Sitting of 20 July 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gainsborough Bridge Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    CHINA.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is still represented on the League of Nations; and, if so, who is the acting delegate?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): As was stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the 27th of June last, China has been represented on the Council of the League of Nations by Mr. Chu. I understand that Mr. Chu has now resigned his
    380
    appointment and left his post; I have no information as to the appointment of his successor.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Has China paid her quota to the League of Nations expenses?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: She is in arrear for a considerable time.

    ALBANIA AND YUGOSLAVIA.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the outstanding problems between Albania and Serbia have been yet settled; and if the League of Nations has, or will, play any part in the settlement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to state that the recent incident between Albania and Yugoslavia has now been satisfactorily settled. It was not necessary to have recourse to the League of Nations.

    INTERNATIONAL RELIEF UNION.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Conference in connection with the League of Nations at Geneva recently approved a Convention establishing an international relief union; what the objects of the union are intended to be; what is its relation to existing humanitarian and other societies; whether Great Britain was represented at the Conference; whether the Convention has been ratified by any countries; whether His Majesty's Government contemplate ratification; if so, whether the Convention will first be submitted to Parliament; and whether the Dominions and India have expressed any opinion on the Convention?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The objects of the Union and its relation to existing humanitarian and other societies are stated in the Convention, which will be published by the League of Nations; His Majesty's Government in Great Britain were represented at the Conference; so far as I am aware, no country has yet ratified the Convention; the attitude of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain towards the Convention depends principally on the degree of support which the Union receives from other countries; no decision has been taken

    381
    regarding the submission of the Convention to Parliament before ratification; so far as I am aware, His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Govern-merit of India have expressed no opinion on the Convention.

    COUNCIL.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to publish a report of the recent session of the League of Nations Council as a White Paper?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In accordance with the usual practice, a detailed report on the last session of the Council of the League will be issued as soon as possible.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to pay an official visit to Berlin shortly; and, if so, when?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have no such visit in contemplation at present.

    NAVARINO CELEBRATIONS.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has been approached by the Greek Government on the subject of the Navarino celebrations in October next; and what steps the Government proposes to take to associate itself therewith?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter has been the subject of informal discussion, and no decision has yet been reached.

    PERSIA (SHEIKH OF MOHOMMERAH).
    Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps to return to the Sheikh of Mohommerah his personal freedom and his territory?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. The decision does not
    382
    lie with His Majesty's Government, who, however, have repeatedly urged the Persian Government to put into practice their frequent and categorical assurances that the Sheikh's affairs would be settled on a just and equitable basis. Negotiations between the Sheikh and the Persian Government are reported to be still in progress and His Majesty's Government earnestly trust that a solution of this long outstanding question will be found without further delay.
    Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that a definite promise was given to the Sheikh that in return for his services to this country during the War we would guarantee him his possession?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend wants information as to past history, he must really give me notice. His Majesty's Government received assurances from the Persian Government as to the way in which the Sheikh would be treated, and we look to the Persian Government to fulfil those assurances without further delay.

    ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are proceeding with the Egyptian Government as to the four reserved points; and, if so, when he will be able to make any statement to this House on the subject?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have naturally taken advantage of His Excellency's presence in this country to discuss Anglo-Egyptian relations with him, but it is not his intention or mine to conclude any new agreement during this visit.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CRUISERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers were added to the Royal Navy during the late War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The number of cruisers (excluding battle cruisers) added to the Royal Navy during the late War was 40.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there has been any change in the policy of his Department with regard to Rosyth Dockyard; and whether negotiations are still proceeding with private firms for the utilisation of any part of the dockyard property?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the last part in the affirmative.
    Mr. WATSON: Do I understand from that answer that there is no intention of opening this dockyard as a destroyer base?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is no intention whatever of doing anything more than we have already expressed our intention of doing. There is no change in the policy of keeping Rosyth on a care and maintenance basis.

    PERSONNEL.
    Sir F. WISEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the personnel of the Navy on 31st December, 1913, and 1st July, 1927?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers on the nearest available dates were as follow:

    15th December, 1913

    …

    144,419

    15th June, 1927

    …

    102,223

    UNIFORM ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider granting uniform allowances at the rate of £12 10s. per annum to a warrant officer, £15 per annum to a commissioned officer from warrant rank, and £20 per annum to a lieutenant, seeing that the cost of uniforms still remains about double that of pre-War?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The present allowances, the existing rates of which were fixed after the War, are intended to be in aid of the initial expenses incurred by officers on promotion to warrant rank and to the equivalent rank of Lieutenant, any expenses of maintenance being regarded as a responsibility of the officers themselves. This arrangement is common to all classes of officers and no reason is seen for altering it.

    TUG MASTERS (PAY).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether seeing that the policy of his Department is that rates of pay are so arranged as to be not less favourable than those obtaining in the district for similar work, he will look into the position of first-class masters of His Majesty's tugs with a view to this policy being carried out in their case?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The present rates of pay of the masters of the dockyard tugs are based on an arbitration award. The question of the adequacy of the emoluments is, however, being again examined, with due regard to the relevant circumstances.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that these men are considerably worse off than those in similar employment under Trinity House?

    WARRANT OFFICERS (CLIMATE ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the granting to warrant officers of the same amount per day climate allowance as is paid to commissioned officers?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his some what similar question on the 9th March, 1925 (OFFICIAL REPORT Columns 948–9). I am unable to recommend any departure from the existing practice.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY.
    Sir F. WISEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the staff at the Admiralty on 31st December, 1913, and 1st July, 1927?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers of the staff employed at the Admiralty (Headquarters) on the 31st December, 1913, and the 1st July 1927, were 2,062 and 3,154 respectively.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that while the personnel has gone down the staff at the Admiralty has gone up?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The figures speak for themselves, but because

    385
    the personnel has been reduced, it is not always possible to reduce the staff proportionately. However, there have been reductions in the staff, and further reductions may be possible.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the total figures of the Admiralty Office are never given in the Navy Estimates, and is he aware that it is necessary to go through pages of figures before an intelligent comparison can be made between one year and another; and will he see that these figures are put in the same way as other Departments deal with them?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member that these figures are never given in the Navy Estimates. I think it is perfectly clear in the Navy Estimates what the numbers are. There is no attempt to disguise them and I have just given the figures to the hon. Member.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the 1913 staff proved to be utterly inadequate during the War?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am perfectly certain that there was not a sufficient naval staff before the War.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officials in executive positions in the Air Ministry and the Department of Civil Aviation are without flying qualifications?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am not sure what the hon. Member means by officials in executive positions; the expression would cover officials concerned with the issue of stationery, the audit of accounts, the building of barracks, or other duties in which flying qualifications would obviously be wasted. I can assure him that all executive posts in which flying qualifications are necessary are held by officials possessing such qualifications. I may add, since there seems to be an impression that there is a bias against ex-service men at the Air Ministry, that my Department has always been at pains to further the legitimate interests of ex-service men in its employ. It has, moreover, been so successful in this direction
    386
    that reference to the latest quarterly statement relating to the employment of ex-service men in Government offices (Command Paper No. 2867) will show that the percentage of ex-service men to total staff on the 1st April last in the Air Ministry was higher than in any other Government Department. The hon. Member will, therefore, appreciate that this impression is entirely baseless, and I hope he will bring the actual facts to the notice of any ex-service interests with whom he may be in touch.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE BILL.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour if any other actuarial reports, in addition to that contained in the Blanesburgh Report on unemployment insurance, will be called for by his Department before the draft of the projected Bill for unemployment insurance is finally approved?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): In accordance with practice the Government Actuary is consulted on all actuarial matters arising in the preparation of the Bill. A Report on the Bill will be made by the Actuary as soon as its terms are finally settled.
    Mr. E. BROWN: How can hon. Members get the information promised by the Prime Minister if the Bill is not printed? Will they have to apply to the Minister, or will Members have a copy circulated?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope arrangements be made to see that a copy will he circulated to all hon. Members.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a previous answer it was stated that the Bill was in draft, and why is it that Members cannot get a copy?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The whole Bill is not yet complete, but it will be circulated in ample time.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider so amending the Unemployment Insurance Acts as to provide that those persons who, through old age or other

    387
    disability beyond their control, cannot be regarded as normally employed in insurable employment under the Act, are not compelled to pay unemployment contributions during their periods of casual employment in view of the fact that they derive no benefit from such contributions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will bear this point in mind in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is in preparation.

    BLAENAVON.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that three of his staff at Blaenavon visited the homes of some of the unemployed and, if the men were at home, told them that they should be out looking for employment, and in some cases where the men were digging the garden stopped a day's pay; that several of the mines in the district are totally or partially closed and no employment is obtainable; and if he will investigate the matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As stated in the reply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), on 1st June last, inquiries may be made at the homes of applicants for unemployment benefit, at the request of rota committees or otherwise, if the circumstances appear to call for investigation. I cannot trace any foundation, however, for the specific allegations made in the first part of the question, and should be glad to have full details in order that I may make further inquiry.

    MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registering at the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange for the last available week and the corresponding figures a year ago?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 11th July, 1927, the number of persons on the register of the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange was 5,617 as compared with 17,050 at 12th July, 1926.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether there has been any
    388
    reduction in the debt of the Unemploy-Fund to the Exchequer from the amount outstanding on 21st February, namely, £24,460,000; if so, what is the present amount of the debt of the Unemployment Fund; and what is the estimated sum that will be paid to the Exchequer in respect of interest on the borrowed moneys in the financial year ending 31st March, 1928?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The debt of the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer on 15th July last was £23,690,000. The sum of £596,227 16s. 10d. was paid to the Exchequer on 30th June last in respect of the interest due for the six months ended on that date. A further half-yearly payment of interest will be due at the end of December next, but I am unable to give an estimate of the amount which will then become payable as it depends upon the extent of unemployment in the intervening period.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that in the table published in the "Labour Gazette" the difference between the expenditure and the income over a given period is not always the same as the change in the amount of debt over that period?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will confer with me as to the details of any particular statement, I will undertake to give him the reason for any apparent discrepancy.
    Sir F. WISE: What is the rate of interest charged on this debt?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Five per cent.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons in Manchester and Salford who have been refused benefit for the 12 months ending 30th April, 1927, because of the income test as applied in the Act of 1925?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the 12 months ended 9th May, 1927, out of 129,000 applications for extended benefit, 7,500 were recommended for disallowance by the local committees in the Manchester and Salford area, on the ground that the family income was deemed to be sufficient to provide for

    389
    the applicants concerned. The number of separate individuals contained in this figure cannot be stated.

    EAST AND WEST HAM.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the Boroughs of West Ham and East Ham for the months of April, 1926, and April, 1927, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 26th April, 1926, the numbers of persons registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in West Ham and East Ham were 14,862 and 2,869, respectively. The corresponding figures for 25th April, 1927, were 11,586 and 2,042.

    AIR SERVICES (BASRA-KARACHI).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the officers of his Department have completed their investigations with regard to an alternative air route from Basra to Karachi; and can he give particulars?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; the investigations are still proceeding.

    FLYING-BOAT "VALKYRIE."
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the new aerial battleship "Valkyrie" has successfully completed the Air Ministry tests; to what use in the near future it is intended to put this class of airship or flying boat; and can he give the House full particulars?
    Sir S. HOARE: An aircraft of the type referred to has lately completed its tests, and it is intended that it should take part in a cruise of flying boats in the Baltic in the near future. It is a three-engined flying boat and carries a crew of five.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Baronet say from what station the tests were made?
    Sir S. HOARE: Off-hand, I should say from Felixstowe, but, if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, I will verify that.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it intended to include any of these aerial battleships in the Home Defence Squadron?
    Sir S. HOARE: Obviously, that does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does not the question ask to what use this particular type of flying ship is going to be put?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer I have given is that it is going to be further tested, and until the tests are completed cannot give any answer to that question.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Baronet say what will be the number of the crew that this battleship will carry?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have already told the hon. Member that it is five.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    WINDING ACCIDENTS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give full particulars of the six winding accidents in which the cage has struck the shaft bottom which have been reported to him for the six months ended the 30th June last; and the number of injuries caused to persons in each accident?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): As the reply consists of a tabular statement, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these, cages were inspected by the inspectors of his Department before the accident occurred?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir. I am circulating a full account.
    Colonel DAY: Does the statement say when the cages were inspected—how many days before?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir, the statement does not say that.
    Following is the statement:

    WINDING ACCIDENTS in which the Cage struck the Shaft-Bottom, 1st January to 30th June, 1927.

    Date.

    Name of Mine.

    County.

    Persons killed.

    Persons injured.

    Cause of Accident.

    23rd January

    Denaby Main

    Yorks

    —

    7

    Engineman, finding he had cut off steam too soon, opened throttle, but admitted too much steam and caused overwind.

    21st February

    Grassmoor. No. 1.

    Derbyshire

    —

    4

    Overwind due to inlet valve of engine jamming.

    24th March

    Polmaise

    Stirlingshire

    —

    9

    Overwind due to engine man's mistake in applying steam in favour of, instead of against, the engine.

    6th April

    Birch Coppice

    Warwickshire

    —

    3

    Engineman inadvertently reversed reversing lever, thus accelerating in stead of retarding the engine as he intended and causing overwind.

    2nd June

    Coedely

    Glamorgan shire.

    —

    3

    Overwind due to engineman not checking his. engine soon enough.

    14th June

    Wimblebury

    Staffordshire

    2

    8

    Overwind due to engineman inadvertently moving reverser in favour of engine when intending to check it.

    WORKING DAYS (SHORT TIME ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether in the monthly Returns showing the number of days worked per week by the mines, and in regard to which allowance is made in all the cases for short time, such allowance takes any account of cases where full man-shifts are not worked; if so, to what extent; and whether, if no such account is now taken, there is any difficulty in its being ascertained?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Parts of a day or shift are counted as such in both sets of employment figures published by the Mines Department. The first, which is published monthly in the "Labour Gazette," shows the number of days or parts of days on which the pits wind coal, and allowance is made where less than a full day is worked by the pit. The second, which is published in the Quarterly Statistical Summaries of output, proceeds, etc., of the coal industry, gives particulars of man-shifts
    392
    worked. Instructions are given on the form of return that a fraction of a man-shift is to be counted as such.

    SOUTH WALES COLLIERIES.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that some 68,000 men are unemployed in the South Wales coalfield and that numbers of collieries are closing down, while others are working short times; and what steps the Government propose taking to deal with the situation?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. These matters were fully discussed during the Debate last week, and I have nothing further to add.

    SUBSIDENCE.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to the findings of the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. The recommendations of this Committee will require much more attention than there has been time to give them at present, and it is impossible at the moment to say more than that they will receive the fullest consideration.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand it is the intention of the Government to do nothing in regard to the mining question?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Member must understand the very clear answer I have given.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Have the Government started to do anything yet?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I will read the answer again.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, that would he repetition.

  SCOTLAND.

    SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of classes in the respective education authority areas where the umber of pupils is 60 or more; and the number of classes with less than 60 but with 50 or more in these same areas?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The latest complete Return is that of March, 1926, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving for all Scotland the figures then obtained. These show a considerable improvement as compared with February, 1924, the date of the previous Return. Since March, 1926, the Department, through His Majesty's Inspectors and otherwise, have been in frequent communication with the individual education authorities in whose areas the size of classes appeared to be excessive. As a result, I anticipate that in the next complete Return, which is to be called for in October, a further marked advance will be apparent.
    Following is the statement:
    STATEMENT showing for each education authority (from the Return of March, 1926) the number of classes, according to the number of pupils habitually under the charge of one teacher, (a) with 50 but less than 60 pupils, and (b) with more than 60 pupils.

