have driven this Government mad, and, just as the gods have driven this Government mad, so will they destroy them at the first opportunity. There are certain laws that a man cannot break without being punished, and when the present Government pursue a policy of trying to impoverish the working classes, they cannot do that without being punished. The intention of the Government by this Bill is to prevent the policy of Labour being carried out on local authorities. They think they can stop Labour. They are sadly mistaken. They may put a check on its progress, but they will not stop its march. It is far too strong in this country to be stopped by any checks which the Government may foolishly think they can put in its way. The Labour army will sweep these checks away, and will march to greater victories in the future. This Bill is not only mean and vicious, but just about as savage a Measure as the mind of man could conceive. It puts into the hands of one man great power, and makes that one man Judge and jury. The representatives on local authorities will never know where they are; they will never know when they are doing right or wrong. This one individual, the district auditor, is the Judge and jury, and he will decide, irrespective of what may have been the intention of the members of a local authority.
  I come from a part of the country where Labour has made immense progress. We have always taught our representatives on local councils that they do not sit on these bodies for the mere honour of the thing but for the purpose of using the local machinery in order to better the condition of the working classes. That is our intention. That is the policy we have pursued, and we shall continue to pursue it. It is possible under this Bill for one-third of the
  2150
  members of an authority to be disqualified, but my belief is that one-third of the members of a local authority will never be disqualified. It will always be a question of the majority of a council. I am sure that the district auditor will not attempt to disqualify one-third of the members of the Durham County Council. He will have to disqualify the majority of that council, because the majority are Labour members, and what will happen in that case is this: the candidates who will be run for the Durham County Council in the place of the disqualified members will be pledged to pursue a similar policy. What the Government hope to gain by legislation of this kind I cannot understand.
  I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday when he was arguing that this Bill would save the rates. Those of us who come from industrial districts do not want high rates, because they prevent industry from prospering. It is not a question of high rates that is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government. What is in the mind of the Government is to make it impossible for Labour representatives to sit upon local authorities. We should not have had this Bill but for the fact that Labour has been so successful in connection with local elections. If Labour had not been able to get a majority on so many councils we should not have had this Bill. Its only object is to prevent Labour functioning properly on these local authorities. I could understand a proposal that representatives who are disqualified should not sit on the same local authority, but the Government have gone much further than that, and are proposing that any representative who is disqualified shall not be eligible to sit on any local authority at all. That is mean. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but it is no use his doing so. When this legislation is passed we shall not be able to sing the hymn:
  "Praise God from whom all blessings flow."
  We shall have to sing:
  "Come on my partners in distress."
  I have sat on a board of guardians and a town council, and I consider that if I make a mistake as a member of the board of guardians, and the auditor surcharges me under this Bill, it is quite

  2151
  sufficient if I am disqualified from sitting on the board of guardians. Under this Bill I am to be disqualified from sitting on the town council as well. That is going a great deal too far. And the disqualification for a period of five years is a vicious proposal. If a man has been guilty of an error a much less period would have been quite sufficient punishment. If he was disqualified from sitting on the board during the lifetime of the board, whether it be one year, two years or three years, I could understand it, but to make a provision disqualifying him from sitting for five years is a savage penalty.
  It is bad enough to disqualify a member from sitting upon any local authority for five years, but for the Government to say that they will provide for the selling up of a man's home is a really wicked proposition which could be expected only from the present Government. We read in history of bad Tory Governments, but we cannot read that there has been a worse Tory Government than the present Government. The Government are willing to sell up the home of a Labour man with whom they disagree. They say, "The member of a local authority can appeal to the High Court." The remedy is far worse than the disease. A member of a local authority had far better submit to the surcharge, bad as it is, than attempt to appeal to the High Court. There will be the difficulty of getting money, and before a case is through the Court, in all probability he will have to face far bigger expenditure than is involved in the surcharge.
  I have said before that we tell our people, when they join local authorities, that they go there not for honour but for the purpose of bettering the condition of the working classes. During the Chartist movement, when the country was very much agitated, the working classes were taught that if they got the vote they could use it in order to abolish the poverty and misery from which they were then suffering. Now the working classes have the vote and they have been taught to use it in their own interests and for their own class. I have never any respect for a working man or woman who gives a vote to anyone who is not of his own class. Now, when working
  2152
  people are using the vote for their own class, the Government say, "We shall have to take some steps in order to prevent the working classes obtaining what they wanted and to prevent their representatives on the local authorities acting in the interests of the working classes." I tell the Government that they may try their best to stop Labour, but they cannot do it.
  There will be no credit in this Bill either for the Minister of Health or for the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall not be in the least surprised if they go the way of many other Ministers who have introduced legislation of this kind. There will be no medals for them from a Bill like this. In a Sunday paper published in the North of England I read in the London letter a paragraph which stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a lot of suits and a lot of uniforms. Not only that, but he had a lot of medals that he could put on when he went to functions. The writer added that the Prime Minister had not a single uniform nor a single medal, and that the Prime Minister had not been able to win a medal for his pigs. That was in a Tory newspaper. There is no fear of either the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary winning a medal for a Bill like this. They will find that the Bill is a great discredit to them. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, instead of trying to push the working classes further down into poverty, he should try to raise them. Their condition to-day is far too bad, and I ask him not to make it worse. This Bill is not intended to help the working classes; it is intended to make their position worse. The Government was bad last year and worse this year, and Heaven alone knows what it will be next year, but I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary, if he has anything to do with legislation next year, to try something better than this.
  Mr. RYE: The hon. Member who has just sat down prefaced his remarks with the well-known quotation, "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." He said that the gods had made the Government mad. Presumably, therefore, the hon. Member thinks that everyone on this side of the House is mad. It is a well-known fact that nearly every inmate of an asylum is firmly under the

  2153
  impression that he, and he only, is sane, and that every other inmate is mad. I suggest to the hon. Member that possibly we on this side are not as mad as he thinks and that the insanity may be with him and with those who sit on his side of the House. Another hon. Member drew attention to the extra burdens that were thrown on the ratepayers by the illegal acts committed at Poplar and elsewhere. He might have gone further, as far as the Metropolitan area is concerned, and have drawn attention to the fact that in consequence of the contribution that the Metropolitan boroughs have to make to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, a very heavy additional burden is thrown upon other boroughs by the action of people who spend money illegally, to the detriment not only of their own ratepayers but to the detriment of others in the neighbouring districts. To give an instance, I will take the case of the Westminster City Council. In 1926·7 the City of Westminster had to contribute no lees than £783,570 to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. It is obvious, therefore, that if any borough councils or boards of guardians make illegal and improper expenditure, the burden does not necessarily fall only upon the ratepayers in that district, but on other districts.
  Mr. SCURR: Will the hon. Member give a specific case where relief given by the Poplar Guardians is a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and has been declared illegal?
  Mr. RYE: I do not remember referring particularly to the Poplar Guardians. I am stating that payments which are made illegally and improperly by boards of guardians within the metropolitan area fall on the Common Poor Fund to a certain extent. There is no doubt about it. The hon. Member, who has special knowledge of this subject, knows as well as I do of the immense burden that is placed upon a City such as Westminster, which had to contribute in 1926·7 nearly £800,000 to the Common Poor Fund.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: How much was illegal expenditure of the Common Poor Fund?
  Mr. RYE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible for me or anyone else to apportion the illegal
  2154
  payments and to say what proportion is borne by the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I think the hon. Member is thinking of the Poplar Borough Council, in speaking of illegal payments.
  Mr. RYE: I have talked of illegal payments made, not only by the Poplar Borough Council, which is really the main subject of this Bill and certainly the main subject of all speeches from the other side, but illegal and improper payments made by other borough councils and boards of guardians. The hon. Member knows that quite well. With regard to the Poplar Borough Council and the case to which reference has been made so often, as I understand it, hon. Members opposite consider that they were very badly treated in that matter, inasmuch as they did something which they thought was within the law. They rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal, and they say it was very hard for them that, notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Appeal in their favour, they were over-ruled by the House of Lords. I think they regard it as very much to their credit that there were Judges who said that the payments made were within the law. The case went first, on appeal from the auditor's surcharge, to the Divisional Court, where three Judges found against the Poplar Council. The case was then carried to the Court of Appeal. There was one Judge out of three in favour of the auditor's decision. That, therefore, made four Judges against them and two in their favour. When the case came to the House of Lords there was a unanimous reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal. When hon. Members opposite say that they made a mistake when they made the payments which the House of Lords considered illegal, and that they did it innocently, I would like to remind them of the affidavit which was sworn in the proceedings on behalf of the Poplar Council. In that they made this statement:
  "The council have always paid such minimum wages as they considered reasonable without being bound by any external considerations such as awards."
  The award of the Joint Industrial Council settling the rate of wages for other districts did not concern the Poplar Council

  2155
  in the slightest degree. The affidivat goes on: —
  "They had stabilised the minimum wage of 80s. after consultation with the workmen concerned, though in some cases the trade union wages would have been above that figure."
  I should imagine in very few cases. Then the affidavit goes on:
  "The council did not consider that wages should be fixed, having regard only to the cost of living, but that a municipal authority should be a model employer, and they considered £4 as a minimum wage for adults."
  6.0 p.m.
  It was not a question whether they were acting illegally or not. They were constituting themselves an authority to decide what the model employer should pay. They did not care anything about the scale of wages in the district. They were the people of Poplar. There was the Pontiff of Poplar, and he was going to tell his followers what they were to do. When they come here to suggest, as they do, that they really did not understand the law, the fact is that they did not care what was the law and they were going to constitute themselves a law unto themselves. They considered they were safe until the auditor came down and surcharged them. Another point is the attitude of hon. Members opposite in connection with penalties. They say that the penalties are grossly oppressive and that men and women can, to use their own expression, be bankrupted. What is the law as it stands? Following on any surcharge, if the person surcharged does not pay the amount back to the local authority, he or she can be put into prison. I thought the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), being a chivalrous man, would have been delighted to think that when this Bill became law no longer could a woman member of a council be put into prison in connection with a surcharge. What would hon. Members propose to do in these cases with women councillors? You cannot make a woman bankrupt unless she is trading, and the majority of women councillors would not be engaged in trade. As a rule, the majority of women on councils and boards of guardians are married women who have no assets of their own. One would imagine that hon. Members opposite would be delighted to
  2156
  think that these women could not be put in prison, but not a bit of it. For some reason, they like people to go to prison, and I think I know the reason. I pointed out during the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, that one of the main objects of certain people was to be taken to prison. It must be very unfortunate, almost disastrous, to some hon. Members opposite to think that when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book they will no longer be in a position to step out sturdily to the strains of a brass band, on the way to prison for some offence of this kind. Why, all the glory and the glamour will have gone! I cannot think what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will do in the future. He has made his way in life by the very fact that he has been enabled to go to prison to the strident accompaniment of a brass band, and to pose as a martyr among the people of the East End. I think that it is far better that the question of imprisonment should be done away with and that the powers contained in this Bill should be imposed.
  Although I am a strong supporter of the Bill, there is one thing in it with which I do not altogether agree. That is the appeal to the Minister of Health in cases where the surcharge is below £500. In regard to surcharges for small sums up to £100 that provision would have been reasonable, but you might have a surcharge for £499 and it seems to me in that such a case ought to go to the Courts. I was surprised yesterday to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who was Solicitor-General to the Labour Government objecting to an Amendment which would have had the effect of taking all the cases of the kind I have indicated to the Courts. He declared that these were cases which ought to go to the Minister of Health. But only a month or so ago I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman pleading passionately, in the case of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, that we should do away with the tribunals and allow all cases to go to the Courts. In the Committee room upstairs the hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with this subject came as near to tears as I Have ever seen him. I never saw a man so upset and perturbed as he was to think that in the case of the Landlord and Tenant Bill the House of Commons wished to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts. He declared it was unconstitutional and

  2157
  a thing which no man could contemplate with equanimity. Yet yesterday he was saying in connection with this Bill "Do not take these cases to the Courts but leave them to the Minister."
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: What I opposed upstairs in Committee on the other Bill was the rejection of the right to appeal to the Courts upon a point of law. My case yesterday was that the auditor is an administrative official and that the auditors work is entirely administrative, and, therefore, that these matters are properly within the cognisance of the Minister.
  Mr. RYE: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have a vivid recollection, however, of his speech on the Third Reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill and he was then standing up for the Courts and saying that these cases ought not to go to the tribunals. He said it was contrary to constitutional practice to send them to the tribunals and that every man had an inherent right to appeal to a Court of Law. I am inclined to think that since then the hon. and learned Gentleman has become optimistic. He is thinking of the time when the Labour party may be in power and he thinks that then an appeal to the Minister of Health will be better than an appeal to a Court of Law.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Machiavelli.
  Mr. RYE: I am inclined to think that the hon. and learned Member has changed his mind on this point and, whatever the reason may be, it is astounding to find an hon. and learned Gentleman who occupies such an important position in the legal world objecting to cases going to the Courts.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I must again intervene. My point is that in the case of the Landlord and Tenant Bill you were dealing with a judical matter and in this Bill you are dealing with a ministerial matter. The hon. Member as an experienced lawyer knows the difference between the judicial function and the ministerial function. Judicial matters are matters for the Court, but ministerial matters may quite properly be appealed to the Minister.
  Mr. RYE: I am afraid I do not follow the argument. Here is a question of an illegal payment, in respect of which a surcharge is made, carrying with it the
  2158
  burden of paying the amount back to the local authority. Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that in a case where such a substantial burden has been placed upon a member of a council or a board of guardians—a burden which we have been told may drive the person concerned into bankruptcy—there is to be no right to go to the High Court? The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is such a right, if the surcharge is over £500. Why did he not object in that case and say that it was wholly wrong to send it to the Court and that it should go to the Minister? Why is he satisfied with that part of the Clause and not with the other part? However, I do not think it right for me to occupy any longer the time of the House in pointing out the inconsistencies of any hon. Gentleman, however distinguished, on the other side. I think this Bill has been brought in not a moment too soon. It is necessary in order to cleanse local administration. Certainly, on the whole, except in rare cases, local administration has been well carried out. In my own constituency no one could point to any illegal or improper action by any boards of guardians or local councils. There is, however, a growing tendency, unfortunately, in parts of London for members of borough councils and boards of guardians to forget their duty to the ratepayers, to forget that the money which they expend is not their own and to spend it in a lavish way in the hope of getting assistance in the way of votes at the next election.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I wish to go back for a moment to the speech of the Minister. It was a very interesting speech. It seemed to me, if I may put the matter quite bluntly, to consist of a number of irrelevancies and one very important half truth. The Minister began by speaking of himself, and he spoke of that great subject with all the seriousness and unction and reverence that it deserved. He told us that Brutus was an honourable man. I do not mind. I agree. So are they all—all honourable men. Then he went on to deal with this question in the way to which we are accustomed in this House but which, nevertheless, we find disappointing. On one point I wish to correct him, and it is a point which I shall correct as often as I hear it stated. A quotation—a very misleading quotation—has already been

  2159
  made, twice by the Parliamentary Secretary and once by the Minister of Health, and every time I hear that quotation made in this House I intend to read out the words which follow. It is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald) spoke of the confused and unfortunate condition of the Poor Law. Have any of us on this side ever disagreed with that?
  Sir K. WOOD: Not the Poor Law; the position of the auditor.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Wait a moment. I have the book here. Then the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion went on to allude to the suggestion made by the present Earl of Oxford asking that some collateral security should be devised in order to deal with such questions, and the right hon. Gentleman said this:
  "I should be very glad if it were possible to get collateral security that would work equitably and fairly and would be in accordance with democratic government—collateral security which would protect the ratepayer. I think my hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the only collateral security that is going to be effective in the end, is the security of an equitable Poor Law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1924; col. 396, Vol. 170.]
  Then my right hon. Friend went on to develop that theme at some length and said that it was the confused inequitable and chaotic state of the Poor Law which produced such incidents as the Poplar surcharge. He is not an auditor. He is a statesman, and he went deeper than the auditor. He stated that the condition of the Poor Law in London and other places was unsatisfactory, and he spent the rest of his speech in asking for some reasonable Poor Law reform. The Minister in his speech to-day followed a favourite trend of thought of his, in saying, when we protested against the punishment being excessive, that the people who would be punished would be guilty. I never saw a more palpable evasion of a question. Supposing we were talking of high treason and I put forward what in the old days would have been the weakly sentimental plea that people should not be hanged, drawn and quartered. It would be, on the same lines as the Minister is now adopting, a satisfactory answer to me to say that only guilty people would be punished and that I need
  2160
  not mind the form of the punishment. The Minister then spent a long time in telling us that people must obey the law. That is true but entirely irrelevant. What has legality or illegality got to do with us here? We are engaged in making the law. We are legislators, and what we are concerned with is not whether the people will be forced to obey it or not. Our concern is that the law shall be clear and just. Then the right hon. Gentleman uttered what I have called a very important half truth. He said, "These are not my auditors." These words raise the question of a very important constitutional change, namely, the creation of a new set of civil servants subject to the executive but not subject to the control of Parliament.
  Sir K. WOOD: It does not occur in this Bill.
  Miss LAWRENCE: It does not occur in this Bill, but everybody knows that the law with regard to the auditors has been changed by a judgment of the Judges. Parliament by not altering that law has approved of it, and Parliament by increasing the penalties has set its seal and sanction on that law. Everybody knows the law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal to be diametrically different from the law with regard to the powers of the auditors, as laid down in the House of Lords. I am not foolish enough to question the decision of the House of Lords. They have given us the law but they have given us a law which was not understood by Parliament when the law was passed, and was not understood by the learned Judges of Appeal who dealt with the case of "Roberts v. the King." Parliament has given its sanction to that new state of the law. Who then are the auditors and to whom do they belong? Who are the officials who, at their discretion, can impose these penalties involving perhaps bankruptcy? The auditor is anybody whom the Minister chooses to appoint and his salary is determined by the Minister.
  In former days people sometimes made rather doubtful and questionable appointments of auditors, but I understand the practice of the present Minister is to take some civil servant from his own office and bestow upon him the post of auditor so that the auditor is appointed by the Minister, his salary is fixed by

  2161
  the Minister and his whole prospects of promotion depend on the Minister. He is a man who is both economically and with regard to his career dependent on the Minister. But he is not dependent upon Parliament. Parliament cannot ask the Minister any questions about him, and the Minister himself, according to the Act of Parliament, is strictly limited as to what he can tell the auditor to do. According to the Act, the Minister's powers over the auditor end with his prescribing certain technical rules, so that the Minister can say, "These are not my auditors" with perfect truthfulness in one sense; but they are "his auditors" in the sense that he chooses them, that he determines their salary, and that they can either remain junior district auditors all their lives, or, at his good pleasure, climb up to the very heights of the Civil Service. In that sense they are "his" auditors, and there is no example of civil servants with this ambiguous status being entrusted with these powers in any legislation that I know of except in one Act of Parliament passed by this House.
  This is precisely the position of the appointed guardians under the Guardians Default Act. There, too, the Minister appoints people and pays their salaries, and in that case he determines their term of office, and yet they are clothed with powers which do not belong to the Executive at all. They are clothed with power to levy a rate. That is what I say is a constitutional novelty—the growth of a class of civil servants, clothed with important duties, of an independent character, in the power of the Minister, and not under the control of Parliament. I say that that class of civil servant is a class well known abroad, but it has not, up to this time, formed any part of the machinery of government in this country. This status that I have described is very nearly the status of a French Prefet, a man who is independent of the Minister, but whose promotion and whole career depend on the good will of the Executive. It is much the same device that the German Government adopted in order to keep the municipalities in their place in the height of the despotism in Germany; it is very like the device of the Burgomeister, appointed by the Government, and given great and independent powers of local government.
  2162
  I say that this Bill, this innocent little Bill, this Bill, as the Minister says, directed at one or two authorities only—this Bill and the Guardians Default Bill have furnished the Executive with an altogether new and formidable power, and that point the Minister and his Under-Secretary have never been within a thousand miles of discussing or justifying to the House. The Minister of Health has a Parliamentary tactic of his own. He is a master of under-statement. He has never yet brought in a Bill which he has not tried to persuade the House was a little tiny Measure, directed towards whatever individual or body he thought was unpopular at the time, to sooth and please the House into not seeing that they are making changes in our constitutional procedure. The Parliamentary Secretary is also a master of that sort of tactics. His idea of debate is to come into the House with one speech, and repeat it on every Amendment that is put forward; and precisely as, during the Guardians Default Bill, the bulk of his speeches consisted of quotations from the table-talk of Mr. Killup, so, in this Bill, he has quoted over and over again as his sole weapon that misleading scrap out of a speech of the right hon. Member for Aberavon.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is a good quotation.
  Miss LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member thinks it is a good quotation, I beg him to get the OFFICIAL REPORT and to read that speech all through. I need not defend the right hon. Member for Aberavon. He has beak and claws and can look after himself; and I doubt if the Under-Secretary would have been so free in quoting him if he had not known that he was out of the House. The Executive has given itself such powers as these, but for what purpose does it mean to use them? Of that, we have had no hint at all, but the country is more favoured than this House. We have had statements from the Minister that these powers were to be used to suppress Socialism, for what is Socialism in municipal affairs?
  Sir K. WOOD: Poplarism!
  Miss LAWRENCE: "Socialism" is a word used by the hon. Member's chief in the country. "Poplarism" is a translation by the Under-Secretary for the purposes of the House.
  Sir K. WOOD: It was the word that the right hon. Member for Aberavon used.
  Miss LAWRENCE: That is very interesting but perfectly irrelevant. What is Socialism in municipal affairs? Of course, it is a very foolish thing to suppose that you can have Socialism properly so expressed without controlling the whole machine of Government. You cannot have Socialism in the true sense by controlling a county council or a local authority, but the three principles of the Socialist party with regard to local government are, first, the encouragement of municipal enterprise; secondly, the desire to be model employers; that is to say, that everybody employed by the body shall have proper wages, proper conditions, proper holidays, irrespective of whatever wages may be given under other employers; and that is not even Socialism. I believe the Progressive party on the London County Council agree, and they set that ideal before them long before Socialism was an appreciable force in that body. Decent wages and conditions are the second point, and the third and the most important is that no person shall suffer hunger, cold, or the extreme of primary poverty. If a person is a wicked person, let him go to prison, but if a person is hungry, let him be fed. It is not reasonable or civilised to allow any person in this country, good, bad, or indifferent, worthy or unworthy, to suffer hunger, cold, or extreme poverty. Those are the three aims of Socialism.
  This Bill, added to the Guardians Default Bill, gives the Minister every power to combat those tendencies, and how can one look at this Bill without seeing that it is not a little isolated Measure, but that it is part of a carefully thought out plan? The hon. and learned Member for Moss-side (Mr. G. Hurst) finished his speech by saying this was the best Government Bill since the Trade Unions Bill. That was not accidental. His mind may not have logically perceived it, but his heart and soul saw the connection, for the Trade Unions Bill, the Miners Eight Hours Bill, the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the Guardians Default Bill, and this Bill are all part of one subject; they are all directed to one end, the cheapening wages by reducing here the power of the workers' organisations, by reducing there the money given as unemployment benefit, by reducing here, above all, the
  2164
  money a man may get from the elected boards of guardians. Anybody can see how these things hang together, that they are one great encircling campaign against the workers' standard of life.
  The only thing that has cheered me up during these cheerless Debates of the last few weeks has been that some of my hon. Friends, who are very clever, have been composing a list of the seats which will be lost by hon. Members opposite by this kind of legislation. I look at hon. Members opposite, and I see their cheerfulness, and I say to myself, as I hear you, and you, and you, "Your places will know you no more." I look at hon. Members opposite who, I know, have natural political ambitions—this one wants to be an Under-Secretary, that one wants to be a Minister—I notice them, and I say, "No, not for you. Three years hence you will realise that last week and this week you have slammed the door on your own ambition you have cut the throat of your own political career. Five years hence you will be in the wilderness, and you will look back"—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Is the hon. Lady addressing the Chair?
  Miss LAWRENCE: I am sorry. It is in the nature of prophecy and used more in the impersonal sense. I will say that they will look back to these weeks and to-day, when their political career ended in fact: and that thought of watching the victims, of counting them on the fingers of our hands, has been the one thing which has supported me and my friends during the lamentable exhibition of the last fortnight.
  Mr. SCURR: I am sorry the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) is not in his place, because, whether wittingly or unwittingly, he certainly conveyed to this House an entirely wrong impression. He spoke of a considerable burden being thrown upon certain boroughs in London under the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and he went on to speak of the illegal expenditure of the Poplar Board of Guardians and other boards of guardians in the London area. I took the opportunity of challenging him to produce a single instance where, in regard to out-relief, the Poplar

  2165
  Board of Guardians, or any other board of guardians in London, had been surcharged for any illegal expenditure at all, but he was unable to give such information, because it would not be possible to produce it. As a matter of fact, my colleague the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and myself were very much concerned with the negotiations which led to the charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund of the expenditure for the outdoor poor, and it very largely came as a result of the conference of the whole of the Metropolitan borough councils which was held at the Ministry of Health. When the negotiations seemed to be hopeless and almost on the point of a breakdown, it was the town clerk of Westminster, Sir John Hunt, who suggested the scheme which is now the scheme in operation in regard to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
  Although the hon. Member for Loughborough laments that this is a 2s. rate in regard to Westminster, he forgets to tell us that whenever Westminster levies a penny rate it is able to get 10 times as much as when the Borough of Poplar has to levy a penny rate, and so the consequence is that his comparison of rates in the £ in regard to districts in London really cannot in any sense of the word be regarded as a true comparison. Further, my ears were rather tingling when the hon. Member for Loughborough was quoting from the affidavit of the Poplar Councillors at the time of the audit. As a matter of fact, those phrases were drafted by myself, and so far as all of us who were members of the Poplar Borough Council are concerned, we stand by them in every sense of the word, because we considered, when we looked at the Statute under which we were acting, and in which those words were put, that we had the right to do what we did, and when we remember that at least one of the High Courts of the land, the Court of Appeal, confirmed us in that decision, I think we were in every sense absolutely justified. Therefore, it is in that sense of the word that we say that we were innocently breaking the law.
  So far as breaking the law is concerned, there are times when it is necessary to break the law in the interests of liberty. I think it is Milton who says:
  2166
  "Men of most renowned virtue have sometimes by transgressing most truly kept the law."
  The only time that the Poplar Borough Council broke the law was, not when they gave relief to those who were in need of public assistance, not when they paid wages far higher than those paid by other authorities, but when they refused to pay the precepts of the central authorities of London, and by that means drew the whole attention of London to the inequalities of London rating and brought about the adjustment to which the hon. Member for Loughborough has referred. In regard to the Bill which we are discussing, I am opposed to it, first of all, on the ground that it is in every sense of the word an attack on local government. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will disagree with that, because he considers he is upholding local government. I consider it is a serious attack upon the liberty and freedom of local governing authorities. The second reason I am opposed to the Bill is that, in my judgment, it is going to deal with innocent persons who may be affected, and for whom the Minister has given no thought at all.
  I will give a specific case. My wife was elected to the Poplar Board of Guardians in 1907, and at the first audit after her election she and other members were surcharged. By the pressure of the then Local Government Board, the Poplar Board of Guardians had been compelled to purchase a house in East India Dock Road in order to make a receiving home for children. This house had a very nice garden and a grass plot, but it was found that the children, when they went into the garden, got their feet wet. The consequence was that they had to be looked after medically and were an extra expense. The committee of the home decided that a portion of the ground should be asphalted, and it was carried out by the direct labour of the staff in the employ of the guardians. The sum involved was over £500, and the auditor said that the work had been done without going to contractors and without obtaining the consent of the Local Government Board, which was necessary because the asphalting of a garden was a structural alteration. Therefore, my wife and her colleagues were surcharged.
  Under this Bill, supposing that case had been taken to Court or to the

  2167
  Minister, and supposing it was upheld that it was a structural alteration, my wife would have come under a disqualification of five years; further than that, she had no separate estate. I was not a member of the board of guardians at that time; I was pursuing a peaceful avocation in the City of London trying to earn a living. The consequence would have been that I should have been responsible for my wife's debts, and I should have been the person who would have been made bankrupt. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of cases of that kind? The hon. Member for Loughborough was trying to rally us on the ground that we ought to be quite happy over the fact that the Minister has made it impossible for women councillors to go to prison, but are the women councillors' husbands to be bankrupted? Under this Bill that certainly seems to me to be the case. I think I am stating the case correctly, and that there is a risk to innocent persons in that regard.
  The third point is, of course, the point which has already been made, and it must be repeated because it is important. That is in regard to the position of the auditor himself. As the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has already stated, the auditor is appointed by the Minister, and when the Minister has appointed him and laid down rules in regard to keeping municipal accounts, the Minister's responsibility ends, and the auditor is absolutely free to use his own discretion. He is not subject to the authority of Parliament, but only subject, as a result of an expensive process, to the judgment of the Court. I agree with the hon. Member that the Minister is trying to introduce, by a side wind, the Continental system under which there shall be central control by the Minister. This, of course, is a reversal of the policy which has been pursued in the past. We ourselves have tried it in our local government. We have tried, by the exercise of the democratic weapon, to ensure that people who live in a particular locality should be able to decide the conditions under which they would be able to live in that particular municipal area.
  It was found in the past that some of these local authorities did not do their work in the way they should do it, and,
  2168
  in order to improve their areas, a certain pressure was brought to bear by the Ministry. We have heard to-day about bribes. To a certain extent, perhaps, the Ministry of Health has been guilty of trying to bribe the local authorities into doing certain work for the public good. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who, with members of his party, we so seldom see in the House, who said, in the course of the Debate, that, during his occupancy of the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he laid down certain Government grants to authorities for the purpose of deliberately encouraging them to continue along the lines of social reform. Now we have the Minister of Health reversing that, and trying to impose these penalties on bodies which are trying to do their best in regard to social reform.
  We have heard a great deal, quite naturally, about Poplar, but, before I go to the subject of Poplar, there is one other aspect in regard to the auditor which has not yet been discussed. There has been an assumption all the way through that the auditor lays down a certain standard of wages, whether that scale be the scale of the Joint Industrial Council or some margin up to 10 per cent above, and that this is the be-all and end-all of the whole thing. It does not seem to have occurred to the Minister, or to the Judges of the Courts or to the auditor, that in no circumstances are the men and women who are employed consulted in this matter at all. There are, after all, beside the auditor, the Judges, and the local authorities, the very powerful organisations known as trade unions, which exist for the purpose of keeping up, and, wherever possible, raising the standard of life of the members of those organisations. Now the auditor may lay down a wage. It may be the Joint Industrial Council award or 10 per cent. above it. The men might say they were not going to accept the Joint Industrial Council's award. They might say, "When we went to the Whitley Council we put forward a different proposal; that different proposal, not being accepted by both sides, is not binding, and we, therefore, will not accept it, and we demand a higher wage."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am putting forward cases

  2169
  ex hypothesi, because I was really, two years ago, faced with this very position. In the Stepney Union, under an order of the Ministry of Health, the four wards were amalgamated. The wages of employés doing precisely the same work in the different hospitals and institutions varied very much, and we had applications asking for those wages to be unified. It was a very difficult problem to bring about the unity of these four wards, and to deal with a large staff, to analyse their various duties, and to grade them into a proper system; and in the end we were threatened with a strike, and the clerk of the board cam© to see me one night in order to ask what we should do. As a result of very long negotiations with all the trade unions who had their members in the service of the Stepney Board of Guardians, an agreement was entered into which was sent to the Ministry of Health in order that they should be aware what was going on, and that agreement is in force to-day. If the auditor is to come along and say that this agreement does not matter and that he is going to fix wages, the Bill is not going to save industrial trouble in the East End of London and elsewhere.
  With regard to Poplar, I really get a little tired of hearing hon. Members putting up this constant parrot cry of "Poplarism." The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) tried to give us a definition. According to him, it is "pauperisation of the people by the lavish expenditure of other people's money." The hon. Gentleman further went on to make certain observations in regard to irresponsible persons standing as candidates, and offering considerable bribes to the populace in order to get elected. I thought that was rather good coming from a party which has been identified with the Protectionist policy of this country, for that policy, if anything, is a bribe to certain manufacturers. They were told that if they would only vote for the Tariff Reform party, they would get greater property and greater profits. Surely, it is the essence of our democratic system that political parties are organised to put before electors certain programmes. The electors have every right to consider these programmes. Parliament has greatly extended the franchise. What for? We really can see what is in the heart of hearts of right hon. and hon. Members
  2170
  opposite. They are bringing in legislation of this kind, because they really object to the fact that there are working men sitting in the House of Commons on these benches.
  That is the whole fundamental fact. They are quite willing to give votes to the people—they will give votes to men of 21 and to women of 21—provided those voters are nice, respectable spectators, who will vote for members of the governing class to sit in alternate Governments. The voters are to be like spectators at a football match, looking on at the game and cheering those who play it. That is the conception of democracy which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have, but not the conception of democracy which we have, which is that the voters themselves have to determine the policy of the various authorities and to say what they desire. I think it is perfectly legitimate for the populace to determine that their local authority shall be a model employer, and that is one of the sins which Poplar has committed.
  I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise what Poplar is? Perhaps I may address these remarks to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. As I said before, though perhaps he will not mind my repeating it, I followed his career before he was a Member of this House, when he was distinguished in regard to the municipal administration of Birmingham. Without being in any sense of the word flatterng to him, I may say that both the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) very often put forward the example of Birmingham to our own people to show them the path which they ought to pursue towards municipal Socialism. The hon. Gentleman is a patriotic citizen of Birmingham. I want to contrast the city of Birmingham with the Metropolitan borough of Poplar. It is true that in Birmingham there are at one end of the town well-to-do people, and at the other end poor people, but the people of Birmingham as a whole, whether they are captains of industry, like the right hon. Gentleman himself, or like the late Mr. George Cadbury, or whether they belong to the various grades of the professional classes, or whether they are among the poorest of the people, are yet all in Birmingham itself. The consequence is that there is an association of

  2171
  classes in Birmingham, and a greater understanding amongst all sections of the people of the particular problems of Birmingham.
  What is the position in Poplar? Poplar, with its 168,000 people, is composed very largely of persons of one social class. We do not have that mixture of classes which I can find in Birmingham, or in Bristol, or in many other provincial towns. Of the whole of the officials of the borough council and the board of guardians, the deputy town clerk alone lives in the borough of Poplar. All the rest of them take care to live out of it. As far as shopkeepers are concerned, whenever they get an income above £3 a week they take care to get out of the borough, going to live in places like Wanstead, Ilford and other suburbs. I am not saying this in any spirit of reflection upon them, because I think they are quite wise to do so. After living myself in Poplar for 50 years I have had to leave within the last two or three months, because I could not stand walking along the streets day after day and meeting men who appealed to me to try to get them work, when I knew that it was impossible to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar has had to take up an exactly similar position. So I do not blame people who go away from Poplar to live. We have no professional classes with us. As far as the Anglican clergymen are concerned, they are attached to their rectories, but since the Bishop of Bloemfontein and the Bishop of Stepney left us the Anglican clergy take no interest at all in the locality. The pastor of the one great Free Church we have, the Wesleyan Methodist Mission, lives out of the Borough of Poplar.
  We have 71 schools for boys, girls and infants in the borough, and we have two secondary schools. Of all the teachers, six only live in the borough—according to what I ascertained the last time I was able to make any investigation. The vast mass of our people are casual labourers, either employed at the docks or in ship repairing, shipbuilding or the engineering trades; and the consequence is that we cannot get that association of classes which Birmingham and other cities like it can have. This is very largely true of other metropolitan
  2172
  boroughs of London. If I go to Westminster I can draw a different picture. The problems which have to be faced are very different. If I sat in the City Hall at Westminster the problem I should be chiefly occupied with is that of the traffic, provision of beautiful roads and things of that kind, although if certain reports which have recently been issued are true, Westminster does not seem to be paying much attention to its housing problem. If I am in the town hall of Poplar it is true that I have a traffic problem, but it is a totally different traffic problem. It is the problem of keeping a great main artery for the traffic of our trade overseas, which keeps this great city and this great country going. As a result of that, and of the presence of the docks, there is also the problem of the casual labourer, and the problem of caring for those who go down in industry.
  Poplar has a great history. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for South Poplar are both some years older than I am, and therefore have a longer memory of Poplar than I have, but I was taken there when I was six months old and I have lived in the borough to within two months ago. I was educated in Poplar; I have loved every stone in it. I have wandered up and down its streets, and I know its people well. This place of Poplar which people sneer at to-day because some of its citizens have endeavoured to relieve the necessities of the poorest of the poor has played a big part in building up this great Empire of ours. Long before the song of the rivet was heard on the Thames, on the Tyne, on the Clyde or in Belfast Lough, we were building in Poplar those wooden ships which sailed away to India, to Australia, to China, those wooden ships which took away from the American mercantile marine the supremacy of the world. All over the world to-day there are people from Poplar who are helping to build up our Empire and our trade. The sons of those same people are in Poplar to-day. They have the same independent spirit which their forefathers had before them, and they have backed their local authorities because those local authorities have been pursuing a policy with which they agree. I get tired of hearing these sneers at the members of the Poplar local authorities, those hard-working members of the class

  2173
  to which I belong. They are bone of my bone and blood of my blood and because of that I feel that the Government are in this Bill passing a Measure conceived with the idea of depressing further and further the standard of life of the poorest of the poor. In every sense of the word it is a sin against the light, and I am astonished that a gentleman of the ability of the Minister of Health should be so blinded by political prejudice as to put forward a Measure of this kind. We know we shall be beaten in the Division Lobby to-night. They will bring up their 300 against our three score or four score men; but that matters not. A time will come when the scene will be different and when the workers of this country will be able to sing their Magnificat:
  "He hath put down the mighty from their seat; … and the rich He hath sent empty away."
  Mr. NAYLOR: If the value of this Bill were to be determined by the number of its supporters present in the House, I am afraid that the category in which it would be placed would be very low indeed. I am sure the House has been greatly impressed by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), and it may seem presumption on my part even to follow him in the excellent and exhaustive speech which he has made, but I would like to remind the House that the conditions existing in Poplar and the stirring independence of the men and women who live in Poplar and Bow and Bromley are common to other parts of London and of the country. It would be a mistake for any hon. Member to imagine that the iniquitous incidence of this Bill will fall only upon one or two localities. It is only a question of degree as between one local authority and another. A good deal has been said about the principle, with which the Bill interferes, of the right of the people of any locality to elect their own governors and for those governors to be left free to carry out the duties for which they have been elected. Why should there be the interposition of a public auditor whose status no one in this House, not even the Minister himself, seems properly to understand, a man who comes in, lifts his hand, uses his pen, does practically what he likes, without anyone being able to call him to account? This man is placed above the popular voice of the elec-
  2174
  tors, who may elect any party to a council. In that respect it seems to me the Bill cuts right across the British Constitution, which prides itself upon its democratic foundation. Localities have the right, within certain limits, to govern themselves, provided that those who are elected conform to what may be called the reasonable aspects of the law.
  7.0 p.m.
  What is reasonable or unreasonable is, evidently, to be left entirely to the discretion of the auditor, who is responsible to no one. Surely a body elected in a locality must understand better than anyone else the needs of the locality, and if by virtue of the economic position of the people in the locality certain measures have to be adopted which may be regarded as extreme by other people, that ought not in itself to be sufficient to make the action of the local authority illegal. It would not be illegal except for the legislation now being passed by the present Government. The object of the Government seems to be to lay down by an Act of Parliament, which they are able to carry by virtue of their majority in this House, that the public auditor is the man who alone can decide what is right and just and proper as far as concerns the government of any particular locality. Take Birmingham as an example. We might just as well give the public auditor the authority to say that Birmingham's public enterprise in the past has been outwith the Constitution of the country, and call on him to surcharge the Birmingham Town Council for having dared to pass measures that are known as municipal enterprise. There would be just as much reason in doing that as in trying to limit the powers and opportunities of local councillors whose only wrongdoing is that they have been spending public money for what they considered to be the public good.
  As one who has a great personal interest in all matters that affect wages, I must say a few words in regard to the position of the auditor and his attitude as allowed under this Bill and under an Act of Parliament already passed. As there is power to say whether or not a certain rate of wages is reasonable, it seems to me that a public council charged with the responsibility of its decision, and knowing that if it did anything outside

  2175
  that which was reasonable in the minds of those who elected it, should be permitted at least to say under what conditions it would employ men on the establishment of the local council. It seems to me an interference with the liberty of the subject, and an interference with the right of the union to negotiate with a public authority and secure from that authority the highest possible wage and the best possible conditions for its members, for any independent person to come in and say that those negotiations shall not be allowed to proceed; that although it may be possible for a local authority and a trade union to agree on a certain rate of wages, for this person who is called the public auditor to step in and say, "You must not pay these wages, and we shall surcharge you for all the expenditure that may be involved if you pay more than such a wage plus, possibly, 10 per cent."—which is what the public auditor might regard as a reasonable margin. Any Bill that contains that may justly be described as a Bill for the interference with trade union negotiations, making for confusion in the fixing of wages as between trade unions and public bodies, and generally taking away from men the right to the fruits of their organisation into trade unions.
  It seems to me incredible that with the record of the Conservative party behind them, Ministers in a Conservative Government should attempt to undermine the position of the trade unions and their members in this very important respect. After all, a public body should not be regarded as essentially different from any other employer when it comes to negotiations for wages. The private individual is permitted to negotiate with a trade union and can pay any rate of wages they agree upon, and the law will not interfere. Although the conditions are different, there is no difference in principle in the position of a local authority. The local authority is an employer of this kind where members of a trade union negotiate with a public authority. What right has a public auditor or the Minister to come in between and say that they shall not negotiate beyond a certain point? I think there is a great deal in what other hon. Members have said, that this is going to interfere very considerably in the smooth working of many local authorities. I am
  2176
  afraid that if this principle be embodied in an Act of Parliament it will be very difficult to administer, for, with the great growth of Labour members on the local councils, which have been largely increased in the past few months, you may be faced with an ever increasing number of councils run by Labour majorities. They will have their own views of what their duties may be towards their constituents.
  It may be that, in spite of this Bill, they will take certain measures on which it will be very difficult indeed for any Government, however strong and powerful, to restrain them. If the Government come to this House with this Bill, confident in their majority, taking advantage of the strength that that majority confers on Ministers, shall we be blamed when we get our majority on a local council if we take advantage of our majority and position as elected persons in possibly a larger number of local authorities throughout the country? That being so, Ministers should hesitate before they seek to impose on local authorities the restrictions contained in this Bill. I regard it as a reactionary Measure. Not that I am prepared to support everything that has been done by every board of guardians or local authority in this country. But I do say that what has occurred in those exceptional instances is no justification for this Measure. While I know the House will pass this Bill in the end, I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider the position in which he is placing himself and his Government, and when the catastrophe happens at a later date he will remember that this Bill was one of its causes.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I should like to bring the House back to the speech in which the Minister moved the Third Reading of this Bill. He did it with his usual skill and with his usual lucidity. There are two or three outstanding points in the speech to which I would like to refer. The Minister feels that the law relating to surcharges is unsatisfactory. I agree with him, and I think many hon. Members on this side of the House will agree with him, but what the Minister has done has been to attempt to segregate a small part of a much larger problem. He has done this in a way which leaves many important questions quite unsettled. Had the Minister come to the