    More

    50 to 60

    than 60

    Education Authority.

    pupils.

    pupils.

    Aberdeen (Burgh)

    …

    32

    —

    Dundee

    …

    23

    —

    Edingburgh

    …

    123

    —

    Glasgow

    …

    1,043

    20

    Aberdeenshire

    …

    55

    —

    Argyll

    …

    2

    —

    Ayr

    …

    115

    —

    Banff

    …

    20

    —

    Berwick

    …

    —

    —

    Bute

    …

    2

    —

    Caithness

    …

    4

    —

    Clackmannan

    …

    9

    —

    Dumbarton

    …

    158

    —

    Dumfries

    …

    1

    —

    East Lothian

    …

    12

    1

    Fife

    …

    21

    —

    Forfar

    —

    1

    —

    Inverness

    …

    —

    —

    Kincardine

    …

    —

    —

    Kinross

    …

    1

    —

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    5

    —

    Lanark

    …

    246

    14

    Midlothian

    …

    12

    —

    Moray

    …

    7

    —

    Nairn

    …

    1

    —

    Orkney

    …

    3

    —

    Peebles

    …

    —

    —

    Perth

    …

    —

    —

    Renfrewshire

    …

    228

    3

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    —

    —

    Roxburgh

    …

    —

    —

    Selkirk

    …

    —

    —

    Shetland

    …

    1

    —

    Stirling

    …

    57

    1

    Sutherland

    …

    1

    —

    Westlothian

    …

    19

    —

    Wigtown

    …

    3

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    …

    2,205

    40

    UNTRAINED TEACHERS.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of untrained teachers now teaching in rate and state-aided schools in Scotland, with the number employed within the area of the respective education authorities?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I am unable to furnish the figures asked for. In the collection of statistics, the Scottish Education Department no longer distinguish between those certificated teachers who are trained and those who have not passed through a training college, the latter being merely the remnant of an old class which is rapidly disappearing from the schools. The latest figures available are for the year 1919–20, when, of a total of 20,695 certificated teachers, 3,725 were untrained. I am sending the hon. Member the detailed figures arranged under education areas.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand that the education authorities are not now engaging any new untrained teachers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not answer that question without notice.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, ROSS-SHIRE.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Board of Agriculture has been approached by applicants for small holdings on the Glenshiel estate, in Kintail, Ross-shire; and whether, in view of the fact that their proprietor has offered them as a free gift capital sufficient to stock their new holdings, he will instruct the Board to take immediate steps to procure such holdings for them?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland received on the 13th instant an application on behalf of four applicants on Kintail estate for small holdings on the adjoining estate of Glenshiel. The application is receiving consideration, but it may be pointed out that the proprietor referred to in the question, who is the owner of Kintail estate, does not own Glenshiel.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to let me know what action his Department is taking in the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I will make inquiries and communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

    LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (LEGISLATION).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends
    396
    bringing in a Bill for Scotland giving business tenants compensation rights against the landlord for improvements to property and goodwill?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), and to the previous reply of 21st June therein mentioned.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland unaware of the fact that the question previously put to him did not deal, as this question does, with a separate Bill for Scotland, but with the application of the Bill now before the House, namely, the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill, and does he now understand that this Bill cannot apply to Scotland, because of the difference in land tenure and other phases of the law relating to land; and does he intend to bring in a Bill for Scotland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question yesterday applied to a separate Bill.

    LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the case a claims admitted for payment since the end of the financial year 1926–27 for drainage grants in respect of work carried out during that year, payment will be made out of the sum of £20,625 voted for that purpose last year, or whether it will be made out of money voted by Parliament for the current year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Claims for drainage grants in respect of work done during the year 1926–27, and admitted for payment since 31st March last, will be met from money voted by Parliament for the current year.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we shall be deprived of the balance between what was actually granted last year by the Board of Agriculture and the amount voted by Parliament? Shall we lose that for drainage purposes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will my right hon. Friend publish a statement explaining how this money has been spent per county in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I will consider that point, but, of course, there is considerable overlapping from year to year.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my supplementary question, namely: Does this mean that we shall lose the difference between what was actually spent on draining during last year and what was voted by Parliament—that that money will not be available for drainage in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The money for drainage appears on the Vote each year, and the money which is not spent in any particular year, of course, will not be available afterwards.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who gets this money for drainage? Is it the Scottish landlords?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can my right hon. Friend say why there is this surplus that is going back to the Treasury this year? Why will it not be applied in the counties of Scotland where drainage is necessary?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There are considerable administrative difficulties. In some cases it is the fault of people who apply for grants and then do not carry out their drainage. That, no doubt, creates some of these difficulties.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Pensions the grounds on which pension claims, inadmissible under the seven-years' ban, can be considered by his Department; and if such consideration is an act of grace?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The cases with which my right hon. Friend is enabled to deal are, as he has previously explained to the House, those in which a man shows that he is seriously incapacitated by an injury or disease clearly due to his war service, and there was good reason for his failure to make a claim within the seven years following his discharge. Such cases, not being eligible for consideration under Ministry Warrants, are dealt with by way of grant under special sanction.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, in regard to a case where a man has persistently refused to make a claim and his relatives have made a claim in opposition to the man's own inclination, whether that would come in?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would not Like to say, but, if the hon. Member has a case like that, and will let me know about it. I will find out for him.

  HOUSING.

    ONE-AND TWO-APARTMENT HOUSES.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, the total number of one-apartment houses built in Scotland and the total number of two-apartment houses built since 1919?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As at 30th June last no one-apartment houses, and 7,222 two-apartment houses, were built in Scotland since 1919 under State-assisted housing schemes. No reliable information is available as to houses of one and two apartments built without State assistance during that period, but such information as I possess indicates that the number is very small.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: How is it we have two-apartment houses built in Scotland and none in England?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: For the very good reason that there is a clamant demand for that type of house. I would only add that when one speaks a two-roomed house of the present day it includes other things, such as scullery and bathroom.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not because of the poverty of Scotland and that people are not able to pay the rent for three-apartment houses?
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it not the case that there is a clamant demand for one-apartment houses and we give way to that When are we going to raise the standard of housing?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have repeatedly stated that it is not the policy of the Board of Health to authorise the building of single-apartment houses. Two-apartment houses, with the addition of sanitary conveniences, are considered proper and suitable.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Housing Commission that has been set up by this House to inquire into housing conditions in Scotland, Tory, Liberal and Labour, has unanimously reported against two-apartment houses, and will he take steps to carry out their findings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that two apartments are sufficient for him and his wife.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That can be debated on the Estimates.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Health the total number of one-apartment and the total number of two-apartment houses built since 1919 under any form of State grant?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): There is no record of any one-roomed tenements having been approved by my Department since 1919 in connection with State-aided schemes. There have been some few instances where local authorities have provided two-roomed tenements for childless couples and single persons. No statistics are available, but the hon. Member may take it that the number of such tenements is negligible.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these two-apartment houses let to childless couples are kept solely for childless couples?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for the local authorities.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that the Ministry of Health has very few, if any, applications from local authorities for two-apartment houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether.

    BLOCK BUILDINGS, ST. PANCRAS.
    Mr. HARRIS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the many schemes for rehousing the people in slum areas now under discussion, he could make arrangements for the model and plans of the proposed new
    400
    block dwellings at Ossulston Street, St. Pancras, which the Landon County Council propose to build, to be shown in the Tea Rooms or elsewhere in the House of Commons before the Adjournment.
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will ascertain whether arrangements can be made on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

    AMERICAN MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can account for the 300 per cent. increase of the imports of American motor cars into this country in the first six months of this year as compared with last year?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I think the principal explanation is that the imports in the first half of 1926 were smaller than they would normally have been, because the heavy importations in the spring of 1925, in anticipation of the re-imposition of the duty, had not been worked off.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not this great increase of American imports a very serious matter for this country, and will not the hon. Gentleman take steps by which our own motor industry could fill up this gap?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the numbers and the value of American motor cars assembled or partly manufactured in Canada to an extent sufficient to obtain the reduced rates of Imperial Preference that have been imported into this country in the first six months of this year; and whether there is an increase as compared with last year?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I regret that the available particulars are not sufficient to provide the information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

  TRANSPORT.

    CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Transport how many meetings have been held of the Central Electricity Board; and when it is anticipated that the first scheme will be submitted?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The first scheme was published by the Board on 11th May. After consideration of the representations which had been made, the scheme was adopted as modified by the Board on 99th June and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, on 1st July. I have no information on the point raised in the first part of the question.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the Minister reason to believe the members of this Board are fully earning the money the House has granted?
    Colonel ASHLEY: More than fully earning it.
    Colonel DAY: Are the dates the right hon. Gentleman has given the only dates on which the Board has met?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is Mr. Frank Hodges working as long here as he recommended the miners to do?

    AFFORESTATION.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to draft the legislation which, in the opinion of the Forestry Commission, it is urgently necessary to pass at the beginning of next Session; and whether he will direct a systematic survey of the whole country to made forthwith in order that accurate information should be available, county by county, as to the amount of waste land which could be profitably planted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) on 30th June, the future policy of the Government in regard to afforestation is now under consideration.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Since then has the Report of the Forestry Commission been published, saying the matter is now urgent, and can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance with regard to the second part of the question as to a systematic survey county by county?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt that will be considered, as the whole future
    402
    policy of the Government in relation to afforestation is being considered, but as the representative of the Treasury I should most strongly deprecate embarking on ally such costly enterprise, the usefulness of which is very problematical.
    Mr. JENKINSasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what steps have been taken to secure the land in the parish of Glyncorrwg for planting trees; and is he aware of the large number of unemployed in that area due to the closing down of collieries?
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): As a result of the Forestry Commissioners' inquiries in the parish referred to they secured an offer of 1,454 acres, but on survey it was found that owing to exposure, rock outcrop and adverse soil conditions it would not be possible to raise an economic crop on the area. Inquiries have disclosed the fact that much of the plantable land in the parish is either utilised for coal tips or is reserved for this purpose.
    Mr. JENKINSasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what steps have been taken in the Dulais Valley, Glamorgan, to secure land for afforestation; and is he aware of the number of workmen unemployed in that area who cannot be absorbed in the mines?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The Forestry Commissioners have made repeated inquiries in the district referred to during the last six years, but no afforestable land has been available nearer than Rheola in the neighbouring Neath Valley where 1,084 acres have been leased and planting is proceeding. The Commissioners expect to secure shortly about 1,200 acres adjacent to the Neath area. Forestry work on these areas will provide some additional employment.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the attention of the Commissioners has been drawn to the desirability of securing for the country the growing oak in Mathrafal Wood, Welshpool, North Wales; and whether he will consider obtaining Treasury sanction for its purchase, particularly in view of its rapidly increasing value?
    Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part the Commissioners are of opinion that purchase would not be to the public interest.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CORN (TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING CHARGES).
    Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Minister of Agriculture the average transportation and handling charges on wheat, oats, and barley from the farmer to his customer; and if he can give comparative figures on imports of this class?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am afraid that it is impossible to compile average figures for the whole country which would be of any practical value. The average charge attributable to rail haulage is obtainable from published statistics, but no distinction is made between home and imported grain; further, handling charges vary according to circumstances, and in the case of imported grain, from one port to another. I will, however, see that due attention is given to the nature and incidence of these charges in a Report on the marketing of cereals which is now in preparation. Transport and handling charges were discussed in the Linlithgow Committee's Report on Cereals, Flour and Bread, issued in 1923, and figures relating to charges on wheat will be found in Annex I to the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices published in 1925.

    MANURES AND FERTILISERS.
    Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider, as an immediate aid to agriculture and to increase the production of the land, the provision of manure and fertiliser free on rail at the nearest station to the farmers?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that a scheme of the nature suggested in the question could not be entertained by the Government.

    COMMON ENCLOSURE, LITTLE HAMPDEN.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the lord of
    404
    the manor in proceeding to enclose common land at Little Hampden, near Chequers, Bucks; whether his Department has been notified; and whether he has inquired into the matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: My attention has been drawn to reports in the Press with regard to the enclosure to which the hon. Member refers, but no communication on the subject has been received in my Department. If common land is enclosed without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture or without some special statutory authority, the county council or district council or the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common, may, under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, apply to the County Court to make an Order for the removal of the fence or other obstruction erected.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not even the oldest inhabitant can look back to a time when there was any enclosure at ail on these 50 acres. They have always had grazing rights. Will he make inquiries before he goes any further?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have no power of any kind to intervene in these cases. I understand the point at issue is whether or not this is common land.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether this land grabber—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper expression for a question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: —this gentleman has been paying income Tax under Schedule A and rates in respect of the land that is now enclosed or whether he has hitherto escaped paying rates and taxes, and on what valuation he has been paying?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I really have no competence to call for this information. I have no standing in the matter. All these considerations may, be relevant to cases in the Courts, but they do not concern the powers Parliament has given to my Department.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the power conferred on the right hon. Gentleman under the Law of Property Act, 1925, will he not make inquiries and see

    405
    whether or not he has the power to turn this person away from the land, should he be unable to prove that it actually belongs to him?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No. I have power under the Act of 1925 under certain conditions to make Orders for enclosure, but I have no power to set the law in motion to throw open land which is enclosed.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: If the right hon. Gentleman has not the power, to whom are the common people of England to look for protection when their land is stolen?
    Mr. GUINNESS: To the Courts of the country. In the answer, I have detailed who has the right to apply to the Courts.
    Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other means of preventing both motorists and others from defiling the countryside?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Health, any powers in this matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, there is no power residing outside the Courts.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow this subject to develop into a Debate.

    POLITICAL GATHERINGS (MILITARY BANDS).
    Mr. DENNISONasked the Secretary of State for War what are the Regulations concerning bands of His Majesty's Territorial or Regular Army performing at political gatherings?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): It is contrary to established practice to permit bands of the Regular or Territorial Army to accept engagements at political gatherings.
    Mr. DENNISON: Having regard to the reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he cause inquiries to be made into the fact that the band of the 16th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, per formed at a Tory party gathering in the Yardley Division of Birmingham on Saturday last, and that a similar band is advertised to perform at a gathering at Chelmsford, where the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is advertised
    406
    to speak. Will an inquiry be made and information given that the practice is undesirable and ought not to be carried out?
    Commodore KING: I will make inquiries into any allegation the hon. Gentleman may like to send to me.
    Mr. DENNISON: I will send it.
    Commodore KING: Thank you.

    RUBBER RESTRICTION SCHEME.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increased production of rubber outside the restriction area and of the recent fall in the price of this commodity, he is contemplating the withdrawal or substantial modification of the restriction scheme in force?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir. In present circumstances I do not contemplate either the withdrawal of the scheme or any alteration in the pivotal price on which it is based or any other substantial variation in its provisions. In this connection, I would refer to the answer given on the 21st June last to a question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for the Montrose District (Sir R. Hutchison), in which I stated that if any change in the scheme were to become necessary I should endeavour to give as long notice as possible. I shall certainly adhere to this undertaking in regard to any minor improvements in the working of the scheme which may be considered desirable as the result of experience, but I repeat that, as I stated in reply to a question addressed to me on the 22nd February of' this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Penny), that, so long as the conditions under which the present scheme is operating remain substantially the same, I do not propose to suggest any material modification in its provisions. I am not aware that any such alteration has taken place in those conditions in the interval.
    Dr. WATTS: In view of the serious, effect on the working of the Stevenson Restriction Scheme of the existence of an unknown number of unused coupons,

    407
    will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of limiting their availability for a definite period, of, say, three or six months only?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are in competition, will he not leave the rubber producers entirely alone?
    Mr. AMERY: With regard to the first supplementary question, I would say the question of unused coupons has always been continuously considered in all its very difficult aspects by the Advisory Committee, and has been, naturally, also closely considered by myself, and will remain under consideration. I think the full and carefully considered answer I have given covers that point.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state that the notice shall be as long as possible, and will extend, anyhow, into a matter of months, and not only into a matter of a few weeks?
    Mr. AMERY: There, again, I should not like to bind myself, but I contemplate that it certainly will be a matter of months.

    KENYA (FEETHAM COMMISSION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet issued his views on the Report of the Feetham Commission; and how far those views coincide with the Commissioners' views on communal representation, native representation, and the taxation of land values for the municipalities of Kenya?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir: the Report is still under consideration.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate the Report of the Feetham Commission, with such comments as he thinks desirable, to the Governors of other Crown Colonies and mandated territories?
    Mr. AMERY: I doubt whether the Report is suitable for general circulation to other dependencies.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: After the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his consideration of this Report, will he then consider whether it will not be desirable
    408
    to raise the same questions with other Colonies, and to use for those other Crown Colonies the benefit of this very exhaustive Report.
    Mr. AMERY: Certainly. Where similar conditions are developing in other Colonies, I will naturally draw the attention of the Governors of those Colonies to the Report.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: For instance, the Sudan.
    Mr. AMERY: The Sudan is not under my office.

    TANGANYIKA (LAND LEASES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that South Africans are taking up leases of land in Tanganyika at revisable rents and that a single colonist has taken up a lease of 40,000 acres; what is the present legal limit; what are the initial rents to be; and whether any natives cultivate at present any of the land which is to be so leased?
    Mr. AMERY: My attention has been called to a Report in the Press from t South African source upon which the, right hon. Gentleman's question appears to be based. I have, received no information on the matter referred to, and am asking the Acting Governor of the Territory for a Report. It is obvious that some of the statements contained in the Press report are inaccurate, as the conditions stated would contravene the land legislation in force in the Territory. This, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, provides that public land cannot be sold, and that no single right of occupancy can be granted for an area exceeding 5,000 acres, except with the approval of the Secretary of State.

    FINANCE BILL.
    As amended (in Committee and on Consideration, to be printed. [Bill 180.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Scottish

  409
  Bills (added in respect of the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland Bill)): Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Grotrian, and Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Fergus Graham, Captain Robert Henderson, and Mr. Lamb.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1927.
  CLASS VI.

  FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £45,076, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, Loans to Herring Fishermen for the Purchase of Drift Nets, and Grants-in-Aid of Piers or Quays."—[Note: £22,800 has been voted on, account.]
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I desire to approach the question from no party standpoint. The position of the fishing industry in Scotland is a subject of deepest anxiety to all who are concerned in the welfare of Scotland, and especially of the countryside, and although I feel bound to criticise the inaction of the Government, and their failure to use the opportunities which they alone possess of bringing help and hope to the industry, I trust to receive in that criticism the support of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Hon. Members opposite who have lately been freely criticising the Government will not grudge members of the Opposition a little indulgence in the same exercise. If we obtain substantial assurances from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the action which he is prepared to take to help the industry, we shall not dream of asking the Committee to divide, so anxious are we to keep this matter, if possible, above the spirit of party contention; but if, on the other hand, such assurances are lacking, we shall certainly divide the Committee, and we shall hope to receive support from all quarters of the House on this matter, which is of such vital importance to the
  420
  prosperity of Scotland and so inseparably connected with important considerations of national defence.
  The fishing industry is a far larger element in the economic life of Scotland than is the same industry in any country of Europe, with the possible exception of Norway. It is one of the twin economic pillars of Scottish social and economic life. Even now, in the depths of depression, 26,000 fishermen are employed, besides 40,000 directly employed in the industry. In addition, a very large number, some thousands, of other workers are employed in ancillary trades, and many thousands are employed in the still wider range of industries to which the fishing industry gives employment. In its structure the industry should appeal to hon. Members opposite and to hon. Members on these benches, because it represents the purest form of individualism. The fishermen are a brave, loyal, devout, intelligent, energetic race of men whose influence, spread as it is in the course of their calling, roaming as they do all round the coast, is wholesome and far-reaching in the social life of Scotland; but one thing they lack and that is, scattered as they are in communities all round the coast, an effective organ of expression to voice their needs and give expression to their well-justified alarms and apprehensions. It will be our duty this afternoon to bring home to the Government, if we can, and to the public outside how parlous and perilous is the condition of the industry. There is no industry, not even excepting the coal industry, which has filled so many of our debates. Or agriculture, in a more parlous condition in Scotland at the present time than the fishing industry.
  In the official Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland for 1926 they say that in recent Years the fishermen have had one continuous struggle against adversity. The industry is year after year visibly shrinking and shrivelling up before our eyes into a mere fraction of its pre-War importance and prosperity. I must use a number of figures and quotations from the Official Report of the Fishery Board to prove this contention, but they shall be short. I am not going to quote the speeches of hon. Members or to score any debating points, but the quotations which I intend to use are

  421
  essential to prove the case and to bring it home to the Government and public opinion. Before the War, in 1913, there were 38,000 fishermen employed in the industry. They have gone down year after year by scores and hundreds until in 1926 there were only 26,300. The crofter fishermen have also decreased. They are a very important element in rural life, but they have decreased from 7,300 in 1924 to 6,600 in 1926. The number of boats employed in the industry have gone down from 8,512 in 1913 to 6,551 to-day. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that that is, in part, due to the transference from sailing boats to motor boats and steam drifters. He will say that there are larger boats now and therefore fewer of them; but the motor boats and drifters in recent years show a decline. In 1923 they totalled 2,769, but they have fallen until now they only number 1,806. The same story can be told in regard to the number of boats being built. I have not the pre-War figures, but in 1923 the number was 68 and it has sunk to 49. These criteria show that the industry is steadily shrinking.
  There is another very important point in regard to the prosperity of the industry, and that is the earnings of the men employed in it. There is at the present time no industry so sweated as the fishing industry, not sweated in the sense that they are being exploited by capitalists; they are not, they are on a thoroughly individual basis. There is no industry in which smaller weekly wages are being earned than in the fishing industry. Here are the facts, taken from the Fishery Board's Report of last year. For the eight weeks of the winter fishing the men who only had the labour share in the boats earned an average of £5 10s. each. I should explain that there are two hired hands on a boat, the fireman and the cook, and they are paid weekly wages. Their wages are paid out of the gross profits, so that this statement does not apply to them. The net profits are divided into three shares; one goes to the crew for labour, one to the nets, and one to the boats. In the old days large numbers of the crews had shares in the nets and a good many in the boats but far fewer have shares in the boats and nets to-day, because they cannot afford to keep up the nets. Because the industry is decaying, more and more fishermen are depending upon the labour share. The
  422
  vast majority of fishermen now depend upon the labour share, and for the eight weeks of the winter fishing they earned £5 10s. in all, or 14s. a week. For the summer fishing, which is the best, they obtained £25 per man in the eight weeks, which was less than £2 a week.
  It is not very much for a perilous occupation like that of fishing. For the eight weeks of the autumn fishing their share was only £2, that is to say, less than 5s. a week, and the total, therefore, is from £32 to £33 for 28 weeks. That is for the herring fishing. They do a little white fishing when they are not engaged in the herring fishing, but that can hardly make a difference of £15 or £20 to their total income, and if you say they are getting £1 per week throughout the year, you are exaggerating. They are not getting that amount; they are getting much less. And, as I say, these figures are taken from the official Report of the Fishery Board. In view of this it is not surprising that we are told in the Report of the Fishery Board for 1925 that the numbers employed in the industry are decreasing, and that:
  "It arises chiefly through the disinclination of many of the younger generation to step into the places vacated by older men through death or retirement."
  Is it not likely that there will be some disinclination to step into places where the wages earned amount to the total I have quoted? Take a further test as to the present position of the industry. Here, again, I do not intend to quote from speeches made by hon. Members, but from the official Reports, authorities which the Secretary of State himself must admit are unimpeachable. In the Fishery Board's Report for 1926 it is stated that:
  "Owing to the depressed condition of the herring fishing industry the extent of drift nets has shown a continuous decline during post-War years, except in 1924 and 1925, when increases were made following the success of the herring fishing in the former year."
  That is after the very worst depression in 1923. Again, in the official Report of the Fishery Board, we find:
  "The result of the last year's fishing was that although there were the usual variations of fortune as between individual vessels the earnings of the fleet were wholly absorbed by working expenses and the majority of the vessels returned to Scotland more or less deeply in debt. The net

  423
  result of the year's operation was to throw the herring communities of the Moray Firth and East Coast back to the position in which they found themselves in the dark days of 1923."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Read the next sentence.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, I will. It says:
  "At the close of the year their financial resources were again practically exhausted and they were once more burdened with a load of debt from which only a series of successful seasons will extricate them."
  This is the Report of the Chief Inspector of Sea Fisheries for Scotland:
  "A number have during the past few years incurred liabilities which only a succession of profitable seasons will enable them to liquidate. The stringency is most apparent at ports to which the exclusive employment of steam drifters in the past brought prosperity. It is to be hoped that these self-reliant and persevering men may soon be enabled to retrieve their position."
  One more quotation from the Fishery Board's Report for 1926:
  "The year 1925 proved most disappointing after the good promise of 1924, and for the majority of the fishermen the year 1926 was much worse. As already stated, the fishermen most severely hit were the men serving on steam drifters who have gone in most whole-heartedly for herring fishing and given their energy and capital most freely to its development."
  It would be a shameful thing because an industry is not well organised to deny the same support which the Government gives to better organised and more politically influential industries throughout the country. The mining industry gets help, so also does agriculture, unintelligent, perhaps, and wasteful and inadequate, but the fishing industry alone, which is in a worse condition, is the one for which the Government refuses to do anything. Some help was given in 1920 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He gave a substantial measure of help at a time when the industry was on the verge of foundering; and without that help it would most inevitably have gone under. It was given rather hurriedly and, perhaps, in a costly way, and I am not suggesting that the same kind of help on the same lines should be given again. Still, it undoubtedly saved the industry at a desperate crisis in its history, and the names of my right
  424
  hon. Friend and Mr. Munro, now Lord Allness, who was then Secretary for Scotland, will long be remembered with gratitude by the fishermen of Scotland. Another measure of help was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) when he was Secretary for Scotland, but it was smaller in scope and amount and did not quite realise what was hoped from it.
  I have shown the need for help, the value of this industry to Scotland, and the parlous condition in which it is at the present moment, now I want to make one or two constructive proposals by which the Government can assist the industry. The first thing which is absolutely vital to the herring fishing industry is to regain its lost markets. Its best market is Russia; there is no question about that. Of all the herrings exported—and these are figures I have taken from the statistics supplied by the Scottish Herrings Curers' Association—in 1913, 75 per cent. of the catch went to Russia and 25 per cent. to the remainder of Europe. In 1923–24 and 1925, taking the average of these three years and a much smaller catch, the percentage exported to Russia, including Finland and the Baltic States, was 46 per cent., while the rest of Europe received 54 per cent. These figures show the vital importance of the Russian market to the herring trade. Let me quote the view of the Chairman of the Fishery Board—and of all public Departments of which I have any knowledge at all the Fishery Board is almost unique in the high degree of confidence it has won for itself from the people engaged in the industry which it exists to help and protect. The Chairman of the Fishery Board, Commander Jones, in a speech which he delivered at a Rotary Luncheon in Edinburgh on the 25th of November last year said:
  "The Scottish fishermen are passing through parlous times through no fault of their own, but due to the loss of markets abroad, especially old Russia."
  He went on to mention other things, and I am going to say other things as well, which can be done to help the industry, but it is well to note that the thing which he places first is that the industry must regain its lost markets abroad, "especially old Russia." Let me

  425
  quote the Report of the Fishery Board for 1925. They say:
  "A revival of the Continental markets for these goods, and particularly that of Soviet Russia, is needed to place the Scottish herring fishery once more on a sound financial basis."
  Again, they say:
  "Until the markets in Soviet Russia can absorb cured herrings freely there appears little prospect of the industry regaining its pre-War position."
  In face of those opinions of people who exist to study the interest of the industry, it is childish for hon. Members or for the Government to say that the question of the Russian market is not vital and urgent for this great industry. One hon. Member said in a public speech that "we must not recognise evil-doers who at present afflict the people of Russia." Arguments of that kind are absolutely childish in the crisis which the herring fishery industry has reached through the loss of its Russian market.
  Mr. SKELTON: Will the hon. Baronet tell us whether he knows what the condition of the market is this year? I am informed that the market for herrings has almost entirely recovered this season.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will answer the hon. Gentleman at once. The answer is that we must judge the market at the end of the year. The market in Germany and in other parts of Europe always takes the catch in the early part of the season. It is at the end of the season that the difficulty comes. It is then that we stand in need of the Russian market.
  Mr. SKELTON: Can the hon. Baronet tell the Committee how, so far as this season has gone, it compares with the other post-War seasons? I am told that it is infinitely better than anything since the War.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very much too early to say that that is the case. The winter fishing was almost an unprecedented failure. That is this year. The summer fishing, so far as it has gone, has been better. In some parts it has been a success, in Aberdeen a greater success, but further North it has been worse. On the whole it is very difficult to say. That refers to the catch of herrings. Now comes the question of selling those herrings.
  Mr. SKELTON: I am referring to markets.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: At the beginning of the season nobody can say that there is likely to be any improvement. It is at the end of the season, when stocks have accumulated, that you find a difficulty in getting rid of the herrings if the Russian market has not been buying. These statements and figures I have given are not my statements. I have given the Committee the opinion of the highest authorities, the curers themselves, and above all, the opinion of the Fishery Board and of the Chairman of that Board, whose speeches I have quoted. Therefore I say that the rupture with Russia has played a part, the full effects of which will not be felt until the end of the season. It would not be in order to discuss now the question whether the action taken by the Government in regard to Russia is justifiable or not, but I do say that there is now a need for a firm declaration of policy by the Government, for the throwing over of those people who talk about the impossibility of doing business with evil-doers and using language of that kind—throwing them over definitely, and saying that the Government intend to do the maximum amount of trade possible, provided there is no interference with us in our affairs, no sapping and under-mining of the fabric of our Constitution; that if that is clearly understood we are willing and anxious to trade, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, the Fishery Board and the Department of Overseas Trade, are willing and anxious to co-operate, so as to extend to the maximum the trade that can be done in herrings and other goods with the present Government of Russia. So much for the Russian market.
  The next constructive suggestion I have to make to the right hon. Gentleman is the need of help for these fishermen to enable them to provide themselves with the nets and gear which are necessary. The position with regard to nets has been getting worse and worse for the last few years. In particular I would quote, in the first place, from a report of the Fishery Board for 1924. I was pressing the need for this on the Government of the day in 1923. I made a particular point of it. Again, when the Labour Government came in in 1924, I pressed