  2177
  House with a Bill to overhaul the whole law relating to auditors and surcharges, and the relations between local governing bodies and his Department, then we might have been inclined to support him. But, unfortunately, his Bill deals with such a narrow point and leaves so many big outstanding questions unsettled, that my view is that the situation now is even more confused than it has been in the past.
  Then the Minister made some references to Members of my own party. We happened to be surcharged, and I think his view was that friends of mine both inside and outside the House in this party, seem to take a childish pleasure in defying the law. The Minister was not within a great distance of being even moderately accurate. He has really instituted himself, so he says, a policeman over these Socialist majorities. His terrorism, he says, is the terrorism exerted by the police. Not, I think by the police of this country. His terrorism is the terrorism of the third degree. It is the application, quite wrongly, of excessive pressure in order to extort from people promises and statements that they would not willingly make themselves. That I understand to be a normal police method in the United States, but it is not a method that I should like to see extended to this country, either to our ordinary police system or to the new police system established by the Minister of Health.
  One of the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used in support of the Measure was that the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations took no alarmist view of this Bill. They had not protested against it. I gathered from him that they had even acclaimed the Bill. But that proves nothing about this Bill. If one has regard to the composition of the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations, one finds that they are, for the most part, composed of authorities whose members hold the same views as hon. Members opposite, and they are the kind of local authorities not likely to come into conflict with the district auditor. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that these organisations should not be opposed to the Bill. I could imagine that if the County Councils' Association were a body predominantly Labour in its character,
  2178
  it would have expressed views of an entirely different kind. In a big political issue of this kind their views are determined by their political complexion. Therefore, to adduce them as supporters of this Bill does not really strengthen the Minister's case. Then the Minister tells us that the Socialist party has gained no credit from the public by association with Poplarism. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not define what he meant by that. We have had a definition of it from an hon. and learned Member on the other side of the House to which I will refer later on. We know what the view of the Minister of Health is in regard to the Socialist party.
  I say that this Bill brings no credit either to the Government or to the House of Commons, and, personally, I shall be glad to see the last of this unfortunate Measure. It is really a kind of Measure which might appropriately have been burned by the common hangman. I cannot think of any words suitable to say in favour of the Bill, because I do not think it deals with any of the real basic problems with which we are faced in our system of local government. This Measure was introduced as a little Bill, and it has been defended as an emergency Measure. We have been told that it was introduced to deal with a few recalcitrant London boroughs that would not behave themselves, and yet we are told that those boroughs, with the prospect of this Bill before them, have already begun to behave themselves. We are now living in a land of local authorities, all of whom have satisfied the Minister of Health that the reason for the introduction of this little Bill no longer exists. The possibility of a return to legislation of this kind, of which local authorities know very well the Minister of Health is capable, will in the future be a sufficient deterrent. Personally, I do not regard this as a little Bill; in fact it is one of large significance and importance. I am looking at it more from the point of view of what it may be in the future.
  The Minister of Health said this afternoon, "The auditors are not my auditors." I accept that statement, but if that be true, the Minister has no idea what is going to be the future of this Measure, and it is not for him to say. How does the right hon. Gentleman know what is in the minds of the district

  2179
  auditors up and down the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman know how the auditors will interpret legal action which may become illegal by acts of extravagant expenditure? If the auditors are not the right hon. Gentleman's auditors, then we are launching this Bill on a future the end of which nobody can see. There might be an epidemic amongst district auditors within the next few years, and many of them might follow the example of certain district auditors in London; and then, with their varying views of reasonableness and unreasonableness, we might find a considerable number of local authorities having their members suspended and being driven out of public life. When we were dealing some time; ago with the case of the West Ham Board of Guardians, the Minister was repeatedly pressed as to how far he wanted to go, and he said this Bill had been rendered necessary because of the action of the West Ham Board of Guardians. At that time the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe that if he could only get power to strike down the wicked board of guardians in the West Ham Union, he would be perfectly satisfied. Since then he has gone three times as far as he thought was necessary at the time he introduced this Bill, and three boards of guardians have now fallen under his action. As far as we know, there may be 30 in the future.
  For the reason that the auditors are not the auditors of the right hon. Gentleman and can act independently of him; because it is left to their judgment to determine whether action because of its unreasonableness is illegal, we may find that this Bill is a serious blow against the local government of this country in the future. I believe it is true that this Bill, in the judgment of the Minister of Health, has become necessary, but it has been rendered necessary because of the failure of the Government to deal with local governing authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has reached a deadlock not merely with boards of guardians but with other local authorities. This is the second Measure in which Parliament has permitted him to use the big stick against local authorities with whom he could not reason any longer, because he had exhausted every wile that he possessed. Why should we be asked every time the Minister is in a difficulty with local
  2180
  authorities to pass special legislation which engenders high feelings, simply because the right hon. Gentleman is unable properly to supervise the local authorities under his charge?
  This Bill is important from our point of view, because it gives us a further insight into the psychology of the Government and their general outlook on political questions. I regard this Bill as most unfair. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no question, and there never has been any question of heavy punishment being imposed upon members of local authorities who deliberately neglect their duty. I am not speaking simply of negligence in matters of money, but I am referring more to the neglect of statutory duties. The Minister of Health would never dream of asking this House for powers to expel from public life the members of local authorities because they had not built any new houses in their locality. He would never ask for heavy punishment against people who had allowed insanitary schools to exist for a generation. If, however, there happens to be any local authorities who interpret their duties generously, they are to be held back and restricted on the grounds of excessive expenditure.
  That, I submit, is most unfair. If people are to be rendered liable to such heavy penalties as those inflicted by this Bill for exceeding the law, then they ought to be liable to at least equal penalties for not living up to the law. In our view, it is that unfairness that throws a light on the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards the problems of politics. Quite recently the term "illegal" has been interpreted to cover what somebody or other regards as unreasonable, and this really means that this Measure is to be used against people who try to interpret the law generously and to administer the law of the land as it is. I am not asking that they should have power to deal with questions outside their purview, but this Bill is a deterrent and a distinct discouragement to local authorities to make the most of the law of the land. It is, indeed, an incitement to them to follow the plan of many local authorities to do as little as they can to cary out the law of the land.
  It has been suggested that the prime question is one of wages, but it is not

  2181
  only a question of wages, although that is important. An hon. Member opposite was greatly scandalised at the thought that the local authority should regard itself as a model employer, and the hon. Member seemed almost speechless because it had been said that a local authority should regard itself as a model employer. It has been the policy of this House for a generation that all public authorities should regard themselves as model employers, and that is one of the points at issue. The question as to whether people should be paid £4 a week or not is to be settled in two different ways. There are two entirely different points of view in this House as to what is human and what is reasonable. That applies not only to wages, but to any form of expenditure which comes within the purview of local authorities. It will be impossible for auditors, brought up perhaps in circumstances of comfort and luxury, who understand very little of the implications of social policy, to establish new standards in their own minds for all kinds of local expenditure which may include expenditure on schools or various forms of recreation. It is quite possible that what is now proposed may be the thin end of the wedge to deprive local authorities of the initiative in the matter of local expenditure. That is why we contend that this Bill is very unfair.
  This Measure is also undemocratic. Reference has been made to a statement which was made by the Minister of Health in a public speech. In his administration of the law I know that the right hon. Gentleman will try to administer it fairly, but there is a gulf between our point of view and his, and he knows it. In a speech which the Minister of Health delivered at Greenwich only five weeks ago he said:
  "Socialists were not willing to play the game, but were determined to use local government to finance their theories, and it was his duty to frustrate them."
  I regard it as my paramount duty in this House to advance my theories, and I should not be worthy of my position as a Member of this House if I did not try to uphold my theories. We have made no secret about that. We have won our way through, in spite of tremendous difficulties, both national and local, and we are getting an increasing amount of support for our point of view. That is
  2182
  quite right, and it is the basis of all democratic Government. The Minister of Health is going to try to frustrate that. It is part of our theory that there should be no public servant who is not well paid. The right hon. Gentleman wants to stop that, and in some cases he has succeeded. It is absurd for the Minister of Health to contend that he is not doing anything contrary to our point of view by this Bill. If I were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, I should do as much as I could to ginger up a lot of local authorities that are doing next to nothing at the present time. I am not blaming him for trying to repress these wicked Socialist authorities, the members of which are trying to advance their own theories; but this is not the way to frustrate them. To frustrate them by means of punitive legislation and administration is unfair, it is unjust, and, of course, it is obviously undemocratic. What is at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite is the question of the ratepayer, so they say; but they do not mean the ratepayers—they mean a small body of large ratepayers. The ratepayer has been their defence, and they dislike something that they call Poplarism. I am glad that to-day one of the two hon. Members who have had the courage to support the Government gave us for the first time a definition of Poplarism. I shall treasure it to the end of my life. Poplarism, he said, is the pauperisation of people by lavish misapplication of other people's money.
  Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman accepts it. Splendid! I am glad to have that admission. [Interruption.] It is no use quoting the speech of my right hon. Friend; I wish the hon. Member would read the whole of it. We have kept on reading it, and, if we could be given a little longer for the Debate, we would read it again. But this definition of Poplarism is one which describes the Conservative party's own economy policy. In almost every Debate in this House where it can be dragged in, you may be sure that hon. Members opposite will raise their voices in support of economy. It struck me, when the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) was giving us his definition of Poplarism,

  2183
  that we might define the Conservative economy policy in these terms:
  "The pauperisation of the rich by the lavish misapplication of other people's money."
  One example is the diversion of money from the Road Fund in order to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from increasing the Income Tax. That is a misapplication of other people's money, not for the pauperisation of the poor, but for the evasion of taxation by the rich. If the Government care to leave the definition where it is, I shall be quite satisfied, because by implication they have defined their own policy and their own attitude towards this question. Is there any Member in this House who would repeal the non-contributory Old Age Pensions Act? The pensions paid to these very people we get from other people's money. Is there anything wrong in that? Has it not always been, in modern times an accepted canon of taxation that people should pay to the common stock according to their ability to pay; and has it not been regarded as right by successive Governments—more or less niggardly, perhaps, some of them have been—that the well-to-do should come to the aid of the poor? If it be said that we are misapplying other people's money when the common stock is used to help the neediest, and if that be Poplarism, then I am a Poplarist. That definition gets us no further; it merely confuses the issue. The issue is the issue of the large ratepayer. The basis of our system of social government is the elector, and it must be the elector, unless you are going to supersede local government altogether. You cannot to-day measure the people's value as electors by the amount of money that they happen to possess, and you cannot find any factor, so to speak, by which you can weight the voting power of rich people. What hon. Members opposite would really like would be the reestablishment of the property qualification and the disqualification of people of small means.
  This is where we really get down to the root of this question. Some way has to be found of circumventing majority government in the localities. It cannot be found by going back and diminishing the number of electors; it cannot be found by giving rich ratepayers 50 votes; it can be found, however, in discouraging
  2184
  expenditure. We have heard this afternoon, from the bench opposite, about the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The burdens that are met out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund have practically nothing whatever to do with what is called Poplarism. If you could sweep the whole of London clean of what is called Poplarism, if you could put in authority in every area in London a Conservative majority, in those poor areas—depressed areas, areas of low rateable value, areas with enormous economic difficulties—you would still have the same problem as you have to-day, and you would not have come within miles of dealing with the real problem. What is called the burden of rates has not been created by Poplarism. The burden of rates has been created, by Tory authorities as well as by Labour authorities, because of economic circumstances, and the problem which has given rise to these difficulties is really a problem far outside the scope of this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman has himself been responsible for one earlier Act, which is of the same character as the present Bill. I refer to the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. We have just passed through, as many of us know to our cost, days and days of debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. We have now this Bill. These three Measures have been a waste of the time of Parliament, because they have ignored the fundamental problems which give rise to a situation requiring absurd legislation of this kind. These Measures are all symptoms, really, of a deeply rooted disease. I believe that what is wrong is the social system. I do not believe that you can find to-day any way of saving the rich ratepayer from increasing expenditure; I think it is impossible. So long as poverty exists as it does to-day, so long as social injustice exists as it does to-day, so long you will have these recurring: difficulties in local authorities. You may try repressive legislation, you may try the suppression of local authorities, you may do what you like to hound people out of public life; it will avail nothing, it solves nothing, but it will only bring more clearly to the minds of people the existence of a very real problem.
  I put it to the House that, during these times of great economic stress, out of which the reason for these Measures

  2185
  has arisen, and which have given us these big problems, we ought to have a big enough policy to deal with them. Confronted, as nearly all the Members of this House are, with difficulties in their constituencies which call for statesmanship, it is a great pity that we should have to devote our time to the discussion of petty Measures of repression such as the Bill that is now before the House. I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman were really to follow his own bent and his own distinguished tradition, he would see that the solution of the problem of the Boards of Guardians
  (Default) Act, the solution of the problem of the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill, is to be found, not in repressive Measures of this kind, but in constructive Measures for the reorganisation of our social system.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 126.

  Division No. 475.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Dixey, A. C.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

  Drewe, C.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  England, Colonel A.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Atkinson, C.

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

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fairfax. Captain J G.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Balniel. Lord

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds. N.)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Illffe, Sir Edward M.

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

  Finburgh, S.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Bennett, A. J.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

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

  Bethel, A.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Forrest. W.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Foxcroft, Captain C T

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Gates, Percy

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Brocklebank, C E. R.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Long, Major Eric

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Burman. J. B.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Macintyre, Ian

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hanbury, C.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meller. R. J.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Harland, A.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Couper, J. B.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Curzon. Captain Viscount

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Waddington, R.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Savery, S. S.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Penny. Frederick George

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Plicher, G.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wells, S. R.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.

  Radford, E. A.

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Ramsden. E.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Reid, D D. (County Down)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Remer, J. R.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

  Tasker, R. Inigo

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Bye, F. G.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Mr. F. C. Thomson.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  NOES.

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

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

  Riley, Ben

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  Baker, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawrence, Susan

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

  Clowes, S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F.

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn. William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Mackinder. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March. s

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Duncan, C.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edge, Sir William

  Morris, R. H

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gillett. George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gosling, Harry

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 118.

  Division No. 476.]

  AYES.

  [7.49 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Bainiel, Lord

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Atkinson, C.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Bethel, A.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Morris, R. H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hacking, Douglas H.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hanbury, C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Owen, Major G.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Harland, A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Burman, J. B.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pilcher, G.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Chapman. Sir S.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Rye, F. G.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Couper, J. B.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

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

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

  Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Drewe, C.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  England, Colonel A.

  Long, Major Eric

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  McDonnell, Colonal Hon. Angus

  Waddington, R.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Finburgh, S.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wayland. Sir William A.

  Forrest, W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wells, S. R.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gaibraith, J. F. W.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Meller, R. J.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gates, Percy

  Merriman, F. B.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Goff, Sir Park

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Womersley, W. J.

  2190

  2191

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Wragg, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Mr. F. C. Thomson.

  NOES.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  Amnion, Charles George

  Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barnes. A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromfield, William

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Stephen, Campbell

  Bromley, J.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sullivan, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lee, F.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Clowes. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Mackinder, w.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Connolly, M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Townend, A. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dalton, Hugh

  March, S.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

  Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan. C.

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Murnin, H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gillett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Westwood, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

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

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Considered in Committee. [Progress, 17 th November.]
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 (Continuance of Acts in Schedule) and 2 (Short title and application to Northern Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

  SCHEDULE.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 5 to 7, inclusive.
  Ever since I have been a Member of the House, each time this Bill has come up in which it has been proposed to renew, the Aliens Act of 1919 I have moved this Amendment. I do it in an absolutely unrepentant mood, and, although the Home Secretary may rally me on bring-
  2192
  ing forward a hardy annual, he will find that I am very pertinacious. Although I may not be able, perhaps, to convert him, it is sometimes necessary to take the attitude of Athanasius contra mundum, as I do in this regard, because I regard this as one of the most un-English Acts on the Statute Book. I further point out there is a change this year from last year. Last year it was simply proposed to renew the Act for one year, but there has been a change in the Government policy. On the 17th November this year the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) asked the Home Secretary:
  "whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to secure the passage into law this Session of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Bill,"
  to which the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business, His Majesty's Government have decided that the Aliens Restriction (Amend-

  2193
  ment) Bill must be postponed until next Session, and Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, will accordingly remain in Part I of the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuing Bill, 1927."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1927; col. 1100, Vol. 210.]
  This Act which has been postponed till next Session is really the same as the Act which is being renewed for one year under the Expiring Laws Bill. It was passed entirely as a War Measure. During the period of the War we were under absolutely abnormal conditions, and it became necessary—no one could complain of that—to take special precautions against any dangers which might arise from enemies or other aliens. But the Act has been retained ever since, and, in my judgment, that is entirely a breach of the pledges of the Government of the day. When the Bill was introduced originally in 1919 it proposed to extend these powers for two years, and during the course of the Debate a feeling was expressed in many quarters of the House that that was too long a period to give to the Government of the day. Mr. Shortt, who was then Home Secretary, concluded the Debate in these words:
  "It occurs to me that probably the House is not so much adverse to waiting until the European position is clear as it is to giving for a period of two years free scope to my Department. I suggest, therefore, if I undertake to accept in Committee an Amendment reducing the period from two years to one year, and if the European situation were not clear then, I am sure the House would bear with me, or with any successor, if I had to come to ask for an extension of the period, but I am prepared to make that suggestion that we would accept an Amendment reducing the period from two years to one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1919; col. 2818, Vol. 114.]
  That was agreed to, and it will be noted that Mr. Shortt said that if the European position was not clear by the expiration of that time, power might be asked to extend the Act. But the European position in 1927 must be clearer than it was in 1919. This is the period of Locarno, and we know what is claimed from Locarno by the Foreign Secretary. When that Bill went from this House to another place in 1919, Lord Onslow gave, on be half of the Government, a distinct pledge, and I venture to quote the words of his Lordship:
  "I will now briefly review the various provisions of the Bill. The first two Clauses are devoted to providing for the continuance
  2194
  and extension of the Emergency Powers conferred under the Act of 1914. The question might perhaps be raised, indeed has been mentioned to me, as to why it is necessary, now that the War is over, to provide for the continuance of the powers required in time of war. I will therefore point out to your Lordships that the extension of these powers is for a strictly limited period, namely, for one year only, and that being in the state of transition that we are, it is a matter of necessity for His Majesty's Government to maintain temporarily the powers which proved essential during the War."
  That Act has been renewed year after year, and now we are having it put forward by the Home Office as a permanent policy to maintain this Act. Hon. Members get the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in front of them, and see Schedule this or Act so-and-so, and a very large number of them do not even trouble to turn up any reference to see what it is about. What do we find?
  "The powers which under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (which Act as amended by this Act is hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Principal Act), are exercisable with respect to aliens at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen, shall for a period of one year after the passage of this Act, be exercisable, not only in these circumstances but at any time; and accordingly that Sub-section shall for such period as aforesaid, have effect as though the words 'at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen' were omitted."
  It seems very curious that we are building a wall round this country to keep out every kind of alien. I think that is rather amusing when we remember that we went to war with China on more than one occasion to force the Chinese people to receive us as traders. We were aliens to them, but carried our will at the point of the bayonet. We forced Japan to do the same thing at the point of the sword. On the occasions when hon. Members opposite think it of interest to be in the Chamber, I look round the House and think that it would be interesting if we were to trace back the ancestry of Members on all sides of the House and wonder whether they would be sitting here if there had been a bar to aliens in those days. The old saying "Anglo-Norman and Dane-Norman," is familiar to the House. This Act is in every sense of

  2195
  the word a highly penal Act. It controls not only aliens in this country but their movements as well, and is entirely at the behest of one man.
  We have been discussing in previous Debates the power of the district auditor, but here we are discussing the powers of the Home Secretary, who has in his own hands the fate of certain individuals who do not happen to be born in this country, and it is exercised in a curious way. The House will remember the case of Oscar Levy, Dr. Rathenau, and a case in Leicester where two ex-service men were fined for making a false statement as to a French woman employed in the hosiery business. They had committed a technical breach of the Regulations which prohibited an alien from taking work in this country. The woman had to return to France, and the ex-service men who were engaged in making a living had to give up business. There was a case which came under my own observation in the East End of London. In the constituency which I represent there was a young man who was brought to this country when he was quite a child, of very poor parents. He had always been in the most abject poverty. There are on record two petty offences against him. I do not want to hide any facts. I think one was the stealing of 15s. worth of postage stamps and these things were done for food. This lad was a furrier by trade and he imbibed very extreme opinions. He was in his later days a member of the Communist party. I have sometimes an uneasy suspicion that the Home Secretary is really secretly a member of the Communist party himself. I wonder sometimes whether he is not a fraction engaged in the business of advertising the Communist party. He thinks that they ought to be suppressed and that that is the best way. I disagree with him.
  Opinions ought to have the fullest expression, however distasteful. I think the public have common sense to know when to judge or misjudge what it has been told. I only want to deal with one point in the case. I had the assistance of the Home Secretary in regard to the family and the other matters, but I am concerned as to the administration of the law. Under one Clause in the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919, it is provided that:
  2196
  "Where an alien provokes unrest in an industry in which he has not been bona fide engaged for two years, he shall be liable."
  The lad was a furrier by trade but could not get employment in his trade, and he became secretary of a small trade union of Jewish bakers, the Jewish Bakers Trade Union. Previous to the general strike, there had been a dispute between the employers and this Jewish bakers' union and the case of ordinary picketing arose with the usual allegations on both sides. The magistrates tried this and found him guilty. One of the counts indicted was that he had infringed that particular Act, which says you have to be engaged in industry two years if you provoke industrial unrest, and that you are otherwise liable to certain penalties. I complain that the representatives of Scotland Yard in their evidence said that they had known that he was secretary of this particular trade union for 10 months. I happened to be present in Court and heard that particular evidence, and it struck me at once that if this man or anyone else like him had committed a breach of the Act and had not been prosecuted at the time it was remarkable that they should state in evidence that he had been breaking the Act for 10 months. Another complaint is that the Regulations apply to aliens who came to this country early in their infancy and have been brought up and educated in our schools. At the ports any person suspected of being an alien is subject to rigorous inspection. Aliens and the persons with whom they stay have to keep in close touch with the police. Notice has to be given to the registration officer, and hotel proprietors must keep a register which is open to any police officer or other authorised person. I understand that a boarding school has been held to be under the same rules and regulations as a boarding-house. English-born wives become aliens on marriage to a foreigner. Aliens may be taken into custody without warrant and there is no appeal against exclusion.
  There are certain restrictions through the Ministry of Labour in regard to the entry of aliens, but I do not find that there has been any great rush. For example, I find that in 1926, when the largest number was admitted, according to the last return I have, only 5,540 permits were granted and only 6,534 applications were made. The policy which

  2197
  seems to be pursued, seems to me to admit those aliens who will cater for the luxury of the richer classes of the community. I find that 1,917 domestic servants were allowed to enter, 1,771 musicians, 606 foreign correspondence clerks, 338 teachers of foreign languages and 133 hotel and restaurant employés. These are the things which are occurring under the Act, all the powers of which are in the hands of the Home Secretary, and to that I strongly object. If the Home Secretary were the angel Gabriel himself which he is not, I should object equally as strongly. I do not think that powers of this kind ought to be placed in the hands of anyone.
  The Home Secretary may say, quite fairly, that I indulge in this criticism of him each year, and that I put forward no alternative. He may say to me, "Do you want all aliens to come in quite freely? Do you want us to have no powers or that there should be no powers resting in the Executive to deal with persons of bad character or who are otherwise undesirable?" I will outline a policy to the Home Secretary. If he will say that the Aliens' Register Bill, which has been postponed until next Session, will not be pressed, and that he will go into the whole question of aliens, or that a committee will go into the whole matter to see what reforms could be adopted, to meet the undoubted legitimate grievances of the Jewish community in regard to nationalisation and other things, I would not press my Motion to a Division. If he could see his way clear to say that he would go into the matter and not re-enact permanently the present legislation, I would not press my Motion.
  The policy which I would suggest would be that there should be powers for the expulsion of undesirable aliens, white slave traffickers and dealers in dangerous drugs. I think the term "undesirable" ought to be carefully defined. Every undesirable ought to have the right of answering to any charge made against him in open Court. A sentence of deportation should only be imposed as the result of a trial. In no circumstances should deportation be dependent upon the fiat of the Home Secretary. I suggest that, when an alien is to be deported, the Director of Public Prosecutions should initiate the prosecution. Another point which I regard as of supreme importance
  2198
  is that the right of political and religious asylum should be restored. That is very important in the present state of Europe. Let us take the case of Russia, for example. Under the system of government in Russia, there is one particular class of the community with which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are in sympathy in their point of view, and that is those who desire to restore the Czarist regime.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the occasion of the Debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it is only allowable to move the omission of words in the Schedule. It is not in order to suggest Amendments. The hon. Member must give reasons why any particular Section which is referred to should not be renewed.
  Mr. SCURR: I bow to your ruling. I thought that possibly I might be out of order, and that perhaps the Home Secretary might twit me with the fact that I criticise him and I have no alternative to offer. The few sentences which I have put forward are not the full policy which I would suggest, but with his permission I will communicate it to him. I hope that he will seriously take this matter into consideration. There must be certain regulations, especially while we have so much unemployment, but there are certain rights and interests which I desire to be safeguarded and protected, and it is necessary that I should move this Motion in order that the legitimate grievances of many of my constituents in the East End of London and other people in parts of Manchester and Glasgow should be expressed in this House.
  Mr. MORRIS: The Amendment to omit the Aliens Restriction Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill involves a very important principle. It involves the old right of asylum, characteristic of this country. As the hon. Member has pointed out, the Section that is sought to be re-enacted, Section 1 of the Act of 1919, was clearly a war Measure. When you look at the language of it you find that the language clearly contemplated war lime and measures that were necessary in order to ensure during the period of war the safety of the Realm. That is a very different state of circumstances from that which is contemplated to-day.

  2199
  The arguments that were put forward in this House and in another place were arguments which were supported in the particular circumstances of that day, and undertakings were clearly given that immediately the war situation was over and the war perils were over, the Measure would be abandoned. That undertaking has never been observed.
  It is true that no attempt has been made to bring in a Measure making this Act a permanent part of the law of the land. If it is not to be made a permanent part of the law of the land why seek to make it permanent by bringing it forward in this form year after year? If the Government believe that some such Measure is necessary they should bring in a Bill to make this the permanent law of the land. To continue these restrictions upon the liberties of the subject and to change the character of this country which has been habitually that of giving asylum to political refugees and other refugees from other countries, in this form, is certainly highly undesirable. When one turns to Section (1) of the 1919 Act it refers to the Act of 1914, and we have to consult the Act of 1914 in order to find out exactly what are the powers of the right hon. Gentleman. His powers, as set out in the Act of 1914, are clearly such that could only be necessary, and would only be granted to him by the House of Commons, if we were contemplating the perils of war. What are the powers granted by this Act? They are:
  "For prohibiting aliens from landing in the United Kingdom, either generally or at certain places, and for imposing restrictions or conditions on aliens landing or arriving at any port in the United Kingdom,"
  Clearly, that contemplates a state of war.
  "For prohibiting aliens from embarking in the United Kingdom, either generally or at certain places, and for imposing restrictions and conditions on aliens embarking or about to embark in the United Kingdom."
  "For the deportation of aliens from the United Kingdom."
  That is a power which the Home Secretary has at present.
  "For requiring aliens to reside and remain within certain places or districts."
  Once aliens are admitted into the country how can it be relevant in time of peace—it is relevant in time of war—
  2200
  that the Home Secretary should have the power to require aliens to reside at specified places.
  "For prohibiting aliens from residing or remaining in any areas specified in the Order."
  How can that power be relevant to-day?
  "For requiring aliens residing in the United Kingdom to comply with such provisions as to registration, change of abode, travelling, or otherwise as may be made by the Order."
  All these powers indicate the contemplation of a position resulting from a state of war and the perils which might ensue from giving a free hand to aliens to move about the country. All these circumstances have disappeared, and the reason for the enactment of Section (1) of the 1919 Act has disappeared also. There can be no justification for granting these extensive powers to-day, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make them permanent by renewing them in this form year after year.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I desire to second the appeal which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has made to the Home Secretary, that he will reconsider the whole question of this legislation. According to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, it is impossible to go into the alternatives which might be suggested, but I am sure the Home Secretary and hon. Members opposite will absolve hon. Members of the Labour party from a desire to have conditions in this country where there would be no control over certain types of aliens. That is not the wish of hon. Members on this side of the House. We say that it is dangerous and bad that methods which are necessary in war-time should continue to exist in peace and that the arbitrary power of the Home Secretary should be brought to bear on questions which involve human liberty and the prestige and tradition of this country in regard to political and religious liberty. That is why I appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider the whole question with a view of bringing legislation on this matter up to date.
  One point suggested by the hon. Member for Mile End shows the outrageously unfair character of the legislation which exists to-day; that was with regard to the necessity for an alien to have been in industry in this country for two years before he is able to take

  2201
  part in any industrial strike or industrial activities for the purpose of improving conditions of labour. Why should that not apply to the wealthy alien? There are plenty of wealthy aliens who come into this country without let or hindrance, and there is nothing in the Act, or in the mind of the Home Secretary, which operates to prevent them coming in. These people may be capitalists or employers of labour, and within a very short period, much less than two years, they can indulge in an industrial policy, a lock-out, which may be just as much calculated to foment industrial disturbance as anything a trade union organiser can do. There are plenty of unions in the East End of London which are composed almost exclusively of aliens, and if they are allowed to live in this country they ought to be allowed to organise themselves in order to obtain decent conditions of labour. I suggest that it is highly undesirable and dangerous to continue to vest powers in the hands of the Home Secretary dealing with the organisation of trade unions and the question of political and religious refugees, and that something else should take the place of this legislation, which is of a war-time character.
  There is, however, the larger issue, the broader question of religious and political liberty. I am not afraid of ideas. Many people are. I do not believe in repressing ideas. I do not believe in repression of any kind. It is always bad, whether it is repression of the individual or of anything else. Certainly if ideas are expressed and fomented which may lead to civil disturbance they ought to be handled, but I do not think this is the way to handle them. The best thing for the world and the development of character in our own people is perfect freedom in ideas. That certainly does apply to politics and religion with regard to aliens and refugees. I feel very jealous on this point, and I associate myself with the appeal which the hon. Member for Mile End has made. We do not want to allow aliens to flood this country irrespective of their circumstances or conditions, but we do want him to bring forward something fresh which will be more in accord with the traditions of the past policy and history of this country.
  Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: Hon. Members opposite, both above and below the Gangway, in expressing their views have quoted some great principles and words which we all hold in honour—the right of asylum, freedom of speech and liberty of religion. These grand ideas are in no danger whatever from the facts of the case as they stand. This country has wisely, in days gone by, adopted a generous policy towards people who seek the greater freedom and liberty which is afforded here than in the land from which they fled because they were discontented with conditions which were more oppressive there than they are here, But it must be the foundation of all such questions that the alien comes here not as a right but as a privilege. He is a guest; the house does not belong to him. He comes here either at our invitation or because we give him the hospitality which he craves and, therefore, the corollary of that is that he does not exploit his position here as a right, and that if asylum is afforded we have a right to ask that he does not abuse the hospitality which he enjoys. One of the provisions of the Bill is that he shall not until two years are passed take part in fomenting industrial unrest. There is no great hardship in that provision. My memory does not fail me and I think it was a matter on which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) made some complaint.
  Mr. MORRIS: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the only Section which is re-enacted, Section (1), it says nothing about that at all.
  Mr. BANKS: The hon. Member for Mile End is proposing that the Aliens Restriction Act of 1919 should expire this year, and he cited as an example that the alien who has not been engaged for two years in industry in this country is liable to a penalty if he foments unrest. Is it too much that we should ask people who come from countries where conditions of labour are nothing like on a level with those here, where trade union organisation has reached nothing like the state of development at which it has arrived in this country, should refrain from interfering in these affairs until they have had at least two years' experience of conditions as they are in this country and until they have some right to pronounce upon them?
  Mr. SCURR: The case which I quoted was that of an alien who was brought up in the police court and a representative of Scotland Yard said that he knew the man had been doing work for a particular trade union for only 10 months.
  Mr. BANKS: I agree that the hon. Member complained of that, but I understood he also meant, and I think I was supported in that view by the observations of another hon. Member who spoke later, that they thought it was unfair and harsh that the provision should exist at all and that an alien should be liable to any penalty.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The point I tried to make was that that applies to the trade union organiser or to the workman who comes over as an alien, but does not apply to the employer who comes over as an alien and is just as capable of fomenting industrial strife as the workman.
  Mr. BANKS: I would be ready to agree to any provision for dealing with any alien, whether master or man, who foments industrial unrest in this country until he has been here at least two years. The fact that the law may be unequally applied now is nothing against the propriety of the principle itself. Free speech is not denied to any alien in this country. As far as I am aware the alien is at liberty to express his political views, and it is a fact that he frequently does criticise the institutions and the constitution of the country that is offering him hospitality. The only thing he must not do is to recommend that those institutions and that constitution should be altered by a breach of the law or by resort to revolution or force. In that case he brings himself under the law. And so does any Englishman. The law is not applicable solely to aliens. Anyone has only to go down to the constituency of Mile End and there one will find people who may not technically be aliens, but scores of thousands of people from Russia and Poland. Very often for an hour on end one does not hear a word of the English language spoken. Are these people circumscribed in the exercise of their religion? Are they prevented from attending the Synagogue for the Jewish festivals? No more than the law prevents me from going to Mass on Sundays.
  2204
  The hon. Member talked about the liberty of the subject. The point is that the aliens who come in here are not British subjects. They come in as guests enjoying our hospitality and our protection. It may be true that in the future we shall be able to take a different view of the question. But meanwhile I put this point: In that part of London, which I have mentioned, there is an enormous concourse of people who, although technically not alien perhaps, are comparatively new arrivals on our shores, and if we allow further large numbers to flock in we shall not be able as a community to absorb them. They will remain still apart from us, not taking unto themselves the spirit of British citizenship and British institutions. I think it has been an excellent thing for this country that in the past we have encouraged people from abroad to migrate here. The greatest leader that my own party has ever known came of a Jewish family of migrants into this country. So long as we do not take in a larger dose than we can properly digest, there is a great deal to be said for that policy, but my view at the moment is that if we accept too many at one time they will not absorb British ideas of citizenship but will still remain a foreign community. That is why America has had to place upon immigration the restrictions with which we are all familiar. She found herself in danger of being totally de-Americanised. There were large communities that were altogether apart and away from American life, and she said, "We have at the present time as many aliens from foreign countries as we can safely entertain in the hope of bringing them up in the American spirit, and turning them into genuine American citizens." I believe that our position to-day is similar.
  In future, when circumstances are different, but not this year, there may be good reason for altering the Act. The hon. Member talked about the unfairness of saying, when aliens are admitted, that they shall be allowed to be only in certain localities, and he instanced a, feature of the Bill which undoubtedly was of wartime application. It is not merely a question of absorbing these people, but also a question of their not displacing British labour at a time when over a million British people are unemployed. Taking into consideration the character

  2205
  and the outlook of the alien when he arrives here, it is rather important that you should not allow him of his own free will to flock to places where unemployment happens to be particularly acute A good many hon. Members opposite would be rather glad if a considerable number of newly arrived aliens in their constituencies could be removed to some other part of England, because in those constituencies there is considerable poverty and unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mile End repeated the old quotation:
  "Saxon and Norman and Dane are we."
  I dare say it may he true that there are some other ethnological strains in our constitution. Norman and Dane and Saxon and Pole and Russian and Czechoslovakian, an extraordinary mongrel community we shall he, if we allow unrestricted immigration and do not fix a period until we have time to turn aliens into genuinely good British citizens, with British ideals and British occupations.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I represent the one city in Scotland that has anything like an alien population, and I join in asking for a reconsideration of this question. We have not asked for wholesale repeal of the Act. None the less the question ought to be reconsidered. I have had considerable correspondence with the Home Secretary regarding aliens. Not a week goes by that I do not have correspondence with him regarding some alien or group of aliens in connection with some matter. The right hon. Gentleman has the reputation outside the House of being the die-hard, reactionary Tory of the Government. I say frankly that I am glad it is not the Secretary of State for Scotland who holds the Home Secretary's office. I have received from the Home Secretary not only decency and kindness in the main, with regard to my operations, but as regards his personal work, when he is compared with other members of the Cabinet, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have no hesitation in saying that the Home Secretary has acted towards the alien population, not as a tyrant, but fairly, decently, and not at all in a harsh manner. When I read that he was to be Home Secretary I was concerned—having so many aliens in my division. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be a "die-hard" in these matters, hut that,
  2206
  at any rate, the Secretary of State for Scotland would be generous. I find that it is the other way and that the Home Secretary has been fairly decent in his administration of this Act.
  Nearly all these War-time Acts are being reconsidered, one by one. For instance, the Shops Act has been a hone of contention for a considerable time and certain Regulations in it have been criticised and defended. One group wants their abolition and another group wants their extension; and the Home Secretary has set up a Committee to inquire into the working of that Act. All I ask is that he should follow the same procedure in connection with the Aliens Act. I believe if you were to consult the population of my Division which, as I have said, includes a fair number of aliens, you would find an overwhelming majority against any proposals for the free and unrestricted entry of aliens into this country. I do not think anybody is asking for the wholesale withdrawal of these Regulations. We are really asking that the matter should be reconsidered. I know a case of a young man in Glasgow which illustrates the necessity for giving some attention to this matter. He came to this country when he was two years of age and he has been brought up here and is a good British citizen. He had a row with his father and mother, as often happens with a young man, and left his home and went to stay in a Y.M.C.A. hostel. His name was Solinsky, but he did not like to enter that name in the book of the hostel, and, without any criminal intent at all, this boy entered the name of Brown.
  Mr. BANKS: Could he not, in those circumstances, if he desired to do so, attain British citizenship by becoming naturalised?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I will deal with that point.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment which he is supporting proposes to repeal this Act altogether.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I was asking for a reconsideration of the whole question.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on this particular Amendment. The hon. Member must con-

  2207
  fine himself to the question of whether the Act is to be continued or discontinued.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not wish to digress, but while we have down an Amendment for the repeal of the Act, I think we are entitled to suggest that, in any case, a reconsideration of the matter is necessary and that a new Measure might have to be brought in if the present Act were repealed. However, to return to the case of this young man, as I say, he gave the name of Brown without any criminal intention at all. It happened that a night or two previously there had been a murder in Glasgow, and the police, in the exercise of their duty, were searching the city. They came across this boy and found that he had given the name of Brown instead of Solinsky, and he was marched off to the Court and charged with an offence under the law. Had it been an ordinary case, bail could have been allowed at the magistrate's Court, but it could not be done in this case. He was brought before the sheriff, who imposed a half-crown penalty, but the boy had had to lie two days in prison. In cases of that kind there should be power to grant bail.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These cases might be put in Committee of Supply when we are considering the question of the administration of the Home Office, but they are certainly not relevant on this particular Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the Amendment was put down as one which was likely to be in order so that the matter might be raised properly, but I do not understand that hon. Members on this side are really arguing for repeal in the fullest sense. I think all they ask for is a reconsideration on the lines I have suggested. I have no wish to argue for repeal, but apparently I must do so in order to express my point of view. I think that in Great Britain we have no right to complain about immigration from other countries because no country emigrates more of its own people to other lands than we do to the United States. No country does it more than Scotland. Scotland has flooded every country in the world with emigrants, and you find Scotsmen, go where you will. Who are we to complain about other
  2208
  countries in this respect, when we practise the same art assiduously and well? I question if Great Britain has lost much by the immigration of aliens. Some of the greatest men who have added to the repute of this country have been aliens. There is no need to give examples such as Disraeli. There are plenty of them. I think the nation which has not an influx of new blood is not likely to live as long as the nation which has a constant intermixing from other races. I do not agree with these restrictions, thought it may be that to sweep away all these Acts would be inadvisable. At least the Home Secretary ought to see what can be done. It is no use to say that we are a great insular nation and do not need any foreigners coming into our country. That is the wrong attitude. I think that every nation in the world stands to gain by an intermingling of the peoples of the world, and that no nation loses by it.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am very grateful indeed to hon. Members opposite for the kindness with which they have treated the Home Secretary this evening. I ought to say, however, that there seems to have been a change in the mind of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). I have just had the privilege of reading the speech which he made in this connection last year when he smote this Act hip and thigh and moved for its omission. He said then, quite frankly, that he was altogether against these restrictions on aliens and desired to have all of them swept away, and a considerable number of his colleagues voted in favour of the sweeping away of all these restrictions. That, to-night, is not the proposal. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has just said, quite frankly and courteously, that he does not wish to see the restrictions swept away, and, on the whole, I gather he does not object very much to the way in which the Home Secretary and his advisers have carried out the provisions of this Act. After all, somebody must carry them out.
  Apparently, the proposal of the hon. Member for Mile End would be that one of the existing Courts should take in hand all these matters and that no one should either be refused admission or deported afterwards unless by order of