  427
  upon them the need of giving fishermen credit for replacing their lost and damaged gear. The Fishery Board Report for 1924 refers to "urgent and well-founded representations" being made to the Board for this purpose. I am very glad to quote that statement, because many people said at the time that it was merely a sort of stunt and was not required by the fishermen. That reference to "urgent and well-founded representations" shows that the matter was well-founded and urgent. If the representations I made were urgent and well-founded then, they must be urgent and well-founded now, because the Fishery Board Report for 1926 distinctly says that "the quantity of nets now held is about the same as in 1924." Therefore, the demand that we make for help in replacing lost or damaged gear is equally urgent and well-founded today. There is the further fact that if the fishermen are not able to replace their nets and gear they are thrown hack on only a limited share in the nett profits of the boat. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to tackle the question of the scandalously low wages—men earning £32 to £33 in the course of a year—this is one way to tackle it—to enable men to replace worn nets.
  4.0 p.m.
  The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) did tackle the question, and I wish to give him all credit for that. He produced a scheme for supplying nets. When he produced the scheme I felt sincerely grateful to him, but at the same time I felt bound to criticise the scheme, because it was inadequate and did not meet the case on account of the terms arranged. The terms were that the fisherman had to provide 50 per cent. in cash. He then got a loan of 50 per cent., on which he had to pay 5 per cent. interest, and he had to go on paying that 5 per cent. for three years, and then to repay the whole of the loan that had been advanced. Of course, the scheme was not a success; it could not be a success under those conditions. Further, it could not apply to the class which needed it most, the poorest fishermen, the men who had, probably, had a very bad fishing with heavy losses of gear at Yarmouth, where the water is shallow and the effect of the rough seas on the gear is much worse. Such men had heavy losses of gear.
  428
  When the present Secretary of State for Scotland took office, I appealed to him to improve this scheme. Instead of improving it he scrapped it. For that, I think he is to be condemned far more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife. Therefore, I would appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider it. He is told by his own officials, in the Fishery Board's Report, that the position now is as bad as it was then, and if the representations I made then were urgent and well-founded, they are urgent and well-founded now. Of course, they were not his officials when they said that. That was in 1924, but I have no doubt it was true, and if it was true then, it is true now, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to act upon this information, and to supply the much-needed credits.
  The third constructive proposal I wish to make is that we want to reduce the heavy cost of running these drifters, the coal, oil and other things. It is referred to in one of the Fishery, Board's Reports. We want to get a smaller and more suitable vessel. This is where the Government could help. They could help the fishermen by experiments in vessels, by trying to find out which is the best kind of vessel. They could build one or two experimental craft, make inquiries from boat designers in this country and other countries to find out what kind of boat is likely to be the best for this purpose, and, having found that out, give the men credits, which they will pay back. They paid back the credits granted, on what were almost usurious terms, by the right hon. Member for West Fife, and they will repay the money you advance to give them that little help to change over to a better type from these expensive boats, which, according to the Fishery Board's Report of 1926, are wearing out rapidly, and are coming to an end of their life. Give them the necessary credit to enable them to transfer to modern, up-to-date and more suitable motor boats. That would reduce their overhead costs. That is the third suggestion.
  I have a fourth suggestion to make, and it is that wireless receiving sets should be put on all these drifters, not to entertain the man in the long hours of the night, but to enable them—and this is another method of reducing costs—to

  429
  get news of where the shoals of herrings are to be found. As it is, they steam out into the ocean, and, if unlucky, they fail to find the shoals. They go steaming up and down the coast trying to find the best place to go, wasting valuable time and fuel, with a rather doubtful prospect of success. Very often, after steaming aimlessly about, they return to port, frequently 100 miles, to get information as to where shoals of herring are to be found. If they had wireless receiving sets, they would be saved all the cost of this useless steaming about. It would be an invaluable boon to these fishermen to be able to get the necessary information in this way. That is also referred to in a recent Fishery Board Report. It cannot be described as a fantastic fad which can be brushed aside, and it is a direction in which the Secretary of State could move.
  May I make a fifth suggestion? Co-operation and better marketing would help these men. The Food Council, I know, is inquiring into prices of retail fish, and I hope the Secretary of State will give some help to establish co-operation among the fishermen. It is referred to in various Fishery Board Reports, but you must help these men to set up their organisation. Fishermen are not qualified by training or experience to run a co-operative organisation. It is a business question, and ordinary fishermen, who have spent their lives in the fishing industry, cannot be expected to run a co-operative society. It is difficult enough, in all conscience, in agriculture, but you are far more likely to find a farmer or smallholder, who have more business experience, able to do it than a fisherman. That is one of the reasons you cannot get it started. Fishermen know that it would be an advantage, but unless you give them real help and encouragement and advice from official quarters, you will not get this co-operative marketing on the way. A number of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, such as Lord Novar, were theoretically keen and sympathetic, and all that, but nothing has been really done to help the men to organise, and it is a direction in which the right hon. Gentleman could move.
  I am not going to say a great deal to-day about trawling. Others, I know, will deal with that question, but I would like
  430
  to quote an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on the 28th July last year when he said he was "considering the possibility of introducing legislation next Session dealing with the question of trawling." That is what he told me last Session, but we have not had the promised legislation, and I should like to ask whether we are going to have it next Session? Then, I would also say that the reports of the Fishery Board show that we are now suffering from the renewed incursions of the foreign trawlers into the Moray Firth. I know there is a Committee sitting on that question now, but the Secretary of State, in some answers to questions, has given an indication that he thinks it is a lessening evil, whereas, if he refers to the Fishery Board's Report, he will find that, as a matter of fact, it is getting worse now than it was. In the 1925 Report they say:
  "It will be seen that the number of foreign trawlers which resorted to the Moray Firth during the year and the number of occasions on which they were observed show increases on the corresponding figures for the previous few years."
  Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will realise the importance of the subject. Another question is that of harbours. The small harbours are simply falling into decay. Larger harbours, places like Wick, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, which are absolutely vital to the successful conduct of the industry, and especially Wick, the premier herring fishing port on the mainland of Scotland, require extension to accommodate the fishing fleet adequately, but all the smaller harbours are in a state of complete disrepair. You can see from the carriage windows of the train as you go along, that they are falling to pieces. The pier at Helmsdale is leaning at the same sort of angle as the Tower of Pisa. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman can deal with all these harbours at once, and spend £10,000,000, but he could, and ought to, get a schedule of these harbours in order of importance, their proximity to the fishing grounds, and the number of the population dependent upon them, and gradually take them in due turn, instead of allowing them to decay more and more rapidly.
  Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: To whom do these small harbours belong?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is a very important point. Some belong to private individuals, and some to small authorities. I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and hope he will press upon the right hon. Gentleman to get powers to acquire some of these small harbours, which, at the present moment, people do not even know to whom they belong. They belong to people who have not the legal power, in some cases, to dispose of them. Then we are told by the Fishery Board that they cannot help these harbours, because they are in private ownership, that in some cases the owner cannot be found and in other cases he cannot hand them over. There is a real need for the right hon. Gentleman to acquire powers to take over the harbour in that case, so that it could be handed over to the local authority to maintain, if the Fishery Board would help with a grant to put it in repair.
  I have shown how bad are the conditions of the fishing industry. I have shown some ways in which the Government can help. The Government are pledged to help. That is a point I wish to make absolutely clear. This is a letter which the Prime Minister wrote to a gentleman of the name of Mr. Wallace, who was, I think, a candidate in East Aberdeenshire at the Election in December, 1923:
  "I realise fully the unfortunate position of the fishing industry on the East and North Coasts of Scotland. It is the Government's intention carefully to consider how assistance can best be given, as the key of our policy is at present abnormal unemployment in the country."
  The Prime Minister had the misfortune not to be returned to power at that particular Election, but he was a year later, and I am not aware that he has done anything for the fishing industry. What is the position of the industry at the present time compared with what it was when the Prime Minister wrote that letter? There were then 28,700 fishermen employed in the industry; there are now only 26,300. When the Prime Minister wrote the letter there were 7,300 crofter fishermen; now there are 6,500. When the Prime Minister wrote the letter there were over 7,000 boats employed in the industry, of which 2,770 were motor boats and steam drifters; now there are only 6,550, of which only 1,800 are steam drifters and motor boats. Then, again, there were 68 boats being built, and now
  432
  there are only 49 boats being built. By every criterion you can take, the position of the industry at the present time is worse than it was when the Prime Minister wrote that letter. I, therefore, ask the Government what are they going to do to fulfil that pledge? There is a great argument at the present time in the public Press about the standard of naval power in this country in relation to other great and friendly Powers. It all centres round the construction of 10,000-ton cruisers with 8-inch guns, involving the expenditure of millions of money; but these considerations, important as they are—
  The CHAIRMAN: I want to point out that it is the rule of the House not to read newspapers in the House.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: —but these considerations, important as they are, are not the only considerations which affect British naval power. British naval power, from the days of Drake and the Armada, has been won largely as a triumph of the skill, courage and resource of British sailors, very often against great material odds, and the collapse, therefore, of the fishing industry would constitute a far greater peril to the national defence than the loss of a cruiser. Yet the Government stand helplessly by, while the industry languishes, and young men are forsaking our shores for far countries.
  "The British Navy saved Europe, but the fishermen saved the British Navy,"
  said Lord Jellicoe, and he ought to know.
  "The sword and buckler of the Allied cause,"
  said Lord Balfour at Washington, speaking of the British fishermen in the War and the anti-submarine work they did. A mere fraction of the cost of a cruiser would avail to preserve, repair and fortify that shield. Therefore those of us who are concerned for the soundness of our national and imperial defence will stand with those who are concerned for the economic and social welfare, and for the prosperity of Scotland, to demand that the Government shall disclose now what they are prepared to do to redeem the Prime Minister's pledge.
  Mr. T. HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Baronet, the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has left very little for any other Scottish Member to say on this question from the

  433
  fishermen's point of view. I represent the consumers' point of view and I believe this question of the fishing industry is just as important to my constituency in which there are no fishermen, as it is to the constituency represented by the hon. and gallant Baronet where there are many fishermen. I am not going to attempt to repeat what he said in a speech which seemed to cover the whole industry, and I wish to confine myself to one or two questions of a more general nature. In emphasising the points made by the last speaker in regard to the decay of the fishing industry I put this question as straight as I can to the Secretary of State for Scotland: Is it true to say that the number of fishermen engaged in the industry is decreasing by between 500 and 600 a year? The other question which I wish to address to the Secretary of State relates to the comparison between the figures for Scotland and the figures for England in regard to the amount and value of fish caught. It seems strange that while the value of the fish caught has been increasing in the case of England and Wales it has been decreasing in the case of Scotland. Can the Secretary of State give any satisfactory reason as to why that should be so?
  I find that in 1923 the amount of fish landed in England and Wales was 11,514,148 cwts. and the value was £13,871,993. In 1924 the catch in England and Wales increased to 13,698,589 cwts., and the value to £15,151,737. Whilst the value has increased in England and Wales it has decreased in the case of Scotland. In 1923 the total catch in Scotland was 5,417,635 cwts., and the value was £3,512,778 and in 1924 the catch was 6,696,387 cwts., and the value £4,754,870. Those figures raise a very interesting point on which I hope we shall get some information from the representative of the Government. Further I desire to put a question with regard to the use of seine nets in inshore waters. On pages 9 and 10 of the Report reference is made to further consideration being given to this question. I have had the opportunity of speaking on another occasion about this very questionable practice and we are entitled to ask what has been the result of any reconsideration which has been given to the subject and what the Government intend
  434
  to do with regard to it. The hon. and gallant Baronet did not refer at great length to the question of trawling, but, however much experts may differ on this question, the fact remains that villages along the coast of Scotland are becoming grass-grown and the inshore fishermen are disappearing altogether. Those facts are in front of us and cannot be ignored. I have in my possession a letter from a fisherman in South Uist. I have never been there and I know nothing at all about it but evidently the fishermen who wrote this letter had a grievous complaint to make against trawlers who carry on illegal trawling in the waters around the South Uist. He writes:
  "The fishing here has been spoiled by the trawlers, who fish where they please. The policing of the waters is most inadequate. We hardly ever see the fishery cruiser, and in any case she is too small, most of the trawlers being faster. The Minch ought to be closed to trawlers."
  I do not know whether that is the right view or not. I cannot say that it would be the best course to take in the circumstances but, whatever experts may argue as to that point, I believe that grievous damage has been done by the use of seine nets in inshore fishing. What decision has the Government taken in regard to it? From the standpoint of the consumer I would emphasise what has been said by the last speaker as to the necessity for some marketing arrangement. It is a serious question. We read in the agricultural report about an attempt at putting into practice co-operative methods in agriculture and the fishing industry is an industry where co-operative methods would, I believe, prove very successful. One thing is perfectly plain. This Report, which is the only evidence we have of the activities of the Board, deals with the value of the catch and the amount of the catch, but we have no knowledge as to the price which the consumer has to pay in the market for the fish. It would be well if we were able to get a comparative statement showing the difference between the price of the fish to the consumer and the price paid to the fishermen who catches the fish. That, I suppose, would be outside the scope of the Department of the Secretary of State, but I think such a statement could be compiled if the various Departments concerned agreed to do it. I do not know that I have much to add to the very complete

  435
  statement of the hon. Baronet, and I conclude with the hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reply to my questions.
  Mr. STUART: The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) I understand has put forward various constructive proposals. I regret very sincerely that I was not present to hear the whole of his speech, but I did hear the latter part of it. He called upon the Secretary of State to take various steps to assist the fishing industry, but I am sure he will agree that one thing which no Government, not even a Liberal Government, can do is to bring about miracles such as we have read of, causing the fishermen's nets to burst with the weight of their catch. One of the chief problems affecting the fishing industry is that it depends to a great extent upon whether the season is good or bad, and no Government can bring about a good season for fishing. From what I heard of the hon. and gallant Baronet's speech, he appeared to be advocating a system of subsidies in a veiled form and later on a system not only of nationalisation but of confiscation. The reason why I use those terms is because when the hon. and gallant Baronet was referring to the harbours he said that the Secretary of State should acquire powers to take over those small harbours and he also appeared to be of the opinion that those harbours should become a national charge, having been taken over by the Secretary of State, whether the owners desired it or not, to be run by the Government for the benefit of the fishing industry.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I wish to put him right as to what I actually said. There are two points, one about confiscation and the other about making the harbours a national charge. On the first point I can assure the hon. Member that I did not advocate confiscation and he will find that the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear me out in that statement. I said there were some cases in which it is not known actually who is the owner of a particular harbour owing to complicated questions concerning mortgages and so forth. In the case of at least one of them—Helmsdale—it is not
  436
  actually known who is the owner, and the Fishery Board will not make an advance because it is not in public ownership. That was a case in which I suggested that the harbour should be taken over by the Government, but I never suggested that there should be confiscation.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Baronet seems to have made his point quite clear. He cannot now make a second speech.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: On the point as to confiscation—
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Baronet has successfully repudiated the charge of supporting confiscation, and he should leave the matter there.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: But there is the other point—that I said I wanted to make them a national charge. I want the present system maintained under which the Fishery Board advances money, provided the local authorities look after the maintenance and upkeep of the harbours.
  Mr. STUART: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Baronet is not an advocate of either nationalisation or confiscation. I should very much regret to think that he had leanings in that direction. I would only suggest to him, if he is anxious that the Government should take this action in regard to the harbours, that he should look through the accounts of the majority of these small harbours in recent years. He will find that in these days of economy to advance money to them would be a very doubtful course to pursue. There would not be much hope of recovering the money. There have been numerous cases in which I think the Treasury has been considerably out of pocket on account of advances of financial assistance to some of these harbours. As a matter of fact, so far as the bigger and more important harbours are concerned, the Treasury is giving assistance. In the case of Nairn Harbour at the present time a Bill has been passed, and the Development Commissioners have agreed to make a considerable grant towards re-building and re-conditioning the harbour. I think one might reasonably expect that harbours which have recently