  2209
  the Court. I think he would find that the Court would be far more rigid than is the Home Secretary. The Court would proceed on fixed rules, there would arise a number of precedents, and, after a time, it would be exceedingly difficult to move the Court from the precedents that had been established in the earlier years of the working of the Act, whereas the Home Secretary is bound by no precedents. He can take each case on its merits. He can see, as hon. Members opposite know I have seen frequently, from time to time, Members of Parliament in connection with cases. The hon. Member for Mile End has himself put points to me which it would be quite impossible to put before any Court. He has put those points to me as man to man. I can give them consideration without any legal technicalities affecting my mind. I am not an ogre, and I can arrive at a decision in what I conceive to be the real interests of this country.
  In the last five years, I have deported a decreasing number each year. In 1923 there were 351 deportations; in 1924, 228; in 1925, 256; and in 1926, 230. This year is not yet complete. Some 1,290 altogether have been deported during this period, and out of that total, 1,109 have been deported on the recommendation of the Court, so the hon. Member will see that there are only about 180 cases left over during the years in which I and my predecessor, the Labour Home Secretary, have exercised these arbitrary powers, and they were exercised by the hon. Member's own leader, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson). I find he exercised these powers as I am exercising mine. I do not complain of the way in which he exercised them, and I think that nobody who knew the working of the Act and who could see the individual cases would really complain of the way in which I have exercised my power.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Have you intervened against the power of the magistrates?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, because the magistrates only recommend. Every case has to come to me after that to see whether I agree with the view of the magistrates or whether I do not deport the man in question, and, of course, where the magistrate does not recommend a deportation order, or where the prosecution does not ask for a
  2210
  deportation order, I am at liberty to deport. I should like to say, quite frankly, that I do not confine my deportations to the poor and to the people who are over here through religious persecution. I have deported—I have the case in my mind—somebody of a far different type, somebody who was by no means poor, somebody who was not here through religious persecution at all, but who was here for the purpose of carrying out undesirable activities in this country. It is really essential that power should be placed in the hands of somebody—if you do not trust the Home Secretary you must trust somebody else —who can review a case of that kind, not from the religious standpoint, not perhaps that his activities may be of a very undesirable character such as dealing in drugs and things of that kind, but entirely apart from the point of view of illegal activities against the law. It is upon that kind of case that the Home Secretary has to exercise his discretion, and, as I say, he has to deport an average of 30 to 40 in a year.
  9.0 p.m.
  With regard to the general question whether it is or is not desirable that restrictions on immigration should continue, I do not think I can do better than read to the hon. Member opposite an extract from an article which appeared in a newspaper two months ago, written by no less a person than the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who was Under-Secretary to the Home Office in the Labour Government. Dealing with the alien question and the question of immigration, he wrote:
  "The question is often asked, 'Why should there be any restrictions at all on the admission of aliens to this country?'"
  and he goes on to say, in better language than I could use, in language which, if the House will allow me, I will adopt as my own:
  "The fundamental reasons why we restrict the incoming of aliens are the housing shortage and the scarcity of employment for our own kith and kin. The procedure adopted is that no alien can come here to work for wages if there is a Britisher available for the job."
  That is the real, fundamental basis put by the hon. Gentleman's own leader in. an article in a newspaper, and it is the policy which he and his right hon. colleague carried out when they were responsible for the administration of the

  2211
  Home Office. The hon. Member for Gorbals has been very frank. He said that even his own alien constituents— they are not constituents however, because they are not on the register, but the alien inhabitants in his own constituency—are against allowing in a flood of aliens.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I was saying, not that the aliens, but that my constituency as a whole, although it includes a large proportion of aliens, would be against it.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the Committee will realise that I did not want to misquote the hon. Member. Even his constituency, which is a constituency, he will forgive me for saying, of a somewhat advanced character—at all events judging from its character as represented in this House—would be against a wholesale influx of aliens into this country. I am sure that that is the feeling of the House at large, and I am equally sure that it is the feeling of the country at large With something like a million unemployed, we cannot afford to open the gates wide. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) to speak of religious and political liberty. I have said before that I quite agree that in the good old days of Mr. Gladstone, when England was a refuge for the distressed from all countries, there was much to be said for that policy, but there was not then this vast number of unemployed; it was not then just after the most devastating war known to history; it was not then a time when we were struggling to keep our heads, as it were, above water in the commercial and manufacturing world. Those times may come again, when the hon. Member for Cardigan may be able to make, with more acceptance to the House generally, a speech in favour of the admission of religious and political refugees to this country, but that time is not yet come.
  Take the position in Russia to-day. There is a country of something like 120,000,000 to 140,000,000 of people, a country which, whatever way you may look at it, has a great many potential refugees who would like to get out of it. Are we to open the gates of this country to an unlimited influx of political refugees from Russia? Are we to open the gates of this country to the unlimited entrance of religious refugees, let us say,
  2212
  from Poland or Turkey or anywhere else—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or Italy!"]—or Italy?
  Mr. MORRIS: With regard to the point on unemployment, one of the powers conferred on the right hon. Gentleman under the Act of 1914 was the power, not only to prevent aliens coming in, but to prevent them moving about freely once they were in. Has he exercised the power, in the case of unemployment, to remove aliens in that part of the country to another part?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to correct my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) on that point. We do not attempt to direct aliens to which part of the country they shall go. The only time that particular Section is utilised is when I want to deport an alien, and I cannot get any country to acknowledge him as being a citizen. There are a fair number of aliens who have no real nationality, and whose nationality would not be accepted by the country which we, or they, believe to be their country of origin; in that case, when I am convinced that they are doing wrong in this country, that they are not living here for the benefit of this country, I direct them to remain in a certain position and to report more frequently than the ordinary alien has to do. That is, I believe, a form of punishment which the Act gives me power to exercise. It is only exercised in very rare cases, and it has been of considerable advantage in enabling the police to keep in close touch with an undesirable alien whom I have not been able to deport.
  Mr. MORRIS: The right hon. Gentleman has defended the powers so far from the point of view of unemployment. Has he exercised the power of preventing aliens from coming into the country at all?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes, by the thousand. Nobody who wants to come here for the purpose of employment can get in without a certificate in the first instance from the Ministry of Labour. He has to convince the Ministry of Labour that he has work to do which cannot be done by an Englishman. That is a power which is exercised every day, and under which very large numbers of

  2213
  aliens are kept out of the country. That is why we want a continuance of these laws, because we are absolutely determined, and I am quite sure the bulk of the Committee is with us in that respect, not to allow in any aliens to compete with labour in the British market in the present condition of unemployment. I was asked by hon. Members opposite whether I would appoint a Committee to inquire into the necessity of the continuance of these Regulations. The House knows that there is a Select Committee appointed every three years in order to consider whether the Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill should Be continued or not. That Select Committee sat in 1925. It took evidence and their Report is Cmd. Paper 112 of 1925, and, among the Acts which it said should be continued, are the Aliens Restriction Acts.
  I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that that Select Committee will be set up again in 1928, and that it will consider several Acts, including these Aliens Restriction Acts, and they will report whether they should be continued or not. On the other hand, it is quite possible—but I cannot give any pledge one way or the other, because of the exigencies of time in regard to business next year—that I shall bring in a Bill next year in order to make permanent the power to control aliens. I make this offer to those hon. Gentlemen who have asked me to consider it. I do not think it is any good appointing a Select Committee composed of Members of both sides of the House, because I am practically sure that in the exercise of my jurisdiction under the Aliens Acts, and in regard to the continuance of the Acts, I have the united support of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite on other occasions have, by way of deputation, discussed various legislative proposals with me. I have received deputations not only from the Trades Union Congress, but from the Labour party, and, if they really have legislative proposals, which they desire to make, regarding an alteration in the Aliens Acts, I shall be only too glad if they will make arrangements to discuss them with me. I cannot ask individual Members, although I am willing to see any Member of the House at any time.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Will next year's Committee be able to consider alternate proposals?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I do not think they can. If the Labour party, which is very highly organised, has any definite opinion—agreed opinion, if I may say so with respect—with regard to this alien question, I shall be pleased to receive the benefit of their advice, and I will consider with them any proposal put before me before I bring forward any further Bill next year. That is as far as I can go to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Gorbals. He will see that it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment, and I think he will see that he cannot vote for it himself. I do not think the hon. Member for Mile End will wish, after the very friendly speech he made, to press his Amendment to a Division. By taking this Bill out of the Schedule, the whole fabric of aliens' restrictions would break down, and on 31st December the gates would be opened to the influx of any number of aliens from any country for any purpose for which they choose to come. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not press it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is really the nicest man that ever "jugged a pal," and it makes me almost wish that, if ever it should be my lot to fall foul of the law, it will be the present Home Secretary who will engage in the pleasant task of finding me a rest cure. I am certain that my hon. Friend will do what he said when he moved the Amendment, and not press it to a Division. I cannot imagine that he has ever said in this House, and I have never said, outside or inside, that we are in favour of an unrestricted influx of aliens into this country. None of us have ever stood for that; even in the days before the War we never stood for that; but what we have stood for, and what I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in his mind, is that persons who are able to maintain themselves, and about whom there is no question of providing work, but whose opinions may be hateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to his friends, may have the same right of asylum here as men like Stepniak and Peter Kropotkin in the old days. What we feel is that our country has a very fine tradition for

  2215
  having given a refuge to revolutionists of every sort and kind, and I do not think any sensible man in the country ever regrets that we gave asylum to Stepniak, Peter Kropotkin, Mazzini, Garibaldi, and thousands of men and women who have come into this country. We are proud that they did find asylum here when tyrants turned them out of their own country. We are anxious to preserve that tradition. But, much as I sympathise with Communists when they are in trouble, if they come here and take part in unlawful agitation, they must put up with the consequences. This country gives the sacred right of asylum to monarchists of all countries. We sent a warship to Greece to rescue some of their Royal Family when there was a revolution there, and you never found one of us on these benches saying a word against it, because we think that if any persons are in such a plight there ought to be somewhere in the world where they can put their feet down and be safe. We have the same feeling about revolutionaries. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, it has not so far been considered, but I am perfectly certain that some department of the Labour party's organisation—we have a committee which deals with this question—will be very glad to put some propositions before the right hon. Gentleman in order that the things we complain of may, if possible, be remedied.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I have one complaint of a different kind which I wish to lay before the Minister, and that is in regard to the enlisting of the Lithuanian volunteers in Haddingtonshire and the West of Scotland. A great number went away. Some have come back, but a number have not come back, and we have in some cases been left to support their wives and children ever since that time.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The subject the hon. Member is now raising would be a suitable one to bring up on a Supply Vote, but I cannot see that it has any relation to this Amendment to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. His point is one of administration.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I am very sorry to hear that ruling, for I was under the impression that this subject would come within the bounds of this discussion.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will communicate with me in respect of any particular case, I will go into it.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I am willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's kind offer and I will interview him about the cases, because I feel that he will sympathise with the position which we take up.
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 36 and 37.
  This Amendment refers to the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. I am bound to say I have not any great hope that it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, at this late period of the year, to accept an Amendment deleting altogether the Shops Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but I should not like this occasion to pass without making my annual protest against this remnant of war time legislation, for such it undoubtedly is. An hon. Member on my right says "No," but he cannot deny that this Act follows word for word the Regulations which were passed during the War. If he thinks that is not a remnant of war time legislation he and I must agree to interpret the English language in different ways. I said I rose to make my annual protest, and I do so in the belief and hope that it will be the last occasion on which I shall have to make such a protest, because the situation has changed since last year. About a year ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question on the restrictions under the Shops Act, commonly known as "D.O.R.A." In his reply he seemed to indicate that he did not think there was any very strong feeling in the House in favour of any change, and in a friendly way he challenged me—I took his words to be a challenge—to prove to him that there was this feeling. In the course of a very few days I obtained the signatures of 170 Members to a request to the Home Secretary to inquire into this matter by setting up a Committee or in some other way.
  He was as good as his word and set up a Departmental Committee. That Committee has been sitting throughout the greater part of this year, and I had the

  2217
  honour of serving on it, with a number of colleagues drawn from all parties in this House and with some distinguished ladies and gentlemen from outside. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now has the Report of that Committee in his hand, although it has not yet been issued to the public. I have seen notices in the Press to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has had the Report; perhaps he will tell us later whether that is so or not. At any rate, the situation now is that there has been a very careful inquiry into these Shops Acts and the various difficulties and anomalies arising under them, and although I am not at liberty, naturally, to refer at present to the recommendations of that Committee, which are not yet public property, I can refer to the evidence given before the Committee, because that was given in public, although probably very few Members know very much about what that evidence was.
  I do not propose to weary the Committee with any of the details, or to go over the old ground of the various anomalies, but I do want to draw attention to two very striking facts in connection with that evidence. Throughout that inquiry there was strongly marked evidence that the Shops Act, 1920, with the amending Act of 1921, has been constantly evaded. There have been repeated prosecutions for minor offences under these Acts, and it was quite clear to us who sat on that Committee, whatever our views were as to the rights or wrongs of the offences, that these Acts were being evaded both by the shopkeepers and by members of the public, and principally at the instigation of the latter; in fact, that there was a widespread desire, under certain circumstances, to break these Acts. The offences against these Acts are the kind of offences which magistrates look upon without much disfavour, and the penalties imposed were in some cases so light as to show clearly that in the opinion of the Court they were not offences deserving of heavy punishment. Generally, there was a feeling that to break these Acts was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. That appeared throughout the evidence.
  Another thing which appeared was that there was a great deal of public resent-
  2218
  ment against these restrictions. As showing the way in which bias can work on the minds of some people—or so it appears to me—I would remark that certain people who gave evidence in favour of maintaining the Shops Acts with all their restrictions and in all their strictness and who came from associations which had that object in view, told the Committee that in their opinion there was absolutely no discontent or displeasure with any of the provisions of these Acts. Surely it is within the common knowledge of hon. Members that there is a certain amount of discontent and irritations. As to the quantity of it, that may be controversial, but it would be impossible for any reasonable person to say that the Acts as they now stand, are perfectly satisfactory to the general community. As an example of the impossibility of the present position and the lack of elasticity instances were given in evidence, such as the case of Wembley. Throughout the Wembley Exhibition shops were kept open after 8 o'clock, because it was found quite impossible by the authority which administered the Act in that area to enforce the Act. It was broken by everybody and they could not prosecute the whole population and those inside the Exhibition and out and the Act thus was a dead letter to a large extent. A similar case, told by the representative of the local authority, was that of the Ascot Races. There this Act regarding 8 o'clock closing is broken by practically every shopkeeper during the race week, and the authorities have decided that it is impossible to prosecute, because it would mean prosecuting the whole shopkeeping community together with the public who avail themselves of this breach of the Act.
  It is a very unsatisfactory state of things, that there should be Acts on the Statute Book which either generally or at particular times are broken with the common knowledge and consent of the large majority of the population. I do urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with this matter during the forthcoming Session. The right hon. Gentleman will have in his hand the Report which was the result of long, careful and painstaking inquiry, and was come to, I am glad to say, with practical unanimity. I do urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with this

  2219
  matter. I know the difficulty. We may be told that, desirable as it is to deal with the matter, the Government have so full a programme of legislation that they cannot find time to bring in an amending Act. I am well aware there is a great deal of legislation that has been foreshadowed by the Government for next Session. The right hon. Gentleman himself will have the Factory Act. There is the Franchise Bill, which will probably also he with the right hon. Gentleman, and there is a Bill in connection with the Poor Law. All these are, no doubt, very desirable, but, desirable and important as that legislation may be, I do not think that he would receive the gratitude, certainly of his own supporters, in so large a measure by bringing in those Bills as he would by giving us back some of the liberties which were taken away from us during the War, and which we are still without at the present time.
  I think if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could see their way to restore some of those liberties, and at the same time—though this has nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman, and I say it only in passing—to reduce some of the burden of taxation, they would get a great deal more gratitude and kudos from their own supporters than from the Factory and Franchise Bills and even from the Poor Law Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I would remind hon. Members that we did have 8,000,000 supporters at the last election and that they do count for something. Eight million people must be considered, even though they go a different way from supporters of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I believe amongst that 8,000,000 there must be some factory workers, but I do not wish to be led away, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, however busy he is, and however heavy the burdens before him next Session, to find time for a Bill, and if possible on the lines of the Report. It will not take up much of the time of the House, because I do not think that, in the main, if it follows the recommendation of that Report, it will be a very controversial Measure. In the main it will be uncontroversial, and it will not take up a great deal of time on the Floor of the House even though upstairs in Committee it may take time in thrashing out details. I think it will be agreed that if the Report is followed it will not
  2220
  be a highly controversial question as far as the Floor of the House is concerned. I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to take such action that it will not be necessary for me to make my hardy annual appeal to him this time next year.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I admit that there are anomalies in connection with the way in which the hours of shops and the conditions of shop servants are controlled at the present time. No one can deny that, but I am very much concerned with the Amendment of the hon. Member, because I spent 11 years of my early life behind a counter, and if there is one thing that appeals to me it is the fact that since the passing of the Acts in question the conditions of shop assistants have been transposed from a condition of hell almost to a condition of heaven. I know one firm which is as big to-day as it was at the time I had personal experience of it, which owns large numbers of shops all over London, and where, considerably less than 20 years ago, every employé at each one of these shops, from the manager to the shop errand boy, worked and was upon his feet practically the whole time from 8 or at latest from 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning until 11.30 or 12 o'clock at night. They could not even go out for their meals. I worked under those conditions, and I know what it means. They had to have their meals placed on the counter. That was less than 20 years ago and what applied to those multiple shops in the partciular trade in which I was engaged applied practically to all shop assistants in London. To-day it is not the case. The shop assistant and the manager have comparatively decent conditions of work and reasonable hours, and some amount of leisure—a considerable amount, comparatively speaking—and they have the chance to develop themselves and enjoy life. That chance was not possible even with those who raised themselves in the course of time to the position of a manager of a shop.
  I know the position is put up that this is a question of human liberty. Personally, I do not think, from my knowledge of people, that there is so much demand for the later opening of shops. I do not think it exists to any large extent. People are very adaptable to a more reasonable number of hours, which would give tolerable conditions of employment.

  2221
  It is frequently stated that it is not a question altogether of employers, and that there is the small shopkeeper who does not employ anyone at all, and that he, at least, ought to be allowed to carry on under conditions of perfect freedom as far as hours are concerned. That, evidently, is a position that is accepted by hon. Members opposite, but it cannot possibly be accepted by anyone who knows the effect of such a proposal upon conditions of shop life generally. It is not merely the position of small shopkeepers who do not employ assistants. It is the competitive character of what he does, and if he is allowed to remain open as long as possible, you cannot in fairness prevent any other firm, employing any number of assistants, from remaining open. I know, of course, it may be said that you can certainly prevent them from working their employés for longer than a reasonable number of hours, and that it can be left to shopowners and employers to do what they like in the interests of their trade.
  I wish to put another point of view. I was a shop assistant myself for 11 years, and at the end of that time I became the owner of a retail business. That was during the period when there were no restrictions and when the hours worked were of an appalling character. Sometimes I kept my shop open until 12 o'clock at night, because I did not employ an assistant. At that time, I wished there had been a law that would have compelled me to close at a reasonable time, because some days I worked 17 hours.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Shame!
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I quite agree with that remark, and it was a shame. I am concerned about this matter, because I think we should have liberty all round. Until you can find some way of running retail businesses—you can carry them on all night if you like—without injuring anyone, I think we are bound to protest against any suggestion of repealing this kind of legislation. It is a remarkable fact that the more individual enterprise of any kind you have in industry the more you have to control industry, the more control on the part of Parliament is demanded and adopted because of the small competitive and individualistic character of certain types of businesses. The bigger the business becomes, the less necessity is there for legislation. If you
  2222
  had a co-operative movement or a big business upon public lines, as a rule, it would not be necessary to adopt these restrictions. With regard to the question of liberty for these small shopkeepers, if it can be given to them without enslaving large sections of the population, then I have no objection. I must say, however, that I cannot see how you can do it now, and I am sure your object would not be carried out by the proposal which we are now considering. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment, and I trust that this Measure will remain on the Statute Book, because I am sure that the condition of the shop assistant and employés generally has been vastly improved by it, and I want that improvement to continue.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I desire to second this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): It is not necessary to have a seconder.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) has just given us a record of his own experiences as a shopkeeper, but he has no solid ground of complaint, as he has reached the distinction of being a Member of this House. I desire to point out that the moment you come to a man employing another man, then the man who is employed does not enjoy the full liberty because he is subject to the command of his employer, and in such a case the State has a right to step in and make restrictions. That principle ought to be the foundation of the Shop Hours Act. I am entirely in accord with what has been said by the hon. Member for West Islington to the effect that prior to the passing of the Shop Hours Act of 1920 shop assistants were working ridiculously long hours, and I should be the very last to do anything in the direction of restoring those long hours. The case is different when you come to the individual shopkeeper who is working in his own business, and as long as you maintain these restrictions under the Shop Hours Act I contend that they ought not to apply to the individual man who is working in his own business.
  What about the cost of living and the retailers' excessive profits which arise out the monopoly which has grown up under the Shop Hours Act? How are you going to cut down the cost of living

  2223
  unless you allow the small shopkeeper to have conditions under which he can thrive and retain his liberty? The small shopkeeper at present runs the danger of being cut down altogether by the multiple shopkeepers. With regard to the long hours referred to by the hon. Member for West Islington, I am afraid you could not get shop assistants at the present time to work 15 or 16 hours even if the law permitted them to do so. What becomes of them all when they grow too old to work? The hon. Member for West Islington is too old now to get a job as a shop assistant because it is mostly young men who are now employed as shop assistants. They ought naturally to start as small shopkeepers and work for themselves. My contention is that if you give the single shopkeepers who are working their own businesses full liberty in regard to their hours of work and free them from all restrictions, they will be able to make progress against the monopolists, and in time carry on a small business on their own account. This policy would undoubtedly reduce the cost of living. These small shopkeepers are content with a very humble scale of living. They are like a smallholder who lives near a big farm and who, as a rule, is the best agricultural worker the big farmer ever has. I want to see innumerable small shopkeepers established in this country because they are all individualists and free men. I know that they will not subscribe to a trade union, but we have to consider the habits and the convenience of people who wish to make purchases after they have finished their day's work. What about the young girl in lodgings engaged in business all day and kept late in the office and is not able to make her ordinary purchases after business hours? What about the man who comes home late from work and has to make his purchases and finds that all the shops are shut up? In these large multiple shops you have a lot of assistants who are highly paid—and I like to see them highly paid—but when the humble working man's wife comes in to make her purchases she is forced into buying something that she did not really want, whereas, if there were a little shop kept by an individual shopkeeper in a back street, who is really the storekeeper for the neighbouring
  2224
  small houses, people could get into the shop at any reasonable hour and make their purchases with a very moderate profit to the tradesman. A number of ex-service men have started tobacconists' shops, but at present they have not a dog's chance against the big combine, which can immediately dump down a shop beside them, staffed by girls at comparatively small wages. They could not get a girl to stay till 11 o'clock at night, although there is no objection on the part of the individual man to staying late.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: What about his children?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: They will be in their beds at that time if their mother knows her job. It is all very well to say it is irksome to stand behind another man's counter, but, when you are standing behind your own counter, it is a refreshment to be there, and every customer who comes in is your friend. It fulfils the saying in the old Book:
  "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."
  That is the feeling of the man who is working for himself behind his own counter. The Shops Act, however, applies to the hireling, and it is the hireling who earnestly desires the shadow—he wants to get off. One cannot blame him for that; he is not working in his own business.
  There is another point, and that is that a man engaged in his ordinary vocation during the day might only open his shop at eight o'clock in the evening, when other shops were closed. That would be of immense benefit, and an enterprising man might not only work at his ordinary wage-earning business, but might use the savings from his wages to start in business on his own account, and might have some of his family to help him. Why should he not do that? Why should you restrict a free man in a free country like this by the use of a War Measure to prevent people from rising in the world and bettering their position. There are some people in this world, though the Labour party may not believe it, who like work. I know perfectly well that my hon. Friends opposite do not understand it, but there are some people who are prepared to work hard in order to see if they cannot rise in the world.

  2225
  My hon. friends opposite, however, want to restrict them. I believe in giving the individual man the chance to rise in life. Restrict the shop assistants' hours as much as you like; I believe that a great many shops are open far too long, and I would like to see an eight-hour day for all shop assistants. When an individual man, however, is in his own shop, he is probably in the place where, again to quote the old Book, his treasure is; and, where his treasure it, there will his heart be also. If a shopkeeper desires to prosper and make good for himself, why should he not be given the opportunity of doing so? Let the shop assistants have as short hours as you like, but restore to the individual man the chance of thriving in the world and of exercising the liberty that is the right of every free citizen. How absurd it would be if a farmer were to say to a market gardener—perhaps the hardest worked man there is—"My ploughman stops work at five o'clock, and so must you." Could any market gardener or smallholder thrive under those conditions? None of them could. The whole thing is a perverted idea of the meaning of liberty, and those gentlemen who oppose this Amendment are merely acting as the handmaids of monopoly; they are backing up the big monopolists, trying to divert the retail trade into a few monopolistic hands, and doing their best to prevent individualists from getting on. These small shopkeepers should have the chance of exercising their liberty, because the more individualist citizens there are who are working on their own account, and the fewer men there are in the employ of masters, the better for the health of the State. It may be worse for the trade union movement, but it will be better for the health of the community.
  Mr. JAMES STEWART: I agree with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) in hoping that the results of the work of the Committee on which he and I served will be translated into an Act of Parliament at an early date. At the same time, however, I do not agree with the statements which he made, or which I understood him to make, regarding the evidence that was given before the Committee. If I understood him aright, he seemed to indicate that a strong feeling was expressed by various witnesses that this Act ought meantime to be swept
  2226
  off the Statute Book, because, for some reason or other, it was doing harm to various interests, including the interests of the shopkeepers and the interests of some communities in the country.
  Sir F. MEYER: If I might interrupt the hon. Member, I certainly did not mean to indicate that. I said that there was widespread evidence that there were cases of evasion and attempts to bring the law into contempt, but I did not say that there was widespread evidence of injury.
  Mr. STEWART: I am sorry if I have in any way misrepresented the hon. Member, and I express my regret for so doing. I do not, however, agree with him that there were many cases of evasion. Undoubtedly, some witnesses did state that there were evasions of the Act, and undoubtedly anyone who heard the evidence would agree that those evasions did cause some trouble in some localities throughout the country; but they were not of very great moment, and, if the Act of 1920 were to be repealed, I think that the outcry in the country would far transcend any feeling that there is in regard to evasions of the Act.
  The hon. Member made a point with regard to Wembley and Ascot. The point in regard to Wembley was that when the great exhibition was held there, the people in the district evaded the Act, and the local authority countenanced that evasion by practically allowing the Act to be suspended. That may have been quite true, but I think it will be generally agreed that to make a particular case like that of Wembley a reason for the abolition of this Act, is rather a farfetched excuse for completely doing away with the Act as it now stands. With regard to Ascot, I may point out that that occurs for only two or three days during the year, and there, again, the evidence showed that it was merely a local condition, so that that, again, does not seem to be any reason why this Act should be done away with. I do not find in any of the hon. Member's statements any real reason for doing away with the Act before the passing of the other Act which we hope to see come into existence. As he himself said, he appears to be just making his annual complaint with regard to the conditions that prevail in certain circumstances.

  2227
  I do not think I should be allowed, nor do I desire, to bring into the discussion this evening the differences of opinion that may have existed among the Members of the Committee with regard to certain particular industries. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has, I am glad to say, had no actual experience of shopkeeping. Fortunate man that he is, he knows nothing about it. I can speak as one who does know something about it. I stand here to-night as a representative of that big, strong, sturdy race of Scots as the product of a shop assistant. As a boy I stood on a stool, leaving school in the afternoon, carrying my father's tea or dinner to his shop, then standing on the box to lather the men in the dirty, dingy little shop with the result that my health has never been what it ought to have been. I am the product of that shop. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had had to go through that he might have looked at it in the same way that I look at it myself. This condition of life that the hon. and learned Gentleman pleads for would bring back what every shopkeeper I know of who has gone through the mill, whether he is now an employer or an assistant, deplores and more than deplores, fears and hates the possibility of it ever coming back again. Fancy standing from seven in the morning till nine at night with one hour off for a meal, never an afternoon or an evening off to go anywhere for the purpose of recreation intellectual or otherwise. That was the condition of the shopkeeper until quite recently and if you take away this Act in the name of restoring liberty to the individual shopkeeper, while you may give satisfaction to a very few foolish individuals whose desire to work and slave in the shop transcends their desire to help on in the uplift of this nation, it will not give satisfaction to the mass of shopkeepers.
  10.0 p.m.
  We have had evidence again and again from individual shopkeepers. They expressed to us, in language that I cannot use, their abhorrence and their fear of returning back to those old days. It has not produced, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested it would, profits for those people. He knows as well as I do that the multiple shop started long before there was any question of a Shop Hours Act, even in 1912.
  2228
  In the City that he and I have both been connected with there were multiple shops long before the passing of the first Early Closing Act, and to say that if a small man was allowed to keep open the consumer would get the advantage of lower prices and the shopkeeper would get a higher standard of living is contrary to all the evidence and all the knowledge that has been acquired in the course of the year. There was no complaint in the evidence that we got from the general public. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself was one of two witnesses who came along especially to represent the public, and what he has stated here today is the tenour of the evidence that he gave us. From the length and breadth of the country shopkeepers of all descriptions, Chambers of Commerce, industry of all kinds, representing the small shopkeeper as well as the large, in the interests of themselves, in the interest of the people who work in them, were united in asking that the law as it at present stands should be continued, that if it was to be amended it should be in the way of strengthening the Act, and, where evasion takes place, machinery should be found whereby it should be properly dealt with. Here the Home Secretary might play some part, for I can say with some knowledge that the people in my own city who are mainly responsible for the breaking of the law belong to a foreign country, and if they were dealt with in the way he has spoken about to-night, and perhaps one or two of them were made an example of, it might help towards the law being more generally kept than it is at the moment. I hope in the near future, despite the tremendous work that faces the Government in the ensuing Session, there will be an opportunity of passing this Act which every Member of the Committee desires to see passed in the interest of the well-being of the children, of the women, of the men, both employers and workers, and that it will help to make this country a healthier people, a more intelligent people and ultimately a wealthier people in everything that counts as real wealth.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment knows it is one that the Government cannot possibly accept. It would

  2229
  mean repealing the whole Act and leaving people open after 31st December to work as many hours as they liked. The Government have no intention of doing anything of the kind. There were certain difficulties arising with regard to which the hon. Member and others pressed me very much about a year ago, because they said these were the result of D.O.R.A. and I was responsible for D.O.R.A. In the first place, I am not responsible for D.O.R.A. She is no connection of mine at all. She is a remnant of the old Coalition Government, which I very rarely supported and generally opposed. Even my friend Mr. Punch seems to think I am responsible for D.O.R.A. I am not, and I wish to make that clear at once. But, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Shops Acts, I appointed a Committee representative of all parties in the House, including the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and they devoted a great deal of time and care to an examination of the whole question. They sent in their Report on Friday last, and I confess that I read it on Sunday afternoon. The better the day the better the deed. I have authorised the printing of the Report, and I hope the House will have it, if not this week, at any rate early next week.
  It is a very valuable Report indeed, dealing with the whole subject of the continuation of the Shop Hours Act and the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and other matters which I need not specify. It is quite impossible for me to make any statement about it. It would be improper for me to do so until the House has seen the Report. The opinions of the House can be expressed when it is published, and I shall be glad to hear and consider those opinions. It will then be my duty to submit recommendations to the Cabinet, and, if time permits, I shall hope to bring in a Bill next year dealing with the whole matter and making a permanent addition to the Statute Book. It will be impossible, and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) would not wish to abolish the Act altogether within the next half-hour, and under the circumstances I ask him to accept the statement that the Cabinet will very carefully examine the Report, and to withdraw his Amendment. I
  2230
  should like publicly to thank all those Members of the House and the others who sat on the Committee for the very great care which they have bestowed on the question and the great value of the Report which they have presented to us.
  Sir F. MEYER: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. The Committee will agree, I think, that the time spent in this Debate has not been wasted, because of the pleasure of listening to the short statement which the Home Secretary has made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 39 to 43, inclusive.
  I hope that this Amendment will be accepted and that the Committee will withdraw Section 2 of the Act relating to the employment of women and children. I have read the Act relating to the employment of women, and this, like many other things, is a remnant from War time. I remember very vividly the manner in which women and children were employed during the War, and I regret that method has not been entirely abolished, especially in the factories. It is a curious thing that Section 1 of the Act ratifies the Washington Convention with regard to the employment of women and young persons, and any employer who employs them is liable to a fine of £20. But Section 2, which we are trying to remove, absolutely destroys the value of Section 1 by putting into the Minister's hand the power to alter, if a general application is made by employed and employers. I know that the method for granting employers' permission to work women and young persons between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. is a very loose one. As a matter of fact, it is too loose for some of us, and we want to put the thing on a proper basis.
  A case in my own Division of Shipley in the textile trade can be quoted. In spite of the fact that there are thousands of people unemployed in the district, the employer called the workpeople together, even those under 16, and stated the position to them and got them to take a vote. The overlookers went round with a sheet of paper and got them to sign individually a declaration which was sent to the Home Secretary. I want to suggest that this is not the proper method. It is a very important matter to allow boys and girls, young women and children, to work

  2231
  between the hours of 6 and 10, and I want to ask the Home Secretary how the permission was asked, because the provisions of Section 2 say that it can be done only on the joint application of employers and workpeople. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether in recent cases where permission has been given the application has been made by the employers alone on behalf of the employés and young people or by the employers on their own account. I feel that where there is a trade union concerned they can deal with the workpeople. At all events, if there is going to be an application, it ought to be between the representatives of the employers and workpeople. It is easy for the employer or his firm to take persons individually and get them to agree to anything which they want.
  In this particular case which I have mentioned, not only are there organisations of employers but the workpeople have their trade unions, and there is also an Industrial Council which is supposed to represent the views of all the workpeople and all the employers in the industry. The Industrial Council were against the Order being made. When the Order was made, they asked the employers to cease operating it. The employers refused. The Industrial Council passed a resolution asking the employers affiliated to the Employers' Association and the Industrial Council to cease operating the Order. As a matter of fact, the Order only ceased to operate about a fortnight ago.
  Section 2 also says that the Minister may make orders for welfare. I should-like to ask the Minister—I am asking these questions simply because I am sincerely interested in the young men and women and not merely for the purposes of debate—what provisions are being made for welfare in these cases. Have any orders for welfare been made? In the textile industry, which I know, there is one factory in the West Riding of Yorkshire that has no provision for any decent welfare for the workpeople. I should like to quote something which happened during the War. The Home Office wanted people employed during the night. The trade unions stopped it, but eventually they got women on the night shift on condition that the employers provided welfare. The employers erected some
  2232
  kind of device for cooking meals, and the women were fairly well cared for, but as soon as the War was over and the women were taken off the night work the place was pulled down and no provision was left for the meals of the men and women. When an employer makes an application for any persons to be allowed to work on the two shift system, the Home Secretary ought to satisfy himself that adequate provision is made for the preparation and taking of food under good supervision. In parenthesis, I suggest that when the Home Secretary introduces his Factories Bill he ought to make a peregrination through the textile industry to see how the workers take their meals. I have seen them sitting on bales of wool or on a wall. In the particular place that I am quoting the firm comb anthrax infected wool. It may be of interest to the Home Secretary to know how the firm runs its business. The anthrax order says that Persian locks must not be opened and dealt with unless the wool is first steeped in water, on account of the possibility of the dust carrying anthrax.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Section refers to the employment of women and young people, and not to general conditions.
  Mr. MACKINDER: In the particular firm to which I am referring, women and young children are working upon these particular goods at night, and I am trying to show that this particular firm is so careless that it is not only bad from the moral and health point of view of these young people and women working at night, but that the firm has absolutely and deliberately disregarded the Home Office with regard to the Order. The Order says that this particular kind of material should be steeped in water to prevent the dust carrying anthrax. I have induced a man to make a statement before the factory inspector for the district, that out of a 200 bale lot the first bale was put into water and left there until the end. I asked him why that was done, and he replied: "In case the factory inspector came." Worse still, Section 2 allows the Minister to make an Order permitting the employment not only of women and young persons above the age of 16, but also the employment of children under the age of 16. That is a disgraceful thing. Section 2 (4) reads:

  2233
  "Notwithstanding anything in this section, an order under this section may permit the employment in any factory or workshop in such shifts as aforesaid of young persons under the age of sixteen years who are at the commencement of this Act so employed in that factory or workshop."
  In regard to the particular firm to which I have referred, I do not wish to mention it by name, several complaints were brought to the trade union official, who went down between the hours of 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and between 10 p.m. and 12 p.m. and found that there were young persons, children just over 16 years of age, who had to have a three or four mile walk—there are no omnibuses at that time—in order to get to their work. When they had finished their work at 10 o'clock they had to undertake a three or four mile walk, and it is not nice at that time, to get home. Some of them had to be up at 4 o'clock in the morning in order to be at their work by 6 o'clock, and some of them did not arrive home until nearly midnight.
  I know that the Home Secretary—I am not throwing bouquets merely for the sake of throwing them—would not like this kind of thing to be general. It is a bad thing and it is a bad principle, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to investigate the matter. I can bring abundant evidence that I have not made a statement which is incorrect. The Home Secretary might at least insist on the applications being made by the Joint Industrial Council. That is a fair proposition to put to him. It is a reasonable application to make, because the employers are organised in their own organisation and the workpeople are organised in their organisation, and both employers and workpeople are in a first-rate industrial council, which, so far, has warded off trouble in the particular industry to which I am referring.
  I hope that the Home Secretary, if he will not withdraw this Section, will at least carefully scrutinise any application made, and that he will ask: Is it made by the employers' organisation and the workpeople's organisation, or is it made simply by an employer. How was the permission or the agreement of the employés secured? Was it secured in such a way that the employés had perfect liberty of expressing their position, or
  2234
  was the permission gained individually from the employés, where they were under the possibility of being managed by the overlookers, as in this particular case. This kind of legislation is too casual for so important a matter. The Home Secretary cannot personally inquire into these cases. I have in mind something which happened in 1921, when one of the largest employers of women and young persons, probably the largest in the country, got his foreman and manager to go round his workpeople individually, obtained consent, and then did not wait for the Order to be made but applied it before even an application was made. I do not think the Order was ever made; but this man was not prosecuted. I would not like a daughter of mine between the ages of 16 and 21, to have to get up at four o'clock in the morning in order to get to work at six o'clock. To be quite fair to the Home Secretary I do not think any Order has been made in regard to the employment of young persons under the age of 16 years, but certainly an Order has been made in regard to young persons above that age, and is now being operated.
  I urge the Home Secretary to withdraw the provision. This is a War time Measure. It is not as if there were not sufficient employés to carry on the work. In this particular industry young persons from 16 to 18 years of age were worked 24 hours a day in shifts, but modern ideas have altered this entirely and now they employ men on the night turn to do work which was formerly done by children. I suggest to the Home Secretary that any such provision as this should be given where there are no unemployed in the district. It must be lucrative employment if it is necessary to work in two shifts, and if it is necessary to work hours like this, which necessitate very awkward arrangements for the mother at home, who has to look after their food, at least it ought not to be allowed as long as there are unemployed people able to take on this work. In the West Riding there are young women and girls crying out for work, yet at this place they are being worked from six in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. I ask him to withdraw the Measure and include provisions in his Factory Bill which will provide careful safeguards and a little

  2235
  more supervision over the conditions under which these young people and young women are allowed to work.
  Mr. ROBERT WILSON: I make no apology for taking part in this discussion. I am interested in the question of the employment and welfare of women and children. The Home Secretary in reply to the discussion on the last question, said that he was not responsible for the origin of D.O.R.A., but may I remind him that he is responsible for the continuance of some parts of D.O.R.A. Therefore, I appeal to him confidentially, knowing his good nature, to give due consideration to the arguments that have been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). We are justly proud of the legislation that we have in connection with the employment of women, young people and children. D.O.R.A. for the time being set aside much of that legislation, and the fact that the emergency has now passed is one of the main reasons why this part of the Act should be repealed. Whilst we are proud of the old Act, we still think that there is a great need for co-ordination and room for very much improvement in certain directions. It would have been impossible to have employed children and young people from 14 to 18 years of age from anything like six o'clock in the morning to two o'clock in the afternoon in one shift, and from two o'clock in the afternoon to 10 at night in another shift, except in some particular cases. As a matter of fact there are to-day very few workmen who work from six o'clock in the morning or continue at work as late as 10 o'clock at night. It is, therefore, anomalous that young people should have to endure these regulations when they are absolutely obsolete. If the Home Secretary cannot delete this part of the Schedule, I would like to knew why he proposes to continue the existence of these regulations.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had better answer the points that have arisen. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the last speaker, but not with so much interest to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder), who made an attack on the Home Office in this matter and put forward lots of cases, anonymous cases, with regard to not one of which—
  Mr. J. PALIN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants evidence of them, it can be supplied.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is what I was going to say. If the hon. Member had given me notice of the places where this state of things has occurred, I have such persons as factory inspectors at my disposal, and I am not unwilling to see that the law is carried out, and I would at once have sent down to investigate the cases.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I did not make anonymous charges for the sake of being anonymous. I made the charges in the way I did in order to keep out the personal element. I can give the right hon. Gentleman plenty of detail, and I can assure him that none of the cases I have quoted is false.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that at present I am not prepared to accept the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the compliment.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I make the statement quite frankly. The hon. Member knew that this Debate was coming on, and he knew that it was my duty to defend these proposals. He knew that if he sent any of these statements to me they would be inquired into and I would deal with them on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member did not take the elementary precaution of sending to the Minister in charge of the Bill and telling him, as is always done in this House, of any particular cases which he intended to quote. He comes here and fires off cases anonymously. How can I answer in such circumstances?
  Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me; when he made these Orders he knew that there were trade unions concerned. Did he consult the trade unions before making these Orders? I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember that these girls are our girls. DM he consult with the trade union when he made an Order which allowed a girl to work until 10 o'clock at night?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I say at once that I have not consulted the hon. Member nor his trade union, and I do not intend to do so.
  Mr. MACKINDER: You consult the employers.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I carry out the Act of Parliament.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Did the employers and employés make a joint application?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They did.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Not through their accredited representatives.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have nothing to do with the accredited representatives of whom the hon. Member tells us. His idea is to make work in this country difficult; our idea is to make it easy.
  Mr. MACKINDER: You have no right to say that.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have case after case which I am prepared to give to the House—and to give names—where applications have been made to the Home Office, and every single application has been most carefully investigated before it has been granted. I have sent my factory inspectors down to the factory, they have seen the workpeople, and it is on the invitation of the workpeople that Orders have been made. In every single case the welfare of the people concerned has been taken into consideration and Welfare Orders have been made so that the interests of the workpeople may be protected. The hon. Member comes here and tells me about people walking, I do not know how many miles, to do this work, but I can say this—that in cases which are within my cognisance arrangements have been made by the inspectors for lines of omnibuses to run in order that young people may be brought to their work and taken home easily and comfortably. There is no doubt whatever about that. The whole truth is that a certain number of Gentlemen on the other side object altogether to any mill working more than eight hours a day.
  Mr. J. PALIN: While there are people walking about unemployed.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the hon. Member is not doing himself justice. Where these two shifts are being worked, there are two sets of workpeople. It is not the case that one workman or workwoman is working 16 hours a day. There are two women or two men each working eight hours a day.
  Mr. PALIN: You think that should be the regular thing?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not see any harm in it.
  Mr. MACKINDER: If it is night work, it should be done by men and not by women and girls. You would not allow your daughter to work until 10 o'clock at night.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: She often does.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Not in a factory!
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICK: The hon. Member for Shipley made his speech as if these young people were working 16 hours a day and thereby preventing other people from working. The very essence of the system of two shifts is that two sets of people are employed in the one mill, and I see no harm whatever in that under proper restriction. Further, I can tell the House definitely and frankly that there has been no complaint even from the local trade unions. There have been 680 cases where Orders have been granted since the Act was enacted, and every one of these has been carefully investigated. I challenge the hon. Member to send me any evidence that the local trade union branch, of which these workpeople are members, have sent any complaint to the Home Office regarding the working of any Order which I have made. He wants to foment trouble among the workpeople. He may come to the House of Commons and make these statements, but he does not represent the local people. I challenge him here.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I resent the suggestion that I want to foment trouble. It is not true.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has come here and made certain statements about anonymous cases. There is such a thing as the penny post, and I challenge him to send me information where these Orders have been resented by the local branch of the trade union and where the local branch has asked me to waive them. In case after case where these Orders have been made, they have been worked to the satisfaction of the workpeople themselves. There has been no complaint from the workpeople or from the local branch of the trade union; and, moreover, it has had this