  437
  been doing good business should be assisted. The hon. and gallant Baronet also suggested that wireless sets should be distributed by the Fishery Board.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: This is the third time the hon. Member has misrepresented what I said. He knows perfectly well I made no such suggestion. I said that credit might be given them to enable them to provide themselves with these wireless sets.
  Mr. STUART: The only thing with regard to the question of credits is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Secretary for Scotland in the Labour Government had introduced a scheme which, he said, he had to criticise because it was so inadequate. It was useless, he said. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Well, he complained that it was inadequate and also that the present Secretary of State had discontinued the scheme. It appears to me to be an entirely unnecessary policy to continue a scheme when he himself apparently considers it most Made-quite. It is a well-known fact that the scheme was inadequate, and I said at the time when it was introduced that I thought it was inadequate. The poor fishermen who most needed assistance were unable to make use of the scheme, because they could not possibly comply with the terms imposed upon them. I feel that there is no scheme which any Government can introduce which will bring back the fishing industry to that state of prosperity which we should like to see it enjoy. It depends upon trade, and it is an unfortunate fact that during the War the export trade in herrings fell off and that apparently herrings have to a great extent lost their popularity. I cannot say that I personally regard that as entirely remarkable, but it is a very sad fact that during the War, when the trade did fall off apparently, the popularity of the herring declined to a great extent, and it has not been recovered.
  Mr. J. JONES: A red herring!
  Mr. STUART: I hope very sincerely that it will be recovered, but, as a matter of fact, the fishing population must look as far as possible to bettering their trade, and I quite agree that the Department of Overseas Trade should do all in its power to assist in the marketing of these herrings abroad. I agree entirely with
  438
  the hon. and gallant Member on the subject of co-operation, but I will not say more on it, as I realise that, as in the case of agriculture, there is extreme difficulty in getting co-operation on sound lines and in getting people to take part in the schemes. I think the present Government cannot in any way be blamed for their failure to put the industry back into the position which it enjoyed before the War. I agree also with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is a tragedy for this country to see its fishing population decline. The great services which they have rendered to this country and their value to the country in times of danger are fully realised on this side of the House as well as in any other quarter. [Interruption.] I will only say that I would like to see this Government or any other Government introduce some plan or scheme or policy which would resuscitate the industry—[Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) not to keep interrupting.
  Mr. J. JONES: I never said a word.
  Mr. STUART: I can only say in conclusion that I regret that I personally am unable to see what line the Government could take which would have the desired effect of restoring the industry to its pre-war prosperity.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) represented the views of the Government, but if the fishermen on the East coast of Scotland have to rely on help such as he is likely to afford them, they will try for a very long time. He said he regrets, as we all regret, to see the industry in a bad way, but what suggestions did he make to help it? Is that where the fishermen of the north-east coast of Scotland are to look for help and assistance? My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) covered the ground so amply—and there are many other hon. Members, I know, who wish to take part in this Debate—that I am going to avoid as far as I can going over what he has already said, but there are one or two points which I think it might be well to emphasise. The condition of the industry is admittedly bad. You have only to go to the Report of the Fishery Board for

  439
  Scotland to see that the condition of the industry is very, very bad indeed. There is one most remarkable paragraph which my hon. and gallant Friend omitted to quote, and I should like to call the attention of the Committee to it. It is on page 6, and is to the following effect:
  "The entire community is at the moment living in an elaborate cycle of credit, in which the firms which undertake the reconditioning of drifters, the manufacturing firms who supply gear, and the wholesalers who supply the local retailers with food and other necessities of life are alike involved."
  That is a miserable condition, and that is the official Report of the state of the industry at the present time. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, they have been facing bad years, getting deeper into difficulties, and finding even deeper difficulties in recovering their position. We all know that last year—I am speaking particularly of the herring industry on the East coast of Scotland, because fortunately there was some very good business done by the herring fishing on the West coast of Scotland—the condition in which they are was undoubtedly rendered worse by the coal crisis, which increased the expenses of working the boats to such an extent that it practically did away with 90 per cent. of the profits which they might otherwise have made. We have to realise that, but I do not want too much emphasis to be placed on that consideration from the other side, because the condition of the industry has been not suddenly, but progressively reached. Last year the effects of the coal strike—
  Mr. J. JONES: Lock-out!
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Well, lock-out, or stoppage, or whatever you like.
  Mr. JONES: Call it what you like, but do not call it a strike.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The hon. Member should have heard what the fishermen said about it. Their labour went very largely in vain in consequence of it, but the point I wanted to make was that the difficulties of the industry have been progressive over a series of years. The people engaged in it—the fishermen particularly—have been getting deeper into debt, they have not been able to meet their engagements, they have been
  440
  getting credit from the retailer, the retailer has been getting credit from the wholesaler, and, as the official Report says, there is a vicious cycle of debt in which almost the whole industry is involved at the present time. I should like to quote from a report for which I asked the other day from Lerwick, which I received only a few days ago, Lerwick being the premier fishing port on the East coast of Scotland. The report says:
  "Generally speaking, 1927 shows the continuance of that stagnation in trade which has been our unfortunate experience for many years. … Whether one speaks to fish-curers, boat-owners, or fishermen, they all tell you the same doleful tale of carrying on because they cannot afford to shift out. … There are no new firms coming into the fish-curing trade, and the securing of good men to man the fishing boats becomes a more difficult problem every year."
  That, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is one of the most serious parts of the whole problem.
  Commander COCHRANE: Was that report written after the beginning of the summer fishing?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: It was written on 16th July. As I was saying, that decrease in the numbers of men engaged in the trade is one of the most serious factors of the whole problem. My hon. and gallant Friend gave the figures showing how the fishing population in Scotland, those who are engaged in whole time fishing and those who are crofter fishermen, has been steadily decreasing year by year during the last 10 or 15 years. Do we want that to go on? Can we do anything to alter the present state of affairs? That is the reason why we are taking this Debate now, to ask the Government how they are going to face the present position, what their policy is, whether they are going to let things drift, or whether they have a policy to deal with this admittedly difficult position. To go back again to the Report, it says:
  "One is accustomed almost at any time to find people who will tell you that their own particular line of business is not prospering, but the facts about the herring trade are so outstanding that there can be no doubt of the unhealthiness of the industry."
  Here is a quotation from a man who is a very important figure in the fishing business in that part of the country. He says:
  "Experience since the War has been that where they had a crew as co-partners in the

  441
  boats, and consequently very careful with gear and economical in expenses, the boats, taking one year with another and the good with the bad, might balance accounts, but that for the employment of crews not holding shares, but remunerated on the half catch principle, the results were hopeless. This year so far the boats have not had paying results. It is a case of the fishermen who were already in the business carrying on, but it is impossible to get young men to take the place of the older men who are going out. The fleet lessens as the men available decrease in number. It seems to be the general opinion, and a well-founded opinion, that there are still lean years in front of the herring fishing industry, and that these will continue till the Russian markets are again taking herring or otherwise till the fishing fleet are very much further reduced, so that there will be such competition in remaining markets as will force up prices to give living wages do those engaged in the industry."
  My hon. and gallant Friend quoted the official opinion to show what importance that opinion attaches to the Russian market and I quote the opinion of people engaged in the industry to show what importance they attach to the Russian market. There are people in this House who cannot bear to hear the word "Russia," and who always think, when Russia is mentioned, that there is some occult propaganda about. I was rather amused to see in the "Aberdeen Press" the other day an interview with a trader in the herring trade, a Mr. Michie. The interview has an introduction as follows:
  "For some time past the question of trade between this country and Russia has been used by political propagandists in the region of the Moray Firth in an effort to arouse hostility, on the part of the fishing population, against the present Government."
  Then the interview goes on to belittle the value of the Russian market. I can only say that what I may have to say about Russia has in no sense any connection whatever with political propaganda. All that I am concerned with is the sale of herrings. Seeing that that interview was devoted to belittling the value of the Russian market, I have been at some pains to go into the pre-War figures and the figures of the last three years with regard to the export of herrings from this country, and they show rather remarkable results. I give round figures, leaving out the hundreds. They are taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd March, 1926 (columns 1269–70, Volume 192), in an answer given to a question put by myself. They show that the imports in pre-War
  442
  Russia of herrings, not only from Scotland but from Great Britain, were in 1911, 2,977,000 cwts.; in 1912, 3,310,000 cwts.; and in 1913, 3,566,000 cwts.—a large and increasing volume of imports. In the years 1923, 1924 and 1925, taking post-War Russia and the Baltic States, which were carved out of pre-War Russia, we get the following figures:—In 1923, 1,991,000 cwts., of which Russia took 13,000. In 1924 the figures jumped up to nearly 3,000,000 cwts.—2,918,000. Why? Because in that year Russia took 806,000 cwts. In 1925 the figures dropped to 1,629,000 cwts., Russia taking only 195,000. That is pretty clear evidence of the vast importance of the Russian markets for the sale of our herring. Further to prove that point, I will go to the general statistics of the Fishery Board published this year, which show that in 1925 Russia took 56,000 ewts.—that is, Scotch herring—and in 1926 they took none. The gentleman who was interviewed to whom I have already referred says that a matter of 50,000 barrels is neither here nor there, and would not make any great difference to the general trade, but I think it is of very great importance that we should sell every barrel we can, and 50,000 barrels is not a quantity to be despised. Russia would take a great deal more than 50,000 barrels if her markets were fully open, as they were before the War.
  My hon. Friend referred to certain constructive suggestions for getting the industry out of its difficulties. Generally I agree with all that he has said. If we let the industry alone, what is going to happen? The fleet will diminish in numbers, the younger men will give up fishing and go abroad in greater numbers, the gear will get worse. If we let what is called "the full play of economic forces" have effect, the fleet will be smaller and the catch will be less, and although better prices will probably be obtained markets will not expand because there will be fewer fish to sell. Is that what we are looking forward to? I trust not. I want to see the industry reinstated, to see it on the up grade and finding fresh markets. If old markets are closed, cannot we find new markets? Is anything being done to find fresh markets—leaving Russia out of the question? What about Poland? I have information to the effect that an official

  443
  deputation from Poland are coming to this country shortly in order to buy herring. They say they are willing to take 1,000,000 barrels, but the great difficulty is that they have not ready money and want credit. Will the Government be prepared to lend credit to finance a deal on that scale? If Poland will import herring through the free city of Dantzig, no doubt a good many may go into Russia. I throw that out as a suggestion, and would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say upon it. If any of these States, who have not too good credit, come along and say they want to buy our herring if we can arrange credit, will the Government be willing to make any arrangement to assist them?
  An important factor in reinstating the herring fishery would be a reduction in the cost of running the boats. That is the great difficulty at the present time. An instructive chart, published on page 14 of the Report of the Fishery Board, shows how the cost of running boats has increased and how it takes away what might otherwise be a profit. They say in the Report:
  "The present tendency of the catch would appear to be upwards, towards a recovery of the pre-War position; but the price unfortunately also shows a tendency towards the pre-War level at which, with the great increase in working costs, fishing would in the present circumstances be unremunerative."
  If anything can be done to keep down the increased cost of fishing, we shall be doing a good deal towards reinstating the industry in its old position. It has been suggested that the motor boat will take the place of the steam drifter as a more useful and a less costly vessel, hut we are not quite certain about that. Small motor boats fishing in the inshore waters have done pretty well, but whether larger motor boats which can undertake deep sea herring fishing will be a success we do not know. My hon. Friend suggested that some experiments in that direction should be made, or that some assistance should be given towards ascertaining how we can reduce the cost of catching fish, whether by the machinery employed or the type of boat or the means of propulsion. That is a matter which the Government might very well take into consideration.
  444
  I was speaking just now of new markets. Have the Empire Marketing Board been doing anything to assist the sale of herring? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland approached the Empire Marketing Board? Like many other hon. Members, I have seen some most attractive posters issued by the Marketing Board, representing in some cases a market town in the centre of England, and in other cases a fishing boat on the sea at night. They are very pretty pictures, but I do not know that they will help the sale of herring. What we want is a crusade to get those people to eat herring who do not eat it now. Some little time ago, with the aid of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, I got herring included in the menu of the dining room of the House of Commons, but when I asked for herring a few nights ago I was told they were no longer supplied, because people did not ask for them. I said: "Of course, people do not ask for them, because you do not put them on the menu." There was a little chance to advertise herring. If you do not advertise your goods you cannot expect people to ask for them, and I do suggest there is a possibility of a crusade in favour of herring. Why should our Protectionist friends opposite eat French sardines when they can get Scotch herring? [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. Herring are excellent food, and they have what the medical profession call splendid dietetic qualities. Something ought to be done to advertise herring in our home markets.
  The trade in kippers has rather got into difficulties lately because the way in which the kipper has been kippered has not been very satisfactory. New methods of kippering have been introduced which brown the kipper in a shorter space of time but do not cure it properly. The consequence is that people have had bad kippers to eat, and when you have had bad kippers to eat several times you get out of the habit of eating kippers. Steps ought to be taken to stop this improper system of curing kippers. We know that this improper cure is on the market and the Secretary of State ought to take such steps as he may be advised to take to get kippers back to their pre-war quality.

  445
  My hon. Friend spoke of the value of putting wireless receiving sets on herring-boats, so that they might be able to receive news of where the herring shoals were to be found. When I first heard of that suggestion I thought it an extremely valuable one, and I was particularly anxious to see how it would work. To my astonishment, I found a good deal of objection raised to it by some of the fishermen in my own constituency, on the ground that it was not only our own boats that had receiving sets but that the Dutch boats also have them, and that when our boats were in port the Dutch boats would get the news and scoop on the herring. I believe the Fishery Board for Scotland have had to take that question into serious consideration in connection with the problem of giving information of where the fish are to be found. Three or four years ago experiments were made in locating shoals by means of aeroplanes. They were not, I regret to say, as successful as it was hoped they might be, but I hope that on that account they will not be dropped altogether. Because experiments tried under certain conditions in one year are not successful, it does not necessarily follow that that should end the question for all time, and I hope that another effort may be made to see whether the shoals cannot be successfully located.
  The question of trawlers is a burning one in my constituency. Beyond all question and without any doubt, trawlers have done an immense amount of damage to the in-shore fishing. They are very difficult to detect among the islands. Directly the fishery-cruiser comes up, that fact becomes known, and illegal trawlers are on the look out. I see the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) waiting to say a word on behalf of the trawlers. I have not one word to say against honest trawlers who do very good work, but I have not one good word to say for the man who covers up the number of his trawler and comes in at night and scoops up the fish on the in-shore ground, taking them away from the crofter fishermen who depend so very largely on the inshore grounds. Something has been done to improve the policing of those waters and to stop illegal trawling, but not enough, and I urge upon the Secretary of State that greater efforts should be made to stop illegal trawling. A Bill has
  446
  been on the stocks for some time which proposes to increase the penalties for the second and third and, I am sorry to say, sometimes the fifth and sixth offences by illegal trawlers. It was recommended by the McKenzie Commission and, as we have heard this afternoon, the Secretary of State has in his mind the possibility of introducing legislation to deal with the question of trawling. If before this Government come to an end the Secretary of State can introduce a satisfactory Bill to deal with that question, he will have done something which will be of great help to the in-shore fishermen. I have nothing to add now to what has already been said as to the plight of the industry. No argument can alter the facts. The industry is in a very serious condition and what we want to know is what are the Government going to do? It is not by the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, it is not by safeguarding here and there that we are going to help the herring fishing industry. We want some serious considered policy in order to put that industry back into the condition it was in before the War.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: There will be general agreement that there is no more deserving body of men in Scotland than the Scottish fishermen. When we see by the official figures, and from other evidence, that the industry is in a very declining condition, and that the numbers of our fishermen are going down every year, I think it brings to our mind a very serious state of affairs. It is a pathetic sight to see the condition of affairs in some of our fishing villages, and it is not enough merely that we should perceive that the numbers of these men are going down. When we talk about so many subjects in this House on other occasions, it is only right that to-day we ought to give our very best attention to this problem and see whether there are not some things, perhaps small things in themselves, but which, in their cumulative effect, would do something to help that most deserving class.
  The fishery figures prove that the numbers of our fishermen and of their boats are declining, but that is not the whole position. There is another side of the question which we ought to recognise if we want to see the whole picture. At the

  447
  very time when their numbers are declining, and when our fishermen are being driven out of the industry, we have an enormous import of fish, which are caught by German trawlers, being landed in the port of Aberdeen. We have these large German vessels fishing in distant waters, in the Icelandic and other waters, bringing fish into the Aberdeen market, and these catches are having a most detrimental effect upon the industry of our own men.
  It would, of course, be quite out of order for me to make any reference now to the steps that might be taken to deal with that, but when we recognise that our harbours are, after all, something of a national asset, can we not see that there might be some source of revenue which would be most valuable in helping to maintain these necessary harbours? The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) who commenced this discussion, touched upon a very vital point when he spoke about the harbours round our coast. I think it would be a step in the right direction if we took a national inventory of these harbours, so that we could know whose they are and whether those who possess them can afford to keep them up, so that thereby we might be able to do something to help many of them. I know many of the small harbours round the East Coast of Scotland which at the present time are practically falling into rack and ruin, and, if we are to permit that to go on, I think we shall be negligent of our national interests. All round where these little harbours are situated we have a virile, strong manhood, which has done much to build up our Scottish race, and to help towards the welfare of the country. If we are to quietly acquiesce in seeing those harbours still further broken up by the stormy seas, I think we will be failing to perform a national duty. The first step surely might be that we should have what we might call a survey or a national inventory of all our harbours, and after that is done, we would be better able to know how national help could be given to the owners of them to keep them up.
  Our inshore fishermen are having, as the other men are, a very hard and precarious time of it. Round the coasts that I am associated with, we have the case of our inshore fishermen who use the seinenets.
  448
  I would ask that the men who use the seine net might be allowed to go into some of these inshore bays, and I am thinking particularly of St. Andrews Bay and similar places, so that they would be able to get a living from these waters. This may be a small point, but I do place it before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland in order that, in that part of our coasts, there may be some help given to our fishermen. The fishermen round our Scottish coasts can render, as they have done in the past, much national service to us; they can do so if we look after their interests in a practical way. There is no use of us being actuated by merely theoretical views. We have to recognise the changed conditions which have come about, and, just as in other things, larger implements and weapons of all sorts have come into use, so I think, probably, it is inevitable that larger vessels will now have to be used by our fishermen. The bringing of fish to our harbours from distant waters is a new thing, and, therefore, it will be necessary for our men to provide themselves with larger vessels. That may be beyond their own means, and, therefore, I think we might consider—or the question might be examined—how far it would be in the national interest to allow the use of national credit to these men to get these larger implements for carrying on their industry. If we do that, we shall do something to keep alive this manly, virile race of men of whom we all ought to be so proud.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland can scarcely congratulate himself upon the Reports of the Scottish Fisheries Board. The survey that has been made to-day by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) is certainly a very gloomy picture of the condition of this section of our population. I think it is absolutely certain, in connection with this industry, that the Government have got to bear a certain amount of responsibility for its present state. As I was listening to the last speech, and also to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) I wondered if the policy of the Government towards the Scottish fishing

  449
  industry is due to the fact that the representatives of the fishermen in Moray anti Nairn can come to this House and make such a statement as he made here to-day. There was an attempt made by two previous speakers to try to explain that the Government should realise the critical position in which this industry is placed, and all that the representatives on the other side could say was that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland had said something that he had not said. Then the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn said he hoped that some plan would be found. If that is all that a representative of one of these fishing districts has to say on this matter to compel the Government to recognise its responsibility, I think there is very little hope for those districts and for the people concerned.
  I know something about the fishing industry, because I have visited the fishing districts and have had conversations and conferences with the fishermen. We must realise that in these communities in Scotland we have a very virile population, and one to which our country owes a very great deal. One also realises, in going to these districts, the increasing sense of despair that is coming to the people. I am quite convinced that the fishing industry has never got over the policy of the Government in connection with Russia, in the days that succeeded the Armistice, when trade with Russia was cut off. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has a very great responsibility for the condition of the Scottish fishing industry, because of the policy which his Government followed with regard to Russia. But if that is so, it is no reason why we should allow this industry to get into a worse and worse position. The present Government, in its attitude to Russia and the Russian market, is certainly going to repeat the error of the Coalition Government; it is going to make it more and more impossible for the fishermen to get out of their difficulties. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out that the whole industry is involved in a cycle of debt. It is in an impossible position, and it is certainly the case that it tended to fall into this condition when the policy of the exclusion of Russia from trade with this country was
  450
  decided upon by the British Government.
  Since this industry has become loaded with debt very little has been done to try and relieve it of that burden in order to give it a chance of getting into a decent state again. To-day, I met a fisherman from Fraserburgh in the Lobby, and he is in the Strangers' Gallery at the present time. I had a talk with him about the position of the fishing industry in Fraserburgh, and he told me that they found it impossible to renew their nets and gear, which was necessary in order to allow them to make a decent living. The Government ought to do something to make it possible for these fishermen to obtain nets and general gear for their industry on terms-that would enable them to carry on. I know we had a scheme put forward by the Labour Government for the provision of nets, and some of us who supported the Government at that time tried to persuade the Scottish Secretary that the terms offered were not generous enough, and that is on record.
  I want to say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that I hope, as a result of this Debate, he is going to see what can be done to make it possible for greater facilities to be given to the fishermen in order to give them some hope for the future. At the same time, I am conscious that so long as the policy of the Government with regard to Russia remains what it is, any amount of credit facilities will not be sufficient to tide these fishermen over the unfortunate circumstances in which they are placed at the present time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to carry out the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about finding an additional market with Poland. I also want to stress the possibility of something being done in connection with the Empire Marketing Board. It is true that Scotland has something to do with the Empire Marketing Board through the Browett Institute. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will also consider what can be done in the direction of making use of the Empire Marketing Board to help Scottish fishermen to find additional markets for their fish.
  Another point I wish to draw attention to is in connection with our harbours. Much has been said about piers and harbours in this discussion, and the hon.

  451
  Member who initiated this Debate suggested that the Secretary of State for Scotland should take powers to do everything that was possible to develop the harbours and piers in Scotland. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn talked about confiscation and nationalisation and a lot of nonsense of that kind, but there is on record the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland had had a great deal of difficulty in connection with one pier about which he was bothered a great deal by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone). The hon. Member at that time was very doubtful about the right hon. Gentleman's promise, and I am sure that the whole of the Scottish Members in this House would welcome action on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the direction of taking powers that would enable him to make the fullest use and development of the harbours and piers of Scotland. I wish to draw attention to a paragraph on page 51 of the Fishery Board Report, where it is stated that an attempt has been made to set up dredging facilities in connection with the fishery harbours. This is what it says:
  "Notwithstanding the above concession, the serious financial position of the harbours has continued to prevent them from taking advantage of the scheme, and during the year the dredger has been laid up at Aberdeen with simply a watchman on board. There is ample scope for the employment of the vessel at Scottish fishery harbours, and it is unfortunate that money obstacles should render it impossible to carry out much needed dredging."
  That is the very damaging sentence about money obstacles standing in the way of this much-needed dredging taking place. The fishery towns in Scotland are in an almost hopeless condition, the fishermen are suffering, and the industry generally is in a wretched condition, not for lack of skill or industry on the part of the fishermen, but as a result of the policy of the Government of the country, and the failure of one Government after another to deal with the needs of this industry. You have a vessel provided in order to give dredging facilities, and yet the vessel is allowed to lie up with only a watchman on board. Consequently, the money invested in that vessel is being wasted. It is bad business on the part of the Government to spend money on a vessel of this kind and not use it.
  452
  I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland has got a good case with which to go to the Cabinet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and obtain more money for this purpose. After all, there is a certain amount of money which has not been spent, and which has been voted in the Estimates during the last two years in connection with agriculture and small holdings, and, if Scotland is losing the money which was not spent for those particular purposes, surely the right hon. Gentleman should be able to get that money in order that this dredger may be put to the use for which it was purchased. The decline of the Scottish fishing industry presents a very painful picture, and the right hon. Gentleman must take his share of responsibility. If there had been more clamour in the fishery district, and if the fishermen had broken the law, possibly something would have been done by the Scottish Office and notice would have been taken of the state of this industry. If Scotland had sent representatives to Parliament who had insisted in season and out of season in this House upon something being done in regard to this question, then I am confident that something would have been done to help the fishermen.
  I appreciate very much what was said by the hon. Member who opened this discussion, but what I have heard since from hon. Members opposite does not make me very hopeful as to what may be done in the future. I believe that, if the influence of Scottish Members who support the Government was brought to bear on the Government, it would be far more effective than pressure exerted by the political opponents of the Government. I hope that as a result of this discussion the fishermen of Scotland will find that the Government will get down to this problem in a far more serious fashion than has been the case hitherto.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is with fear and trembling that I, as a Southerner, venture to intervene in a Scottish Debate. It is almost an unwritten part of the Constitution that no Southerner shall take any part in a Scottish Debate, and that has been very honourably observed in most of the Debates which I have heard in this House. Therefore, it is almost treason for a Member representing a Welsh constituency to intervene. I do so

  453
  only for reasons which I think are quite justifiable. My first reason is that the fishermen themselves have asked me to assist in the presentation of their case. I have had frequent communications with them, and I have gone into their case very closely. When I was in Scotland recently, they came to me as a deputation and put some very interesting facts and figures before me. I may say that I think this is a case which calls for the serious attention of the House of Commons and the Government.
  The condition of these fishermen is indeed a very distressing one, and, as to my share of the responsibility, I will deal with that point later on. I went into the figures as to what these men were earning. I had some very elaborate figures given to me by the men working in the trade, showing what they had earned during the last four or five years. As one hon. Member has already stated, sometimes these men have a very fine catch, and they are able to market their fish, but at other times they do very badly. I will take a period covering the last four or five years, and I am dealing with some 20 or 30 fishing boats. These men are not capitalists, but fishermen interested in the boats, each having a share. I find that on an average for the period I have mentioned they have earned £47 a year. That is a very disgraceful wage to pay to men who devote, not merely an eight-hour day, but unlimited service, very often unlimited toil, and very often unlimited danger; and the fact that that body of men—a very fine body of men, a very deserving body of men, hardworking, industrious and frugal—who contributed a good deal to the saving of this country at a very critical juncture in its history, should only be earning £47 a year, does demand investigation on the part of the Government, and an effort on the part of the Government and of the House of Commons to come to their rescue.
  Let us see what the position is in this industry. Their costs have gone up, since before the War, by 80 per cent. Undoubtedly, the receipts per barrel have been increased, but they are only receiving one-half of what they were earning before the War. What is the result? The young men are shunning this business; the old men are perforce
  454
  sticking to it. It is practically the same story as you have in agriculture. These are the two hardiest industries, which produce, on the whole, the finest specimens of manhood in this country. These are the two industries that are the most essential, in many respects, for the preservation of the virility of the race. Both of them are decaying, and the symptoms are the same. The old men cannot get away, and they stick to it, although they are only making about £47 a year, but the young men do not go into it at all—there is no recruiting.
  What is the other thing that I have discovered? The average life of their boats is about 18½ years, and they are deteriorating from year to year. They have an interest in their boats, their nets and their gear, and they are just the kind of people who, I should have thought, would have been regarded in all quarters of the House as needing special encouragement. Their boats are deteriorating, and they cannot repair them, except to the extent which is absolutely essential. They cannot keep them quite up to the condition in which they ought to be; they have to restrict their expenditure, so that their boats are deteriorating all the more rapidly, and they have no prospect of replacing them. The nets and the gear, naturally, deteriorate even more rapidly, and some of them told me that they knew of cases where nets had to be sold to provide food, while many of them have had to sell their shares to capitalists. I use the word "capitalists," not as a term of reproach, but merely as describing people who have the money to buy their shares and to put into the concern, and no doubt they are doing it, not because they expect to get any profit out of it, but largely for reasons of compassion. A man comes along and says: "I really cannot buy food, and must sell even my nets." They gave me cases of that kind.
  That is really a very serious matter. Here is an industry which every one who had anything to do with the conduct of the War knows was one of the most vital contributors to our success in that War. I find that before the War there were 90,000 engaged in the fishing industry, while in 1926 there were only 66,000. There has been a decrease of 24,000 in the number of fishermen. I say that that