  2239
  good effect, that it has enabled the employer, by means of working two shifts instead of one, to carry through the work without employing people on overtime.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The Woven Allied Textile Industrial Council, at a meeting of employers and workpeople, passed a resolution instructing their secretary to ask this factory to cease working the two shift system. Is that evidence that it is not wanted?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not any evidence at all that the people who are working do not want it, and that is the real case. The case that I have to meet here, and the case by which I intend to stand, is that the workpeople themselves are satisfied with the system.
  Mr. MACKINDER: They were dragooned into accepting it.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has no right to make such an unfair and untrue statement in this House. That is the kind of thing which may do for a public meeting outside, but it does not do for the British House of Commons.
  Mr. PALING: You ought to know about public meetings, any way.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Another hon. Member who spoke asked me to reconsider the matter and deal with it when the Factories Bill comes in. I have considered it very carefully, and I suppose there is already embodied in the draft of the new Factories Bill a Clause dealing with this matter. Then it can be discussed in this House of Commons, and then, if the hon. Member likes, he can come here again, and I have no doubt that, when he has considered the matter more carefully, he will adopt the usual practice and send me the details beforehand, so that I can make full inquiries as to his allegations in regard to any individual mills or in regard to any Orders that have been made. All that I can say to the Committee, quite definitely, is that no Order is made without careful consideration and without a full inquiry by the factory inspector, and no Order is made until full welfare conditions are laid down and until conditions in regard to the transport of the workers have been fully secured.
  2240
  Unless any hon. Member can refute those statements, I say that I am bound to carry on a practice which has been found to be of very great advantage in many factories throughout this country, which has enabled overtime to be dispensed with, and which has enabled contracts to be secured and carried out for the benefit both of the employer and of the employed; and under the strict Regulations under which these Orders are made, I am convinced that they are desirable, not merely in the interests of the employer, but in the interests of the work-people themselves. Under these circumstances, unless the hon. Member, or any hon. Member, is prepared to give me far better information than that contained in his speech to-night, I shall ask the Committee to continue the operation of this Bill for another year.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I think the Home Secretary has made his position perfectly clear. We know exactly where he stands. He is not going to consult the trade unions. Why should he? We take him at his own valuation, and we know exactly what to expect from him. May I put my point of view to him? I come from a county where women and young girls and young persons work, and I say that in my opinion no civilised nation will allow its girls and women to get up at half-past five on a winter's morning to go to work.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: What about the general strike?
  Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member herself wants working girls to go to the mills at half-past five in the morning, she is not in favour of a civilised nation. Is the Home Secretary aware of what this means? If he will pardon me for saying so, I doubt it. I have done it. I made my mind up that my children would never do it, and I do not want anybody else's children to do it; and because I have done it myself and know what it is, and because I do not want anybody else to do it, I am against this Section in the Act. It would be a different thing if these girls began at seven o'clock, but the proposition is that either they can begin at an hour in the morning when nobody should begin work, or that they can work to an hour when nobody ought to be expected to work.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS indicated dissent.
  Mr. SHAW: The Home Secretary can shake his, heard as much as he likes, but that is the opinion of one who has tried the system. I am speaking as a textile worker knowing the opinions of the organised textile workers of Lancashire, and I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that if he tries the system in Lancashire he will certainly get the most determined opposition. If industry cannot be efficiently worked without dragging people out of bed at five o'clock in the morning, and if it cannot be efficiently worked without keeping them at work until ten o'clock at night, it is up to those who practice it to set their house in order. There is no reason why, with the present capacity for production, there should be any necessity for these hours. We can produce wealth in abundance. There are millions of capital lying idle, and probably a million and a half work-people unemployed, and yet you are talking about working 16 hours a day.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman must not say that. I am talking about people working eight hours a day.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. SHAW: I have no intention of withdrawing anything. I will say stronger things if hon. Members want it. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself if he desires a working girl to get up at five o'clock in the morning.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Let me inform the right hon. Gentleman that that is never done.
  Mr. SHAW: Here is the Section:
  "The Secretary of State may, on the joint application of the employer or employers of any factory or workshop or group of factories or workshops, and the majority of the workpeople concerned in such factory or workshop or group of factories or workshops, subject to the provisions of this Section, make orders authorising the employment of women and young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards in any factory or workshop or group of factories or workshops at any time between the hours of six in the morning and ten in the evening."
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where it mentions 16 hours a day?
  Mr. SHAW: Obviously, the machinery runs 16 hours a day.
  Mrs. PHILLIPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is speaking on behalf of the girls if he, or any members of the trade unions, thought of the girls who walked to business and got up at half-past four in the morning during the General Strike, for which his friends were responsible?
  Mr. SHAW: Yes, I think that is more shameful still. Anybody who wants a girl to get up at half-past four in the morning to go to business ought to be executed.
  Mrs. PHILLIPSON: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I met some of those girls who were willing to get up in order to carry on, and to help the small shopkeepers to carry on.,
  Mr. SHAW: The fact that the girls were willing only shows to what a depth the country has sunk. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh of they like, but I am saying what I think about a country which wants its women to begin work at six o'clock in the morning. I consider it is uncivilised. I consider a country which wants its girls to work till 10 o'clock at night is an uncivilised country—when there is no need for it. There are millions of capital lying idle in this country to-day, and there are 1,150,000 unemployed people on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges. Why try to introduce a system of working concerns 16 hours a day in this condition of affairs? There is no earthly necessity for it. If there were a reason for it I could understand it; but what takes place is this. One employer tries to get an advantage over his brother employers by obtaining an order from the Home Secretary to run for 16 hours a day. If he gets the order it at once puts him in a competitive position which is far superior to that of his brother employers who do not want to work their firms 16 hours a day, but owing to the fact that they have to compete with the man who breaks through the custom of the trade they have to try to do the same as he does. I shall certainly vote against this power being given to the Home Secre-

  2243
  tary, and for the reasons I have stated— though not as strongly as I would have liked to have stated them. It seems to me the height of folly, in the position of a country like ours, to want to run concerns and to want to force people through the streets of our manufacturing towns at 5 o'clock in the morning. I did it, and, my God, I would like to make the men who vote in favour of it do it themselves. About 12 months of the medicine would cure a lot of them. Just about 12 months of getting up at half-past-five on a winter's morning, with the clothing of a working man, and going into our factories, would cure them for ever of the desire to see factories working at this time in the morning with women and girls. I could understand it better if it were a desire for men to work at that hour, but to try to force children-almost-and women into the factories at that time in the morning, and so late at night, seems to me so far beyond any idea of decency and humanity that I cannot understand the position of a Government which supports a Clause of this kind.
  Mr. DUFF COOPER: The speech of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has been very misleading. In the few moments during which I shall detain the Committee I shall try to correct some of the misstatements, though perhaps not intentional misstatements, which he has made in that speech. Anybody listening to him, but not understanding the industrial system in this country, would have thought that there were people in this country working for 16 hours a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] When he was asked to withdraw the statement, he persisted in maintaining it.
  Mr. SHAW: I surely never said that the people were working 16 hours a day. I said that the firms were working 16 hours a day.
  Mr. COOPER: I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman wished to show kindness to machinery. I did not think that was the point which he wished to make. If he were saying that the machinery was overworked, or that the firms, or the heads of the firms were putting an undue burden upon themselves in working 16 hours, I do not think that is the point of the appeal
  2244
  which he made. The impression that he conveyed was that people were working for 16 hours a day. If they were, there would be universal condemnation of it. The other point which the right hon. Gentleman made was that it was a monstrous thing that people should get up to work at an early hour. Frankly, there are a great many people on this side who sympathise deeply with those in industry to-day and who are looking forward to the Factories Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is going to bring in next Session, which I was glad to hear him refer to in his speech when he addressed the Committee a few moments ago, and which is going to do much to alleviate the hardships which factory workers are suffering at the present time. But those of us on this side who have sympathy with that side of the case, do not feel that it is a tremendous hardship to begin work at a particular hour if you are going to leave off after eight hours. We do not feel in this climate that it is a very much greater hardship to get up at five o'clock than at 11, because it is only by referring to a watch that you can find out what time of day it is.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it would do some of us good to get up for a few weeks at five o'clock. There are some of us who would like to remind him that for more than four years there were many people who worked—[HON. MEMBERS:" There were just as many on this side!"] Very likely. [An HON. MEMBER:" Why make that gibe?"] I have no intention of making any gibe at all. It was on every side—[Interruption.] There were many who got up at five o'clock and long before five o'clock, and who were not certain of ending their day's work after eight hours. So far as any gibe was made, it was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston at this side when he suggested that there were Members here who had never done a full day's work. I for one, and a great many others—and this is something which is not a thing for boasting about as a rule, because for a time I was an embusque safely working in London—but during the first six months my work began at midnight and went on until eight o'clock in the morning, and I did not think that any particular hardship. I did not think that if one worked for eight hours a day it

  2245
  was a tremendous hardship if they worked from 12 o'clock at night until eight in the morning.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman is really doing harm to the cause which he and I and many people have at heart, namely, that of the factory worker, when he gives out that it is a tremendous hardship to begin work very early in the morning. The Emperor Napoleon used to begin work much earlier in the morning than any factory worker, and he did it because he preferred to begin early. Many Members of the House who have won great distinction habitually began work at an earlier hour than the factory worker begins. The length of the day is the thing that matters and not the time at which you begin, and when we start to make appeals to sentimentality on account of the earliness of the hour at which work begins, we are apt to lose the support of those people who really sincerely feel for the hardship which is being undergone by people by long hours and hard and prolonged and ill-remunerated labour.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) if he would tell the Committee what his age was when he did the night work to which he has referred. Perhaps he will tell the Committee if that six months was the only period he ever worked on a, night shift. What the hon. Member for Oldham knows about industial conditions we can afford to forget and still be no worse off. I would like to inform the Committee that at one time I worked on a night shift commencing at 10 p.m. until six o'clock the following morning, and I followed that occupation for a few years. I was then only 11 years and two weeks old. Consequently I have an intimate knowledge of the best and the worst part of the day for working, and a much more intimate knowledge than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham. I want to ask the Home Secretary if he will reply to the two specific questions put to him by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). The first question was whether in granting any of these orders the right hon. Gentleman made sure that a majority of the workmen employed by a firm or a number of firms had expressed a desire that that order should be established, and if so, will the
  2246
  Home Secretary tell us what steps were taken to ascertain whether a majority of the workmen had expressed a desire for that order or not. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would never consult a trade union.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say that I would never consult a trade union. What I said was that I would never allow the main trade union to act against the wishes of the individual workman who desired to take this work; and it is the individual workers in the individual factories whom by law I am bound to consult. That I did, and I do consult them.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. Am I right in stating that the Home Secretary said that he was not called upon to consult a trade union, and that he should only consult the work-people? Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman consulted the workpeople, a majority of whom had expressed an opinion in favour of the Order, by what means did the right hon. Gentleman ascertain that the majority of the work-people were in favour of the Order? When the Home Secretary was replying to the hon. Member for Shipley, all he said was that his Department carried out the provisions of this Clause by sending inspectors to see that the workpeople were not hostile to the Order. If that is so surely the Home Secretary ought to be in a position, without requiring any definite specific notice being given that the question was going to be raised, to tell us how his Department ascertained that a majority of the workpeople were in favour of an Order of this description. I suggest that no matter how hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite deliberately attempt to misrepresent an expression used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, those of us who have endured the night shift and the early day shift know something about working hours and about getting out of bed morning after morning not later than 4 a.m. We also know that if machinery is working for 16 hours two sets of workpeople have to be out very early in the morning, and some of them have to remain at work very late at night.
  11.0 p.m.
  The suggestion from this side is that these Orders have been issued in a very

  2247
  doubtful manner, and we doubt whether the majority of the work-people have been favourable to the passing of these Orders. It is because we know what workmen, workwomen and workgirls think about the time that they prefer to go to work that we express these doubts, and all that we ask of the right hon. Gentleman—and it is a fair and legitimate request—is that he should tell us exactly how he ascertains when a majority of girls or young women approve of the ratification of an Order of that description, which compels them to leave their beds too early, as we think, or, alternatively, to remain at work too late. The right hon. Gentleman said that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley could provide any sort of manifestation on the part of the workpeople which indicated that they were hostile to the continuance of these Orders, he would not hesitate to investigate the case. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Industrial Council dealing with the wages and conditions of employment in this particular class of work have passed a resolution, almost unanimously, asking for the repeal of all the Orders that have been issued, and, if he is not aware of it, what have his inspectors been doing? We want to suggest to him from this side—[Interruption.] I think I shall be expressing the sense of the Committee if I extend our good wishes and congratulations to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), who, I see, has just arrived. I am in no doubt as to what will be the hon. and learned Member's attitude if he speaks on this subject.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, if, where an Order has been established affecting one employer, and the Industrial Council, acting on behalf of employers and employés in the trade, have passed a resolution asking for the repeal of the Order, he will take steps to see that the Order in that case is repealed? Undoubtedly, that would be an expression representing the feelings of the employés, and it at least justifies us on this side in expressing our doubts about the majority of the workpeople having expressed a willingness that this double-shift system should be instituted: and, until the right hon.
  2248
  Gentleman responds to the request of the Industrial Council—a peace council, I may observe—we shall be justified in our doubts as to the wisdom of allowing the Department to have the power to make Orders of this description.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The procedure in these cases is that, when it is desired that a factory should work on two shifts, an application is made in writing to the Home Secretary, signed by the employers and by a majority of the workpeople. That application in writing comes to me, and I send down one of the factory inspectors in order that he may satisfy himself, and so report to me, that the signatures of the work-people are genuine, and that no undue pressure has been put upon them to sign. The Committee will realise that these Orders are made for specific reasons and for a specific purpose. In regard to the action of the Industrial Council, I am bound by law. If the Industrial Council, on joint representations made by organisations representing a majority of employers and workers in the industry concerned, or in the section of industry concerned, represents to the Secretary of State that the Orders ought not to be made, the powers of the Secretary of State cease. If I receive such a resolution or request, I shall give it the most careful consideration, and, if it be in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament, my power to grant these Orders will cease and the Orders in the particular industry in which the joint representation has been made will ipso facto cease.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the original application contained the signature of the employer and the signature of a majority of the employés?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean a majority of individual signatures attached to the same document as to the employer?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, a joint application—the actual signatures, written by themselves, of a majority of the employés.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I raised this case and I make the affirmation in the House

  2249
  of Commons that the firm of C. F. Taylor, of Shipley, called a meeting of the employés over and under 16—under 16 were not concerned—and passed a vote in the presence of the employer's representatives—I have had that job to do and I know how difficult it is—and then the employers sent round the over-lookers, the foremen of the persons concerned, and got them to sign. It may be that they signed of their own free will; it may be that they did not, in the present state of unemployment. In addition to getting the signatures of the persons who were wanted to work, they got the signatures of the persons who were not wanting to work. I ask the House, is that the way to get a majority of all concerned to decide that some should work? If they want to get a majority they ought to get a majority of those who are asked to work and not of those who are not asked to work. May I correct something? I believe the right hon. Gentleman was misled by a statement I made that it applied with reference to a textile factory. The incident I gave where the employer got the signatures by this method and put it into operation without waiting for the council I gave as a specimen of what could happen and may happen.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When was it?
  Mr. MACKINDER: In 1920, and the firm was Lever Brothers.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I complained before of the hon. Member making an anonymous accusation without giving me notice. He has now definitely pilloried a certain firm by name. The usual thing is to give intimation that he is going to do it. How can I answer that case now? It is impossible. I know nothing about it. He has mentioned the name of a particular firm which he alleges has done a particular wrongful act. I will inquire into it, and, if he likes to put down a question at the proper time, it shall have an answer. The second case he gives is seven years ago, long before I was Secretary of State. The House is usually fair, and I have never had to complain of any lack of fairness from hon. Members opposite; but it is impossible for me to give the hon. Member an answer at present.
  Mr. BROMLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, will he tell us what he means by undue pressure, when he says that he dispatched his inspectors to ascertain whether the signatures of the workpeople were obtained without undue pressure. We, on this side of the Committee, know what pressure may be. I am delighted to have the approving cheer of hon. Members on the other side, because they also know what we refer to.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will tell the Committee this: I will withdraw the word "undue" and say that no pressure is or should be used; and, if I find pressure of any kind has been used, I will not grant any application.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 23 to 30, inclusive.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to call the attention of the Committee to the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. The National Exchequer has already contributed to agricultural interests by relieving agricultural land of its proper share of rating to the extent of no less than £47,000,000. In addition, there has been provided from the national taxation between £60,000,000 and £80,000,000 in relief of landed interests by occupiers of other agricultural land. Let me call the attention of the Committee to some cases. In 1896 the total amount of rates for which agricultural land was liable was approximately £2,700,000. By the Act of 1896, the Exchequer undertook to contribute in relief of rating on agricultural land, half the amount. They also undertook that the amount in 1896, which was £1,330,000, should be the fixed annual amount, to go on for five years. When the Agricultural Act of 1896 was passed it was only for five years. That is 31 years ago, and the £1,330,000 which the Act provided should be the contribution from the Exchequer in relief of agricultural rating has gone up every year since, up to the year 1923. In 1923, a further proposal was made to reduce the amount of the liability of agricultural land to rating from one-half to one-quarter. The Government then undertook to provide a further £2,700,000 to make up the loss of the one-quarter rating. I notice by reference to the Exchequer returns for 1926–7, the last financial year, which may be seen in the

  2251
  Library, that £3,800,000 was contributed by the Exchequer to the relief of agricultural rating, in addition to the £1,000,000 odd.
  I want to urge this matter upon the Committee not on account of what has been done but because of the expressed intention of certain agricultural interests not to be content, after having escaped three-quarters of their annual liability to local rating, and that they are now proposing to be relieved of the last quarter. I have a report of a meeting of the Farmers' Union of Shropshire, held last Saturday, where a programme was promulgated. The Report says:
  "The Shropshire Farmers' Union met at Shrewsbury on Saturday to consider the views of the branches on agricultural policy, and agreed that the following things were necessary to meet the needs of the industry."
  The first thing mentioned was the exemption of agricultural land from local rates, the deficiency to be made up from the Exchequer. That means, if the view is to be pressed upon the Government and adopted by them that agricultural land will be relieved from any rating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear!" What was the accepted equity in regard to the basis of rating prior to these Acts? It has always been held that the liability to contribute to local rates was dependent upon the letting value of the property, whether house property, shop property, or factories or land. Under the present policy in regard to agriculture the agricultural interest has escaped three-fourths of their liability, which the taxpayer has to bear, and it is now suggested that they should be relieved of the last quarter.
  As far as one can see the next suggestion will be that the landed interest should not only bear no liability for rates at all, but that the Exchequer should make a contribution to enable the farmer to pay his rent to the landlord. The meaning of this undoubtedly is that owing to the operation of ordinary economic laws in the course of the last generation the owners of land have received an enormous amount of relief from the Exchequer. In this form of subsidy—and any relief of rates is a form of subsidy—£47,000,000 has been given by the Exchequer— [An HON. MEMBER: "What
  2252
  about the miners?"]—Yes, but it was not £47,000,000. It is said to be for the relief of the farmer. Is that the case? Anyone knows that any relief given to agriculture, if it takes the form of relieving the land of its burdens, is bound in the course of generations to transfer itself into rent or value. We say that the time has arrived when a stand should be made against the continuance of this policy; that this subsidy should be discontinued and that the owners of land should bear their burdens like all other owners of property.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has urged that the Agricultural Rates Act should no longer be continued, and he has shown how much under the Act, 1896, and the subsequent Act of 1923, has been paid by the taxpayers of this country to the landed interest. I would merely add that that money, according to all the laws of economics, has gone not into the pockets of the farmers but into the pockets of the landowners. I wish hon. Members on all sides of the House would free their minds of cant on this question and realise that that must be so. Hon. Members opposite are not ignorant of economics and must know that a rate on land, apart from buildings, cannot rest anywhere except on the landlord. That is a statement made by Professor Sedgwick, Marshall, Thorold Rogers and Adam Smith, and I have heard it stated clearly by supporters of hon. Members opposite. I remember the late Viscount Chaplin saying in this House that it was no doubt the fact that the higher the rate the lower the rent, and the lower the rate the higher the rent. Not only Lord Chaplin, but I remember Francis Dyke Acland speaking from this bench—he was a great landlord in Devonshire—supported the remission of rates, but admitted at the same time that the person who would benefit by that remission would be himself, the landlord. Everybody who thinks over it must see that that is so.
  I would put one further proof of my case. Land is bought and sold subject to certain charges. For centuries land has been bought and sold subject to the charge of the upkeep of the poor and the roads and other purposes. Because of those burdens it fetches a lower price in the market, but when the burdens are

  2253
  taken off the same land fetches a higher price by the capitalised amount of the rate that has been remitted. We see already an agitation set on foot for a further present to the landlords. If hon. Members consult Mr. Harold Cox on the question he would be equally clear that any further remission must result in a present to the landowners of the country of 20 to 25 years' purchase of the amount of the rate remitted. It is not merely that. There has just been presented to the House a Report on the drainage question. Who is to pay the cost of draining the land? Under the existing system the cost of any drainage scheme is borne by the people whose land benefits; that is to say it is an added rent upon the value of the land. Under this report the landlords would get another slice. It is proposed that the burdens should be borne not by the people whose land improves in value, but that the ratepayers in the towns in the same drainage basin, who get no benefit whatever from the drainage and who are already frightfully overburdened, should bear an additional burden.
  Obviously some stop has to be put to this indefinite process of relieving landowners at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. The petitioners for relief are always vocal, whereas the taxpayer has nobody to speak for him. Hon. Members opposite who are in the habit of pressing the Government for economies might achieve one of their economies in the reduction of subsidies such as these. Nearly £5,000,000 of the taxpayers' money goes into the pockets of the landlord—nominally into the pockets of the ratepayer, but actually into the pockets of the landlord. We have here a definite economy that might be achieved. Hon. Members say, "How about the coal subsidy?" The coal subsidy came to an end. When is this to come to an end?
  Major BRAITHWAITE: When agriculture is prosperous.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we hope that the farmers will ever admit that their prosperity is sufficient to enable them to resume their ancient burdens? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows that we have recently passed a Rating and Valuation Act and that in a few years, valuation under that Act will come into operation.
  2254
  Under that Act we are starting to relieve not agricultural land but agricultural improvements. I am in favour of remitting rates on agricultural improvements because, unlike rates upon land, the rates that fall upon improvements are borne by the person who farms the land and not by the owner of the land. Rates upon improvements, like rates upon factories, add to the cost of production and force up the price to the consumer who ultimately pays the rate. In the Rating and Valuation Act farm buildings were relieved from rates for the first time to the extent of three-fourths of the value. That was a good step if it had been accompanied by an increase in the rate upon land.
  We went further than that. We also exempted three-fourths of the rates on the farm cottages, and three-fourths of the rates on glass-houses. In fact, many improvements now put upon the soil are exempt from rates. For these we have every sympathy, but we think it ought to have been accompanied by a cessation of the subsidy to landlords which is represented by this £5,000,000 a year which we at present pay out of the taxpayer's pocket. The remission given to agricultural improvements, farm buildings, etc., was not borne by the taxpayer. That is even more unjust. The remission there was borne by the other ratepayers in the locality. That is most unjust, because it increases their costs of production, increases house-rents, and falls upon the people who are obviously less able to bear the additional burden. May we hope when this valuation comes into operation that there will be some genuine attempt to rationalise the various subsidies given to the agricultural interest, to see that the remission upon improvements is borne not by other ratepayers but by the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer benefits pari passu by a reduction in the amount of the subsidy to the landlords? I hope in the near future we shall get a capital valuation of the land, and that thus we may be able to exempt improvements altogether from the burden of rates, thus encouraging production and employment, and resting the burden of these rates upon that land value, which will thus reduce the rents coming into the landlords' pockets, relieve the industry, and force land which is not

  2255
  being properly-used into the market. May I, in conclusion, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, when this new Measure comes into operation, whether these improvements are being properly exempted and whether there is a chance of that exemption being set off against a reduction in subsidy?
  Mr. LAMB: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New. castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) have taken their usual course and availed themselves of an opportunity to discuss the rating question in its broadest sense.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: To educate you.
  Mr. LAMB: It may be for the purpose of education. Personally, I do not mind being educated by anyone, but I think there is a right time and a wrong time for it. The question before the Committee is the continuance or discontinuance of the present status of rating as far as agriculture is concerned. Consequently, if this Amendment were carried, it would throw again upon agriculture a. burden which agriculture never should have had and which agriculture certainly cannot bear at the present time. The hon. Member who proposed it referred to the relief which had been given as a subsidy. I deny that it was anything of the sort. It was not a subsidy; it was purely a recognition; after very careful thought—
  Mr. RILEY: If the subsidy had not been given, would not the landlords have been compelled to reduce rents?
  Mr. LAMB: The hon. Member will remember that when the last relief was given the statement was made, and put into the Bill, that it could not be taken into consideration where an alteration in rents was asked for under the Act, so that you can see that the intention was that it should go as a relief to the actual occupier of the land, and it so went. But I do not want to be drawn at this time into a discussion of the wider question, otherwise I should be doing that which I have been suggesting the other hon. Members have been im-
  2256
  properly doing. At the present time agriculture is in such a disastrous condition, as is admitted by all who know the facts, that it would be impossible to consider throwing back upon it a burden which it absolutely cannot carry, and which I hope this Committee will refuse to consider placing upon it.
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it is possible, if I may say so without offence to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, to conceive of a more impossible Amendment than this, having regard to a recent decision of this House. Part III of the Schedule of this Bill continues the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and the amending Acts to 31st March, 1929, but both hon. Members seem to have forgotten altogether that under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the rating concessions of the Acts of 1896 and 1923 are made permanent by a decision of this House, and in some areas the concession comes into operation on 1st April, 1999, and in other parts of the country on 1st April, 1929. Under these circumstances, I cannot conceive why any hon. Members who have any regard for the decisions of this House and the will of Parliament should seriously suggest that this particular provision should be deleted from this Bill. What does it do? In the first place, what it does is to continue the rating concession given by these particular Acts until the permanent Act of Parliament comes into operation, and if hon. Members are seeking to obtain the support of the agricultural interests of this country, as I understand they are, I would venture to point out to them what would be the result of their action if this Amendment were carried to-night. Firstly, the farmers in that event would cease to be entitled to their rating relief during the interval, and, secondly, so far as the Exchequer grant was concerned, that would cease to be payable: and if the local authorities were to continue it on their own account, all that they would have to do—although, I suppose, that would not disturb hon. Members opposite—would be to raise the rates to make up the equivalent grant which would be lost from the national Exchequer.
  How hon. Members opposite, whatever their views on this question may be, can put this forward, even at this time of night, as a practical, serious proposition,

  2257
  I cannot possibly understand. It has been decided at the instance this Government that the rating concession to the agricultural interests should be made permanent, and what we are doing under this particular Bill is to continue, until the Act I have mentioned comes into operation, this concession. I do not propose to argue with hon. Members the rights and wrongs of this matter, but I hope they will go into the Lobby against this Act. We shall then see exactly what they are prepared to do, and also what the Members of the party sitting next to them are prepared to do, and whether they are prepared to stop the legitimate concessions which have been placed upon the Statute Book. Whether the concessions benefit the landlord of the country or not, let them ask the farmers. I think that they will get a very adequate reply. All I can say, from the point of view of the Government, is that we shall resist the Amendment.
  Mr. MacLAREN: We have been listening during the last day or two to a great deal about relief being given to Poplar, and about the necessity for stringent economy in local administration, but I cannot help noticing, even at this late hour, the patronising way in which the agricultural fraternity are dealt with by the Government in contrast to the treatment meted out to the so-called "Poplars." I do not suppose the Government will send out auditors to look after the results of these concessions to the agriculturists. There is one question which one might ask, following an interjection which came from the opposite side, when it was stated that it was seriously contemplated on the part of many agriculturists to seek entire relief from rates. I should like to ask some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are behind the National Citizens' Union, which has put out the programme that anyone who gets full relief from local rates shall be struck off the voting register, whether agriculturists, if they get entire exemption from rates, will take the logical consequences?
  An HON. MEMBER: It is only on arable land.
  Sir K. WOOD: We are only considering whether this particular Section shall be continued. There is no other pro-
  2258
  position before the Committee at the present time.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I only thought it right to intervene, because of some statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that he hoped that we would go into the Lobby against this Act, and the implication behind the remark was that if we did so, it would be plain and evident to the farmers that we were their deadly enemies. That sort of argument cannot go unchallenged, because if it once gets about, it will be accepted by people who think in a superficial manner, as evidenced by the cheers opposite, that there is some truth behind it. When the Agricultural Rates Bill was in Committee upstairs, I moved, and I endeavoured to get carried, that relief should be given to the farmers in respect of improvements. Instead of getting any endorsement or encouragement for that Amendment, I was denounced for it. We would give to agriculturists full relief from rates on those things which they had created by their own labour, but we would levy up to 20s. in the £ on the site value of the land. Let me say, before I sit down, that it is clear to the most elementary politician that any harsh treatment is good enough for certain rating areas, and I daresay that it is necessary in some cases where Socialists happen to be in control of the local administration. One cannot help noticing the paternal solicitude—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting rather a, long way from the Amendment.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I wish you had called the Minister to order, as you are now calling me to order.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his remarks, made a reference to the late hour of the evening. May I suggest to Ministers who are oppressed by the lateness of the hour that it is not a good habit to throw out challenging remarks? The hon. Gentleman uttered what I may, without offence perhaps, call a "taunt" at the expense of hon. Members on this side. He said he understood we were trying to attract the attention of the agricultural interests of the country-for what purpose I have no doubt is clear in his own mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Votes!"] Of course, I know perfectly well what is at the back of the

  2259
  mind of the hon. Member, and I know that he and his friends are relying upon agricultural votes to bring back the skeleton of their present army to the next House of Commons. If the Parliamentary Secretary will accept a challenge from me in reply to his own challenge, I ask him to come with me at any time between now and the reassembling of Parliament to address a meeting of farmers of Waltham-stow.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would like the hon. Member to come to the point.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: I will leave Walthamstow for the moment and come to the point. The suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary was that we would not venture to press this Amendment to a Division and record a vote for throwing back on to the farmers of the country part of the rates of which they have been relieved. As far as my constituency is concerned, I am perfectly prepared to take that action, and to justify it, with or without the company of the hon. Member. This Government and previous Conservative Governments have relieved the agricultural interest of rates—have given them a subsidy, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) said—because, they argue, the agricultural industry is not in a condition to bear these rates and because, if agriculture is relieved of the rates, it will be in a better condition to carry on and to give more employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" To hon. Members who so glibly say "Hear, hear," let me point out that the same arguments would support similar assistance being given to areas like Walthamstow, where there are industries severely oppressed by rates, where unemployment is created by the rates, and where even within the last few months industries—[Interruption]. I would suggest to the hon. Member sitting below me that interruptions to be effective should be coherent, and that if he will try to follow what I am saying instead of uttering exclamations, even he may receive some enlightenment.
  There are industries in Walthamstow which even in the last few months have left the constituency and gone elsewhere because of the burden of rates, and you have there exactly the same conditions reproduced. I am perfectly prepared to
  2260
  take the action which an hon. Member has suggested and justify before my constituents that the Government, by giving relief to agriculture and refusing it to the district which I represent, are doing a wrong and bad thing.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) read.
SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Existing Officers.)
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John. Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the Sub-section."
  This Bill is one to deal with the reorganisation of the service of the Sheriff Courts and staffs in Scotland, and during the Committee stage there was a considerable amount of discussion as to the terms under which the members of those staffs were to be taken into the ordinary Civil Service of this country. An Amendment was moved in Committee which brought into the Bill the Subsection which I now move to delete. The reason I am doing this is to bring into conformity the Rules governing the whole Civil Service and entrance to the Civil Service of the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that this alteration was carried against the Government in Committee, and it may be said that as this is a matter dealing with Scottish affairs it ought to remain. But this is not a purely Scottish matter; it is one which affects the terms of entrance of the whole Civil Service. The Government have given most careful consideration to the whole problem and have taken every step to see that the examinations are made as simple and as much in conformity with the general duties of those persons who are coming in under the new conditions, where, incidentally I may add, they are going to obtain very considerable advantages. I would remind the House that over a number of years negotiations had gone on between

  2261
  the Government and the accredited representatives of the staffs. While there had been these protracted negotiations, these arrangements which the Government propose were accepted by the representatives of the staffs, and, when it became apparent that there was any danger in regard to these advantages through the Amendment which was introduced in Committee acting in any way to prevent the Bill coming into law this Session, I was approached—as most hon. Members for Scotland were approached—by the accredited representatives of the staffs, who made it clear that it was not on their behalf that this Amendment had been moved and that they hoped nothing would be done to jeopardise those advantages. I think it is clear on all counts that I am justified in asking the House to reverse this decision.
  12.0 m.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I think that for sheer obstinacy the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter would be hard to beat. It is true that this is a question affecting a very small number of men but many of them are ex-service men. This subject was thoroughly discussed in the Standing Committee representing all parties and the Amendment was carried against the Government. Now the Secretary of State for Scotland comes here and blandly asks for the support of English and Welsh Members who cannot possibly know the facts as well as Scottish Members to omit the words which were inserted against his wishes by the Committee upstairs. All we asked by our proposal was that in the case of a man who has been regularly employed for a period of five years he should be exempted from the written examination and that the man under whom he has been serving every day should be allowed to give him a certificate as to his fitness for the job. We maintain that under those circumstances a man should be exempted from a written examination. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that our Amendment would make the examination almost a perfunctory one and when the Measure was before the Committee he said that if a man failed the first time he could try a second time. If that is so, why trouble about having an examination at all? Many of these men have been for many years away
  2262
  from all scholastic attainments and some of them are quite unfit to sit for an examination. Under the circumstances why put those men to the humiliation, as it would be in some cases, of incurring the nervous strain of sitting for a written examination? The right hon. Gentleman says he received a telegram saying it was hoped nothing would be done to jeopardise the Bill. We do not want to jeopardise the Bill. We have never said a word to jeopardise the Bill. It is not jeopardising the Bill to improve it, to make it easier for men, some of them ex-service men, to hold these posts by appointment. They can get certificates from their employers that they can do their job satisfactorily. It is not jeopardising the Bill to ask that these men should not be subjected to an examination. I therefore oppose the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to defeat the Clause that was carried upstairs against him by Scottish representatives of all parties.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should like to say a word as to the history of the Bill. Seven years ago the Lord President of the Court of Session passed an Act of Sederunt increasing the fees against Scottish litigants for the purpose of giving these officials an opportunity of getting into the Civil Service with pensions and the like. The British Treasury has for seven years drawn these increased fees out of which they have got something very material—at least £250,000—and they made it more difficult for the Scottish people to get the privilege of justice from His Majesty's Courts. They got all these funds into their pockets. The Lord Advocate says that is not so, but the figures are perfectly clear. Now they bring forward a Bill—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are on a particular Amendment, not on the whole Bill.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was proposing to make that a slight preamble. I am not at all sure they are particularly anxious for the Bill to go through. The purpose of the Bill is to establish these officials in the Civil Service. While it may establish the younger ones, who have recently come from school, it will disestablish a considerable number of them.

  2263
  The older men will be wiped out, and those who cannot pass this Civil Service examination may also be wiped out, and yet they may be quite efficient servants in their own Department. A large part of the work is more or less mechanical. They have been for many years devoting themselves to their particular business and they are all the less likely to be able to pass a clerical examination. I have had one or two cases, one of a lady 40 years of age, who has been 15 years in the service. She will have the humiliation of sitting an examination and may probably fail, though she is a most efficient servant in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and her place may be taken by one of these young ladies who are presently to get the vote, with no experience of the work she is engaged for. It is said they must conform to the rules of the Civil Service and the Civil Service Commissioners insist upon it. I have a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the Civil Service Commissioners in insisting on a condition of this kind when they can take the condition provided in this Clause.
  It is said it is an immutable rule and that it has applied to ex-service men in the past, but that was a totally different situation when an immense body of ex-service men were taken into the Civil Service, many of whom were not qualified for anything. It is not the first time the Civil Service has excused examinations. When the National Library was taken over they took over the whole staff holus bolus without any examination at all. It may be that this is a very small matter, and there are only some 40 or 50 who will be subjected to examination, but it contains a very big principle, and if there were only five that is no reason why a wrong should be done to these people. It is said the Bill may be lost. It will not be lost. If it is lost, it is for us Scotsmen who have Scottish interests at heart to see that the bleeding of Scottish litigants for the benefit of the Treasury ought to be put an end to, and it will be our duty to address a memorial to the Lord President of the Court of Session, who is a conscientious Scotsman, and who has the interests of Scotland at heart, and ask him to withdraw that Act of Sederunt and the Regulations which
  2264
  gave them the right to exact these increased charges from the litigants. They should have got the Bill first and got the increased fees afterwards. That would have been the proper procedure. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate ought to have stood up for the interests of Scotland and stood up for these civil servants and not allowed this injustice to be inflicted on them. The Clause ought not to be deleted from the Bill.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I resent as a Scottish Member the practice of introducing legislation of this kind when everyone else but Scottish Members is expected to be away home. Time after time at the tail end of a day's discussion we get a Scottish Bill brought forward in the hope that it will be pushed through without anything like fair or reasonable discussion. One would have expected at least that the Secretary of State would have some new arguments to submit to the House to justify his claim that this particular Clause should remain as originally introduced. He says that it is to bring this Bill into conformity with the usual practice. I suppose he wants us to believe that he discussed the matter or that it has been the practice in England to compel men who have served 10 years in a particular occupation to go through a more or less severe examination before they can be taken over as civil servants and to justify their continuance in that position. I want to submit that if we had time to look up the records we might find any number of instances where sections of workers in England became civil servants and were taken over holus bolus.
  We do not require to go to England for justification for the claim I am now making, because we have within recent years had the experience of the Advocates' Library employés being taken over without any such questions. They were simply transferred to the Civil Service. It is not a case of putting men out of employment who have served for four or five years. Some of them have been there for 11 years.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Fifteen years.
  Mr. GRAHAM: They go to this particular job when they leave school, and they may be 10, 11 or 12 years actually in service. As already remarked, the fact

  2265
  that they have had such service is surely reasonable proof that they are competent for the work that they will be called upon to do. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not entirely a Scottish matter. It is a Scottish matter and nothing but a Scottish matter. The English Members have nothing to do with it. English Members would be the first to admit that they knew nothing of the duties of a procurator fiscal. We can stand the jeers of English Members, but we object to them always getting the money. The matter was discussed as a Scottish question in Committee, and the Scottish Members came to a decision on the matter. It was not a party decision. It cannot be said that the right hon. Gentleman is being confronted with a claim that is being submitted purely for partisan motives or political purposes. The Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and suported by a number of our Friends on both sides. It was one of the very few occasions on which we see eye to eye, and I did expect from the Secretary of State for Scotland a generous response. Whether or not he has been informed by the Treasury that they have the money and intend to keep it, I do not know. It is not correct to say that this is anything other than a Scottish matter.
  In Committee and again this evening the right hon. Gentleman made a statement to which I should like to draw attention. He has said it so often that he seems to believe it. I refer to his statement as to negotiations with what he described as accredited members. Those negotiations took place some years ago, when the Government said that the money that was taken in additional fees in the various Courts would be distributed amongst the employés under the control of the procurator fiscal and sheriff clerk. The "accredited" members, these so-called organisations, by a small majority—I think it was only a majority of one—decided to accept the proposal of the Government, because of the advantage it would bring to them so far as their status was concerned by their being raised to the rank of civil servants, and having security. Because the Government secured a majority in that way, although it was only a majority of one, they have held to the point that
  2266
  the persons affected by these proposals are still of the same opinion. I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman took a ballot of the persons affected he would find that a very opposite decision would be arrived at. It is not creditable to the Government to use that sort of argument in connection with the Bill.
  This is not the only Government which has been anxious to get the Bill through. The Labour Government were anxious to get the Bill through, and the bulk of public opinion in Scotland, certainly of the persons directly concerned, are anxious that the Bill should pass, but they want something like reasonable and fair treatment. They are justified in taking exception to the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has the power, not to allow a party vote on this matter. I am prepared to go to a vote even if I am the only man to go through the Lobby. It is time that Scottish Members of Parliament, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, made a protest against the introduction of business of this kind being taken after other business has been considered. I would have preferred that it had not been necessary for me to take part in the Debate, and that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the decision of the Scottish Members, but if he insists that the original position should be restored, I hope that at least the Scottish Members will be prepared to go into the Lobby against him.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I should like to make my position clear. I do not agree with my Friend the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in his scathing remarks on the subject of the examination for entry into the Civil Service. I think that is necessary. As regards this particular question, I did not vote in Committee because I thought we should have a little more information, and that there might be something to be said for his Amendment. I have taken the trouble to refer the matter to my constituents who are affected, and have received a telegram from the secretary of the organisation representing these people asking me not to vote against the proposal now before the House. They feel that it is a small matter, and although I am moved by the eloquence of the last speaker on the subject of Scottish opinion, I feel that

  2267
  this opinion is confirmed, by that I have had direct from Scotland, on this matter to support the Amendment, which I propose to do.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I join with my colleagues from Scotland in protesting against the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State. I am not surprised that he has taken up this position because after the decision in the Committee had been taken it was quite apparent, from the way in which he referred to the matter at the time, that he was determined to utilise the forces at the call of the Government when the Bill reached Report stage. This Scottish Committee is somewhat of a fiasco. It is not meant to be of any particular importance but to allow of a certain amount of window dressing for the benefit of Scotland. It is not right when a body of men from Scotland have come to a decision, after carefully discussing the Clauses of this Bill, with no waste of time and with proper intelligence, for the Secretary of State to try and upset that decision because it is unsatisfactory to him. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not a matter of much importance, yet he adopts this dour attitude, this obstinate attitude. I begin to realise what some of my colleagues mean when they say that if the Secretary of State is determined about anything there is no giving way at all, no matter what arguments are put forward. We have no intention of endangering the Bill, but we feel on a, matter of this kind, which was fairly considered in the Committee upstairs, that no proper reason has been given why the Secretary of State should not defer to the wish of the Committee and refrain from using the votes of English and Welsh representatives in order to batter down the decision of the Scottish Committee. Surely he is going to allow Scotland some freedom to express her desires on a matter of this kind. No reasonable man will object to that. The Amendment came from the Government side, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) was able to convince other supporters of the Government. Some hon. Members have expressed their surprise that the Secretary of State has put down this Amendment for Report stage, but I am not surprised. The meaning of it to me is that Scotland is put into the peculiar attitude of hav-
  2268
  ing little or no respect in this House. That is the position as it stands.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I had a telegram from the secretary of the society concerned saying that he does not wish this matter to be pressed.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: We know all about the telegrams. We get them telling us to do nothing rash. The Secretary of State understands and works that as a trick. He always professes to address warnings to us. He says, "I will withdraw the whole thing if you do not do exactly as I wish and strike the t's and dot the i's." In other words, we are not supposed to count. All I want here and elsewhere is that we should make a mark concerning every point of this kind and bring it home to the Scottish electors that every man who comes from Scotland to this House has to fight not only the Government but each party to which they may belong so that Scottish interests must be put in the front.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: This Debate indicates the inconvenience which arises on the rare occasions when the Socialists find it necessary in Committee to vote against the Government. As the Scottish representatives in the House are unanimously opposed to the Bill, we ought not to spend any more time on it.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not propose to go very deeply into the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee, but there is a point of substance to which the House ought to address its attention. I have always regarded the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee with respect, if not with awe, and I do not know if there is a precedent for the Scottish Standing Committee being brought into question by the Secretary of State for Scotland before the whole House later on. The Secretary of State would have been more relevant if he had addressed himself not so much to the Amendment but to why we as English Members should overthrow the decision of the Scottish Standing Committee. It has always been one of the unwritten but important rules of procedure of the House of Commons that certain technical matters are referred to Members who have a Special knowledge of them, and when these Members at great length discuss and resolve these

  2269
  questions the House has always sought very weighty reasons why it should be overthrown. Yet the Secretary for Scotland asks us in five minutes to overthrow the decision taken by the Scottish Standing Committee. If the work of this Committee is to be brought to nought to gratify—I am expressing a common opinion and using the word in its better sense—the obstinacy of the right hon. Gentleman, before we comply with his request the House should have further reasons and Members of all parties ought to carry their protest against this into the Lobby.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I only intend to intervene on the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick and Haddington (Colonel Crookshank) regarding the telegrams and the men's wishes. It was one of the things to which the Secretary of State for Scotland made reference-that the men, the employés, had used every pressure to bring this Bill on, with the inference that the men did not wish to press this Amendment. I do not think that that puts the case quite correctly. It is quite true that certain of the employés have approached us not to press this Amendment, but, on the other hand, it is equally certain that others of the men have asked us to press it. It cannot be gainsaid that all of them, if this House had been given a free and open discussion, would much sooner have had the Amendment carried. None of the men are opposed to the Amendment, but some of them have asked that it should not be pressed in case the Bill was withdrawn. The action of the Secretary of State for Scotland is simply blackmail. The person blackmailed is given no alternative but to accept the decisions of his blackmailers. Here comes the Secretary of State for Scotland within a week of the end of the Session and says, "You can have this Bill, not on fair, equal terms of open discussion, but only if you agree to my terms." All of the men con
  cerned would like to see this Amendment carried, but fear that if the Amendment be carried the Bill will be withdrawn, and for that reason certain of them have asked us not to press it. The employés are unanimous that this Amendment is desirable. I think that, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has many times stood by the Scottish Standing Committee for carrying reactionary Amendments, he should now stand by them in regard to this question. The Amendment would never have been carried in the Committee upstairs if it had not been for six of his own supporters who voted for it and four or five others who refused to vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case. It will not make for the smooth working of the Scottish Standing Committee, nor for that work being useful and interesting to Members if the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to take a decision and then come down here after twelve o'clock at night, make a short speech practically dismissing that decision, and appeal to Members not on the Scottish Standing Committee to support him as loyal supporters of the Government. He has no reason on his side, but simply a majority of Members of the Conservative party, and, like Members of any other party, they will support their own Government. It is a purely Scottish matter, and they can support the Government without any fear of protest from their constituencies. The Secretary of State for Scotland can claim no great credit for this matter.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Might I appeal to the Government to withdraw the Amendment?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 125.