  455
  is a very serious matter for this country, apart altogether from the question of the diminution of the numbers in an industry. I am not going to dwell upon the service which was rendered during that time; it is enough for me to quote the official History of the War on the subject, which says:
  "If the fishing industry of the British Isles had not existed in a flourishing state"—
  I call special attention to that phrase—
  "it would have been impossible to deal with the submarine menace."
  That is a very formidable statement to make. The existence of this industry in a flourishing state is essential to protect us against a peril which I hope will never be repeated, but I would not like to stand here and say that it never will be; and it is a very serious fact that, when we may have to meet again a similar condition of things, with more formidable submarines, that industry may not be there in a flourishing condition—indeed, may not be there at all. There were 25,000 of these men who volunteered. It is so important that I will continue to read from the official History of the War:
  "The U-boats would have acted almost as they pleased. More food-carrying steamers would have been sunk, greater hardships would have had to be endured ashore, and the Armies would have lacked adequate supplies. Gales of wind, thick weather, dark nights, intricate pilotage, ship-salving on the high seas, ship-handling in narrow waters—these are the common experiences of fishermen, and keep alive that spirit which has meant, and will continue to mean, so much to an island people. The liner, the tramp, the trawler and the drifter are all parts of the nation's essential sea services."
  That is a very fine official tribute from the Report of the Admiralty.
  One of these men said to me a very striking thing. After telling me how they were gradually disappearing, how the old men were sticking to it and the young men were not coming in, he said to me, "The men who swept the seas are being swept off the seas." I thought that that was a very striking sentence—and they are not a type of men who are in the least sentimental, but just hardy, virile people who have faced all kinds of dangers, not merely in their own trade, but the perils of the deep in their worst form during the War. I think they are
  456
  entitled to a good deal of consideration. If ever there was an unsheltered industry, here is one. The Government of which I was the head had to consider the condition of things, which was very hopeless for these people, as soon as they came back. There was a strong feeling of deep gratitude for what they had done, and at that time we voted £1,500,000 just to give them a re-start. I think that, if it had not been for that, the industry might have collapsed altogether. That, however, is exhausted. It enabled them to go on up to the present, but something must now be done to set them right.
  I do not want to make an attack or criticism, but rather to make as helpful an appeal as I can to the right hon. Gentleman to consider their case. An hon. Friend of mine complained about the Germans, who were coming in and landing fish in Aberdeen. That is very unpleasant, but I did not see any desire on the part of the fishermen themselves to do what my hon. Friend suggested—I cannot discuss it now, and am only just mentioning the fact—namely, to put on a duty. The Germans are about our best customers at the present moment, and, if you put a duty on the fish landed by German trawlers in Aberdeen, you may have a duty on the very much larger quantity of fish which our fishermen are landing in Germany. They know that, and it is very much too risky an expedient to try. Therefore, no suggestion of that kind was made to me. The difficulty is largely a temporary one.
  I cannot discuss the question on this Vote, and do not propose to do so, but I may be allowed to make one observation in reply to what was said by an hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, who attributed the failure of the Russian market to something which was done by my Government in 1919 and 1920. It is hardly necessary to mention the fact that that Government was the first Government in Europe, and, indeed, in the world, to open up trade with Russia in 1920. We set the example, and it was followed afterwards by 33 other Governments. The hon. Gentleman, naturally, did not think it necessary to state the whole of the facts, nor did he think it necessary to quote the fact that £1,500,000 had been given. Those are things which are not useful from his point of view, but I thought it necessary just to point

  457
  out these things, rather for the information of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the next time he makes that speech he will repeat most of these facts. There is no doubt at all that the difficulty is largely due to the failure of the Russian market, but the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for what has happened in regard to our trade with Russia. There are other Ministers, whose salaries are not being discussed now, and the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility, except as one of 20 who were called in too late to consider that transaction. I see it suggested in the "Times" to-day that some of them have been in so many pickles that they are fit for export, like the herrings.
  I wish that something could be done, within the very narrow limits of the possibilities after a breach with Russia, to encourage the Russian trade. Very nearly half—I think more than half—of the herrings we exported before the War were sold to Russia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) reminds me that it was somewhere about 75 per cent. The Russian market was the great market for cured herrings. Since then, I believe, it has dropped to something like 30 or 40 per cent.; at any rate, there has been a very considerable drop. At the end of last year there was a special order for £100,000 worth from Russia, but that is a small fraction of what was formerly spent. In the old days they took, I think, 1,200,000 barrels, which, at £2 a barrel, would be very nearly £2,500,000. That is a very serious loss. It has been partly made up, I believe, by encouraging the consumption of herrings in Holland, in Germany, and in other parts of the world, and, perhaps, to a certain extent in this country. I was very glad to see the other day a statement by a doctor that there are more vitamines in a herring than in any other fish, and, as everyone is now hunting for vitamines, it is just possible that, if that fact were advertised, it might help the industry.
  I hope it will be possible, somehow or other, to secure the Russian market. Who knows whether the herring may not bring peace between us? He has a better chance of doing so than the Home Secretary has. The right hon. Gentleman
  458
  might find some quiet and unobtrusive means of doing something in this direction, without informing his colleagues on the subject. The Home Secretary, I believe, has no jurisdiction in Aberdeen, I suppose because it is such a peaceful and righteous city. If the right hon. Gentleman can manage to open up some sort of fishy relations with Russia, he will render a very great service to that industry, because it is in a very bad state altogether. While we are waiting until Europe is educated to the dietetic value and the flavour of the herring, there are one or two things that could be done. I think more could be done in the way of credits. A very unhelpful speech was made from the other side of the House. It is no use saying, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) criticised some of the proposals of my right hon. Friend the late Secretary for Scotland, that that means that nothing more can be done. At any rate, my right hon. Friend made a start in that direction. That does not mean that you cannot go on developing. I have no doubt if he were Secretary of State for Scotland to-day he would propose something very much more powerful than that.
  I was in the House at the time when Lord Balfour was Secretary for Ireland. It seems a long way off now. He took in hand the development of the fisheries on the West Coast of Ireland, because it was so essential there as a contribution to the livelihood of the people. He dealt deliberately, with the assent of the whole House of Commons, with harbours, with credits for boats, and with credits for nets. I agree that that was in the blessed 2¾ per cent. days, which have disappeared, but all the same the credits were very much more favourable than anything that he could borrow, and they were very helpful to an extraordinarily poor population. I think the line taken by him then on the West Coast of Ireland might very usefully be pursued by the Secretary for Scotland, and that more could be done in the way of granting credits, even at some expense of interest to the State. It is no use talking about 5 per cent. You have to help them to bridge over the gap. This fracture with Russia cannot remain. That is perfectly clear. It is too perilous.

  459
  I am prepared to treat it as temporary and, therefore, there are, it may be, a year or two or three years that you have to bridge over. During that time I certainly hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give credits upon favourable terms for the equipment, for the gear, for the nets, for helping with the boats and also for facilitating markets. I do not know to what extent export credits and trading facilities are available for this purpose. I believe a good deal of business has been done under those two schemes in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) suggested that you might be able to establish a new business with Poland. If you could make an advance perhaps for a year, it might not be necessary in the second year. Would it not be possible to do something of that kind, to give liberal assistance for marketing purposes?
  I do not think we are really justified in treating these people on stern usurious lines. I will go further and say we are not entitled to treat them on stern business principles. We owe so much to them. If the Admiralty report is right it is quite possible that we may owe to them the difference between victory and defeat. These people are not beggars. They are not the type of men who come cap in hand to the Government, or anyone else. They are the most independent people in the British Isles. They have been fighting hard. They have very largely built their own homes. I made some inquiries about that. They planted their own little homes, and bought their boats and gear, and so on, and it is not too much to ask that the Government should deal with them with a liberal hand. It is not a question of spoon-feeding them for a whole generation, or putting them on a sort of dole and subsidising their industry, although I know industries that were subsidised at £23,000,000. It is not a question of subsidising them from year to year and year to year, and you would not see the end of it. Then, of course, it might not be desirable. It would be better to face it. But, looking at the prospects, this industry will recover when the conditions are re-established. That is quite clear. If that be the case, I ask the Secretary
  460
  for Scotland to use the whole of his influence to bring pressure to bear upon the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in the main will have to determine the question, to deal liberally and generously with the industry to enable it to bridge over a chasm into which, otherwise, one of the most valuable, honourable and gallant industries of the country may fall.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I think everyone will agree, and particularly those who are interested in the fishing industry, that it is fitting that this House of Commons should take under review the problem that faces that great industry. The right hon. Gentleman apologised for speaking in a Scottish Debate, but I think this House has never considered that the intervention of a Member from any part of the Kingdom would be anything but welcome when any helpful suggestion can be made. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the men engaged in this industry and the service they have rendered to their country, and repeated the tribute, well deserved and undisputed, paid at a time when those who wrote it were well able to judge of the value of that service. I feel that at least one thing is clear, that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise the debt this country owes to these men and are honestly desirous of trying to find a solution of this problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman said there was a great measure of similarity between the circumstances of this industry and of agriculture. I am in a measure in agreement with that, but is it not true that the real problem that is facing both these industries is that of finding a market for their produce at a price which will be decently remunerative to the producer? I claim no special credit for the interest which either this or other Governments have taken in this problem, but I am glad to note that the hon. Baronet who opened the Debate said the Fishery Board for Scotland was recognised by all those who are interested in our fisheries as being a body which was net only knowledgeable, but which had at heart the real interests of the industry. I think that is very true, and I think those who are the servants of the Fishery Board working at sea have done their utmost to carry out the

  461
  very arduous and difficult duties which have been imposed upon them for the protection of the rights of those who are engaged in this industry, and that they have performed their arduous duties, not in a vindictive spirit but with an earnest desire to see fair play amongst what are admittedly the competing interests in seeking for the products of the seas.
  We cannot, I think, blink the fact that there are competing interests in the great fishing industry. On the one hand you have the inshore fisherman with his line, you have the other fishermen who goes slightly further afield and who, to-day, is breaking fresh ground by the use of the seine net, and on the other you have the trawler, and a great variety of trawlers, some small and less able to compete, others larger and more up-to-date. If I may touch a single note from the Scottish point of view, of course you have the competition of the English trawler coming into Scottish waters. As far as I know the duties, because they are, in a measure, police and supervisory duties, of the Scottish Board, have been rightly directed to keeping a fair and honest balance between this variety of interests.
  6.0 p.m.
  Reference has been made to the problem of introducing further legislation with greater penalties for those who infringe the rules and regulations of the Board. I think it will be admitted that those who habitually break these rules, and particularly those who obscure their numbers deliberately and repeatedly, deserve the severest penalty. In regard to that problem, in consultation with the Board of Trade we have now reached an understanding that those who have been proved to have infringed the regulations will lose their master's certificate for a period. I trust that the steps which have been taken will be a warning to those who are habitual offenders. I think this is going to prove effective in dealing with that problem without, I trust, troubling this House with further legislation at this moment, but I do not disguise from the Committee or from the industry, that if and when it should be proved that these regulations and powers which we possess and are exercising are inadequate, then I should not hesitate to reconsider that problem. When I spoke of the competing interests between the
  462
  various fishing populations I was reminded that an hon. Member spoke of the seine net fishermen, and desired that they should be given greater freedom to pursue their avocation, as in the past, on the east coast of Scotland. As I indicated in the Report, we are very carefully considering that problem as a whole.
  Experiments have been made in permitting seine nets to be used in certain areas where hitherto they have been prohibited. It is, perhaps, too early to express an opinion as to the results of that operation, but it is clear that many of these men who hitherto confined themselves to the ordinary inshore method of fishing are adopting the seine net, and that the seine net, operated by new methods, motor boats and trawlers, is becoming an engine of great destruction. If it is used in certain waters where the young fish are bred, undoubtedly it is going to be detrimental, not only to those who are in the immediate vicinity, but to the whole general population of this country. Therefore, I think it is right that the Fishery Board should investigate this problem most carefully, and should resist, even at the present time, the use of some of these engines in certain areas where undoubtedly young and immature fish shelter in large numbers.
  We may claim—as I think we can claim—that we have helped, as far as our finances will permit, the reconstruction of some of the harbours which are, of course, essential to the industry. I would like to say with regard to this problem of the harbours, that just as it is clear that the seine net has come as a new engine of capture, so it is equally clear that, as this industry develops, new forms of ships and new methods of propulsion of great power and of greater range are bound to take the place of the older and smaller fishing craft. That, of course, entails an increase in harbour accommodation and with that comes a very largely increased burden upon an industry which is already struggling to keep its place. Sentiment, if it were to rule, might say to one that as you have round your coast many small fishing hamlets which through generations have been the birthplace and raising ground of those fishermen whose service is undisputed and whose value to the country is enormous it is essential to maintain every one of these little hamlets. I do

  463
  not prejudge this question, but I am bound to say that, in so far as I have been able to study this problem and consider the matter, it seems to me that the policy of a Board, or indeed of any Government, should be directed towards curtailing the smaller centres, as it is clear that with the larger boats you must have larger harbours. It is certain that mechanical means have made the power and range of these boats greater. It is equally certain that it would be more economic—and it may be the only possible way—to concentrate upon certain harbours in certain areas rather than to dissipate the whole of our resources. Those are problems which, no doubt, will become increasingly important, and while I am as anxious as any hon. Members in this Committee to obtain for the fishing industry such support as the Government may give, hon. Members must realise that the circumstances and the times in which we live do not permit of any Minister, however willing or anxious, to be able to go to the Treasury and to ask for an unlimited amount of money to be spent upon these undertakings.
  If we turn to the problem of the replacement of our fishing fleet, that, I am bound to say, is a matter which is giving very great concern to all who are interested in this problem. It is quite clear that many of the existing fleet are old boats, that they are gradually serving out their useful time, and it happens, very unfortunately, that these boats are reaching the end of their career at a time when the industry is in a very difficult condition. I cannot here and now say what may be possible to help or to stimulate or assist that development, but what I will say is this, that I understand that already certain experiments are being made by those who are interested in building rather smaller craft with motor propulsion instead of steam.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what length of keel he is referring?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid I cannot for the moment, but I think there is a considerable variety, and it is not limited to one particular size. At least, experiments are being made in that direction, and it is clear that if the motor boat of sea-going qualities, capable of traveling
  464
  for long distances, can be produced, undoubtedly your costs are going to be greatly cheapened, and that is essential. I believe that some of these boats, at any rate, are 50 foot keel measurements. Of course, in the past year that problem of cost has been enormously and cruelly brought home to the whole fishing industry. Everyone knows that the coal stoppage and the necessity of buying coal at very enhanced prices from abroad practically added something like £90 to £100 to the cost of every fishing boat. The result has been that those who are working in this industry have received, as the right hon. Gentleman says, very small returns for their Labours. If that has been true from that cause, it was true also because of the stormy character of the weather and certain other things, and these things are not blinked in the Report I have submitted to the House. It is not my desire to place before the Members of this Committee or the general public other than a true picture of the circumstances as we find them.
  While one recognises the circumstances of which I am speaking, it brings one back entirely to the problem of what we can do to increase our markets and to get a price for the product of this industry. Reference has been made to the fact that in previous times something like 75 per cent. of the exported product of the herring industry was sold in Russia. That is perfectly true, but there has been nothing done in the policy either of this Government or of any other Government which has prevented Russia purchasing these herrings if she so desired. As far as my information goes—and I have made it my business to make inquiry—the truth is that the disorganisation of communications in Russia has had no small effect upon this problem. The population in Russia who took the herrings were the country population distributed over distant areas, and, as everybody knows, one of the great difficulties in Russia, even before the War, was this question of transport and the problem of taking the herrings from the ports into the country. During the past year the Russian Government bought herrings in this country. But what does one find? One finds that they bought herrings at a very modest price in this country, and retailed them in Russia at so prohibitive a price that it was impossible