  Division No. 477.]

  AYES.

  [12.37 a.m.

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Potts, John S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Edge, Sir William

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Windsor, Walter

  Fenby, T. D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Mr. Johnston and Mr. Macquisten.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Coff, Sir Park

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Albery, Irving James

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Apsley, Lord

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Hanbury, C.

  Ramsden, E.

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remer, J. R.

  Balniel, Lord

  Harland, A.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Holt, Captain H. P.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Long. Major Eric

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lumley, L. R.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

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

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macintyre, Ian

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Duckworth, John

  Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Wells, S. R.

  England, Colonel A.

  Meyer. Sir Frank

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Finburgh, S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ford, Sir P. J.

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Captain Bowyer and Major the

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

  Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)

  Marquess of Titchfield.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I do not intend to keep the House more than a very few moments, for I want the Bill. There are only two points that I want to put to the Lord Advocate, and the two points are contained in Clauses 15 and 16. In the case of Clause 15, it deals with the question of fees in workmen's compensation proceedings. Under the Sheriff Court Fees Act, we are paying fees in workmen's compensation cases that are out of all proportion to the fees paid in similar cases in England. As a matter of fact, our information is to the effect that in England there is no fee charged so far as the workman is concerned, and only very nominal fees in the case of the employer. When I raised the same point in Committee, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Lord Advocate, pointed out that no fees would be chargeable to the workman, but
  2272
  I pointed out, in reply to that, that if substantial fees were charged to the employer, the workman, according to our wages arrangements, so far as the mines are concerned, would be paying a considerable proportion of those fees. The expenses in workmen's compensation cases, even if paid by the employer, go to costs other than wages, and that is deducted from the proceeds in the Scottish coal trade before either wages or profit is payable. What is left is divided in the proportions of 87 to the workman and 13 to the employer, so that the fees, even if paid by the employer, are to a large extent borne by the workman. I pointed out that the Courts of the land ought to be free to the poorest litigant; there should not be any fees that would prevent even the poorest litigant from getting the advantage of putting his case before the Courts of the country.
  My second point is on Clause 16, where, in cases of fatal accidents where compensation is payable to the widows and orphans of those who have been unfortu-

  2273
  nate enough to lose their lives, fees to the extent of £2 per cent. have been taken under the Sheriff Court Fees Act. That means that, in some cases, widows and orphans who have been left have been charged as much as £12 for fees. Many of us consider that that was a scandalous charge. It only came into operation after the Sheriff Court Fees Act was passed; no charge was made previous to that. I hope the Lord Advocate can give us some explanation as to steps that can be taken to overcome the difficulties with which I am dealing.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not wish to delay the House, but I wish to address a, request to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill, as we all know, is not what we hoped it might have been. All of us who have had anything to do with it are disappointed with the result, and I think the Secretary of State for Scotland himself is disappointed. At the same time, we must admit that the condition of the existing staff would be improved when they come upon the establishment. That, I think, we must all admit. The request I wish to address to him is to give full consideration to the case of those men who will not come upon the establishment. The scheme was intended to deal with the whole of the Sheriff Courts and Procurators Fiscal staffs. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, there are certain men who will not come under the scheme and whose cases will have to be dealt with individually by the Department, and I trust that when these cases are dealt with it will be remembered that these men might have put up a case for consideration some years ago for an increase of salary, and that they refrained from doing so knowing that this general reorganisation was under consideration. Now that these cases are going to be considered, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give them the genuine consideration that unofficially he would wish to give them.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. W. Watson): The two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) were raised in Committee, and an answer was then given which I cannot do better than repeat. First of all, the effect of
  2274
  Clause 15 will be at long last to make the law of Scotland the same as the law of England as regards the payment or non-payment of any fees by the workmen in future. As regards any fees payable by the employer, the question of the amount falls to be fixed by the Court of Session, and it is not a matter which would be proper in the Bill. As regards the other point, the 2 per cent, fee which has been charged on investment of the capital moneys paid into Court as compensation, the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee stated after conference with me, I being of the same opinion, and the result of this provision that no fees in future were to be paid by any workman in respect of any proceedings would result in the abolition of the percentage charge being legal after the passing of this Bill. That is the position in England under an identical state of words. There are no such charges made, and our view was accepted by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) who withdrew his Amendment as a result of that being suggested to him. I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest content with that assurance, which I again repeat.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: I am not quite sure that the assurance that the Lord Advocate has given will be accepted as being quite satisfactory to the practising lawyer in the Courts in Scotland. I am afraid that a very considerable injustice is to be perpetrated upon poor persons who are unable to prosecute their claims for compensation and who may fail to have an organisation behind them. It will depend entirely on their means. I do not know to what extent that will be true, because I do not happen to he a lawyer, but I know that there is a considerable number of the Lord Advocate's friends on the other side particularly anxious that the men belonging to our occupation should not be in an organisation. They are very keenly desirous that individualist principles should apply. They pretend to be very friendly to the men so long as the men are not requiring any assistance, but when assistance is required their friendliness disappears. To those of us who are not merely Scottish Members but are also members of the Miners' Federation the question of costs, so far as compensation is concerned, is a very

  2275
  material matter. We are entitled to get some sort of assurance that in this Bill the position will not be worsened.
  That is all I wish to say with regard to that, but I want, on behalf of the Scottish Members on this side to protest against this Bill having been introduced in the manner in which it has been to-night, and the absolutely unfair and unreasonable attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I do not know that I have seen in my experience of Parliament a case where the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill of this character has introduced and carried an Amendment contrary to Scottish opinion in the Scottish Standing Committee, and has asked the House to pass the Third Reading of the Bill without attempting to give the Members who are not connected with the Scottish Standing Committee, and who, it may be reasonably inferred have not taken the same interest as Scottish Members, any explanation as to what this Bill is, and how it will affect the comparatively small number of people who are brought within its provisions. But, although the people affected are small in number, they are engaged in a very particular and onerous occupation, and it is one which certainly should have received very much more consideration from the Government than it has done.
  I am sorry it should be necessary to make such a protest, but there is a very considerable body of public opinion in Scotland, not confined to Socialists, but amongst the capitalists as well, that the time has arrived when. Scottish business should be conducted, in Scotland itself. We have here a very good illustration of the need for such being done. We on this side are very sorry that we should keep hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Sassenach fraternity out of their beds, but they have themselves to blame. If they had been wise enough to have gone away 20 minutes ago, the probability is that the Government would have been defeated. It would not have meant an election. They would have withdrawn the Bill. It is a poor, petty, miserable affair, and as far as Scottish opinion is concerned, it would not have mattered very much. I hope at least that those on this side who
  2276
  agree with me will carry the question of the rejection of the Bill to a Division.

  ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th July] "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 6."
  1.0 a.m.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to move this Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd). I can make the point which he wanted to make in a moment. It is regarding heavy traffic vehicles that unfortunately were not discussed in Committee upstairs in the absence of the hon. Member who was to move the Amendment. There is a great deal of anxiety among users of heavy industrial vehicles in regard to this Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Clause 6 refers to horse-drawn vehicles.
  Mr. BROWN: I am referring entirely to horse-drawn, slow-moving vehicles. I may say that the Scottish Horse and Motor Tractors' Federation view the Bill with great anxiety and the union of the men, comprising some 12,000 workers, agrees with the employers that the passing of the Bill in its present form without some provision for these horse, slow-moving vehicles would be detrimental to the industry as a whole and risky to the drivers of vehicles. I may say for the convenience of the House that these employers and workers have had some experience of carrying out the lighting of these slow-moving vehicles over heavy granite setts and where children are very numerous. Hon. Members opposite laugh, but if they understood the conditions under which these vehicles are handled they would not laugh at all. The vehicles positively invite children to take rides, and the drivers are fined for not having

  2277
  lights according to the Regulations. It is a practical point of very great importance to many thousands of men not merely in Scotland but in England and Wales as well. These employers and workers have had experience in trying to obey similar Regulations in the war period, and it was found that the rear lights were constantly damaged in more than one way by children and by others. It was difficult to keep them alight, and in the case of springless vehicles of this kind it was impossible to keep them alight. The result was that cases went into Court and relations between employers and employed became very strained indeed. Thus it is that employers and employed are very much opposed to the Bill in the form in which it is going through. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the view of his Department about the matter and whether there is any intention on the part of the Government if Amendments are moved in another place to take a neutral view about it, so that if the question is fully discussed as it has not been fully discussed on Second Reading or upstairs, he will try to meet those who have to face these difficulties in the industry. In addition to the initial cost, there is the risk of prospective fines and the cost of renewals after damage, because these slow-moving vehicles are always in danger of damage, all of which throws a burden on the industry.
  Sir F. MEYER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir J. NALL: Is this Motion in order at this stage of the adjourned Debate on the Third Reading? Is it in order to move a Motion to recommit the Bill?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, it is in order.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: I desire in a few words to support the Motion and to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) and the House generally to a point which I raised when the Debate was initiated at the end of July. The point concerned the Amendment relating to agricultural vehicles. I would like to remind the House—
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: On a point of Order. As the hon. Member
  2278
  has spoken in the Third Reading Debate, can he speak again?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a new question.
  Mr. CRAWFURD: It is a point of importance in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early stages, said that this Bill might very likely settle the regulation of the lighting of road vehicles for the next 15 or 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in circulating his draft Traffic Bill, earlier in the year, laid down in the memorandum of that Bill that the minimum lighting requirements shall be two white lights and a red light showing in the rear. During the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was moved that vehicles engaged in agricultural occupations should have one white light. I submit that vehicles of that kind carrying only one light crossing roads or turning into roads are a very real danger to other vehicles coming from the near side. This is not a party matter. We are all anxious to make this Bill such as not to place hardships upon anybody and such as will make the roads reasonably safe not only to motorists but to pedestrians. I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having put the Motion which I have upon the Paper and I am glad that there will be an attempt made to effect a compromise, so that when the Bill reaches another place it will reduce the number and nature of the vehicles that are exempted from carrying two lights. There is one other matter. A letter has been sent from the Homegrown Timber Merchants' Association, who ask for consideration of the matter in regard to the placing of rear lights on wagons carrying timber. I am anxious to make the Bill better than it is.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): In the first place, may I say how much I appreciate the manner in which the two hon. Members for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) have put their points and in confining their remarks to a few words. They are in agreement with the Bill as a whole, and I think I may take it that that is the view of the House. May I deal with the hon. Member for Leith, who stated that he was informed by the Association of Owners of Heavy Vehicles that it would be difficult, and in

  2279
  their experience it had been difficult, to keep the rear lamp alight when passing over heavy atones or granite setts. I think the hon. Member will agree that you should not reject the Third Reading of the Bill for that reason. It is obviously a matter that can be discussed in another place. I have an open mind on the subject, because I have not heard the point until this very moment. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, I have a good deal of sympathy. It is quite true that in Committee a Clause was put in at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) that agricultural vehicles should only have one white light in front on the offside instead of two. That is the only point in the Bill that has been under discussion since the Report stage, and I personally do see the point. A Resolution by some Members on this side of the House stated that they would favour a compromise on the lines that when engaged on internal horse-drawn agricultural vehicles should only carry one white light, but when they went outside the farm operations they should come under the law which applies to all other vehicles. The Government have a perfectly open mind on the matter, and I have not much doubt that in another place the view, which I think is the general view of the House at the present time, will be considered. Having said that, may I appeal to the House to give this Bill the Third Reading. It is not a party Bill; it is a useful Bill, if for no other reason than that it does make it possible for cyclists to go along dark roads at night without the danger of being ridden down. It will save lives and will be a great boon to the man who is driving a motor car. We all know how difficult it is to pick out the cyclist at night. I ask that the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill accordingly 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 confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes or townships of Burford, Fulbrook, and Upton and Signet, in the rural district of Witney, in the county of Oxford, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 Crowland, in the parts of Holland, in the county of Lincoln, and the parishes of Borough Fen and Newborough, in the rural district of Peterborough, in the Soke of Peterborough, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 parts of the perishes of Sal-combo Regis and Sidbury, in the rural district of Honiton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 parish of Hildenborough, in the rural district of Tonbridge, and part of the parish of Leigh, in the rural district of Sevenoaks, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 Stone and part of the rural district of Stone, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 Shoeburyness, in the county of Essex, which was

  2281
  presented on the 8th day of November, 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 Portmadoc, in the county of Carnarvon, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 borough of South Molton and the rural district of South Molton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 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 tinder the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Castle Donington, and parts of the rural districts of Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Loughborough, in
  2282
  the county of Leicester, and part of the rural district of Shardlow, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved,
  "That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1927 be approved." — [Lieut.-Colonel Headlamp.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.
  Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after One o'Clock.

  ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT.
  ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT.
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST. HELENS.
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST. HELENS.
  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (LOANS).
  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (LOANS).
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME, SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES, LONDON (SLIDING SCALES).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES, LONDON (SLIDING SCALES).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD FUND.
  ROAD FUND.
  GATTIE GOODS CLEARANCE SCHEME
  GATTIE GOODS CLEARANCE SCHEME
  CANAL BRIDGES.
  CANAL BRIDGES.
  NEW BRIDGE, RIVER CLYDE.
  NEW BRIDGE, RIVER CLYDE.
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCES.
  SLUM CLEARANCES.
  SUBSIDIES.
  SUBSIDIES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT (FUEL RESEARCH).
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT (FUEL RESEARCH).
  BREEZE SLABS AND BRICKS (IMPORTS).
  BREEZE SLABS AND BRICKS (IMPORTS).
  COTTON PIECE-GOODS (EXPORTS).
  COTTON PIECE-GOODS (EXPORTS).
  INTERNATIONAL STEEL CARTEL.
  INTERNATIONAL STEEL CARTEL.
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS (RECEIPT STAMPS, CUSTOMS).
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS (RECEIPT STAMPS, CUSTOMS).
  CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS (CHRISTMAS TRAFFIC).
  CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS (CHRISTMAS TRAFFIC).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITS).
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITS).
AGRICULTURE.
  MILLING OFFALS.
  MILLING OFFALS.
  NORTHERN IRELAND LIVESTOCK (DETENTION).
  NORTHERN IRELAND LIVESTOCK (DETENTION).
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  TREATMENT OF YOUNG OFFENDERS, SCOTLAND.
  TREATMENT OF YOUNG OFFENDERS, SCOTLAND.
  PRIVATE COMPANIES (STATISTICS).
  PRIVATE COMPANIES (STATISTICS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
EDUCATION.
  NEW SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  NEW SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  GIRL'S SCHOOL AND HOSTEL, GRAYS.
  GIRL'S SCHOOL AND HOSTEL, GRAYS.
POST OFFICE.
  POSTAL ORDERS (COUNTERFOILS).
  POSTAL ORDERS (COUNTERFOILS).
  FACILITIES, NORWICH.
  FACILITIES, NORWICH.
  TELEGRAPHY (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  TELEGRAPHY (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  HOLBORN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  HOLBORN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHADDESLY CORBETT.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHADDESLY CORBETT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

SCOPE OF LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a question which he has told me it will be convenient for him to answer upon private notice. My question is whether any estimate can be given of the number of business premises which will come under the Landlord and Tenant Bill and whether any statistics exist as to the number of those premises which are subject to the Rent Restrictions Act.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for having adopted the method he has adopted of putting his question by private notice rather than putting it on the Paper for to-morrow, when it would have interfered with the debate on the Prayer Book Measure. I am afraid, however, I have no means of giving him a very definite reply. There are, as far as can be ascertained some 2,000,000 business premises within the meaning of Part I of the Bill, but my noble friend is well aware that no such business premises will be affected by the provisions of the Bill except where it is alleged that there has been an improvement carried out by the tenant which has added to the letting value of the premises, or that goodwill has been created by the tenant and remains attached to the premises at the determination of the tenancy. As regards the number of those premises which come under the Rent Restrictions Act, my noble friend knows that the essential condition is that the premises form part of a dwellinghouse which is itself covered by the Rent Restrictions Act. Included in this condition are the provisions that

829
the premises must be under a certain value and must have been erected before the year 1919. As to what figure the number thus limited amounts to I have made careful inquiry, but there does not appear to be any kind of information in the Public Departments which would enable me to give an answer to my noble friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to indicate the course which I propose to pursue when the Motion for the adjournment of the debate is moved this evening. There is naturally a very general feeling in your Lordships' House that the debate upon the Prayer Book Measure should not be interrupted now and that it should be resumed when we assemble to-morrow in order that it should be carried to a Division before dinner. I think that no one who was present in your Lordships' House yesterday and who observes the attendance to-day, can fail to be conscious how deeply moved both the House and the public are upon this very important matter, and I am sure that it would be contrary to the wish of your Lordships that the debate should be interrupted by any other matter. Unfortunately, by, I suppose, an inadvertence of mine and at the very time when I was giving notice to your Lordships of the arrangement of business, a Motion was put upon the Paper by a noble friend of mine sitting opposite, which deals with agriculture. Agriculture is a great subject, but I think it must not be allowed to interrupt this very important debate. Therefore, by your Lordships' leave, I shall move when the Motion for the adjournment is made to-night an Amendment to the Motion so that it shall read:—"That the debate be now adjourned until to-morrow and be then taken first Order." This will make the matter absolutely regular so that your Lordships will know that as soon as we assemble to-morrow the Motion regarding the Prayer Book Measure will be at once proceeded with. I think that in taking that course I shall have the almost universal support of your Lordships' House.
I have only one other word to say about business. A very important Bill is to be
830
taken for Second Reading on Thursday, the Unemployment Insurance Bill. My noble friend Lord Peel, who is in charge of that Bill, is very anxious that the difficulty of understanding it should be mitigated as far as possible and he has therefore made arrangements that a White Paper should be prepared explaining details of the Bill. That matter has been put in hand and a good number of copies will be available this evening in the Printed Paper Office for any of your Lordships who care to ask for them. I hope that this also will lead to the convenience of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Marquess has anything to say about the hour at which we should meet to-morrow afternoon. It might be for the general convenience that we should meet a little earlier than usual. I will not press that point now, but the noble Marquess might like to say something when we adjourn, if your Lordships should think it necessary to meet earlier to-morrow afternoon in order that the debate may be concluded in good time before dinner.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, since the proposal which the noble Marquess is going to move to-night on the adjournment refers to a Motion standing in my name—["that agricultural land should be entirely relieved from all local rates by increasing the grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts"]—I rise merely to say that when he moves that Motion I will explain the reasons why I was not able to take it off, on the ground that this is a question of vital importance to agriculture in its present depressed state.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships House to meet earlier to-morrow and I have been in conference with my noble friends who have been kind enough to undertake the arrangement of business for this debate, which is not of course a Government matter. Up to a late hour last night there was not absolute agreement as to what the hour of meeting should be, but it will be either three o'clock or half past three. I will, if I may, take advantage of the suggestion of the noble Earl and announce the actual hour to the House at a later period this evening.

PRAYER BOOK MEASURE, 192—.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday, by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House to direct that the Prayer Book Measure, 192—, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE,who had given Notice to move to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "this House declines to proceed with the Prayer Book Measure, 192— until it is accompanied by a Measure to ensure order and discipline in the public worship of the Church of England," said: My Lords, it is a matter of extreme regret to me that I should find myself in opposition to the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and that this should be so on a matter which I know lies very near to his heart. For some twenty-five years he and my father worked together on the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I personally have to thank him and am indebted to him for kindnesses shown me over a long period of years. Although I fear that the most rev. Primate may disagree with some of the things that I shall have to say, I trust that he will find that I shall show nothing but the greatest respect both to him personally and to the high office which he holds.
I suppose in these days I may be considered a Low Churchman, and I must admit also that I view with considerable regret the advent of the new Prayer Book. I regret the new Book, partly because I dislike some of the changes which are made in the ritual of the Book as we used to know it, partly because I regret some of the changes made in the order of the services, and partly because I feel that two Books of Common Prayer admit of so many alternatives that I think it will be a matter of considerable difficulty to those who are attending churches to which they do not normally go to keep in touch with the services which they find in such places. Your Lordships are aware that some noble Lords go a great deal further than I do in those few words that I have said, in their opposition to the new Book. They view some of the changes in ritual with far greater alarm, they consider them destructive of the Protestant religion, and, feeling this, they are convinced that this House should
832
oppose at any rate parts of the new Prayer Book to the utmost of its ability and should veto the new Book for ever and quite definitely. That is not my view. I find myself agreeing with almost every word that was said by the most rev. Primate in the weighty speech that he made in this House last night, and, although I regret some of the changes that are made in the Book, I should not feel justified in voting against it were I convinced that the new Book would restore order and discipline in the services of the Church of England. Unfortunately I am convinced that such will not be the case.
The most rev. Primate referred to the Royal Commission which sat in 1906. He told your Lordships of the composition of that Commission, of its fourteen members whose names are well known to your Lordships and of the great work that they did in many directions. He told you also of the length of time that they sat, the meetings that they held and the number of witnesses that they examined. It is unnecessary, therefore, for me to say anything with regard to the weight which attaches to the recommendations of that Commission, and it is because I desire this House and Parliament to give full effect to its recommendations that I find myself standing here to-night to oppose the passage into law of the Measure which is before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have been reminded, I might say incessantly, of one of the conclusions of that Royal Commission. It was, I think, quoted by the most rev. Primate last night. It declared that the law of public worship in the Church of England was too narrow for the life of the present generation.
But you have seldom been reminded of the other conclusion at which the Royal Commission arrived, and I ask to be allowed to read it. It runs:—
"… . the machinery for discipline has broken down. The means of enforcing the law in the Ecclesiastical Courts, even in matters which touch the Church's faith and teaching, are defective and in some respects unsuitable. They have been tried and have often failed, and probably on that account they have been too much neglected."
The machinery for ensuring discipline in the services of the Church of England is the same to-day as it was in 1906, when the Royal Commission reported. We have before us in the Deposited

833
Book the proposals which are made by the Church Assembly to meet the first conclusion—that public worship should be widened—at which the Royal Commission arrived. Where are the recommendations to fulfil the second? Again may I quote from the Royal Commission?—
"With regard to the future we desire to state with distinctness our conviction that, if it should be thought well to adopt the recommendations we make in this Report, one essential condition"—
I ask your Lordships to mark these words—
"of their successful operation will be that obedience to the law so altered shall be required and, if necessary, enforced by those who bear rule in the Church of England."
The Royal Commission made ten recommendations. The first was that anti-Protestant services should be stopped, if necessary by proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The second and third, which I think were quoted by the most rev. Primate last night, were that new rubrics should be introduced making legal new ornaments in the church and the wearing of vestments and so on by the clergy, the permitting of wider services, the sanctioning of new prayers, hymns and special services. Recommendations four to nine were that increased powers should be given to the Bishops, that the Ecclesiastical Courts should be reconstituted, and that those Courts should have their powers enlarged. The tenth recommendation was that dioceses should be subdivided and made smaller so that the Bishops should have greater control over the Provinces under their charge.
The Royal Commission prefaced its recommendations with this significant sentence:—
"We desire to state that those of our recommendations which will require legislation are framed as a complete scheme and must be considered mutually dependent."
The Ecclesiastical Courts are constituted now as they were in 1906. The powers of those Courts and of the Bishops are now what they were then and yet this House is being asked to do exactly what the Royal Commission recommended it should not do—to pass this Measure for a wider form of worship into law independently of a Measure to enable the Bishops and Courts to ensure obedience to its provisions. I am aware that the most rev. Primate has made the following
834
pledge on behalf of the Bishops:—"You may take it from me as absolutely certain that the Bishops will require obedience and will do their utmost to secure it." May I say, and I am sure the whole House agrees, that I accept that pledge in the spirit in which it was made? May I also say that my interpretation of that pledge is different from that of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who seemed to think that it would take years in which to get discipline accepted by those who disagreed with the provisions of these two Books of Common Prayer. I understand the pledge to mean that the Bishops will at once do their utmost to get obedience to those Books of Common Prayer, and I trust that if I am not right we shall be told so before we are asked to vote on this Measure. My point, however, is this, not that the Bishops will not do their utmost, but that the most they can do under present conditions is and must remain inadequate.
May I be allowed to describe very briefly the powers which the Bishops at present have? This is a matter which is extremely complicated and I need hardly say that I speak under correction from the many ecclesiastical authorities sitting behind me. I trust that the summary I am giving is correct. It is, so far as I have been able to make it. Supposing a clergyman proceeds to carry on services which are not in accordance with either of these two Books of Common Prayer, and supposing his Bishop calls him to order, and insists that he shall desist from such services as the Bishop considers illegal: what then happens? If the clergyman refuses to obey the demands of his Bishop, the Bishop can admonish him, and if that fails he can then put that church under discipline, and by "under discipline" is meant that the Bishop then publicly announces that he will refuse ever to attend the church so long as those illegalities continue. I think you will agree that where an incumbent has already quarrelled with his Bishop to the extent of refusing to do what is required, it is not likely to be very effective if his church is then put under discipline.
What further can the Bishop do? He can summon that clergyman before the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Ecclesiastical Courts have been referred to on several occasions by various Commissions which

835
have sat upon the subject. The Ecclesiastical Courts Commission of 1883 and the Royal Commission of 1906 were both of them extremely severe in what they said with regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts. They remarked that their composition was such that many clergymen refused to recognise the authority of those Courts. They remarked that the practice of those Courts was academic, that the delay and expense were excessive, and above all, that the only punishment those Courts could inflict was the totally unsuitable one of imprisonment. I disagree with Lord Phillimore, who seemed to be satisfied that the punishment of imprisonment was adequate and suitable for this purpose.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl will forgive me. I speak with knowledge. The ordinary practice is to deprive a man of his living, and under the Public Worship Regulation Act you can imprison him.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble and learned Lord did not refer to that in his speech last night, and at any rate the rest that I have said is true—namely, that the Courts are slow and archaic in their methods, and expensive. I cannot conceive that any Bishop would desire to institute long and expensive proceedings against a clergyman under conditions such as those. It may be said that I am giving less than fair consideration to the moral suasion exercised by the Bishops. I trust I am doing nothing of the kind, but I would point out that it has been said over and over again that the Bishops have found it impossible to obtain discipline in the Church because so many parts of the service to which we are all accustomed are not in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer as it at present exists, and that therefore they were unable in certain cases to bring the clergy to order for doing what was illegal, when in other cases it was quite obvious that although equally illegal, it was a matter in which everybody agreed. Surely, in cases such as that, it is not necessary to refer to the orders and rubrics of the Prayer Book. If moral suasion by the Bishops were adequate it would be unnecessary to introduce a new Book.
Since history has a habit of repeating itself, may I refer to another matter mentioned by the Royal Commission of 1906? They quote several cases in which
836
a Bishop found certain practices going on in his diocese of which he disapproved and he thereupon on more than one occasion suggested a compromise. He suggested that if these clergy gave up certain services which he thought should not be allowed to continue, he, on the other hand, would agree to services which were equally illegal and which he thought were less harmful. In those cases I believe many of the clergy agreed to the compromise at once; some of them agreed to it after persuasion, and a few of them refused to accept the compromise at all. What happened? When it was found that no further action was going to be taken against the extremists, a certain number of the clergy who had agreed to the compromise drifted back, and proceeded again to continue with the services of which their Bishop had disapproved. Will any of your Lordships say that in the future, if this Book passes into law and if it is found impossible again to take action against the extremists, there will not once more be a drifting back by some of those who have accepted the persuasions and the orders of their Bishop?
I venture to say that the right time to institute discipline is at the moment when you are giving greater liberty, and that the Royal Commission was perfectly right in saying that these two questions are interdependent and should be brought forward together. I suggest to your Lordships that we should be right to postpone this Measure for wider services and for alterations in the ornaments of the Church until Parliament has before it at the same time a Measure to increase the power of the Bishops, to reconstitute the Ecclesiastical Courts and to add to the powers that those Courts possess. The delay need not be long. A Committee of the Church Assembly under the Chairmanship of the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York has been sitting on this subject for some time. They have issued a Report, which I understand is before the Church Assembly. All that is required is to translate that Report into the form of a Bill, to get it approved by the Church Assembly and passed by that Assembly through all its stages, and then to bring it before Parliament. It seems to me that if the Church Assembly really so desires, there is no reason why that legislation should not be before this House next year.

837
May I briefly anticipate some of the arguments that may be used against me for suggesting a postponement of this Measure? I may be told that a postponement will increase the chaos and disorder in the Church. Your Lordships were told last night by the most rev. Primate that the proposals which have culminated in this Book have been under consideration for some twenty-one years. For the purposes of my argument—because I wish to be perfectly fair—I would prefer to take the later date, the date when the Church Assembly was first constituted and when the Letters of Business were laid before it to produce a wider form of service. The Assembly, as your Lordships are aware, was constituted in the year 1920. Therefore it is hardly for members of the Church Assembly, or for others, to lay blame on Parliament for holding up this Measure for one year when they themselves, quite rightly as I think, have taken seven years to produce it. Again, I may be told that to pass a Measure of discipline at the same time as you pass this new Prayer Book is making a threat against the clergy. I fail to understand why it should be considered a threat against the clergy if we pass a Measure by which those who disobey the orders of their Bishops and the rubrics of the new Prayer Book should be dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Courts or by their Bishops if they choose to disobey the law. You might just as well say that, if it were proposed that those who drive a motor car to the danger of the public should be imprisoned without the option of a fine, such a proposal would be a threat against the general body of the motoring public. Nobody would consider that a threat, except those who intended to disobey the law. To those it is a threat, but to no one else.
I differ in this from the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. He seemed to think that if the Bishops were armed with a Measure of discipline they would go to those who disagreed with them with the Prayer Book in one hand and the Measure of discipline in the other. Such a suggestion never entered my head. I am the last person to wish that the Bishops should act like drill-sergeants. I trust, and I believe, that they will act with the greatest tact and the greatest consideration; but when a clergyman flouts the authority of his Bishop, and when he makes it perfectly clear that
838
he is not going to obey him, then I want that Bishop to have power at hand in order to be able to deal with him at once. I believe that if you deal with the extremists in that way you will find that the clergy who have not quite made up their minds, and who are rather inclined to disobey the orders of their Bishops, will think twice and thrice before they actually do so, and that they will come into line far more readily. Personally, of course, I have only the layman's knowledge of the law, but I know of no law which has been produced which does not contain a clause imposing penalties on those who disobey its provisions, and I see no reason why in this particular instance Parliament should be asked to pass a law when it is perfectly well known that there is no power to obtain obedience to its provisions.
What are the arguments for postponement? As I see them they are these. First, I think your Lordships would agree that it is far more difficult to regain control once it has been lost than to maintain control from the beginning. I suggest that the right moment to get control is when you are passing this new Book, giving wider services and other liberties, rather than to wait for several years until disobedience to its provisions has developed and has been proved. Secondly, consider the position of the Bishops. Your Lordships have been told that the occupants of the Episcopal Bench have given pledges that they will do their utmost to see that obedience is maintained. If they wait until they find that they have been unable to fulfil that pledge, and then come back to Parliament and ask Parliament for power, saying that they are unable to fulfil their pledge to maintain discipline until their powers have been increased, personally I can imagine nothing more derogatory to the authority of the Bishops than that they should be placed in a position such as that.
Thirdly, as regards the passage of a Discipline Measure into law, I understand that it will be no easy matter to get a Measure of discipline passed by the Church Assembly. It raises many difficult questions—the authority of the Bishops and matters with which many people are not entirely in agreement. I submit that it will render the passage of that Measure through the Church Assembly far easier if it is realised that

839
until they can agree on a Measure of discipline which they can present to Parliament they will not be able to get this new Book, which the large majority of them desire to have. I submit, therefore, that it will help to get this Discipline Measure through the Church Assembly if they feel that they cannot get the Book until they do so. Fourthly, I think the whole Episcopal Bench will agree that they are anxious, I might say more than anxious, to allay the fears of those who feel that this new Book is a step, and only a first step, in making the services of the Church less Protestant than we have known them. Would it not help if it were realised that this Book is to be the Book which we will adopt, and that anything beyond this Deposited Book will not merely be discountenanced by the Bishops, but will be stopped?
Fifthly, I submit this point. It is, I think, an open secret, in fact the most rev. Primate said so quite frankly, that the prayers for the King were made optional by an inadvertence. If we delay the passing of this Measure it enables the Book to be taken back to the Church Assembly for the Church Assembly to insert a rubric making the prayers for the King not voluntary but compulsory in the Morning and Evening Services of the Church. It is reported, I am told, by the Royal Commission that prayers for the King were illegally omitted in the past as long ago as 1906. At that time they were omitted illegally and I submit to your Lordships it is not likely that they will be put into this Book any more when it is now made legal to omit them. I submit, and I think the Episcopal Bench will agree, that it would be far better to put into a rubric that the prayers for the King are compulsory than that it should be left to an instruction from the Bishops which, of course, would have far less legal authority than would a rubric in the Book.
With reference to the Parliamentary side of the question, supposing this new Book does not bring the order and discipline which have been promised for it, in what position is Parliament placed? If any Measure were brought into either House of Parliament to give the Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Courts greater powers, I think your Lordships will agree that we should at once be told that it was a matter the details of which should
840
first be considered by the Church Assembly which was set up for the purpose, and I think we should be told so quite rightly. Even if that objection were brushed aside, your Lordships will realise, I know, that it would be impossible for a Measure of that kind, which obviously could not be a Government Measure, to be passed through both Houses of Parliament in one Session and to become law. No, I venture to submit to your Lordships that the right procedure is that we should retain our hold over the new Book until it is accompanied by a Measure of discipline. In that way we shall be able to bring pressure on the Church Assembly to see that the recommendations of the Royal Commission are given effect to, and we shall not be divorcing the wider service from the Measure of discipline which the Royal Commission said should be kept together and treated as one part of one great subject. No one will deny that the lack of discipline in the Church in the past has been bad for the country. It has been stated constantly, and it has been stated all over the country during the past month, that this new Book is necessary in order to restore discipline in the services of the Church of England. How much worse will it be for the country if it is found that, although this new Book has been passed into law, lack of discipline and order still persist in the services of the Church?
May I quote to your Lordships for the last time from the Report of the Royal Commission? It says:—
"It is important that the law should be reformed and that it should admit of reasonable elasticity, and that the means of enforcing it should be improved; but above all that it should be obeyed. That a section of clergymen should, with however good intentions, conspicuously disobey the law, and continue to do so with impunity, is not only an offence against public order, but also a scandal to religion and a cause of weakness to the Church of England."
It is because I believe that it would be unwise of the Church, wrong of Parliament and bad for the country if we passed this Measure into law until it is accompanied by a Measure to ensure discipline that I have ventured to put upon the Paper the Amendment which stands in my name. I understand, however, that if I were now to move it I should limit the debate to the question of discipline only and I should preclude your Lord-

841
ships from dealing with other points in this matter on which you desire to address this House. Moreover, as my Amendment implies and as I intended that it should imply, although I and those who think with me dislike some provisions in the new Book, we should not feel justified in voting against it once it was accompanied by a Measure to restore discipline. Those who whole heartedly oppose parts of the new Book obviously could not vote for a resolution carrying an implication of that kind. Therefore, they would be unable to support it and it would be necessary to have a second Division.
I am anxious not to limit the debate on this great question, and as I and those who think with me on the matter of discipline find ourselves compelled to vote against the Book as circumstances are now, it is obvious that we shall have to oppose the Resolution moved by the most rev. Primate. Therefore, as I am anxious not to limit the debate and as I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of two Divisions, I do not propose to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. I trust, however, your Lordships will realise that though we are actuated by no petty motive in regard to this great Measure we feel strongly about it and feel that it is our duty to oppose the Motion which has been proposed by the most rev. Primate.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in the debate on this subject to-day. Indeed, I had not intended to attend the debate or to vote on this question. But on thinking the matter over it occurred to me that I should be guilty of an act of cowardice if I shrank from expressing my opinion upon the matter now before your Lordships. I will, therefore, ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while I make some observations which I think are to the point. I have no sort of intention of discussing the provisions in the Deposited Prayer Book. I do not think those are subjects which come properly within the scope either of this House of Parliament or the other; but I have certain observations to make in regard to the dangers which I see in connection with this matter and to which I desire to invite your Lordships' attention.
We have been told, and it has just been alluded to by Lord Stanhope, that
842
the primary reason of this Measure is the desire to carry out measures for a greater enforcement of the law in regard to order and discipline. We have also been told that it is the intention of the ecclesiastical authorities to make such enforcement operative and decisive. The enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline is, on the face of it, desirable, but if you wish for an argument to show that such enforcement is not always desirable and not always possible you have it in the reason alleged for the introduction of this Measure. I will ask your Lordships for one moment to carry your memories back fifty years. I believe, though I am not quite certain of the date, that it is just fifty years since the Public Worship Regulation Act was introduced into Parliament. The reason for that Measure was precisely the same as that which is assigned for the present Measure—a desire to increase facilities for order and discipline. The Queen was vehement on its behalf, so was the Prime Minister, so was the Archbishop of Canterbury, so were most of the Bishops, so were both Houses of Parliament. There was much discussion and much heartburning, but eventually the Measure was carried with a considerable amount of approval, certainly with the approval of those in authority.
One priest in the suburbs of London, when it became law, refused to obey it. He was promptly sent to Holloway Gaol and I rather think, if my memory serves me, that five other clergy in different parts of the country followed his example and one of them was shut up in Lancaster Castle for something like the best part of a year. The Archbishop of Canterbury will remember the circumstances. What was the result and what is the final result that we see to-day? It is that precisely the things for which those clergy were put into prison are the things which the Deposited Book is now attempting to legalise, and not only so but the Book states definitely and positively that those particular matters for which those clergy were sent to prison are entirely in accordance with the mind and practice of the Church of England. I do not think your Lordships will deny that time brings its revenges. I think, however, if we are well advised we shall also endeavour to profit by its lessons.
Whatever may be the fate of the Deposited Book in Parliament and the

843
special Measure I do not suppose that anybody for a moment will consider that the clergy who were aimed at by the Public Worship Regulation Act are in the least likely to be interfered with in regard to those matters to-day. If that be the case what becomes of all these promises and undertakings to enforce eccleciastical order and discipline? I have no doubt it will be said that there are other matters besides those particular matters which are specially mentioned in the Deposited Book that ought to be taken in hand, just as it will be said that no one who dislikes the Deposited Book will be bound to accept it. I would like to ask very seriously whether that statement is entirely true. In connection with the Deposited Book, rubrics have been made, rubrics have been altered and various changes—not perhaps really important or, rather, some of them are not very important—have been made in regard to the public services of the Church of England. In regard to the statement that if this Measure is agreed to by Parliament steps will be taken to enforce discipline in the Church, I would ask your Lordships to consider, in view of past experience, what is the likelihood of a successful effort to enforce that discipline in respect to some of the changes in regard to which the enforcement of that discipline will have to take place?
There is a large number of clergy who will have nothing to do with the Deposited Book and they are not only anxious in regard to some of its provisions, but they are also troubled by the effect that the rubrics passed in regard to the Deposited Book may have upon the present Book of Common Prayer. What is likely to be their attitude if any attempt is made to coerce them? There are also other services. I do not wish to enter into details, but I desire, in order that your Lordships may be able to judge as to the future, to mention a few. There is first of all the change in the celebration of Holy Communion. That is a change which alters what has been the practice of the Church of England ever since the days of St. Augustine and, if carried, will necessitate the alteration of every single book of private devotion in regard to Holy Communion throughout the country. It may or may not be desirable, but at all events it is a matter of some importance. Next you have the proposals in
844
regard to the Athanasian Creed. I ask you to carry your memories back far enough to what happened in the days of Dr. Pusey and Canon Liddon who threatened to give up their preferments if not dissimilar changes were forced upon them. There are changes in regard to the Marriage Service and the Baptismal Service, not perhaps very important in themselves but one of which, by implication, affects words of our Lord in regard to Noah and the Flood, and the other flatly contradicts the definite statement of St. Paul in the Epistle. Those are matters about which people are likely to feel very seriously.
Then I should like to ask—and this has reference to what fell from my noble friend Earl Stanhope—how your Lordships suppose the ecclesiastical authorities will be able to deal with the view which is held by a great many of the clergy, and which has a great deal to support it in the history of the Church? How, for instance, will they deal with the view of the clergy who deny the right of any Bishop to forbid the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in the parish church? The suggestion in regard to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is that it should be only for the sick and for the benefit of those who are prevented from coming to the parish church. Do they suppose that those clergy are in the least likely to acquiesce in an alteration of their view of what may be due to our Lord in the reserved Sacrament, or that it will make any difference in regard to that in the celebration of Holy Communion in the ordinary service? I think you must know very little of the temper of the clergy in England, or in South Africa and other Colonies, and largely in America, if you think there is the least probability of their assenting to any change in their belief or their custom in regard to these matters.
I will not go further into particulars, but I want to make one or two other remarks. Our difficulties in England and in regard to the English Church are difficulties which arise from our divisions and disputes. Those are the things more than anything else which want mending. Do you think that these difficulties and divisions can possibly be met by any Act of Parliament? Acts of Parliament can do nothing in the matter. They can only aggravate, and what we should really ask ourselves in regard to all the Measures

845
brought forward is, in what way are they likely to remedy our divisions or in what way are they likely to increase them? That is what we have to ask ourselves. For my own part I think that our divisions largely arise from ignorance—almost every speech that you hear shows how very much there is to learn—and from prejudice. I believe, though you will perhaps think it rather a presumptuous statement, that if, for instance, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Thomas Inskip and myself could be shut up together, there is every good reason for thinking that we should come to an understanding and a very considerable measure of agreement.
I think the difficulties which are likely to arise in regard to all questions of enforcing discipline and in regard to the different provisions connected with the Deposited Book, reveal great possibilities of danger in the future. I would ask in the interests of peace, in the interests of the real welfare of the Church of England, whether we cannot, without any recourse to Parliament, all try to do something to bring us together? Why cannot their Lordships the Bishops, in their various dioceses, call meetings of leading members of the different parties in the Church and try to see if they cannot be brought together? Why cannot they imitate the example of the discussions which have taken place during the last five years at Malines which have had such wonderful results? I believe there is hardly anything better that could be done, with God's blessing, to bring us together. If that be done there might be, a little later, a revision of the Prayer Book which might be agreed to by all.
I have never been able to understand why the Episcopate as a body did not support the proposal of the Archbishop of York some time ago, that where it was wished the first Prayer Book of Edward VI might be acquiesced in. That Prayer Book has the full sanction of Parliament. It is the first edition of our Prayer Book. It was used by Archbishop Cranmer, by Bishop Latimer and by Bishop Ridley and the other reformers. Bishop Gardener had been willing to acquiesce in it. It has a history which is very important from every theological point of view. Those who rejoice in the name of Protestant could not possibly object to a Liturgy of that sort with such
846
a history, and people such as myself would rejoice in it, too. I speak with knowledge because that Liturgy, with the acquiescence of two Archbishops of York, has been used in a church in Yorkshire for over twenty-five years, and I have full experience of it. Every sort of person has worshipped in that church, but there has never been a single complaint, not one.
If that proposal had been agreed to I believe it would have brought us all together. People might have been surprised at first, but they would have got accustomed to it. We should have been brought together and there is no sort of reason why a little later on revision might not have been carried on with every one's good will and consent. The Archbishop of York, I have no doubt, will tell your Lordships that no one supported him in that proposal. I can only say—and I say it with great deference to him—that if he had persevered in his proposal I think he would very soon have found what little real weight there was behind the silence of which he complained. What I have said I have said in the interests of peace and unity. We are told that a house divided against itself falls. That is what we all ought to lay to heart.
I have only one other word. It is this. My apprehension about the revised Prayer Book is that it will not bring peace and that it will not bring order. I think the two Prayer Books and the discussions in church councils throughout the country are simply an invitation to strife and difficulty. I am quite certain that on the lines on which I have spoken much, and very much, might be done. But, having said this, I have too great a respect and, if I may be allowed to say so, too great a personal affection for the Archbishop of Canterbury to vote against this Measure. I shall not vote against it, on those personal grounds. I cannot vote for the Measure, more especially in view of the speech of Lord Stanhope and the sort of things that I hear said in different places about the necessity of coercion, because I cannot take the responsibility of supporting any Measure which contemplates action of that sort. I believe that coercion of that kind is absolutely impracticable and most undesirable.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, we have just listened to a most interesting and constructive speech, and I should like to accept the test which Lord Halifax suggested—namely, whether the adoption of the revised Prayer Book is likely to lead to peace and unity or to division and discord. I want to state quite shortly it is my view—though no doubt there will be some divided opinions—that on the balance of all considerations the House would be well advised to support the Resolution of the most rev. Primate, on the very ground to which Lord Halifax has referred, that it is likely to promote a greater measure of peace and unity. I may say, too, that I agree with what was said by Lord Halifax on the question of discipline. I regard comprehensiveness as one of the great features to be preserved in our English Church, and it is because, I think, this comprehensiveness has been allowed that there is so large a measure of loyalty towards the Church among the English people.
I admit that I am entirely out of accord with the view stated by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I believe that in matters of religion and conscience, coercion, which has been tried more than once, is certain to fail and I particularly agree with what Lord Halifax said regarding the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874. I do not propose on this occasion to discuss matters of ecclesiastical law, and I am sure that the noble Earl would not desire me to do so, particularly now that he has not proceeded with his Amendment. But there is no doubt that that Act has failed to be enforced over a long period of years because the public conscience of this country is opposed to putting men in prison on matters of religious conscience when it is satisfied at the same time that they are convinced of the truth of their action. As regards the five persons put in prison, I certainly agree with what Lord Phillimore said in his speech last night and I do not wish to go back to that point. I do, however, feel most strongly that, when the time comes, I shall find myself in opposition to any scheme of so-called discipline which would interfere with the comprehensiveness that is now allowed in our English Church, and I shall certainly be opposed to any measure of coercion which would put those who hold certain
848
religious opinions in risk of imprisonment and coercive punishment.
So far as matters now stand, there appears to me to be ample power, within the existing powers which the Bishops now exercise in order to obtain loyal co-operation in bringing unity and peace, within the terms of this proposed Measure for the revision of the Prayer Book. Indeed I go a little further. I am one of those who think that perhaps too much power, if we are to draw a distinction, has been given to the Bishops under the proposed Measure as it now stands. There are seventeen cases in which authority of decision is given to Bishops under conditions in which they have no such authority at the present time. Perhaps I may add that some years ago I procured the Second Reading of what might be perhaps called a Discipline Bill in the other House on the basis of giving the particular Bishop, not a coercive power, but a persuasive power in order to deal with certain clergy who at that time were said to be disobedient to the ecclesiastical law. That Bill received a Second Reading, but it was subsequently rejected on two grounds: (1), that you would get great variety of decision by giving a power of that kind to individual Bishops; and (2), that if you did give that power you must protect the clergymen concerned by a very excellent appeal court. I still hold that opinion, and I think that the noble Earl will really find that the complaint which he makes that there is not sufficient power given to the Bishops in this Measure ought rather to be considered from the other point of view, in order that we may preserve the comprehensiveness of our Church as far as possible.
I do not wish to follow further the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax. He has special views of a very definite kind on these Church questions. I realise the sincerity and conviction with which he speaks, but I doubt very much whether, so long as he retains the standpoint which he is known to entertain at the present moment, there can be any possibility of any proposals to bring about that concordat between all parties in the Church which, in my opinion, is the most desirable result that could possibly be obtained. I think that he will have to make concessions in the first place and, until we know what those concessions

849
would be and how far they are likely to go, I for one will certainly on no ground of that kind cast my vote against the Resolution that has been moved by the most rev. Primate.
I want to confine what I have to say, apart from the comments which I have made, entirely to the position of Church laymen. It is in connection with Church laymen that I have always taken an interest in these ecclesiastical questions. More than forty years ago I became a member of the House of Laity of the Province of Canterbury, and more than twenty years ago I became Chairman of that Assembly. As Chairman, I was asked to bring forward before the then Representative Church Council a resolution, expressing the opinion that a Church established was not inconsistent with a Church having full spiritual independence. It was on that resolution, which was accepted with only one dissentient in the Representative Church Council, that the most rev. the Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed the Committee whose Report resulted in the drafting of the Enabling Act. I would do nothing which in my opinion would weaken the effect of that Act. I regard it as the Magna Charta of the Church layman. It has given him a recognised position for the first time. It has given him authority for the first time, and it has to a very large extent indeed created an interest which he never before felt in Church matters. I regret, in regard to the figures which have been quoted, that the electoral rolls have not been more largely signed, but I do not think that that is other than what we should expect, having regard to the short time during which that Act has been in operation.
When this question of the revision of the Prayer Book first came before the Church Assembly and the House of Laity I was Chairman of the House. I wish to express my opinion that on every occasion—and certainly that was my own view—the House of Laity, desiring to promote peace and unity, avoided extreme views or extreme opinions, and I do not think that any body, even if imbued with the views of Lord Halifax, could have used its influence more directly and more immediately in the direction of peace and unity between all sections of the Church. I want to speak on behalf of laymen who
850
go to church. They are the people for whom we ought to provide. They are the people for whom these services should be as suitable as we can make them. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the speech which he made yesterday, quoted from a resolution of the House of Laity when the matter was passing out of their hands, at the time when this question had been discussed before them. I am in entire agreement with every word of that resolution, which was in these words:—
"That while this House believes that the great majority of the laity are satisfied with the present service of the Holy Communion"—
I am certain that that is true of the vast majority of the laity in this country who take an interest in Church matters. They do not, however, stop there. It is not sufficient to stop still in matters of this kind. You have to have regard to the tendencies of your age, and to direct the Church, if you love it as most laymen do, or endeavour to direct it, in the right direction. The resolution continued:—
"the House will nevertheless agree to the insertion by the Bishops in the Prayer Book of one alternative form containing provision for vestments and reservation for the sick only, if in their opinion"—
that is, of course, the opinion of the Bishops—
"this will promote peace and order in the Church."
I am entirely in agreement with the test taken in that resolution.
Will the alternative Communion Service in the Prayer Book promote peace and order in the Church? Of course, to answer a question of that kind means an uncertainty, because the question arises as regards the future, and we can only hope to see what the future will bring out by what the past history has been. I understand, however, and I think the Archbishop of Canterbury made it quite clear, speaking yesterday, that in the opinion of the Bishops this alternative service will promote peace and order in the Church. If that result be obtained, of course it is a result which we all wish. I have had a large experience of the opinion of Church laymen during the last forty years. As already stated, I was their first Chairman in the new House of Laity, but owing to the progress of time and age I resigned before the revisions of the Prayer Book had been finally con-

851
sidered; but I have looked through the whole course of procedure, and I find no difference between the original attitude taken by the House of Laity and that which they finally adopted. Their attitude was this. "Give us peace and order. Let us get rid of disunion. Let us agree in the truth of God's Holy Word. If that can be assured, and if you, the Bishops, tell us your view is that it will be assured, we are willing and desirous to assent to the alternative form of Holy Communion, although, merely for our own wishes, we should be contented with the old single form."
There are one or two matters in addition upon which I should like to say a word. As I think Lord Hanworth stated in his speech yesterday, I am one of those who feel some doubt whether the alternative Communion Service has not introduced a new doctrine, and my doubt is perhaps enhanced by the omission from the alternative service of what is called for the sake of convenience (of course it is not an apt phrase) the Black Rubric. But, although that has been my opinion, I am willing to accept, and do accept in all sincerity, the views stated yesterday by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury when he assured us, as I understood in concord with the opinions of all the Bishops, that there was no new doctrine whatever in the alternative service, although I presume it is thought that the change in regard to vestments and rubric would make that service more palatable for those for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, so often speaks. If I accept that, as I do, that brings me to the conclusion that, desirous as I am to have peace and order in the Church, if the Archbishops and Bishops, with their knowledge and authority, tell me that they have convinced themselves that that will be the result, then I for one will cordially support the present Motion moved by the most rev. Primate.
I am not particularly convinced myself by the Report of the Royal Commission which came out more than twenty years ago. There has been, I think, an enormous change of opinion since that date, a change of opinion in the direction of a desire to encourage sincerity of conviction in Church matters and to grant, as Lord Hanworth said, the same freedom to others that you claim for yourself. I have never looked with anything like distaste upon the conditions in the
852
Diocese of London. On the contrary, I believe that in the aggregate what has been called disorder in the Diocese of London has largely contributed to an increase of Christian work and Christian spirit. We have to see how these matters change from time to time. I know, of course, that there is some very real doubt among laymen about the advisability of the alternative Communion Service. I had to-day a letter from a messenger, one of the most active women messengers in the Diocese of Oxford, where I live. I will not read the letter, but I will quote just a sentence because it is so obviously sincere. She says: "I fear from my experience it will cause great division in every parish." That is the serious outlook on the other side. But, on the whole, I believe that is not true. On the whole I believe we shall have a greater measure of unity and order, and upon that point there are no greater authorities in this country than the Archbishops and Bishops.
One of the most saintly of our Bishops, who was my adviser on matters of this kind, but who now is dead, told me the last time I met him, very shortly before his death, that he deplored more than he could tell me this disunion and disorder in the Church. Looking back this morning on letters and memoranda, I felt sure that if he were alive to-day he would whole-heartedly support the Motion of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and on this ground. He said once: "My experience of the Church at the present moment is that it does not attract as it should the young and eager spirits who are wishing for Christian direction and idealism. It is a great misfortune that we are mixed up in these matters of disunion and discussion. Let us get rid of them as soon as we can; let us concentrate on the life and words of Christ, and let us push forward, in every direction of ethics and morality, real, united Christian practice, and then there will be no complaint either that our Christianity is half-hearted or that our Churches are empty of congregations."
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) has more than once let you into his mind. You can see that he is not at all happy about the Measure, though he is going to vote for it. He

853
is not confident that the peace which he thinks he is going to get from it will, in fact, materialise, but he has such a regard and reverence for the Bishops' Bench that he must vote for it all the same. He followed the pathetic and wonderful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax. I am inclined to think that anybody who, like myself, is, for various reasons which I hope to give you directly, a convinced opponent of this Measure may very well allow Lord Halifax's speech to answer all the purposes that we have in view.
Nevertheless, there is a duty resting upon us, and upon me in particular, a duty of real sadness. It falls to me to be the first of my brethren to rise from this Bench in opposition, and that is a task which no man takes in hand inadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; nor, if I may say so, do I do it because my right rev. brother the Bishop of Norwich has kindly written my speech. He really has not. There is added to the task an element of quite poignant distastefulness when to oppose the Measure is also to oppose the dear desires of the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the vigorous acme of long and eventful years spent in the service of your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the constantly growing esteem and regard which you have for him. Nothing but the clear conviction that truth is at stake can justify such a separation from the most rev. Primate, and the proverb that Socrates is dear, and Plato is dear, but truth is dearer still, seems somehow to have been invented in order to put heart into a nervous man who finds himself unequally matched against two most rev. Primates.
Yet, if the minority were now to be silent your Lordships would have just reason to complain of being seriously misled. Let me put my point in words which, as it happens, are not mine:
"I think it extremely unfortunate that a delusive unanimity should mark the Episcopal Bench, and that the impression should be conveyed to the public—an impression which is certainly false—that the general opinion of the Church of England is behind this Bill."
Those words were spoken on the Bishop of Oxford's Liquor (Popular Control) Bill by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I believe that if you substitute "Measure" for "Bill" the
854
statement is much truer in the present case. Here, I will venture to say, the unanimity, the impression of unanimity, is vastly more delusive and insistence upon it is more dangerous than in the case of that Bill. I cannot but think it deplorable that the printed records of the Bishops' long discussions, or at least the figures of their many divisions on controverted points, have not been released for publication. If that were done—and honour compels me not to do any such thing—your Lordships would realise that the prevalent impression of a Divine inspiration guiding the results is only to be maintained at the cost of ruling out of any such afflatus those who on grounds of conscience voted mostly in the minority.
What, then, is the conscientious conviction which, after all these years of labour, after having been present myself at every single day of the long deliberations, can justify a man in my position in asking your Lordships not to assent to this Book as it stands? For a great part of it I am thankful beyond words, and I used the little powers which I possess to make that part of it more thankworthy than it was when it reached the House of Bishops. But I am convinced that the changes which it makes in the Communion Service and its adjuncts involve corresponding changes in the doctrine of the Church of England. Therefore, when your Lordships read these now familiar words of the Preface—
"If the minds of any be troubled because we have allowed another Order of Holy Communion as well as the old, and have made further provision for the communion of the sick, let them not think that we mean thereby any change of doctrine or intend that the Sacrament be used otherwise than as our Lord Himself appointed—"
I venture to ask you to include me among those who are troubled in mind; and I beg your leave to tell you why.
I ought at this point to make my apology to those members of your Lordships' House who are convinced adherents of the Roman Catholic Church. But I understand from some words which fell yesterday from the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, that those members contract themselves out of the present discussion and, therefore, I will speak as freely as if they were not here. I think I am not putting it brutally when I say—indeed, the words are practically Bishop

855
Creighton's own and he was never brutal—that the purpose of the great movement which brought the Church of England into separate and independent existence was that it might "turn the Mass into a Communion." The effort of the Church of England has, therefore, been to make the Holy Communion a service for the people to which they come prepared to receive the gifts of grace in the way in which the Lord has appointed. For years past there has been a powerful effort, splendidly and consistently led by the aged and noble Viscount to whom you have listened to-night, a movement on the part of men whose devotion to their own ideals is beyond any praise of mine, but whose purpose was to get beneath this basic purpose of the Reformation and to assimilate the Holy Communion once more to the Mass.
To that end what are called the Mass vestments were intruded into many churches and this Book legalises them. To that end the Prayer Book order of Holy Communion was frequently dislocated without any authority and this Book follows suit as far as it dares. To that end in a great number of churches the Holy Communion was made every Sunday morning what is called the principal service, with the implication that Morning Prayer, which the people love, might be thrust into a corner as of no account; and this Book encourages that practice. To that end the people were instructed that the midday celebration is not intended for their communion but for worship; in a word, that it is the Mass that matters.
The new Book makes certain changes to deal with the communion of the people. The first rubric in the Communion office of the old Prayer Book runs thus:—
"So many as intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion shall signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before."
I have known, most Bishops have known, that rubric to be called in aid in order to diminish the number of communicants at a midday celebration. I have known this to be done when the Bishop himself has been coming to celebrate and has expressed what was his quite natural desire that as many of the parishioners as possible would meet him at the Lord's Table. In the new Book—you will find it
856
on page 203—the rule is, indeed, mitigated into a counsel of perfection. It reads:—
"It is convenient that so many as intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion should signify their names to the curate."
I do not doubt that in that form it can still be made to serve the precise but unintended end to which I have referred.
But in this connection I take leave to note that the new Book—while it does say "it is much to be wished" that the worshippers present will communicate with the minister who celebrates—has missed altogether the opportunity of dealing with the teaching which lies at the root of this difference between the Communion for reception and the Mass for adoration. I mean the teaching quite commonly given in our day which lays it down to be a sin to receive those sacred elements which signify the body and blood of Christ after you have on that day received any food. It is not so long since the Episcopate, at least of the Southern Province, gave synodical expression to the contrary opinion. These were their words in 1893:—
"That, regard being had to the practice of the Apostolic Church in this matter,"—
that is, fasting—
"to teach that it is a sin to communicate otherwise than fasting is contrary to the teaching and spirit of the Church of England."
If those words are true, as I believe them to be, then the teaching and spirit of the Church of England are being violated every day. Or are we to conclude that the Episcopate of to-day has parted mpany with the Episcopate of thir our years ago, and now agrees t what is admittedly a pious and quent practice, to be received by ose who can receive it and who gain good from it, is on the contrary to be exalted into a rule—a rule enforced to frustrate the communion of those who want to come to the Lord's Table at midday in obedience to his command? I can get no answer to my question, as the new Book and the Episcopate are alike silent about it. All I can gather is that reservation has been widely introduced into the Church of England, particularly into certain dioceses, ostensibly because it is difficult, as sometimes it is, to arrange for Communion Services in sick rooms, but in sober truth because there are clergy who will not celebrate the sacred mysteries unless they are fasting. What they believe (I am sure quite honestly)

857
to be a rule of the Church is more to them than the comfort of the dying. The new Book gives them some of the reservation which they want, though, as the noble Viscount has quite candidly told you, not all that they desire or intend to have, but it says nothing to correct their error.
In effect, I am asked to accept these reversions to pre-Reformation type because in a certain respect I have something more than a quid pro quo. The Prayer of Consecration in our present Book, hallowed by centuries of use, is now said to be defective, to need (shall I say?) Protestantizing, to be made less Roman, to be assimilated to the forms of the holy orthodox Church of the East, because it lays, it is said, too much stress on the effect of the actual words of the Lord with which it closes. The contention, I would say frankly, strikes me as a cold-blooded affront to the countless generations who have used the language of that most sacred prayer with thankful hearts as well as to those who now resent any change in it. But any such criticism of the old Book has been more than counterbalanced by the efforts to sanction in the new Book those inclinations towards the Romeward side of the line which caused such lively anxiety to the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline of which the most rev. Primate was the foremost figure and is the greatest survivor.
Those inclinations are perhaps most emphatically revealed in what has been hardly too bluntly called the legalisation by the present proposals of the Feast of Corpus Christi. Let me state how the case stands. In a large number of our churches there has arisen of late years the custom of observing the Feast of Corpus Christi. It is a late mediæval addition to the feasts of the Church of Rome, dating only from the year 1264, and then adopted for the express purpose of defending the doctrine or, if you like, the theory of transubstantiation. The new Book attempts to meet that innovation by allowing thanksgivings for the institution of the two Sacraments of the Gospel. But you will notice that it prescribes no date for either thanksgiving. So the men who delight in the Roman observance of Corpus Christi are from henceforth free to observe this day, if this Book is enacted, and it remains
858
to be er they will thank you for leave to celebrate the institution of Holy Baptism.
Changes such as these are sufficient to show that the new Book encourages—it says it does not intend—a change of sacramental doctrine, and I take off my hat to any man who has the courage to protest against the errors which are thus involved. For myself I would rather join in a protest against what I hold to be the errors of transubstantiation than find fault with the Bishop of Birmingham's methods of exposition. It is so easy to find fault with methods when it is courage that matters.
It is said that contentions such as that between the Communion and the Mass are better left among "unhappy far off things and battles long ago." It is said that we have grown quite out of them, and that we are not to be still constrained by the bands of the 16th century, but I venture to hope that we may still somehow illustrate the courage and the consistency of that wonderful era. Let me give you, and I will do it quite briefly, an instance. When the first Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth, to which the noble Viscount referred to just now, was being introduced, the See of Worcester was held by a certain Dr. Nicholas Heath, one of the best and gentlest and sincerest of the men who regretted the doctrinal changes which the Reformation had brought. Even the Book of 1549 caused him deep searchings of heart, but when there came in 1550 a new Ordinal for the setting apart of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and he found that he was expected to go against his own convictions, to take down altars, as he said, and to set up tables, to side with the Communion which he did not like and to take up arms against the Mass in which he wholeheartedly believed, he refused his consent and was conveyed a prisoner to the Marshalsea or the Fleet, I forget which. Next year he was deprived of his bishopric. Mary Tudor followed Edward VI, and Heath was restored to Worcester and was soon made Archbishop of York. That See, rendered illustrious by the most rev. Prelate who will address you to-morrow, owes much to Heath. But Elizabeth followed Mary and slowly but surely the Communion came to its own again. Once more Heath must go into retire-

859
ment, a martyr to conviction as surely as his predecessor at Worcestor, Hugh Latimer, was a martyr.
I have indicated to your Lordships certain features in the Deposited Book by which once more those who have convictions, those who believe what the Church of England has told them hitherto, are faced with a crisis—a judgment—of the same kind. I do not mean that for myself I can already scent the chill odours of the Marshalsea. I do not mean that as I pass through Oxford in the train I can hear the shouts of glee because the faggots must again be collected in front of Balliol to burn a Cambridge Bishop, presided over benevolently and most compassionately by the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack, and I sincerely trust that on that day the fate of King Nebuchadnezzar's myrmidons in similar case will not happen to one golden thread of his bullion robe. I do not mean that at all. But I do believe that certain provisions of this Book and the rule-making powers which the Measure confers on any majority of the House of Bishops do force upon those who share my convictions a doctrinal standpoint which is not the standpoint of the Book of Common Prayer, but which nevertheless, if it passes, will henceforth give the Bishops what the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham most justly declares to be "an authoritative statement of the mind of the Church of England." Against that change I must make my protest by my vote. I must leave my future to take care of itself. A man who has ventured to speak as I have tried to speak has not his future very much in his mind.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I echo the feelings of the Bishop of Worcester of deep regret at finding myself at variance with my friends. I honestly do not covet the position that I stand in to-day of being compelled to follow the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken, but perhaps it is easier to criticise a friend and to make a reply to him than it would be if I were facing one whom I had not the honour to reckon as a friend. I cordially agree with the right rev. Prelate that where truth is at stake everything must give place to truth, but I honestly fail to find within the covers of the Deposited Book the grounds for
860
fear that the Bishop has set before us in the very able speech to which we have just listened. It seems to me that he has run the risk of reading into the Book things that are not there. I should like, in the course of the few remarks that I shall address to your Lordships, to deal with what is perhaps the most fundamental of all the points that he made.
The right rev. Prelate spoke of getting beneath the basic purpose of the Reformation by making the Holy Communion, not a Communion for reception but a Mass for adoration. If it were quite true that the Deposited Book did this thing, I should be quite willing to go to the Marshalsea with the Bishop of Worcester or to be burnt outside Balliol College in protest against it. It is always difficult, as I am sure your Lordships will realise, to attempt to raise questions of theology in this House, but the right rev. Prelate has made a plain statement and it seems to me some sort of reply ought to be given. I have very much sympathy with the right rev. Prelate. I belong, I believe, to the same school of thought in the Church to which he belongs. I have always belonged to it, and I see no sort of sign in my own mental apparatus that I shall ever depart from it. But I still dare to say that I believe that the new Communion office safeguards, perhaps even more adequately than the old Communion office, what I believe to be the true doctrine of the Holy Communion.
May I venture to quote some of the words that will be found in the Deposited Book? In that great prayer to which the right rev. Prelate has referred, the new prayer elaborates the petition that we make to God and prays, in connection with ourselves and with the elements that are to be consecrated:—
"that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, to the end that we, receiving the same, may be strengthened and refreshed both in body and soul."
I call your Lordships' attention to the phrase "receiving the same." It occurs in the old prayer and it occurs in the new prayer. If it did not occur in the new prayer, I should be standing alongside the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken. But more than that. After the reception by the people is over the

861
priest, in the new order but not in the old order, addresses them with the words, "Having now by faith received," and so on. You will notice again the emphasis upon faith and the emphasis upon reception. With all respect—and I want to speak with the utmost respect of my brethren of the Roman Communion—it is that kind of emphasis upon reception and upon faith that, perhaps more than anything else, compelled us to part company with them in the days of the Reformation. I dare to say, speaking doctrinally, I think, from the same point of view as the right rev. Prelate, that this new Book has preserved all that was best and truest in the Reformation—a Reformation for which, despite whatever anybody else may say, I most devoutly thank God.
Let me pass to a second point. The Bishop of Worcester referred to the "delusive unanimity which pervades the Episcopal Bench." It is perfectly true that by a very large majority indeed, though not quite unanimously, the Bishops accepted the Deposited Book. The Bishop of Worcester thinks that if the minutes of our proceedings were published urbi et orbi all kinds of horrible revelations would result. It is perfectly true that a very large number of divisions took place while the Bishops sat in Committee, but it would be quite absurd to publish the figures, because those who made up the majority and the minority differed in case after case. You would have to publish the names and you would have to publish the speeches. We sat for very many days and we have not the privilege that belongs to this House of getting our proceedings printed in full at the public expense, but I think my friend the Bishop of Worcester will bear me out when I say that there were occasions—a great many—when I voted with him in the majority, that there were occasions—a great many—when I voted with him in the minority, that there were a great many occasions when he was in the majority and I was in the minority and vice versa. Does not that sort of thing happen in any careful work of a committee kind upon almost any Bill that comes before your Lordships?
What happened at the end? We had carried through, taking into account what had been done by the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, a very
862
careful revision of the original Report of the Committee of the Church Assembly and, indeed, of the work ever which Convocations had spent many years. At long last, for you must have finality some day, we had to make up our minds upon a basis. Does any noble Lord in this House make up his mind upon anything? Very rarely, I suspect, is there complete agreement with every single word in an Act of Parliament. I have seen long pages—your Lordships are familiar with them—of Amendments moved from all sides of the House, and some are passed and some refused. At long last what does one do? One acts upon a balance of advantages. We acted upon the balance of advantages in this case. I do not suppose that a single Bishop who voted for the Measure approved of every single thing in it. I certainly did not and I have said so over and over again in public and in private. But as a great contribution, I believe, both to peace and the future effective working of the Church, thankfully I accepted the Measure and I hope that this House will do the same.
Will your Lordships bear with me if I say one word or two about the question of peace? We have been told more than once in this debate that if this Measure passes there is in front of us, not peace but a long period of discord and difficulty. I venture to think that it is not quite wholly realised what the effect of passing this Measure will be. I do not imagine for one moment that the whole of the Book will be immediately adopted in this parish and in that. I venture to hope that parts of the Book will be adopted in all parishes. To tell the honest truth they are already being adopted in some parishes. We have arranged in the new Book, by a method of paragraphing, that it will be possible in various parishes to introduce variations of services as well as alternative services. I think that in many parishes both forms of Celebration of the Holy Communion will be used. I believe that according to our ordinary English genius—for however divergent we may be in politics we are all, I think, conservative at heart—we shall go slowly ahead, making experiments. Of course there will be some stupid clergy. There are no doubt a few stupid people in the world. It is even possible, though I hardly dare say it, that there are a few

863
stupid laymen, and possibly a large section of deluded Bishops. I believe, however, that allowing for people who act from conviction we shall settle down after a long period of experiment to use that which is best in the new Book and retain that which is best in the old.
May I say a word about discipline? It has almost been suggested, although it has not been said in so many words, that the new Book should not be allowed to pass because we have failed to maintain discipline in the past. I frankly admit that we have failed in the past. I am speaking in a privileged position and so I dare to say it without risk of consequences. I believe that your Lordships' House in the near future will be asked to consider a Bill dealing with the traffic of motor-cars on public roads. Will it be quite fair to oppose that Bill with vehemence because the present law as to motoring has wholly and completely broken down? I am speaking in a privileged position. I do not mind admitting that I sometimes exceed twenty miles an hour in my motor-car. To my own knowledge the Minister who will be responsible for the introduction of this Bill has in the matter of motoring done the same thing. Would it be fair to refuse him a new law with regard to motoring because the existing law as to motoring has broken down?
Again, we are told—the first speaker this afternoon told us with great eloquence and plainness of speech—that until you have new powers for the maintenance of discipline, until we can be sure that in future the Bishops will maintain discipline, this Bill should not be allowed to pass. It would seem to me a very unfortunate thing if you connected a manual of public worship, for that is what this new Book is, with disciplinary laws. You do not want to put at the end of your Book that those who do not obey will be fined or imprisoned. The Bishop of Worcester referred to going to the Marshalsea on conscientious grounds. You can generally get out of people what you want more by reasoning with them than you can by threatening them. Penalties there must be, but, as your Lordships have already been informed, the Church Assembly is hard at work producing a Courts Measure. I do not know what your Lordships would feel if the Church produced to you two great
864
Measures in the same year, and asked your Lordships to pass them. Probably there would be a protest, and we should be asked: Why does not the Church move more slowly?
We have adopted what seems to me to be the logical order. The old law has broken down. No one, I think, in this House would wish to enforce it. Is not the best plan to get a new rule of public worship, and then with reasonable speed, but not at such a speed as to be hasty, get the Courts Measure which in due course will be presented to this House? I wonder if I am right. I think there is at least something to be said for the point which I am trying to make—namely, that the best legislation does not very often need to be enforced at all. A little while ago the two Houses of Parliament in this Realm presented to the King a Bill for keeping out of our newspapers those disgusting details which had nauseated most respectable men. That Act has been passed. I keep a careful eye on the newspapers, and, although I do not see all of them, so far as I can discover, there never has yet been a prosecution under that law. Does that mean that the law is worthless? No. It means that the law has really fulfilled its purpose, and I believe that that kind of moral effect of a good law will have an influence in the Church of England, both in the direction of peace and in the direction of discipline, greater than any threats of penalty could possibly have. At my own diocesan conference two of the leaders of that school of thought to which Lord Halifax referred, and of which he is such a distinguished ornament, got up and said, quite frankly, that if this Measure passes and the Bishop commands, his commands will be immediately, willingly and generously obeyed. I believe that will be true.
May I try to see if I can clear up the difficulty which has come into certain minds about the so-called Black Rubric? The new Book is not intended, is not ordered, in the Measure to be the standard of doctrine. The standard of doctrine in the Church of England remains exactly where it was. The Measure does not touch it in the least. I believe that the new Book is consonant with that standard of doctrine. A clergyman of the Church of England who makes the Declaration of Assent will

865
have to say in future, as he has had to say in the past:—
"I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer and I believe the doctrines therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God."
He will have to give his assent to the Prayer Book as a standard of doctrine being the Book of 1662, and that Book contains, as, of course, the Deposited Book also contains, the Black Rubric. So, whatever the Black Rubric means, whatever it teaches, its position doctrinally is the same as it ever was before. Then, with regard to the rest of that Declaration of Assent, the parson goes on to say:—
"I will use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be prescribed by lawful authority."
And all that the Measure does is to bring the use of the new Book within that lawful authority, by which the clergyman is bound.
I think it is important to labour this point because, both inside and outside this House, all kinds of difficulties have arisen. I received a letter yesterday morning telling me that a small group of ordination candidates had been called together at a meeting last week, and that they had been told that the Bishops had secretly determined after two or three years to expel all Evangelicals from the Church of England. That was sent to me by the principal of a Theological College, who asked me if it was true. I believe that in your Lordships' House there is one short English word which is unparliamentary, and I do not intend to use it. But I am an Evangelical. I hold my own views as tenaciously as the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Worcester holds his, and I honour him for holding them, and I know that he respects me for holding mine. I honour other people who hold their views tenaciously. I believe there is room within the Church of England for people of all schools of thought, so long as they will really be loyal to our Anglican tradition; and it is because I believe that this new Book does not transgress our Anglican tradition, that it does reserve to me the right to hold the views which are life-long with me, and which I am not in the least likely to desert now, that I hope, for the sake
866
of my brethren and for the sake of those who think with me, that this Measure may pass.
I think that the noble Earl who opened the debate this afternoon has, to a certain extent, side-tracked us into a discussion about discipline, and it may be entering the minds of some of us that this Prayer Book is intended simply to deal with the problem of discipline. That would not be true. My own interests in this matter began in the days of my youth because I was longing for something which was more elastic, more varied, more suited to the needs of to-day, than the Book that we had had ever since 1662. And I believe there is a very large body or Church people, who perhaps do not name themselves by the name of any school of thought, but who are anxious to worship God in a difficult age and generation and to do it in language which appeals to them; and the enrichment, and the variety, and the elasticity, and the variation of the new Book, much more than anything else perhaps, commend it to that great body of people among whom the younger folk of to-day are not the least significant. I hope that your Lordships will pause, and pause long, before this Measure is rejected. I honestly believe it will make for peace. I believe it will give new life to the dear old Church that I love so well, and I believe it will help people, not only to worship as they love to worship, but to worship in unity in the days to come.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, it is with some hesitation, after the two speeches by right rev. Prelates to which we have just listened, that I venture, as a member of a sister Church, the Irish Church, which has up to this been in communion with the Church of England, to ask your Lordships to hear me for a few moments on this matter. Because naturally when I came to live in England, now a very long time ago, though I never left my own Church, which I dearly love, I found in the English Church the same Church, although for political reasons it had been disestablished, and I naturally came into the Church with which my own was in communion. Let me make this one confession at the outset. It is the first time in my life (and I am now a very old man) that I have ever felt grateful to Mr. Gladstone for disestablishing the Irish Church, and for this reason—whatever your Parliament may do here in

867
relation to the Prayer Book, it will not bind the Irish Church, which can still go on cherishing the precious heritage of the Reformation.
I feel very grateful to the Lord Bishop of Worcester for the speech he delivered this evening. But, when I listened to the speech of the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, which followed, having heard one of those right rev. Prelates tell us of the changes of doctrine which prevented him from supporting this Measure, and the other, with equal power, assure us that there was no such change, I could not help wondering—perhaps it is because I am a lawyer—what will be the decision in the end, and what a vista it opens out when an attempt is made, if it is ever made, to enforce discipline in the Church. When two right rev. Prelates, both equally honest, equally learned, and equally God-fearing, take absolutely different views of the fundamental principles upon which the change is founded, that fact shows you the disastrous position in which we are this evening. We, who cannot shirk the responsibility of placing, or not placing, the new Prayer Book upon the mass of the people, are not allowed even to make clear the matters upon which these two right rev. Prelates have taken exactly opposite views in relation to the very fundamental doctrines which divide the various Churches in the land.
In every way to me it is disastrous that we should be discussing this matter here at all. What a spectacle for other Churches! What a spectacle for the masses of the people! No, I cannot see what we are to gain by it. We have had our Prayer Book for 300 years and I well know how venerated that Prayer Book was in the homes of the more humble people of our country. "How I love my Prayer Book," said one old woman, "and how my mother loved it and how she died believing in it. And now we are being told it is all wrong."
SEVERAL LORD BISHOPS: No.
LORD CARSON: But that is what they are told, that it is all wrong. You cannot get them to go into these minute distinctions, nor can you get them to discover the difference between the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Chelmsford. How can you? Your Lordships will see in a moment why I mentioned that. There is a kind of suggestion that
868
the language of the Prayer Book is out of date. I think His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that after 300 years it no doubt wanted changing in its language and otherwise bringing up to more modern times. Religion does not change even in 300 years. As to the language, there might be language more appropriate, but I have searched in vain through the Prayer Book to see what there is in the new language that is different from the old. Do not let us deceive ourselves; it was not the language that was objected to. It was an effort to bring in practices which had grown up in the Church and which brought you not to a change of language but to a change of the settlement that was made at the Reformation.
It is disastrous also, I think, from another point of view. We are to have alternative Prayer Books. Is that an advantage to the Church? Is that a symbol of unity in the Church? When I want to go to church in the country am I to write and say: "Reverend and dear Sir, which Prayer Book do you use; and can you tell me what is used in the neighbouring parishes in order that I might provide myself with the proper books?" That would be bad enough; but when we come to two Communion Services in a church, going to the very root of the most solemn mysteries in which we are brought up from our childhood, one no doubt sincerely believed in by one section of the Church and absolutely abhorred by another section, does that make for unity in the Church? No. It cannot be a matter other than of great grief and great sorrow to anybody that such a discussion should take place in this House and that when your Lordships pass the Measure, as I suppose you will, it should take place in the other House. These are not topics for Parliament. For my own part I think it is a great calamity that the Church of England (Assembly) Powers Act was ever passed at all. But why put forward a change of language or a change of doctrine as the real reason for this Measure?
Why are we here at all? Let us get at the reality of it. I will tell you why we are here. We are here to legalise illegalities. We are here to admit the triumph of those who for the past thirty years have refused to obey the rubrics

869
of the Church. That can be proved as clearly as any matter of history can be proved, and do not let us pretend otherwise What is more and what is worse, this is a triumph of the so-called Anglo-Catholics. No one respects their views more than I do, but if you have an established Church yon must draw lines. It may be that you ought not to have an established Church, but that is another question. I would be sorry to say one word disrespectful of anybody's opinions, and I have never done so in my life. But the question is a different one when you are dealing with an established Church. This is the triumph of those members of the Church who, as I said before, have been setting at nought the rubrics of that Church for the last thirty years. But what is worse is this. The very fact that you yield to that illegality so far from terminating—as the Bench of Bishops no doubt perfectly sincerely believe it will—all discord within the Church, as they are so ready to do, by throwing over not those who were guilty of the illegality but those who are prepared to obey the rubrics of the Church, will have the opposite effect. That it will bring about peace seems to me the most extraordinary doctrine. It will only make those who have gained so much long for more.
What will be the end of it? I say that this Prayer Book is the product of the illegalities of the last thirty years and now I will show your Lordships, at least I think I can, that that is so. I will not take long. As far back as 1903, twenty-four years ago, replying to a deputation representing 114 Members of Parliament, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Lambeth Palace, said, and said deliberately, that in his view to cases of flagrant and defiant illegality and disobedience, which were very few, tolerance had reached and even passed its limits. The sands had run out and drastic action was in his judgment quite essential. As far as he was concerned, they must give them a little time. Has any effort ever been made since then to put down these things? Your Lordships must not imagine that I am in favour of what they call coercion in regard to clergymen in a church and I shall say a word about that hereafter. Twenty-four years have passed since those words were uttered. Has any action been taken in any single case?
870
Then came the Church Discipline Bill into the House of Commons. I remember well the speeches made upon it and I wish to give a quotation from one made by Sir William Harcourt. He said:—
"I read with satisfaction that statement by the present Archbishop of Canterbury. But I read five years ago with equal satisfaction a statement by the same Prelate, who was then Bishop of Winchester… . In 1898 I read the first charge of the Bishop of Winchester in which he said: 'The Bishops and clergy have been of late years too lax, or, to use a colloquial expression, too casual. Episcopal authority will now be exercised decisively, and, if need be, sternly, wherever in England any difficulty arises.'"
That was in 1903. Sir William Harcourt at that time warned the country in these words:—
"The gravest danger of all is to be seen in the teaching and usages of an increasing number of parish priests with respect to Holy Communion … . swinging back half unconsciously into something like the materialistic doctrines of the fifteenth century … . and insensibly drifting away from the true proportion of the faith of the Church of England into the peril of something sadly like the materialistic superstitions of pre-Reformation days."
Nothing was done and now you have before you the Measure that legalises all that was commented upon by Sir William Harcourt.
Next came the reference of the Bill to the Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, which sat for several years and eventually, in 1906, issued its Report. That has been read before, but I ask your Lordships to allow me to read it again because it is so germane to my argument. They said:—
"The practices to which we have referred in paragraphs 397 and 398 of our Report"—
in a few moments I will show your Lordships that they refer to this question of reservation—
"as being plainly significant of teaching repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England and certainly illegal, should be promptly made to cease by the exercise of the authority belonging to the Bishops and, if necessary, by proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts."
"Should be promptly made to cease." That was in 1906, twenty-one years ago. From that day to this no single effort to make them cease has been attempted, but in lieu of it there are those who have set themselves to try to remove the necessity for making them cease by bringing

871
in this new Prayer Book which makes legal what was illegal. They say: "It is our duty to make these illegalities cease by throwing over those who oppose them and taking to our hearts those who refuse to obey them." It is as plain as anything could be that this Prayer Book—and let us face it—is not changed because of the inequality of our religion or of our post-Reformation literature or the beautiful language of our old Prayer Book. No; it is changed because the Bishops found it impossible to bring about discipline in the Church over which they preside.
I will say a word about that in a moment. I do not agree, with those who think it is only necessary to pass a disciplinary Measure and say everything will then be all right. The right rev. Prelate who has just addressed us says there will be peace in the Church. He says there is nothing like trying experiments. With great deference to the right rev. Prelate, I would say if there is anything in the world in which I would deprecate experiments it is the matter of religion. Remember that religion is a thing that you learn at your mother's knee. I say that without any disrespect to any of the right rev. Prelates. Any religion I ever learned was from my mother, and it is to me one of the most precious possessions. But experiments in religion!
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD: I did not say experiments in religion. I said experiments in the use of services in the Book.
LORD CARSON: Very well, experiments in the use of the services of the Book. Where are we now? We had before two Prayer Books, now how many are we going to have? A bit here and a bit there; one tacked on to the other and added to no doubt by the generous provisions that are made for the Bishop of each diocese to enable him to make any additions or subtractions that he desires. It is worse than I said before. It makes the whole matter more confused and more confounded than ever. I do not like repeating something that was said recently by somebody as it may sound rather profane. I do not intend to be profane. I heard of a gentleman, known to some of your Lordships, who was asked: "What do you think of these alternative Prayer Books?" I am sure
872
he did not mean it profanely, but, having thought for a moment, he replied: "I suppose the next thing is that we shall have an alternative Bradshaw." One can easily see the utter confusion that there will be if we are to have one Prayer Book in one church and another Prayer Book in another church. I am glad I have the assent of the right rev. Prelate in putting that proposition.
A good deal has been said which I think is entirely fallacious—I am not using that word offensively—about the authority in favour of those who are promoting this Prayer Book. I deny that that authority is so great as has been suggested. What the proposal lacks is the authority of the masses of the people. It is all very well to tell us that five or six hundred people out of our population were elected, how or on what issue or under what circumstances I do not know, as representatives of the people. When this Bill passes you will find a great deal of difference. There is a statement from the Protestant Alliance, to which I have not seen any answer, that says:—
"303,673 adult communicant members of the Church of England, of whom 2,638 are clergy, have signed a memorial to the House of Bishops protesting against the alternative Communion Services and reservation of the Sacrament."
Is that true? Why was not that told us? Are the 600 members of the Church who met together, of whose discussions and divisions we have heard, are they to be taken as absolutely representative against 303,673 who, as communicants, have actually signed a petition against the Book? What was done with that petition? Was it considered? Were the petitioners communicated with? And it does not rest there. Here is what the Bishop of Gloucester is reported to have written in The Times of November 15, 1922. He said that he had to admit that at least 90 per cent. of the ordinary members of the Church of England would much prefer that there should be no alteration in the Prayer Book. Ninety per cent., as against 600 in the whole of the great English Church.
Do reflect, my Lords, what you are doing. I have not the slightest doubt that the aristocracy of the Church, or the bureaucracy, whichever you like to call them, are in favour of this Measure. Have the people no rights? Have the

873
communicants of the Church no rights? Are they to be set aside just because discipline cannot be enforced otherwise in the Church? I am, I suppose, as Tory as most people, but I am bound to say here that I would rather see the Church of England disestablished and standing upon her own basis than that these thousands to whom the Bishop of Gloucester referred should be set at naught and driven, as they will be driven, to reconsider their position in relation to the Church to which they have been so faithful and so loyal, in order that you may conciliate those who refuse to accept discipline.
The Church of England is not the Church in England. It is the Church throughout the whole of the British Empire, and it is the Church throughout parts that are not our Empire. Have you taken them into your confidence? I have seen no report about it. Take the case of my own Church, the Church of Ireland. Here is an extract from the constitution of the present Church of Ireland:—
"The Church of Ireland, as a reformed and Protestant Church, doth hereby reaffirm its constant witness agains all those innovations in doctrine and worship, whereby the primitive faith hath been from time to time defaced or overlaid, and which at the Reformation this Church did disown and reject."
Then it goes on later:—
"The Church of Ireland will maintain communion with the sister Church of England, and with all other Christian churches agreeing in the principles of this declaration."
You are putting an end to that communion, because you are going behind the Reformation and re-introducing matters that have been long since discarded. So you terminate your communion with the Church of Ireland.
In this Report which has been issued I find that a petition was received from certain inhabitants of the Island of Jersey setting out that the Enabling Act has no legal force there, that the Prayer Book Measure proposes to enact that the Measure shall apply to the whole of the Province of Canterbury, including the Channel Islands, of which Jersey is one, and that this constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights. I find that the petition goes on—
"And whereas we, although members of the Church of England, have no representation
874
whatsoever in the House of Clergy and Laity, we regard it as a further violation of our constitutional rights that it should be proposed to impose upon us 'The Deposited Book' in the debating on which Book and the voting thereon we have had no part by representation;
"And whereas the Prayer Book Measure. 192—, may not be amended in any particular but must be passed or rejected, 'in the form laid down before Parliament' according to Section four of the Enabling Act, there is no other course open to us except to petition you to reject the said Measure."
What was done with that petition? By this Bill you are going to ride rough-shod over them in changing the doctrines of the Reformation which they have had as their protection and privilege for the last three hundred years. It applies to the Isle of Man in the same way.
What will it be all through the Empire? How many Prayer Books will they have? Which of these doctrines will they accept? Would it not be far better to postpone this matter for some time, to give people a little more opportunity to get accustomed to all this that has been put forward at a time when they know so little about the reasons for the change, and upon which, at all events, this debate may thrown some light? When you have passed this Measure then you will come to the question of discipline. I have been furnished with a document, which may or may not be accurate, in which it is stated that under a resolution of the Federation of Catholic Priests 1,400 Anglican clergy say that if the Bishops try to interfere with them in relation to the question of reservation they will refuse to obey the Bishops. What a vista of the peace we have been hearing so much about! How are these clergy to be dealt with? It has been pointed out very ably by my noble friend Earl Stanhope, this afternoon, that you have no discipline possible. Of course if you have had no possible discipline for the last twenty-one years or longer you have not got it now.
There is not one line from beginning to end of this Measure which gives any additional disciplinary powers whatsoever. Assume that it is true that these 1,400 Anglican clergymen will refuse to obey—what will happen? I know what will happen. It may not happen immediately, but in course of time you will bring in another Measure taking away the right of veto and the necessity for a licence for the reservation of the Sacrament,

875
and you will say: "Let us have peace by bringing in those clergymen who will not submit." This Measure does not make for peace. This Measure cannot make for peace. I do not believe that any disciplinary measure will make for peace. I candidly say that I agree with what Lord Halifax has said upon that subject. You cannot to-day, if ever you could—of course there was a time when you could put people to the stake—bring public opinion with you if you proceed to prosecute either clergy or laity because of the religious opinions that they hold. That must be left entirely to the knowledge, religion and scruples of the clergy themselves. If you get clergymen who will go into the Church and will immediately proceed to break their ordination vows, you have no remedy. Do not let us base false hopes upon the new Measure that we are told is before the Bishops. You will never be able to keep discipline in the Church by prosecution. Therefore even the advantages which you are hoping to get out of this Measure by surrendering principles which ninety per cent, of Church people hold and by offending all those who are so anxious to obey your rulings, will all be thrown away and have absolutely no value.
I very much dislike venturing upon criticisms about the doctrines of the Church. I have myself a very clear view, which I do not suppose would ever prevail against the Bishops. But there is one matter which seems to me to be so conclusively proved that I ask to be allowed to say one word upon it. Let me first say that the view that I have formed—I cannot examine it now, for it would take too long and this is not the appropriate place—is that it is by bringing back a series of things that were abolished at the Reformation or after the Reformation that you show the whole tendency of the changes in the Church. Let me ask some simple questions. Why was the sacrificial vestment called, I believe, the chasuble re-introduced into the Church? It was abolished in 1552. Why is it brought back? Has it a meaning? If so, what is the meaning? Lord Halifax, I believe, would openly and honestly say that he would have these vestments because they bring back or assist in bringing back the Mass. Of course that is what they are aiming at. They want to be able to say that they have
876
the Mass and to call it the Mass, although the Mass is one of the first things repudiated by the Reformation. Why do they bring back—it seems a very small point—the use of the wafer? Were they not contented with the pure bread of the Reformation? The wafer was in the Church for a while, and it was then repudiated and struck out. It is brought back now. It all sounds so little and so innocent! But what is the gesture of the wafer? Does it mean nothing? Then why is it put in? Does it mean something? Then what does it mean?
Then comes the question of the reservation of the Sacrament and, reading the Book as I have read it very carefully and as conscientiously as I could, I cannot help thinking that reservation is mixed up with the doctrine of the real presence in the Communion Service. Of course the changes in the Communion Service with reference to the offerings at Communion cannot be dissociated from reservation, because if in the reservation there is a real presence, as is suggested in the new Prayer Book, then of course there is all the more reason why you should be afraid of adoration, which is looked upon as such idolatry in the Church. The question of reservation is one of those matters which for a long time those people who have set up these illegal practices in the Church have been attempting to foist upon the Protestant Church. I have here an extract from Dr. Temple, who, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury in 1899, along with the Archbishop of York held an inquiry on this very subject of reservation. They delivered separate judgments, and here is what Archbishop Temple thought of reservation:—
"The Book of Common Prayer contains no order and provides no opportunity for the practice of reservation. But this is not all. The language of the 28th Article cannot be taken otherwise than as condemning the practice altogether. To say that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped, is to say that those who do these things use for one purpose what our Lord ordained for another."
Again, when this matter came before the Royal Commission, one of the matters to which they specially referred was the question of the reservation of the Sacrament under conditions which led to its adoration.

877
I noticed yesterday that the Archbishop of Canterbury said that he felt uneasiness upon the subject, because, of course, once you have reservation you cannot prevent adoration, no matter what you do. The Royal Commission said:—
"Among the practices which we have already distinguished as being of special gravity and significance will be found the following: reservation of the Sacrament under conditions which lead to its adoration."
Then they go on to say:—
"These practices lie on the Romeward side of a line of deep cleavage between the Church of England and that of Rome."
That is what you are authorising now in your alternative service, and still you tell us that there is no change from Reformation doctrine.
The right rev. Prelate who has just addressed us spoke of the Black Rubric and said that there was misapprehension about it. With great respect to the right rev. Prelate, anybody who looks at the Book can easily see that there is no possibility of doubt upon the subject and that the alternative Communion is not subject to the Black Rubric. What is the importance of this in their own Communion Service as it exists at present, and as it will be in one of the Communion Services in the new Book? it is now declared
"That thereby no adoration is intended"—
that is a reference to the kneeling at the Communion Service—
"or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were idolatory, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one."
That Black Rubric, which is the very strongest statement on the doctrine of the Reformation, is in the new Book applied to the old Communion which is carried on, but it is left out, absolutely and entirely, as regards the "Alternative Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper." There can be no doubt about that. Is it intended or is it not? I know some people are arguing that you
878
meant to carry it on, and it was not necessary to print it twice, but it is put at the end of one Communion Service, and then you turn over a leaf and you get the alternative order of Communion.
It does not rest there. On February 7 there was published the Composite Book containing the two Communion Services. The first Communion Service, the one to which we have always been accustomed, had the Black Rubric at the end. Then the Book was altered and a special rubric was put in for the two joint services, to be applicable to both; but again at the end of the first service is printed the Black Rubric, and if, as stated, the Black Rubric was to apply to both services, why has it not the same heading as the rubric applicable to the same thing? The thing is not arguable, and therefore we are going to meet together in one church, those of us who believe that the Black Rubric is true, that the bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred by all faithful Christians, and those to whom it is open—and I am afraid there will be many who will avail themselves of the opening—those among the clergy throughout the land to whom it is open to avail themselves of what has happened and to take advantage of it, and to say: We are entitled now under the new services to pay no attention whatever to the Black Rubric. I think that is disastrous. I hope I offend nobody when I say that I believe the Black Rubric to be right. I respect the opinion of anybody who does not. At the same time, whatever it may be in the Roman Catholic Church I respect their opinions, only I say, do not let us have this chaos in the Church not only of two Prayer Books, which is bad enough, but of two Communion Services, in one of which something is declared to be absolute idolatry while it is legalised in the other. How can a Church stand in those circumstances?
We are told that the only way to have peace is to pass this Prayer Book. All I can ask is what is to happen to those who do not want it? You always seem to forget them. I see nothing about them in any of these Reports which I have had so much difficulty in procuring. Am I to get a church everywhere I go in which I can dictate which Prayer Book is to be used? It is impossible. But the matter goes further than that. May I

879
mention a matter which I think has not been sufficiently considered, and it is this: what about our children at school? What about our children when they come to be confirmed? Is my child to be confirmed, because I send him to a public school, by a man who legally tells him that the Black Rubric is wrong, and that it is no idolatry to worship the reserved sacraments? In my own case it may be easy, because I can conveniently transfer him to Ireland, and to a church where they will not have anything to do with this; but what about the people of England who cannot do that? What about all the missionary work throughout the whole world? Will it add strength to the great Church of England that throughout the various Overseas Dominions we have all these alternatives?
Already I have had a letter—I suppose others of your Lordships have received it, too—from a clergyman, and I think it is worth reading, because of the sadness of it. He is hon. secretary of the Bible Churchmen's Missionary Society, and he writes under date December 9, 1927:—
"Five years ago I resigned a good preferment in the Church to start (with others) this society so as to maintain constructive work on the Church's scriptural and Protestant basis. Already we have an income of £40,000 per annum, and 120 first-class British workers, mainly in Burma, India, Persia, China, and Canada. But the scriptural and reformed character of the Church is undone by the proposed new Prayer Book, and in the name of some 500 clergy I beg you to vote against it; otherwise many of us will be compelled by conscience to leave the Church we have loyally served for thirty, forty and even fifty years."
When this Bill passes, when this Prayer Book becomes law, every man who dislikes it will have to consider, with prayer and with his conscience, the course which he ought to take. Each man must consider it for himself, but believe me, many of them will do what that priest has said, leave your Church, and you will find, even more than at present, many of those churches empty and the Noncomformist churches gaining in proportion. I have spoken perhaps strongly, but not more strongly than I feel, because I believe we have arrived at a real crisis, and that after the passing of this Measure nothing but disaster can follow.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in these days, when the Church of England is
880
no longer co-extensive with the nation or with the microcosm of the nation which is found in Parliament, there are bound to be certain absurdities in the discussion by Parliament of the doctrine and service of a particular Church. It might well be that the Church might profit by a separation from the State. That, I need hardly say, I am not going to discuss. All I desire to do is to affirm, while the present position remains, what is my constitutional right and the constitutional right of every member of either House—to give a vote, if he so thinks fit, upon any question touching the Church. But apart from one's constitutional rights there are questions of one's personal feelings as to fitness and propriety, and my own feeling is—and I thought it right to state it to your Lordships—that in a discussion on the doctrine and the services of a Church of which I am not a member, and whose faith I do not share, it would not be seemly that I should take any part, and I propose therefore to express no opinion upon this Measure and to record no vote upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we adjourn for dinner, may I say that I find that it is for the convenience of those who are interested in this very important subject that the House should meet at a quarter past three to-morrow.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, as I happen to have the honour of being Vice-Chairman of the House of Laity I feel it would not be right for me to give a silent vote on this occasion. Therefore I should like to say a few words about the question before the House and the reasons why I am supporting this Measure. The noble and learned Lord who preceded me and whom we have all known for many years, made one of his powerful speeches but, if I may say so, ignored to a very great extent many of the answers which have been already given to the questions which he brought forward. Anyone who knows his skill in rhetoric and as an advocate will realise the difficulty of those who have to contend with him in debate, but as he left out of account practically altogether the Enabling Act and the fact that there

881
is such a place as the Church Assembly, there are several points which can easily and effectively be made with regard to his speech. I should like to deal with one or two of those points.
In the first place, he made one about the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Canon Storr, on October 29, which has already been mentioned in your Lordships' House. The most rev. Primate wrote to Canon Storr as follows:—
"I did not speak lightly when on July 6th I publicly used the words—'You may take it from me as absolutely certain that the Bishops will require obedience to the new rules, and will do their utmost to secure it.' I was sure at the time that I was speaking correctly but I have now, in conjunction with the Archbishop of York, had an opportunity of meeting, or communicating with, all the diocesan Bishops of both Provinces, forty-three in number, and I am able to tell you that I have obtained the concurrence of every one of them (except the Bishop of Norwich) in reiterating the announcement I have referred to It is obvious that the methods by which this clear and definite intention will be fulfilled cannot be specified in detail beforehand; but those whom you represent, and indeed all those who are interested in the matter, may rest assured that what is laid down in the new Book will, if the Measure receive the Royal Assent, be faithfully administered and that the Bishops will act together in the matter."
The noble and learned Lord referred also to the Black Rubric. That question was fully dealt with by Lord Phillimore last night. He referred also to the question of the consecration prayer with regard to that. I should like to say that the service in the new Book is much more in accord with that of the Primitive Church and is further removed from Rome, from the clock-time idea of consecration and from the danger of magical ideas than is our present form. With regard to the Enabling Act I should like to say that the noble and learned Lord does not seem to realise what powers were given to the Church; in fact, he does not seem to realise at all the method by which the Church Assembly is elected. I venture to say in your Lordships' House that the election of the Church Assembly is just as businesslike as the election of any other assembly in the world. If your Lordships will allow me I should like to reiterate what has been said in reference to that matter. Any one who really wishes to become an elector and is a member of the Church of England can do
882
so by placing his name on the roll. The parochial council is chosen and generally two representatives are sent to the ruridecanal council. The ruridecanal council then appoints members of the diocesan conference and the diocesan conference elects the representatives of the National Assembly. I fail to see how it would be possible in any circumstances to find a more representative assembly anywhere.
The noble Lord also referred to statements which have been made by various evangelical persons in regard to this Measure and I should like to refer to one in particular, a man who has very considerable knowledge and a man of very great ability, the Rector of Cheltenham, Canon H.A. Wilson. I have heard him speak on more than one occasion. He said that the Evangelical clergy who voted in the Church Assembly for the passage of the Prayer Book Measure contemplated with dismay the strenuous efforts being made to secure its rejection by Parliament, and that no good could possibly arise from the throwing out of the Deposited Book by Parliament. He added:—
"The Book will be an effective instrument to restore discipline, which cannot be restored otherwise."
Further, he stated that—
"there are solid grounds for hoping that its legalisation will produce good results."
Any member of your Lordships' House who takes the trouble to examine the letters of many prominent Nonconformists and others in The Times and other journals will realise that there is a great body of opinion in support of this Measure from men who might be called very Low Churchmen.
The most rev. Primate yesterday asked members of your Lordships' House to take a broad view in regard to this matter. We realise that there has been no change, or practically no change, for two hundred and sixty-five years in our Prayer Book. Everyone knows that the world is changing very rapidly in every direction and it does not seem to me personally unreasonable that the Royal Commission should consider that the Prayer Book also should be changed. I realise to the full that there are many who think that that change should be made more gradually, but does any one believe that if no steps are taken a better state of affaire will exist in the Church

883
than exists to-day? Something like twenty years have been spent in trying to frame a satisfactory Prayer Book. I am one of those who do not particularly want to see changes in many respects, but I believe, conscientiously and honestly, that a change of this kind is for the betterment of the Church, which I love. As for dividing the Book, the balance of different parts of this Book make it a unity with which it is dangerous to interfere. We all want to see spiritual unity in the Church, if it can be obtained.
The noble Marquess who spoke yesterday afternoon referred to many churches and to his feelings in regard to the old Prayer Book. I should like to ask him, does he think his action in voting against this Measure will in any way make for betterment from his point of view? We must have the new Deposited Book, we must pass this Measure and we must ask the Archbishops and Bishops to carry out their promise in regard to observance of the law. The worst of an obsolete law is that it tends to weaken the sense of the sacredness and obligation of law altogether. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Marquess, because I quite realise that it is difficult to make some of these changes, but as one who has no extreme views and was born a Quaker, I realise the difficulties in regard to the situation as well as most people. Personally, I do not favour some of these changes, but I do believe that they are for the betterment of the Church. I should like your Lordships to realise that some of the difficulties which exist to day may easily pass away, but some of them it is almost impossible to overcome in a short time. The noble Marquess said yesterday that he found things happening everywhere which he did not like. As I see him in his place now, I should like to ask him why he thinks that by voting against this Measure and drowning the voice of the Church Assembly he is going to find conditions which suit him better?
With regard to the question of reservation for the sick, I am one of those who do not find any great difficulty in that matter. If any one turns to the rubric on page 283 he will see that this reservation is for the sick, and for the sick alone. Personally I feel much more strongly in regard to the question of men entering the Church of England who do not believe in the cardinal points of
884
the Christian religion—I mean, and I speak with some reluctance, the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Atonement and the Resurrection. It is difficult to understand any one joining in the service on Christmas Day who does not believe in the Incarnation. It is difficult for any one to understand the feelings of a clergyman on Good Friday who does not believe in the Atonement of Christ. It is above all difficult to understand the feelings of the man who on an Easter morning does not believe in the Resurrection, which Bishop Westcott, one of the greatest men in this country, said was one of the best attested facts in history.
It is only natural that there are many people in this House to-day who feel more strongly with regard to one point than another, and I would not for a moment wish to suggest that those who differ from me have motives which are less worthy than my own. As to the subject of doctrinal changes I think, from a constitutional point of view, that was dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not know whether all noble Lords realise that that is an absolutely representative Committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament. Their decision was not quite but almost unanimous, and it was to the effect that there is no doctrinal change in this Prayer Book from the Constitutional point of view. There are some changes, and in my own view they are wise ones. One, for instance, is with regard to baptism. A child is no longer a "child of wrath." With regard to the Athanasian Creed I am personally very glad that under this Measure it will not be said so often and will not be obligatory, because I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country, who perhaps do not know the proper translation of "Quicunque vult," really do not believe in the Athanasian Creed and, if they do not, I think it is a very great mistake that it should be said in churches. Then there are extensions in regard to evening Communion and extempore prayer, and there has been a shortening of the Psalms. I think that all those changes will meet with acceptance from some people. There may be some small changes which are not generally accepted, but I think that your Lordships will find that there are some people in favour of all of them.

885
I should like to say one word with regard to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hanworth yesterday. He spoke of the Enabling Act, in which he said he took part, and added that he did not know who was his representative in the Church Assembly. It is quite easy to explain, as Lord Beauchamp explained yesterday, how it is worked, but what I could not understand is how, since the noble and learned Lord was responsible to some extent for the Enabling Act, he did not realise how the election took place. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, we have not the opportunity of receiving all the communications that have been received in another place. I am afraid that a great deal of money has been spent on literature opposing this Measure and I sincerely trust that it will not have the desired effect. I should like, in conclusion, to say that I feel very strongly in regard to this Measure because I think that it would be very unwise for Parliament to drown the voice of the National Assembly of the Church. The Assembly has studied this question for a long time, it has had an opportunity of considering all points of view and the majority by which the Measure was passed was a very large one. I think that the figures ought to be remembered by the House of Lords, If one considers the decision from the point of view of the diocesan conferences, one realises that practically every diocesan conference in the country as well as the Church Assembly itself voted in favour of this Measure, and I think that this is a very good reason, apart from any other, for asking your Lordships to give this Measure your support.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, like many others who are not in favour of this Measure, I regret having to oppose the most rev. Primate, not only as an old friend of my family and a near neighbour, but as one for whom your Lordships have so much respect. It is rather curious how often Episcopal England has had to come to Presbyterian Scotland for its Archbishops, and as your Lordships are well aware the two most rev. Primates, who so adorn their positions, have the great advantage of coming from the country north of the Tweed. There is only one thing which I regret about it, and that is that apparently they have not inherited any of the Covenanting principles of their forefathers. If they had done so, then
886
this Measure would not have been before your Lordships' House, and a deadly blow would not have been aimed at the Protestant cause of the Church of their adoption. I do not want to go into the details of the Measure, because there are many others who want to speak, and I fully admit that I am not properly qualified to do so. It is, I think, exceedingly difficult for anyone to speak on this question, because we all realise how little we know and how slight is the distance which human knowledge goes. Still, we have our opinions, right or wrong, and if we believe in them we ought, I think, to state them.
During the nineteen hundred years of the Christian religion I think there has been one teaching which very few, if any, have ever been able to carry out; you cannot worship God and mammon. There may be some alive in this world who have been able to do so, but they must be very few. There is another teaching which we probably all agree with but which probably we are none of us ready properly to apply, and that is the parable of the mote and the beam. We are apt to consider the beam in the other party's eye, and too often to think that even the mote is not in our own eye. What I would ask, particularly on this occasion, whether your Lordships approve of this Measure or whether you do not, is that you should remember that you are incurring a very great and grave responsibility if you pass it without an appeal to the people, or without letting the people know what is taking place. I venture to say, and I think a large number will agree with me, that it is only just dawning on the people of this country what is in this Measure. Therefore I maintain that even those who are strongest in favour of it will make a great mistake if they pass this Measure, and let the people of England say that they have been jockeyed into it without being given an opportunity of seeing what it means. This House generally poses as trying to protect the people from rash and sudden legislation. Surely there never has been a case where your Lordships' interest in the care of the people is so much needed as at the present time. Thee is no appeal from this Measure, and I consider that if this Measure is passed, whether it be right or wrong, without giving the people, and especially those who belong to the Church of England, an opportunity of really con-

887
sidering and understanding it, you are running a grave danger not only for your Lordships' House but also for the country.
We are told that it is very necessary to get it through. I think I am not misinterpreting the most rev. Primate when he said that there had been something like twenty-one years' discussion—what might perhaps be called procrastination—over this Measure. If it has taken twenty-one years (another speaker, I think, said seven) to produce this Measure, surely it is not asking too much to say that there should be another six months' or even one year's delay. I cannot help thinking that it would be more advantageous to the Church of England and to the cause which the right rev. Prelates represent if they would adjourn this debate until next Session. Why has it been brought on this Session? The only explanation that occurs to me is that those who are responsible for it were afraid to let the people of the country know what it means. Why, after these twenty-one years, not delay the Measure till next Session, or even the Session after? Surely in an important question like this, a matter of six months or a year is not very much. Although I am opposed to this Measure, if I felt convinced that the people of the country wanted it I would certainly not oppose it; but at the present time I feel, on such evidence as we have, that it is not wanted.
To whom does the Church belong? Of course, the Church, as we all know, belongs to the Almighty, but the Church is for the people of this country, not the people of this country for the Church; and I am not at all sure that your Lordships will not have to decide to-morrow, not merely this question of the Prayer Book, but whether the Church of England belongs to the people of England or to the Bishops of England. The most rev. Primate alluded to the Scottish Episcopal Church, and said that that Church also had an alternative Prayer Book. I belong, I suppose, more to the Church of England, but I have belonged to the Episcopal Church in Scotland for a very considerable number of years, and I am glad to say that all the churches that I have attended were churches which always used the Prayer Book of the Church of England, and have never allowed any alternative. If you look at the Scottish Episcopal Church at the
888
present time, with its alternative Prayer Book, can you say it is in a flourishing condition? No one can say it is. At the present time there are several members of the Episcopal Church who are seriously thinking whether, under present conditions, they would not do better to join the Church of Scotland.
Allusion was also made to services in the Church of St. Giles and St. Cuthbert's. Everyone who knows Scotland knows that the services in nearly all the churches in Scotland, and certainly in the Church of St. Giles, differ very considerably from what they were many years ago. At the same time, no one can say that any illegality has been committed there; no one can say that the services in the Church of St. Giles, or these other churches, have driven the people into the streets. But that cannot be said of many of the services in churches of the Church of England. What I should like to know is this—and it is what Protestants want to know: Supposing this Book is passed, and certain concessions of great principle are made in a direction which they believe to be entirely wrong, are they going to gain anything from it? What is going to happen in the case of the clergy, or possibly the Bishops, who are to-day in the Church of England, who take the vows of the Church of England, who draw the pay of the Church of England, and practise the rites and customs of another Church? Is anything going to be done to them? Are there any powers in this Bill to deal with them? I should also like to know what is to be done to the 1,400 clergy who have already been mentioned.
I would also like to put another question to the most rev. Primate. If this Measure passes, what redress is there to be for those who have been driven out of the churches into the highways by these illegal practices? They have had none up to the present. Are they to have any in the future? I am afraid we must almost all admit that, in spite of everything that has happened in the last nineteen hundred years, the priests, the Pharisees and the Sadducees are precisely the same to-day as they were nineteen hundred years ago. We all know that nineteen hundred years ago the priests were in the wrong. Are we certain they are right to-day? Their

889
wrong, of course, led to a great right for it led to the great sacrifice which enfranchised the whole world. Now the Church of England, it is generally admitted, when the Great War broke out, was found to have far less hold on the people than was expected and it would not be incorrect to say that, with many notable exceptions, it was one of the failures of the Great War. I have heard it stated that a great deal of its work and that of other Churches, too, was left to the Young Men's Christian Association. We have to be very careful to see that to-day we are not rejecting the truth and accepting a false gospel, as was done nearly nineteen hundred years ago.
There is another point I would like to put to your Lordships because history sometimes repeats itself. Nearly 300 years ago a Prayer Book was forced on the Episcopal Church of Scotland by Archbishop Laud. The result of that was that the Archbishop lost his head and his Sovereign lost both his throne and his head. I ask your Lordships to consider, if that happened when an English Archbishop forced a Prayer Book on the Scottish people, what will happen when two Scottish Archbishops force a Prayer Book on the English? There are many other noble Lords who want to speak, but, before sitting down, I do ask your Lordships to pause before passing this Bill so that the weight of public opinion may be known either for or against it because, whatever we may argue or say here, if this is to be a success and if the Church of England is to have a greater future, it can only do so by the force of public opinion and by the belief of public opinion in the truth of its word.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I would like to say a few words from a point of view that has not been put before your Lordships in the course of this debate. We have listened during a day and a half to some very great speeches, informed by knowledge and inspired by a sincerity such as has seldom, if ever, been heard in your Lordships' House, but I cannot help thinking that there has been one great omission. It has been rather noticeable that almost every speech has been prefaced by the speaker stating what his claims are to speak upon the subject, except, of course, in the cases where, like the right rev. Primate, no such introduction
890
could possibly have been necessary. I am going to make exactly the opposite claim. I think it is important to make some observations from a wholly unimportant point of view. It is a paradox, but it is also one of the glories of religion that the unimportant point of view is, when all is said and done, the most important view of all. We have heard practically nothing from what I may describe as the purely ordinary layman. We have had the great ecclesiastics, both clerical and lay. We have heard those who have been concerned with Church discussions and ecclesiastical controversies for a generation or more. But we have not had anybody yet speaking from the point of view of the perfectly ordinary attendant at our Church of England services.
I should like, first of all, to express my strong disagreement with one remark that fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. He said that in his view it was disastrous that a discussion of this kind should take place in Parliament. From that view I wholly dissent. I think that such a discussion is not only essential but does the greatest possible amount of good. Everyone has the right to express his view; but, after all, who really will be affected by any change in our public services? More than those who conduct the services, more than those who have taken part in theological controversies is the position of the ordinary man and woman who attend our Church of England services. I would claim to speak, not of course as a representative—no member of your Lordships' House could do that—but at any rate as a fairly typical person brought up in the Church of England and with the intention of bringing up in the same faith those who come after me.
I cannot understand some of the remarks that have been made in the course of this debate. For example, the noble Duke who has just sat down spoke as if the whole matter was altogether unknown to the average layman. Going about and talking to people who are not concerned with theological controversy, who very likely do not even know, strictly speaking, what a rubric is, I find that this subject of the revised Prayer Book is a matter of perfectly common knowledge and discussion throughout the length and breadth of the country. How

891
any one can say in the same speech that your Lordships are being jockeyed into it and then go on to speak of the length of time that has elapsed, of the procrastination that has taken place before it reached your Lordships, and to ask that it should be postponed until the people of this country have heard something about it, really passes my comprehension.
I would like to put before your Lordships what I believe to be the point of view of the average man and woman who attend our Church of England services with regard to the Measure now before us. It seems to me there are four points. In the first place, no one who reads the newspapers at all can be ignorant that this Measure and the Deposited Book have been assailed throughout the last year or more by the extremists of both sides. He is perfectly familiar with the fact that some people say it goes too far and that others say it does not go far enough. Those points of view have been repeated in the course of your Lordships' discussions. I am absolutely certain that the average person, taking no particular interest in theological controversy, says that if that is so, if it is accused first of going too far and then of not going far enough, it is about the kind of Book for him. That is the first point I should like to make.
The second is this. He must be excessively ignorant if he has not become aware that this Deposited Book has received the overwhelming majority of the collective voice of the Church. He may not know how the Church Assemblies or Convocations are exactly formed, but he does know that they consist of people who have made it their business to study these particular questions and, without going into figures which have been given again and again in your Lordships' House, everybody knows that this Book comes before Parliament with a great majority of all those who for years have really considered and studied the subject. The third thing that everybody knows is that there is not only no order in the Church of England services to-day, but that it is impossible unless there is a revised Prayer Book that there should be any order. Much has been made by speakers like the noble Lord, Lord Carson, as to the need for keeping strictly to the old Prayer Book. I do not
892
know of any church in England which strictly carries out the Prayer Book of 1662. You cannot go to any church in the kingdom and be sure exactly of what kind of service it will be, or whether it will include prayers which are authorised or not.
The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, speaking on the question of discipline, said that he was quite persuaded that if the Bishops could effectively use moral suasion there was no need for a new Book at all. I say without fear of contradiction that is not the conviction of the great mass of people who attend our church services. They desire something more than can be found in the Prayer Book of 1662. More than that, they are getting it to-day; they are getting it, though it is not lawful. The English, as a race, do not express any great fondness for illegality. They would much prefer that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carson, this illegality should now be legalised. They do not want to be confined to the rigid and narrow service which is all that is allowed by the Prayer Book of 1662. It is quite impossible to imagine any church going back strictly to that service. That is in the knowledge of everybody who attends church.
And the fourth point in everybody's knowledge is on the question of doctrine. The English as a race have never taken a great delight in theological discussions and, as a whole, are extremely ignorant on matters of doctrine. They now find themselves confronted with a great doctrinal controversy. They know that by an overwhelming majority, with very few dissentients, the Episcopal Bench has assured the country that not only is there no intention that there shall be a change of doctrine but, in their view, that there is no change of doctrine. The noble Lord, Lord Carson, made play with the fact that the average man would have to balance the views of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Worcester with those of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, but, if I may say so with all respect, that struck me as a purely debating point. Very often two eminent lawyers differ on some interpretation of the law, but there is never any real difficulty afterwards in discovering what the authoritative view of the law is. Can you get a more authoritative

893
exposition of doctrine than that which is being given to the country at large on this particular point by the words of the most rev. Primate? And after all the average man or woman not knowing himself or herself anything about theological points is apt to say: "Well, he is the person, and those many Bishops who think with him are the people, we can fully trust." That I believe to be the ordinary opinion of the average person.
I should like to pass from that for one moment to the question of the Black Rubric. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, spoke as if no argument at all had been addressed in answer to the words which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, and even went so far as to say that the position which had been carefully argued on the previous day was not arguable. It is very difficult to understand what meaning can be attached to English when such words are used. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, went rather fully into the matter early in the debate yesterday and there has been more help from such authorities as Chancellor Smith, in The Times to-day, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, last night, and to-day again a categorical reply on the subject from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I find it very difficult, though trying as one always would to enter into the minds of those who oppose anything in which one oneself believes, to understand quite what is their difficulty in this matter.
One was quite familiar during the War with the mentality of those who never obeyed an order unless it was repeated, who also never took an order to be an order unless at the end of it there was put the words: "This order must be obeyed." Further everyone who served in the War will know that distinction was drawn between the words "Secret," "Very Secret" and "This must not be divulged." There were many who understood the word "Secret" to mean that they could regard it as only generally confidential among their friends. I cannot help thinking, in view of the fact that apparently such an attitude of mind as that is not so uncommon as one would have supposed, that it is rather a pity that the Black Rubric was not repeated in the alternative Communion Service. But the fact that it is not repeated surely
894
does not mean, if it is included in the Book and not repealed, that it has not exactly the same force as if it had been repeated. I cannot understand how an eminent lawyer like the noble and learned Lord who first spoke in opposition to the Measure, can really maintain that a thing which is not repeated and not repealed has not exactly the same value as it had in the beginning. With all the will in the world one cannot understand how that can be a stumbling block and an important matter to those who oppose this Measure.
I come to another point. It has been a matter of some surprise to me that in the course of the many speeches which have been delivered by noble Lords and by one member of the Episcopal Bench against this Measure, no reference of any sort or kind has been made to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It is obvious, of course, that neither House of Parliament is bound in any way by the Report of a Committee, but surely that document should have been answered in some way by those who oppose this Measure. The Committee, after all, cannot be said in any way to be engineered, as has been alleged of other gatherings which have reported in favour of this Measure. It consists, as your Lordships know, of fifteen members of Parliament drawn from each House, and though there are one or two members of it who are ecclesiastical controversialists, the vast majority of the members of it are perfectly ordinary members of Parliament. I have been a member of that Committee since its inception under the Enabling Act, and I cannot remember equal care and attention being given to the study of any Measure referred to it. I cannot help thinking that it is rather surprising that those who oppose this Measure should have allowed this really important Report to go entirely unchallenged. I have always understood that a thing unchallenged is accepted. There are two paragraphs, numbered 12 and 13, going with some detail into the reasons why the Committee by a very large majority considered that it would be advisable that your Lordships should agree to this Measure. I think they require some answer from those who oppose the Measure.
There is a further point that I wish to make. I cannot help thinking that

895
the vote that we shall give to-morrow night is one of extreme importance, and that we should give it only after we have asked ourselves and decided for ourselves one question: whether the passage of this Measure will be for the good or for the bad of the Church in England. I cannot avoid the conclusion that, if that question is deliberately and seriously asked, there can be only one answer. It has been ignored in many of the speeches in opposition that this revised Prayer Book is actually in usage now in a great many churches in England. Such has been the interest created by it, so well do many parts of it meet the needs of modern life, that it has been impossible to avoid using many prayers and alternative services. It is difficult to see what will be the result if, in fact, this Measure does not receive the assent of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, spoke, so far as I could gather from listening attentively, as if elasticity was a bad thing, but elasticity of services and variety and enrichment of services appeal, as no one can doubt who has been about among our parish churches, to the average churchgoer. This is what he desires and he finds many things which cannot be met in any way by the Prayer Book of 1662.
One final point. Many noble Lords have spoken of the lack of authority of the Episcopal Bench. How will that authority stand, how will it be strengthened, if those who have sincerely considered that the passage of this Measure is necessary and good see it now rejected? It seems to me that their moral and spiritual authority must be weakened and that, whereas there is now no order, if we do not have the revised Prayer Book there will be nothing but chaos in the Church of England.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the question that we have to consider to-night is one which deeply affects the religious life of millions of the laity in this country. The Church of England is the Church of the nation, of the laity as well as the clergy, and let us not forget that the laity has had little voice in framing or in approving this Measure. Let me quote in support of that view the evidence of one whom the Episcopal Bench reverences and admires, as I do, that authoritative voice which we are going to hear to-morrow, chosen by the supporters of the Measure to represent their
896
views; let us hear the voice of the Bishop of Durham. The right rev. Prelate, not once but, I think I am right in saying, twice—first in an episcopal charge, "Quo tendimus?" delivered in 1924, which I have read with the utmost interest and satisfaction, and again in a letter which he wrote to the papers in the year 1925, said this:—
"The representative character of the House of Laity is utterly fictional."
If I may say so with deep respect I most entirely agree with that version of the Bishop of Durham, who supported his view by a careful analysis of the figures showing how that representation of the House of Laity was reached in the Church Assembly.
But in this matter I trust that the laity are not without persons to represent their interests. Parliament is the trustee of the nation, and everyone of us individually is bound to consider and to protect the interests of the laity, as well as of the clergy. Lord Gorell informed your Lordships that he had talked to many presumably intelligent persons, members of the laity, who had, as he assured us, deeply studied this Prayer Book question from every point of view, and who had expressed to him their approval. I regret to say that my experience as to those with whom I have spoken was the exact reverse. I found that, although they knew that this Prayer Book debate was coming on, the vast majority of them, intelligent men and women too, had little notion as to what the true effects of these changes were, and had not considered whether they would be to the advantage of the nation or not. Individual opinion upon this matter is, however, worthless. Certainly I make my noble friend a present of the fact that my personal experience is valueless. I rely upon the right rev. Prelate, who has told us definitely that the representation of the laity of this country in the Church Assembly is fictional. Whether they have studied the Measure or not does not matter, for the fact remains that the laity have had little voice in framing or approving it.
Lord Gorell expressed some surprise that no one had referred in this debate to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope he does not imagine that we have not studied it. I have read every word of it; but may I ask what

897
is the duty of the Ecclesiastical Committee in this matter? It is not to say whether a Measure which they send up is good or bad. That is wholly outside their constitutional duties and rights. Their duty is simply to say whether there is such an invasion in the Measure of the constitutional rights of the people of this country as would justify them in refusing to send up this Measure to Parliament. I find that the Committee by a majority took the view that the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects are not in this respect prejudicially affected and that therefore they were justified in sending up the Measure.
It is quite true that in the following paragraph the committee say they are generally of opinion that these points to which they refer do not individually or collectively afford grounds for the rejection of the Measure. They had no justification whatever for expressing that opinion. They are not there to decide whether the Measure is good or bad. That is the duty which is cast upon Parliament, and that is the right which Parliament has. I am not questioning the decision of the Committee in saying that the constitutional rights of the subject are not affected, but I do most decidedly say that the Committee have no right to decide what your Lordships are here called upon to decide, whether this Measure is a right one or not.
There are many grave objections to this Measure. I desire to consider one aspect of it, and one only, but that I conceive to be a vital one. This Measure is avowedly put forward as a means of promoting peace in the Church and of securing discipline in the Church. In saying that I am sure I shall have the concurrence of the Episcopal Bench. But two questions arise. The first is: Will the acceptance of this Measure lead to peace and unity in the Church. The second question is: Is there any effective method, should this Measure pass, of securing obedience and discipline in the Church? Neither of those questions is strictly or even mainly an ecclesiastical question; both are questions on which we laymen sitting in this House and in the other House of Parliament are fully competent to decide upon the evidence before us, and I ask your Lordships to say that the answers to both questions must be "No."
898
May I examine a little further why I ask your Lordships to say that? First, as to the prospects of peace and unity. If this Measure pass there will no longer be one uniform Book of Common Prayer, but a series of alternative services, and in almost every parish in England the Church will be divided into two camps—one for the new service, and one against. Sometimes one party will prevail, sometimes the other, and confusion and disunity are inevitable. My noble and learned friend Lord Hanworth cited yesterday the strong testimony of three Bishops, including two right rev. Prelates who now adorn the Episcopal Bench, the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Gloucester, both of whom gave their unqualified verdict against alternative Communion Services. And yet they are here to-day supporting a Measure which puts forward that very proposition. We have not yet heard, but we shall perhaps hear before this debate closes, the reasons for this startling change of opinion. Is it possible that the new Book, with its alternative services, can lead either to peace or to unity? There are even stronger considerations than those which I have put forward. There is overwhelming evidence from the public utterances of the most prominent leaders on one side and the other that the new Book and specially the new Communion Service, if it be adopted, must lead to increased disorder and intensified differences.
Take, first of all, the Evangelical side of the Church of England. The opponents of this Measure on the Evangelical side are not, as some whom I venture to call imperfectly instructed persons would have us believe, extremists. The noble Lord who spoke just now-referred to them as extremists, but I assure him that he is incorrect in that view. These men of Evangelical views in the Church who oppose this Measure include vast numbers of deeply religious men, clerical and lay, whose consciences are vitally affected by these controversial changes and who express their profound conviction that, if they are carried, there is no hope for peace in the Church. I could quote many passages, but if your Lordships desire to see evidence of this I would refer yon to page 28 of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, where they refer to the widespread belief

899
on the part of Evangelical members of the Church that this Measure will not lead to peace.
I refer next to the views of the Anglo-Catholic section of the Church. Do they think it will lead to peace? Do they think the adoption of this Measure is going to bring unity to the Church? Your Lordships heard—I doubt not with deep emotion—the speech of the venerated noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, this afternoon. He has had a lifetime's experience of these questions. He has studied them. He feels deeply as regards them and, in touching accents, at the close of his speech he assured your Lordships that this revised Book would not bring peace or order in the Church of England. And may I call your Lordships' attention to a witness on this point of quite a different type—namely, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham? He made a brilliant speech, as he generally does, in the debate in the House of Bishops in April, 1923. I call your Lordships' special attention to the views he expressed then because we should be extremely glad if he will repeat tomorrow, when he is speaking as the authorised exponent of the supporters, the views which he expressed to the House of Bishops. What he said to the House of Bishops was:—
"The proposed changes are largely in the nature of concessions to the law-breaking party."
It would ill become a mere layman to use language of quite so picturesque a character as that, but that was the language used.
Then the right rev. Prelate makes it clear who are the law-breaking party in his opinion, and he says this:—
"The so-called Catholic Party stands absolutely alone in breaking the law on principle; that is, in repudiating the law itself."
He proceeds (and this I venture to think is of the utmost importance to the subject we are now considering):—
"Have we any reason for thinking that the party in deference to whose demands this revision has been mainly undertaken will obey the proposed rubrics if they become law?"
The right rev. Prelate examinee all the facts and conditions before him and to that question he gives a decided "No." It will be said by some that the position may have changed since 1923. In order to
900
satisfy you that the position has nowise changed since the right rev Prelate came to that conclusion, may I turn to three recent and most important documents? The first of them is a memorandum presented to the Archbishops and Bishops by the Central Council of the Catholic Societies in March, 1927. Those societies represent the English Church Union, the Federation of Catholic Priests and other Catholic societies. In the course of that memorandum they express this view—"It is certain," they say, "that the Bishops' proposals will not produce peace."
The second document to which I refer is the uncompromising speech of Dr. Darwell Stone, the Chairman of the Federation of Catholic Priests, which he delivered in the Church Assembly during the consideration of this Measure, on July 6, 1927. He relentlessly opposed this Measure and told the Assembly that it would not produce peace. The third and last document is a letter which perhaps some of your Lordships may have read from the Federation of Catholic Priests in November, 1927, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, has already referred. In it this body, representing some 1,400 priests, gave a solemn assurance that if any of their number defied the authority of the Bishops their society would stand behind them and support them in that defiance. I need hardly say that I do not agree with the views of these men of the Anglo-Catholic section, but I believe that they are absolutely sincere when they say that they cannot render obedience to the new Book. I confess that when I read in an article by Dr. Percy Dearmer, one of the protagonists in support of this Measure, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century and After in December last, a suggestion that those Anglo-Catholics who declared their determination honestly and sincerely to resist were "cranks," the suggestion appeared to me not only incorrect but offensive.
These controversies will not be settled by abuse. They will only be settled by the belief and sincerity of those who express their opinions on the one side or the other. I have given you the opinions of the Evangelical section and I have given you the opinions of the Anglo-Catholic section, and they unite in saying that this Measure cannot lead to peace. I ask your Lordships what

901
becomes of the avowed object with which this Measure is brought forward—namely, to produce peace in the Church of England? So much for the first question which I put, Will it produce peace?
I now pass to the second question: Is there any effective method, should this Measure pass into law, of securing obedience? The most rev. Primate has assured us that the Bishops in this matter will act together and will administer the Book faithfully. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of those assurances, but in view of the number and the influence of those who conscientiously have announced that they will not obey the new Book, I gravely doubt the power of the Bishops to enforce obedience. We were told that they will use moral suasion. I think the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, rather suggested that course, and the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in your Lordships' House, looked forward to moral suasion as a great agent for obedience. I should accept that view much more readily did I not know that for twenty-five and more years past moral suasion has been absolutely useless. It has not succeeded in suppressing any of those more flagrant illegalities which the Royal Commission in 1906 found to exist, which even this Measure does not legalise, and which illegalities have since the Commission's Report increased both in volume and intensity.
The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, this afternoon referred very fully to the Report of the Commission of 1906, and if I may say so, I think his speech was most valuable for he called attention to many matters which are not referred to in any of the literature in support of this Measure that I have seen. May I remind your Lordship in two or three words what the Commission did report? They found as a fact that the existing machinery for maintaining discipline had broken down; in other words, the machinery of the Courts had broken down. And they found, further, that attempts to deal administratively with irregularities had been unsuccessful; in other words, the Bishops had been unsuccessful in securing order. They recommended therefore the issue of Letters of Business to give greater elasticity to the services of the Church, and they also recommended, as Earl Stanhope pointed
902
out, the establishment of new Ecclesiastical Courts to deal effectively with that illegality. It is certainly a remarkable thing that in almost every one of the statements that I have seen in respect of the Measure, while they all referred to the recommendation as to the issue of Letters of Business, there was not one word as to the other and, as I think, in some ways even more important recommendation—namely, the establishment of Ecclesiastical Courts.
What has happened? One recommendation of the Royal Commission has been adopted, the other has had no effect whatever given to it up to the present time, and there is no effective machinery whatever to enforce obedience or discipline upon those who have announced their intention of breaking the law. In these circumstances I urge most strongly that before your Lordships are called upon to pass this Measure the recommendation of the Commission should be adopted and that these new Courts, as the existing machinery has broken down, should be set up. Again I find myself strongly supported by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham, whose authority in these matters, as I am sure the Episcopal Bench will readily admit, is beyond question. What does the Bishop of Durham say? I quote from his speech in the House of Bishops on April 23. The right rev. Prelate said:—
"These proposals as to the new Communion Service ought, in my judgment, to stand over until the Church is provided with a legal machinery which the general conscience of the clergy sanctions, and which, therefore, the Bishops can use effectively in restraint of disobedience."
In other words, the right rev. Prelate entirely endorses the argument which was put so powerfully to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I cannot but feel that no circumstances have intervened which would in any way alter the opinion so expressed by the right rev. Prelate.
I have to thank your Lordships for listening so kindly to me, but before I sit down I want in a very few words to refer to an argument that has been strongly urged in almost every public utterance I have seen in support of the Measure, and that is that the new services are entirely optional. That statement seems to me to be grossly inaccurate—by misapprehension no doubt but none the less inaccurate. In the first

903
place, where no parochial church council exists, as in the case of cathedrals, college chapels and so on, these new services can be imposed without the assent of and against the wishes of the great majority of those who worship in those cathedrals and other places. But that is not all, because even where there is a parochial church council it is frequently unrepresentative, as every one of your Lordships knows. It is frequently unrepresentative or is under the control of the minister, and in those cases the minister and this unrepresentative council can adopt the new services against the wishes, it may be, of the great majority of those who worship in the parish church.
There is one other consideration which seems to me to be a very important one. Even where there is a representative church council the minister, if supported by the Bishop, can, under Clause 2 of the Measure, impose the new Book, or any part of it he chooses, on the parish against the wishes of the church council. You may say that is an improbable thing. Possibly it may be. It may not happen often. But under the Measure as drawn it can happen and may happen, and if it does I call it a gross injustice to the laity of the parish in question. My last word is this. I deeply regret that owing to the way in which this Measure is brought up to us, your Lordships' House cannot pass the very valuable and uncontroversial parts of the new Book and reject the others. As that possibility is denied to us I can see no alternative in the circumstances but to ask your Lordships to reject the Measure.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, if it is not too late an hour to continue this debate and will not weary your Lordships, I should like to interpose at this moment. The speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down seems to me to consist of two parts. In one part any arguments connected with the Bill are submerged in technicalities which certainly we laymen can ill understand. The other part of the speech seems to me to be concerned in demonstrating to your Lordships' House that the Bishops are guilty of inconsistencies. If the Bishops were not guilty of inconsistencies, they would be an exceedingly dull set of people. What we want to
904
know is, not what this Bishop or that Bishop said a few years ago, but their considered opinion now, and we have had it. This is not an cccasion, in a highly technical matter of this kind, when you content yourself with counting heads. This is an occasion for expert opinion. Surely a majority of 21 out of 25 Bishops is more than adequate. Compare it with that of a body of 25 lawyers or 25 engineers or even, if I may say so modestly, 25 doctors, and I doubt very much if you would get a stronger consensus of opinion than was obtained for this Measure. There is the further advantage that the minority is just big enough to give adequate evidence of intellectual vitality.
The opponents of the Measure do not, I think, give sufficient weight to the result of its rejection. Parliament in its wisdom has recognised on the one hand, that it wishes to maintain the bond between Church and State, and on the other hand that it is itself incapable of managing the Church. It therefore allowed the Enabling Act to be forged as an instrument for maintaining the relations of Church and State and at the same time giving the Church power over its own destiny. Can it be fairly said that, the very first time the machinery so set up produces a large constructive proposal, the rejection of that proposal will not have a very damaging effect on the prestige and power of those who are behind it? All new bodies are sensitive to rebuffs, and a rebuff on this occasion would have serious import. Whether your Lordships are for or against this Measure, I think it is only on proof of fundamental reasons against it that it would be wise to encompass its rejection.
Are there any fundamental objections of this kind? I will pass over the question of prayers for the King. I really thought my noble friend Lord Hanworth was in "Queer Street" when the first argument he adduced was that there was not provision for prayers for the King. Surely we can trust the people of this country. May it not be said that the affection for the Throne and in particular for the present occupant of it, is such that the people themselves will demand ample opportunities of offering up prayers for their King, without any intervention on our part? Such opportunities are many.

905
Passing from that, it seems to me that the real controversy centres round the question of the Communion. I hope to show—and I do not share the views of the Anglo-Catholic Party—that really the fears which have been expressed are to a large extent unjustified. I take it the Bishops had to face realities. They are not the first people who have had to do that. How many instances are there in our history when we have begun by struggling with those with whom we disagreed and then after a period of struggle we have come to the conclusion that it was advisable to make an arrangement with them? Politics have given us an example of this in nearly every decade. We have only to go back to Gladstone and the Parnell Treaty and to the War Cabinet and the Suffragettes. Bishops, like statesmen, and the Church, like the State, have to face realities and the realities are these: It cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-Catholic Party form in this country a powerful body of people, united by one big purpose, and when you test them by their deeds, whether you agree with them or not, their deeds are great. They are people of sincerity of purpose and give themselves up to the service of the unhappy and the needy, and, tested by their deeds, you cannot find them wanting. They have a unity of purpose which many other parts of the Church might wisely emulate.
What is wanted? Is it proposed to ask these people to find accommodation elsewhere? Is it not obviously the purpose of statesmanship to bring them into a larger comprehension and a larger measure of unity? I agree with the noble Lord who said that in no circumstances must the principles of the Reformation be transgressed. Is there any serious transgression in the action or views of the Anglo-Catholic Party? I should like very briefly to try to show what are the grounds on which the Anglo-Catholic Party have this strength of appeal to such a large body of people. The first is this: the doctrine of the real presence is a comfort and a life-giving force to a large number of people in this country. That is a fact. It is a part of their personal religion. Why not, if it helps them along the rough places of this world? If it is only a personal religion there is nothing but good for them in it. Then
906
there are a large number of people who are helped by the ritual and ceremonies of the Anglo-Catholic Party. There, again, if these are part of their personal religion, what objection can there be?
Thirdly, consider this world of high pressure, of conflicting controversies on this question and on that. I take the recent question raised by Sir Arthur Keith on the origin of man. Look at the number of people who were discomfited—and why? Their own authorities in the Church had told them that the first chapter of Genesis must not be taken as historical truth. They then said: "Well, if it is not historical truth, if there was no fall of man in the Garden of Eden where comes in the foundation of your doctrine of incarnation?" There were thousands who thought like that. And there is an increasing number of people who, among these conflicting controversies, are seeking for certitude and quietude, and they fall back on authority and they can find that authority in the Anglo-Catholic section of the Church. And I am not at all sure that, as time goes on, that question of authority may not philosophically form the line of cleavage between two big parties in the Church, those who seek authority and those who prefer to choose for themselves. But the vital question there is this—that the individual seeks the authority, and that authority is not imposed from without. As long as that vital condition is satisfied it cannot be said that there is any Romish tendency in any of these views.
Where lies the really vital source of the strength of the Reformation movement? Surely, it does not lie in this or that item of personal belief, voluntarily adopted by the individual under the influence of those around him. The real question we fought for at the Reformation, and for which I believe this nation would rise up and fight again is this, that we must have freedom of choice, that there must be no sense of constraint; and if we contrast the views of the Anglo-Catholic Party with, for example, the Church of Rome, is not the difference this, that the Church of Rome, from quite good motives, no doubt, is exercising constraint and force, and if it happens to be in a country where they are powerful that force and that constraint are brought home to the social life of the people in no uncertain way.

907
I can give you one example. Take the harsh and hard attitude of the Church of Rome on mixed marriages. Those mixed marriages inflict a great deal of trouble and suffering in a country like this, where the majority of the people are Protestants. Now, that is a transgression of the principles of the Reformation, and if any Anglo-Catholic priest or party ventured to impose, by constraint or otherwise, any of their views such as I have just delineated on any party or section of this country, I venture to say they would never do it twice. I believe they would find in no uncertain manner that this country would never listen to such a thing for a moment. It is that liberty to choose which is the real dividing line, in my judgment, between what I may call Romanising influences and those which belong to the Protestant Church.
I now come to a matter which has not been mentioned before in your Lordships' House. May I point out that a good deal of the criticism of this Measure is a criticism which is a view of the world through middle-age spectacles. I cannot but think that the Bench of Bishops said to themselves: "After all, people having set opinions are not the people concerned." They have their set views, the old Prayer Book is theirs. What really matters is what concerns the people who are now about to get into the saddle in the public life of this country. Anybody who was in the War must have realised what a measure of insufficiency the Church of England showed, and it showed it because of its absence of flexibility. It was enslaved by its own Liturgy and one of the criticisms that I feel towards this Book is that, although it does show greater flexibility, it is nothing like flexible enough. I realise that as statesmen Bishops have to get the best they can. They have made offending phrases optional, it is true, but they have still left them in. I think I can assert with assurance that, if you ask what is the position among the young people of this country to-day, yon will find that a large proportion of them are not hostile to the Church, but they are not for it. They conform, they acquiesce, but there is not amongst them any sort of real allegiance, and that applies to thousands of educated youths in this country.
As to their being irreligious, they are nothing of the kind, but there has been a big jump forward in the last twenty
908
years. The Church's thoughts are not their thoughts, the Church's ways are not their ways. It is worth while thinking out what they do think. One thing about them is that they are characterised by an intellectual candour hitherto unknown and they are offended by the want of intellectual candour the Church shows, the want of courage in statement and restatement. I cannot but think that the Bench of Bishops had them in mind and the one hope I see (and a great deal depends upon it in the future) is whether the Church is able to win back those people to allegiance. I will try to bring home my meaning by an episode that is buried in my memory. At one of the worst periods of the War, when we were struggling to get over sepsis with very indifferent success, when man after man of the finest type fell victim, I remember an occasion when there was an officer for whom we had been struggling for weeks to try and save him from septic infection following fracture of the thigh bone. His wife was there watching him day by day. There were two children, we happened to know, and no money whatever to keep the wife or children if he died. The wounded man was a particularly fine type of man. We were defeated: he died. It was not often that medical officers had time to go to funerals, but many of us went to that one.
It was chilling beyond measure. I never realised more how the Church of England was enslaved by its Liturgy. Nothing less suitable could have been imagined than our burial service on that occasion and when we came to that prayer at the end, which I have written down here, and which begins:—
"We give thee hearty thanks, for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world … ."
you can imagine the chill that fell upon the audience. How we hated it! We knew it was not true. We did not thank the Lord our God; it was an intellectual untruth. It is very seldom that we do thank God for taking away our friends from us. It is that want of intellectual candour which damages the Church in the eyes of the young generation that believes in truth and the almost brutal expression of it. The effect of that on that audience I shall never forget. It alienated them from their Church and all about it. There was an atmosphere

909
of tragedy, pathos and sorrow; we were ready reverently to acquiesce in what was prescribed for us; we were not willing to thank. That is an example.
It so happened that the very next funeral was conducted by a minister of the Presbyterian Church. It was wonderfully adapted to the occasion, and the contrast between the Church in which I was born and the Scottish Church was such that it was left embedded in the memory of every person there. It is such things that make us say that anything is better than keeping as we are. Although, speaking for myself, this Measure does not give anything like sufficient flexibility, I hope it is a beginning and that on this beginning more and more freedom will be built until people of wide views and larger comprehension can all be embraced in one united Church in this country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, perhaps the greatest authority on ecclesiastical law in this country, carried your Lordships back to a bit of history in his speech yesterday, to a time when passion and ecclesiastical differences clashed so acutely as to culminate finally in the imprisonment of several priests for conscience sake. He showed your Lordships how little good resulted. He forgot to mention, however, what to my mind was a very interesting episode connected with the imprisonment of those priests. When Mr. Mackonochie was still in prison, Archbishop Tait was on his deathbed, and he sent the present most rev. Primate as an envoy to make peace. That was in an early part of the career of the most rev. Primate whom we all admire so much. Not only was he sent as an envoy of peace, but he made peace and brought to an end a very painful period of history in this country. I venture to hope that he whose career has become ever greater as it has proceeded until one doubts whether even now it has reached its limit, will, if your Lordships pass this Motion, bring about a wider comprehensiveness, a larger tolerance alike for the benefit of the Church and of the State.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, like the noble Lord who spoke a little earlier in the evening I am not a member of the House of Laymen but just an ordinary Churchman and I trust that a few words from me on that account will not be
910
deemed to be out of place. The Deposited Book came into being, as I understand, as a result of Letters of Business issued to the Convocations by the Crown. Those contained instructions to revise the Prayer Book presumably because the Royal Commission had stated that the law of public worship in the Church of England was too narrow for the religious life of the present generation. Have the Bishops strictly adhered to the instructions given them in the Letters of Business? It seems to me that they have not. They have brought back the old Book of Common Prayer with some slight modifications and some alterations and additions to the rubrics, and in addition they have produced a fresh edition of the Prayer Book and presented this fresh edition, first to Convocation and now to Parliament, not in place of the old Prayer Book but as an alternative. That does not seem to me to be in the least the same thing.
If the Bishops had precisely carried out the instructions given to them one cannot help feeling that they would have produced a Book which, whilst allowing greater liberty in the forms of worship and making certain alterations in it upon which all parties were agreed, would have steered clear of controversial matters. A Measure founded upon such a Book would have had an easy passage through Parliament. There would have been no occasion for a Committee for the Maintenance of Truth and Faith nor even for a League of Loyalty and Order, and the world would have been spared the exhibition of acute differences of opinion such as have been shown in this debate, in the columns of the Press and otherwise. I cannot help feeling that those who have taken up the position that the Church of England is not ripe for such changes as have been made in its Liturgy have been abundantly justified by the course of events. I know that it has been said that this Book has been approved by large majorities in Convocation, in the Church Assembly and in diocesan conferences, but one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that the Book is definitely condemned by a very large number of Anglo-Catholic clergy on the one hand and of Evangelical clergy on the other.
It has aroused no enthusiasm in any quarter. Even the speeches in favour of the Measure in this House have been rather of an apologetic nature than filled

911
with ardent approval. The noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, who spoke earlier in the evening, quoted from Canon Wilson, the rector of Cheltenham, because he is one of the principal apologists for the Book amongst the Evangelical clergy, but in the letter of Canon Wilson urging its adoption by Parliament he confesses that parts of it have filled him with concern and dismay. A letter written on behalf of certain of the Anglo-Catholic clergy who are not opposed to the passing of the Measure is still mote striking, because they reserve to themselves—or some of them do—the right not to use the alternative Book at all. How often has it been said by those who accept the Book that they do so, not because they like it but for the sake of unity or because the Bishops have been twenty years in producing it and they think it is a pity that all that time should be wasted? I fear that this Book will produce, not unity but strife.
Right rev. Prelates have let it be known that in future they intend to enforce obedience to their rules, that is, I suppose, to their interpretations of the alternative Book. But so much has been done and at the same time so much has been left undone that this will be a matter of extreme difficulty. I do not think that this is a suitable occasion for discussing in detail the changes which have been made in the Prayer Book. Besides, your Lordships have no power to amend. Therefore I will confine myself to a few general observations. It has been said that many of these changes have been made in order to provide legal sanction for acts of the clergy which, whilst not contravening the doctrines of the Church, were not specifically allowed by the existing rubrics—assimilating the Prayer Book to practice was how the noble and learned Lord who spoke last night described it. He referred no doubt to such changes as the limited reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, prayer for the faithful departed, and the introduction of the services of Prime and Compline.
Such additional freedom of action having been provided, the Bishops consider that they are now in a position to declare to their clergy: Thus far shall you go and no farther. But by this demand for implicit obedience to the letter of the new Book, by this denial of all that reasonable latitude which has been
912
hitherto the privilege of the Church of England, because it is both Catholic and Reformed, right rev. Prelates are going to cause grave trouble. May I, without entering into any discussion of doctrine, point out one small but not unimportant particular in which the Bishops will assuredly fail in securing obedience? On page 230 of the Deposited Book leave is now given to use immediately before the prayer of consecration in the service of Holy Communion the anthem known as the Benedictus, beginning "Blessed is He." I may say that this anthem is regularly in use as a part of the service at a dozen churches within a short walk of your Lordships' House and in hundreds of churches besides all over the country.
This is another but incomplete attempt to assimilate the Prayer Book to practice. For, at every one of these churches where this anthem is used, another anthem, or rather a prayer, known as Agnus Dei, is also said immediately after the consecration prayer. This prayer is not included amongst those authorised. One is authorised but the other is not. Do right rev. Prelates really believe that from the passing of this Measure this beautiful and most valuable prayer will cease to be used because it is not printed in the alternative Book? Scornful things are said sometimes about rebellious priests, but it is not an expression which can be used about the majority of the clergy who now make use of this prayer and, it is safe to say, will continue to use it. It is not conceivable that people who have been brought up on this prayer and learned to regard it as an integral part of divine service will lightly allow their parish priest to relinquish its use.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that the prayer he refers to is allowed?
LORD TEYNHAM: All I can say is that it is very strange in that case that it is not included.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: It has been given, as I said.
LORD TEYNHAM: Not in the printed Book. In my opinion there was a case for a revision of the Prayer Book on non-controversial lines. It may be that there was also a case for an alternative Book, although I personally dislike the sugges-

913
tion. Would it not have been better in that case to have produced something that would have been acceptable to at least one party in the Church? Let me quote from a speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, made when the proposal for an alternative Communion was before Convocation in 1915. The noble Lord who has just spoken objects to quotations from old speeches of Bishops, but I think your Lordships will agree that this is just as applicable to-day as when the words were spoken. The right rev. Prelate said that the proposal would not satisfy the Catholic Party, and that when they were going to offend somebody they should at any rate find someone whom it would satisfy. He added that it seemed to him, as a practical person, that to do something to put the whole of one side against you and not to satisfy the other side was a thing that no wise person would do.
When the Deposited Book was before Convocation, a book known as the Green Book was presented on the authority of the Council of the English Church Union. This book would have completely satisfied the Catholic party in the Church and could hardly have met with more strenuous opposition than the alternative Book now before us. From that point of view the Green Book would have been worth having, but, on the advice of the Bishops, it was rejected. The alternative Book as we have it appears to me to be an ill-advised attempt on the part of the Bishops to control the Catholic party in the Church. In my opinion it will only succeed in stirring up strife where before there was peace. For that reason, and because, in the words of a distinguished writer, its whole effect will be to lessen the comprehensiveness of the Church, I cannot vote for the Motion of the most rev. Primate. I think that, in view of the opposition that the alternative Book has provoked, and particularly because it fails to satisfy any party in the Church, the most rev. Primate would have been well-advised to withdraw it.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the letter which was addressed to The Times by the noble and learned Lord who usually sits on the Cross Benches, Lord Wrenbury, so precisely expressed my feelings on at least one aspect of this Measure that it makes unnecessary a part of what I had proposed to say to
914
your Lordships. It says it much better than I could say it. My own predilections were certainly opposed in the first instance to what I read about the Measure now before your Lordships. The sort of worship that satisfies me is that which satisfies my noble friend below me (the Marquess of Lincolnshire), and what appeals to me is simplicity, intelligibility and the absence of ornament. Unnecessary vestments distract me rather than otherwise. In point of fact if this Measure had been passed by the House of Laity by a very narrow majority I should have thought it right at any rate not to vote for it, but the figures are eloquent. One cannot ignore the significance of the majority of 5 to 2, and I cannot persuade myself that a House of Laity elected upon the principles upon which I know the House of Laity to be elected, does not reasonably represent the feeling of Church people who care about their Church.
I realise very fully what was said in such eloquent terms by my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn, that some of the most earnest and most effectual work is done by the clergy of the Anglo-Catholic School. Are we to exclude those people from the Church of England? Because it seems to me that it must be one thing or the other. Either they must be within the Church or without it, and certainly the Church of England would be the poorer without them. I realise the danger which has been referred to, of the parish church in the country in which services may be held which are not in accordance with the wishes of some of the parishioners. I could have wished there was some greater protection for them. I should have preferred to see that the voting at the parochial council should determine whether certain practices were to be followed in their church or not; but I understand, and I believe it to be the fact, that the protection to be afforded in the appeal to the Bishop under the Measure will be greater than the protection now enjoyed by parishioners whose parish priest follows practices to which they do not adhere. I know a case at the present moment where practices prevail in a parish where many of the parishioners are not in accord with their minister. Fortunately there is an adjoining parish in which they can worship, and they go there. Therefore, as I have said, it appears to me that there

915
is more protection afforded by the Measure than exists at present.
In this connection I may perhaps refer to a point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hanworth, who complained that Clause 9 of the Measure provides that:—
"All orders and forms authorised to be used by, or lawfully issued under the provisions of this Measure, shall be deemed to be ordered by lawful authority within the meaning of the Declaration of Assent—"
and he submitted that if this House had its way or had power to amend, a proviso would have been added to that clause. As I read that clause it is an enabling clause and it is necessary to give effect to the rules and orders of the Bishops and to enable an incumbent who has made a declaration to obey those orders without breaking his assent.
But the learned Master of the Rolls seems to have overlooked the last paragraph of Clause 2 of the Measure, which says in terms:—
"a minister shall not be under any obligation to use in public worship any orders or forms of service other than those contained in the Book of Common Prayer, or to follow any rubric, table or direction not contained in the Book of Common Prayer, except such rubrics as under this Measure are to have effect as if contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
Therefore the minister is absolutely protected. Clause 9 is merely an enabling clause, and no minister is compelled to depart from the Book of Common Prayer. From the speeches of Lord Carson and Lord Danesfort it might be inferred that the Book of Common Prayer had been taken away from people who desire to use it. Nobody proposes to take away the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer is there, and the alternative services are merely alternatives, which cannot be forced upon any minister.
Speeches such as those of the noble and learned Lords to whom I have referred fill me with despair. They tell us that no peace is to be obtained under this Measure, but they offer us no alternative. Are we to go on as we were? We are invited to postpone this Measure on two grounds. The first is in order that a Measure may be framed which contains only non-controversial matter; the second is in order that a new disciplinary Measure may be introduced. If any noble
916
Lord has read much of the literature which has been showered upon us within the last three weeks on the subject of this Measure he must surely wonder what the consequences of postponement would be. Is this to go on until an agreed Measure is reached? I can conceive nothing more disastrous to the Church than a continuance of this controversy. There is a good legal maxim to which I am much attached—Interest reipublicæ ut sit finis litium. This controversy must be settled. The Measure has been passed by overwhelming majorities in the National Assembly and in Convocation, the right rev. Prelates hold out a hope that it will lead to peace, and they tell us confidently that without this Measure they cannot guarantee either peace or discipline, and therefore in the interest of peace I dare not vote against it. I recognise that local controversies may follow in some parishes. I think that that danger has been exaggerated, and I read in the Measure that there are means of settling them. At any rate, those controversies can be settled, but first of all this great controversy has got to be settled and, in the interests of peace, I think we ought to support this Measure.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, yesterday quoted from a Nonconformist newspaper a statement advocating the acceptance of the alternative Prayer Book and he argued that Nonconformists are friendly to the Book. I think the noble Earl is wrong in that assumption. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to a leading article in last Thursday's Methodist Recorder, a semi-official newspaper of 65 years' standing. I will only quote one paragraph:—
"Parliament is asked officially to recognise and to foster in the Church by law established a form of worship which alters the complexion of the religious life of the country. It is to set the seal of its approval upon an interpretation of Christianity which it formerly repudiated and which to-day is alien to the religious conviction of probably the majority of Christians in the country."
We are dealing with a matter that goes far beyond the confines of the Church of England. If the Church of England is what the name indicates, it represents the doctrines and forms of worship which find general acceptance in England. It leads the way, or ought to, in religious practice and belief, and anything which

917
alters or affects the influence of such a powerful Church is bound up with the general religious life of the nation.
If your Lordships consider that this matter does not concern Nonconformists, I must apologise for intervening in the debate, but my view and the view of probably the large majority of Nonconformists is that this present discussion affects every Englishman in a greater or lesser degree. Though I am not in any sense speaking as an official representative of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, I believe that by far the preponderating opinion of our Church does not approve of the Deposited Book. John Wesley always claimed that in his work he was doing nothing else than teaching the religion of the New Testament and the Book of Common Prayer. Does one wonder therefore that to-day what are called "the Church Prayers" are regularly used in a large number of our Methodist churches? It may be new to many here to know that most of the service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer is used in practically every Wesleyan place of worship. All this not only proves the friendly connection of at least one Nonconformist Church with the Established Church, but it also proves the right of members of my Church to show their interest in the proposal now before your Lordships. As Methodists we are allied by history and by sympathy to the Church of England, and we are averse from anything being done that might injure its usefulness or which in our opinion would undo the work of the Reformation, but it is felt that the influence of the new Book would be all in one direction, away from instead of towards the Reformation which gave to this country the incomparable Book of Common Prayer.
It has been said, rightly or wrongly, that discipline in the Church of England has broken down, but his Grace the Archbishop of York recently stated that, if the Deposited Book is accepted by Parliament, it is proposed afterwards to introduce a Measure to improve the ecclesiastical law of the Church. Should that stage in the evolution of the Church of England be reached, I dare to commend to those who may have to undertake the task to study the ecclesiastical law of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, which secures uniformity without narrowness and hardship and which has
918
now stood the test of nearly two hundred years working. From what I have said your Lordships will readily understand that many of the alterations in the new Book, especially some in the Service of the Holy Communion are entirely opposed to the beliefs of Wesley's followers. Therefore, in what I consider to be the true interests of the Church of England and of the Protestant religion in this country, I shall feel bound to record my vote against the Deposited Book.
EARL GREY: My Lords, on behalf of the Bishop of Durham I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Grey.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to that Motion, to add at the end the words "till to-morrow and be then taken as first Order." I move that in conformity with the notice I gave at the beginning of the present sitting.
Amendment moved—
At end of the Motion insert ("till to-morrow and be then taken as first Order.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House must have moved this Amendment with a good deal of reluctance, because he has always told us that he was anxious to preserve the rights of unofficial members of the House. While I have had the honour of sitting in this House for some sixteen years, even as regards public business the Government have never yet taken the whole time of the House until the other day. I suppose that, having begun that kind of thing, the noble Marquess will seek not only to take the whole of our time for public business, but that he feels that it does not matter and that he can pick and choose to the detriment of private members' opportunities. He has always boasted that he was a protector of unofficial members, but I suppose that we shall not in future have that freedom of debate that has been the peculiar honour and glory of this House, and has made it so different from another place, in which the noble Marquess and I sat for some years and where private Mem-

919
bers are simply at the disposal of the Government and cannot speak unless the Government wish them to do so.
I am all the more surprised at the noble Marquess opposing my Motion and preventing me from moving it to-morrow because it deals with the serious depression in agricultural land. The Motion is in these terms—
"That it is desirable in view of the most serious depression in agriculture that agricultural land should be entirely relieved from all local rates by increasing the grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts."
That ought to commend itself to the noble Marquess because it is very similar to a Motion proposed at the Cardiff Conservative Conference last autumn by agricultural members of the Conservative Party, who supported it in very strong speeches. The Motion seemed to meet with general approval, so far as I can judge from the report of the discussion. What happened? To my great surprise I found that the Minister of Agriculture, the last person one would expect to take objection to such a Motion and to leave the unfortunate agriculturist to suffer under disabilities, is reported in The Times as having said that he could not possibly hold out any hope that such a far-reaching change could be passed during the life-time of the present Parliament. I found also to my surprise that these good Conservatives ignored the interests of their constituents and, like good little children, obeyed the Minister of Agriculture, and withdrew the Motion.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Council of Agriculture for England had this question before it during the autumn, and that a resolution similar to the one that I have placed on the Paper was moved by myself and defeated by three votes. It was defeated, I think, simply because the Minister of Agriculture made a very strong Party speech in the course of which he said, according to the official report, that the proposal was absolutely out of the question. It is certainly most startling that a Government which professes to look after the interests of agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture refuse, when farmers are asking with a
920
united voice for relief, to consider such a Motion as this. A resolution was sent to the council of the Central Land Association from the county which I have the honour to represent upon it, and that Council passed a similar resolution asking the Government to do away with the rates. Then we have the National Farmers' Union who, I believe, are absolutely unanimous in asking that this justice should be done to agriculturists so that their raw material, land, should no longer have to pay rates. And this was refused.
Last but not least we have the very much more important body—a body which I should have thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would have recognised had some right to speak on this matter—the Unionist Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons who, I understand, unanimously passed a resolution asking the Government to relieve agricultural land from any burden of rates. Why is it necessary to do this? Because the rates are most oppressive not only upon farmers but upon smallholders. I can tell the noble Marquess that in my county the County Council has the large amount of over 21,700 acres of land let for small holdings at a total rent of nearly £57,800 a year and in some cases the rates are now equal to 16s. per acre, so that it is not a small matter. There is a very strong feeling about this and I am very much surprised at the noble Marquess who really put his whole objection when he spoke on this matter originally. He was anxious he said that the debate on this important matter of the Prayer Book should not be interrupted. I made an offer to the noble Marquess that I would move my Motion to-morrow simply sub silentio, having the idea that the noble Marquess would have said: "I am quite, satisfied" and would have accepted it at once. To my great surprise he refused, saying that he could not accept it. Therefore I ask the noble Marquess, why does the Minister of Agriculture refuse this help to agriculturists in their present position? I do not think the noble Marquess or any noble Lord would deny that things are very serious at the present moment and that farmers are suffering from great depression.
I would ask the noble Marquess: Is it the case that the Prime Minister has

921
refused the acceptance of my Motion? If that is not so I would ask: What other legitimate reason is there for not accepting the demand of practically all agriculturists both inside this House and outside it? I have had an opportunity of talking to a great many noble Lords who support the proposal, and they have told me that they had not the slightest idea why the Government refuses a Resolution such as mine which does not ask for anything to be done at once but simply expresses the opinion that what I urge is desirable. The noble Marquess nevertheless refused to accept it and told me that even if I moved it sub silentio he would refuse to accept it. The Government, for some reason we cannot understand, are absolutely out of touch with the agricultural needs of this country. They do not appreciate what a serious matter this is and how great would be the relief if this proposal were adopted. It is admitted generally that every farmer in the country, large and small, would receive some benefit from it. We think the Government should adopt this policy rather than the policy of the heavy subsidy of £10,000,000 a year to sugar-beet. I am sorry to say that the Government are absolutely unwilling to do anything to assist agriculturists.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord knows very well that it was with the greatest reluctance that I ventured to use the little influence which I possess in your Lordships' House in order to secure that his Motion should not be allowed to interrupt the great debate upon the Prayer Book Measure. If I may say so, the noble Lord, if he thinks so, is absolutely wrong in thinking that that would be an appropriate course in your Lordships' House. I would suggest to my noble friend for his consideration that it is never a good plan to speak against the wishes of the whole House.
LORD STRACHIE: No! No!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a matter of opinion.
LORD STRACHIE: So have I a right to an opinion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is always the duty of the Leader of the
922
House to do what he can to interpret the general wishes of the House. As regards the substantive part of the noble Lord's speech just now, I did not interrupt him because in the circumstances it seemed wiser to allow him to make his speech, but he was entirely out of order, in addressing the House upon the Motion for Adjournment, to deal with the substance of a Resolution which still remains on the Paper, and in anticipating his own Motion, which ought to be discussed at the proper time, when it comes in its proper place on the Order Paper. I must say that the noble Lord is not at liberty to conclude, as he wishes to conclude, that the Government are necessarily opposed to the suggestion which he makes. The proper time for dealing with that is not yet.
LORD STRACHIE: The next Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I told the noble Lord I could not give an affirmative reply, but at the proper time no doubt His Majesty's Government will be in a position to reply. In the meantime our present obvious duty is to continue and conclude the great debate upon the Prayer Book Measure, and it is necessary for me to take this step in order to secure that that should be the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

HERIOT-WATT COLLEGE AND GEORGE HERIOT'S TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2aand reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before twelve midnight till a quarter past three o'clock to-morrow.