  465
  to hope or to expect that the consumption of herrings in that country would be increased. That is not a side of this problem with which either this Government or anyone in my position can deal. As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, we are anxious to see the trade increased with Russia. We have never said anything to the contrary as far as I am aware. No responsible Minister either in this House or outside it has said anything to the contrary, and anything that we can do to stimulate and improve it we shall do.
  Now what are we doing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing!"] The hon. Member is not anxious to hear what we are doing. The fact is, that though we have lost a large part of the Russian market, we have succeeded in finding in a great measure in Germany, in Holland and elsewhere alternative markets. When we speak of this great fishing industry, let us remember that there are two distinct sides to it, at least so it seems to me. You have on the one side the fisherman who sails the seas and who makes the catch. He comes back to the ports, and he sells his catch at auction through the usual channels. That organization—strong as I understand it is—make it their business to visit the Continent and to explore every market and to develop, as far as they can, fresh outlets for their product. In addition to that, my Department has sent over to Europe during the last few years representatives to explore and to endeavour to assist those who are working in this industry. A considerable measure of success has attended those efforts.
  Suggestions have been made to-day that systems of credit ought to be employed. I would like to see the ordinary channels of trade explored without our having recourse to that method.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or any official of his Department, doing anything to break down the ring which exists inside the country between the fish markets on the quay and the fish sellers in the cities, seeing that the exorbitant prices charged for fish are detrimental to the marketing of fish at home?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No doubt, if the circumstances which the hon. Member indicates
  466
  become a real scandal—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are!"]—they will call for inquiry and attention. There is an inquiry dealing with the whole industry going on at the present time. The efforts of my Department have been directed towards opening up new channels of trade, and for the very reason which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) gave when he asked if anything could be done to help in regard to Poland. Poland has been visited. Some two years ago the representatives of my Department went over to that country, and since then the actual amount of this product that is being taken in Poland has materially increased. A representative of Poland is in this country at the present time, I understand, and it is to be hoped that from the conversations and arrangements an increased market will be procured. On the other hand, the Empire Marketing Board is not blind to the possibilities of dealing with this problem. It has, I understand, a committee dealing with the fish problems of the Empire which is sitting at the present time, dealing with any kind of channel through which they can advertise and improve the sale of fish.
  It may seem that we are passing through a very difficult period in the fishing industry. It is certain that, the number employed in the industry has been reduced, but it has been reduced in some measure by the adoption of new methods and new means of capture, and that was inevitable. Whether it is possible by any means—I have listened in vain to hear from any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite any suggestion which appeared to me to be of real value—to bring back into the industry an increased number of men or not, I do not know. Subsidising, as it is a temporary problem, would be foolish. It might be that certain means of credit would be of utility, but I would observe in passing that when the credits were offered to the great fishing industry only something like £5,000 out of £50,000 was taken up. When hon. Members say to me that the terms offered were harsh, all I would say is that those who did take up those terms have been able to meet them, and in spite of the terms—
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: They could not find the 50 per cent. cash.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If the industry has sunk into a condition so low as that, surely it is an extraordinary state of affairs—
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: —and I do not think that any subsidy will meet that state of things. I think it would do rather an injury to try to spoon-feed in a matter of that kind. If the demand has been so great, surely we should have had many more applicants under the circumstances which existed under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The fishermen were so poor that they could not afford the 50 per cent. cash.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If we look at the signs of the times, we know that on the West Coast of Scotland there have been phenomenal catches, and great successes in that area. Only one further word in regard to the help which we might give to the industry. I refer to scientific research and the knowledge which could be acquired by study of the movements of the fish in the various districts. Some hon. Members have suggested that wireless should be employed. I am aware that wireless has been installed on some of the larger fishing boats, particularly some of the larger foreign boats. It has been stated that because of the knowledge which they acquire by that method, they are able to scoop in certain shoals, to the disadvantage of those who do not have it. I do not know of any practical system by which it would be possible to give that information to those who are really concerned, and I am a little doubtful as to the real measure of profit which the installation of wireless may have. We are not neglectful of the necessity of installing wireless, and have done so on the fishery cruisers, but the installation of wireless and the keeping of a man who knows how to use it is not inexpensive, and it may add to the cost. I am not certain or satisfied that at the present time it would be of very material advantage.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no proposal to have a transmitting set installed?
  468
  It is only proposed to have an ordinary one or two valve set which anybody, even I, can understand, and on which anyone can listen-in. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not sure about the value of wireless, will he tell us on whose advice he has formed that opinion, seeing that his official advisers have said in their Report that they are convinced of its value?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The complaints which have reached us have been on the part of some of the local fishermen in our waters, that the Dutchmen got the information. It is quite clear that if they have the wireless the information would go to the Dutchmen just as soon as it goes to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Send it in some other language!"] It is suggested that the information should be given in some other language. While I express my doubt on this matter, I can assure the Committee that the question will be kept in view. I do think that scientific research, which I regret to say, owing to the shortage of coal and the troubled times through which we have been passing, has been somewhat impeded, will be of great value, and that the information which is being gathered by the Department will be of material advantage to the fishing industry.
  I do not think that I have answered all the questions which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) put to me, but I have dealt with most of them. He mentioned the question of the Moray Firth. That is a matter which has been before a Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and I understand a Report will shortly be in the hands of His Majesty's Government; it is not yet in my hands. What that Report will bring forward I do not know, but I trust that it may be helpful in that the subject has been explored by those who are acquainted not only with the situation as it affects the Moray Firth, but as it affects the fishing in other areas. I should be very glad at a later stage to answer any further questions which may be addressed to me.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: The Committee has had a very interesting statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, although he did not deal with some of the problems which have been raised in debate. He admits, as we all

  469
  admit, that the fishing industry and the fishing population present under existing conditions a problem which demands the serious attention of every Member of this House. The fishing industry in Scotland is organised upon a special basis which has a peculiar value to the community, industrial and economical, the special feature being that a large part of the Scottish fishing vessels, with their gear and nets, are owned by the men who work them. This feature has been a means of enabling the industry to provide a living for a considerable population of hardy, thrifty people around our coasts. Since the War, this industry has been passing through troublous times. There has been a decline in the industry from one cause or another. Most speakers have attributed that decline to the loss of markets.
  I listened with attention to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the question of markets. I agree that the loss of markets presents the biggest difficulty that our fishing population has to face to-day, and anything that can be done to cultivate the old markets and to extend into new markets would be of real value not only to the fishing population but to the country as a whole. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had been in communication with Poland and Germany. I did not notice that anything was said about America. There has been a market for certain brands of our herring in the United States which has been falling off, and it might be well to keep that in mind when special efforts are being made with a view to trying to find new markets for the fishing industry. The largest market, pre-War for our herring fishery was Russia, and those associated with me are strongly of opinion that the steps recently taken by the Government in breaking off trade relations with Russia will not stimulate the Russian market.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman here. His Majesty's Government broke off diplomatic relations, not trading relations.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I will take it at the value placed upon it by the Secretary of State. He says that the Government have not broken off trade relations; that diplomatic relations only have been broken off. It is not very much use to have trading relations with a nation with whom
  470
  you have broken off all diplomatic relations. During 1924 there were better prospects in the fishing industry of Scotland than at any period since the War. The last half of that year saw the fishing industry in a healthier state than it had been up till that time or has been since. I do not attribute that to any of the things which I, personally, attempted to do for the industry while I was Secretary for Scotland. I attribute those healthier conditions to the improved relations which existed between Russia and ourselves as the result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) who was at that time Foreign Secretary as well as Prime Minister. I attribute the increased markets in Russia during that time to the closer relations which the Labour Government established with Russia, and I would advise the Secretary of State to use his influence with His Majesty's Government to get into as close relations as possible with all sections of our fellowmen. If we improve our relations with every other nation, we shall improve the atmosphere under which trade is done. If you break off diplomatic relations you do not improve the relations between the two countries, and you are taking the very step that is likely—
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be a good argument on the Foreign Office Vote.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I did not think I was going very far beyond the rules of Order when I was dealing with the steps that are necessary, in my opinion, to improve the conditions of this particular industry and pointing out that if this great market which we had before the War is to be made available for the fishermen of Scotland it can only be done by improving the relations between ourselves and the Russian people. However, if you think that I am entrenching on a matter which should be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote, I will leave it at that. I have got in my point. Whatever may be the cause of the present condition of the fishing industry, there is no doubt that it is serious and demands the attention of everyone, and that whatever can be done towards improving it should be done. I have some idea of the difficulties of the Secretary of State in finding the wherewithal to assist this industry in a way which, I am sure,

  471
  most hon. Members would like. During the time I was Secretary for Scotland I tried my best to help the fishing industry. I provided £150,000, which was made available under certain conditions. It was a loan to the fishermen. Some of my own colleagues on these benches, and other hon. Members, thought the terms were rather too stiff. I, at least, thought I was providing £150,000 of new capital for the fishing industry, and if the terms were too stiff the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson)—
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out that only nine applications were made for that loan?
  Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. If he and his colleagues thought the terms were too stiff, they at any rate thanked me most effusively for having provided that new capital. It would have been one of the pleasures of my life if I could have provided it as a gift.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out the facts of the case? The right hon. Gentleman has made that statement several times. I am speaking for my colleagues from Scotland. We did thank him when he made the statement that a sum of £150,000 was to be allocated to the needs of the fishermen. We had not heard at that moment the conditions. We thought it was to be a gift, or grant, and when we suddenly realised that it was to be hemmed round by all sorts of conditions, which the poor fishermen could not meet, we altered our views.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) must not be on his feet unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. I spoke on the occasion to which he refers. I did not effusively thank him; I did not fall on his neck and thank him. What I said was this:
  "I would say about his scheme that any words such as 'an act of generosity' do
  472
  not apply to it. … My suggestion to the Secretary for Scotland is that if he confines his loan to 50 per cent. of the amount required, a great many of the poorest class of fishermen …. will be unable to avail themselves of the scheme.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1924; col. 1414, Vol. 174.]
  I criticised him at the time.
  Mr. ADAMSON: If I may now be allowed to continue what I was saying; the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair)—
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have read from my speech.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The OFFICIAL REPORT will prove what I am about to say. I was saying that the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty thanked me effusively at the time. He now informs the Committee, by an intersection, that he did not know the conditions under which the loan was to be given. May I point out that during the Debate in which he thanked me I had stated specifically the terms of the loan before the thanks were tendered?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: And we specifically criticised them.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The only person who criticised the terms of the loan during the course of that Debate was the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). Not a single word of criticism came from hon. Members below the Gangway.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have read it out.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member has anything further to say, I have no doubt the Committee will be willing to hear it later.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I come now to the point raised by the hen and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland. He said that at the time he pointed out that if the loan was only granted to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost, many of the fishermen would not be able to avail themselves of the offer. During that same Debate I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member that in many cases it would be 75 per cent. of the sum required which would be advanced from the amount allocated, and I made it quite clear to him that 75 per

  473
  cent. of the sum necessary would be provided by loan in certain cases. That is the statement I made in reply to the very point he raised. I should have been glad if I could have done it by way of a grant instead of a loan. Now as to the amount that has been taken up under that loan.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is the answer to it all.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I will answer the hon. and gallant Member before I have finished. The amount taken up was £5,440, and, as the Secretary of State has already intimated, it has been repaid, showing that the people who took up the loan were able to repay it. That is part of the answer. The other part is this. I have already informed the Committee that during the latter part of 1924 there was a marked improvement in the industry and I believe that mainly accounted for the fact that so little of the loan was taken up. In addition to the provision I made by way of this loan, I made another offer during the very short time I occupied the office of Secretary for Scotland. During one of the discussions I was reminded by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) that I had intimated I would provide so much money to assist co-operation in agriculture to assist the agriculturists of Scotland in building up a system of co-operation that would enable them to get greater benefits from their industry than the system under which they have worked hitherto has provided. The hon. Member asked me during that discussion if anything of that kind could be done to help the fishermen. I then stated:
  "I would like to remind him that the grants which were made to agriculture in the Estimates put forward last week were made for the purpose of furthering the principle of co-operation in agriculture. If those connected with the fishing industry are willing to take the same line, I believe they would be able to form themselves into co-operative societies for the purpose of disposing of their produce without the intervention of so many middlemen, who rob them of a considerable amount of the fruits of their labour. The fishing industry can get assistance from the Development Commission in order to help them through their difficulties."
  The fishing industry during that period got as much attention from me as any
  474
  other section of our people. Whatever I was able to do I was prepared to do. In addition to what I have stated, both with regard to the loan and the offer to provide money to extend the principle of co-operation among them, in consultation with my colleagues the Minister of Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had proposed that a sum of nearly £500,000 should be provided for repairing and extending harbours along the east coast of Scotland with a view of still further assisting an industry that we knew was in great difficulties. Those are some of the ways in which, during that time, we set ourselves to help the fishing industry. Whether it is a Tory Government or a Labour Government or a Liberal Government that is in office, we have reached the stage when certain of our main industries, including agriculture and fishing, are requiring to be stimulated and set on their feet. The Secretary of State has talked of the difficulty of finding the necessary money. I know it is difficult, for I have had some experience of the difficulty, and therefore I can sympathise with him. What I say to him and to the Committee is that if it is impossible for the responsible Government to find the money to stimulate and rebuild these particular industries, we are rapidly reaching the time when we shall not be able to earn money to do anything else. It will pay the Government to stimulate and improve these bedrock industries, because if these break down and become derelict, where is the money to be earned with which we are to run the nation? We are requiring to look at these problems from a different angle from that to which we have been accustomed. Notwithstanding the difficulty, it is possible to find the money that will enable us to stimulate these industries. If we were wise men we would face the difficulty and try to find the wherewithal to enable these vital industries to be set on their feet again.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: How, by subsidies?
  Mr. ADAMSON: There are other directions in which we can help and stimulate an industry of this kind. The Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the difficulty of finding markets. There is inside our own country a considerable market which could be encouraged and

  475
  developed and be of the greatest assistance to our fishing population. But there are difficulties standing in the way. One difficulty is transport. If we take the fishing population along the north coast of Scotland and in the Islands of Scotland, we find that they have great difficulties in getting to our own home markets. If the system of transport were properly organised a lot would be done to develop home markets. Means whereby the harvest of the sea can be brought to the population in the industrial centres is of the greatest importance. If my right hon. Friend will examine that aspect of the matter closely he will find that a lot can be done under present conditions. The Islands and North of Scotland population is practically strangled for want of transport. Take the Islands of Lewis and Skye and the Islands represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). They are practically strangled for want of means to bring their fish into centres where there is a market. On the western side of Scotland transport is in the hands of one firm, and those of us who know anything about the prices charged by that firm, MacBrayne, know the difficulties under which the fishing and the agricultural population labour. That is one of the problems to which whoever is responsible for administering Scottish affairs requires to apply his mind seriously.
  I would appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland to try to get a system of co-operation established among the fishing population. I believe that so far as agriculture and fishing are concerned, one of the things that will help, without providing the subsidy that the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) was so concerned about, is the development of a system of co-operation. If there were a closer system of co-operation in disposing of the fish, as there is in providing the boat and the net and the gear, a larger amount of the money earned in the fishing industry would find its way into the pockets of the fishing population. It is because there is no system of co-operation that the fishermen are in the hands of the middlemen, who fleece not only the fishermen but as mercilessly fleece the consumers. I have already given an indication of what I
  476
  was doing during the few months I was responsible as Secretary for Scotland. I want to refer also to the senseless waste that takes place in the fishing industry. It is a waste for which the fishermen are not responsible. The people who are to blame for turning back into the sea large quantities of fish which would provde cheap food, are the middlemen who are engaged in marketing the fish. The reason why that waste takes place is that the middlemen want to restrict the supply and so to keep up prices. The various matters to which I have referred have become clamant. It behoves every one of us to do everything in our power to keep this worthy population, that has been of the greatest value to the people of this country, along our shores. By the means I have described we may bring about the redemption of an industry in which we are all interested.
  7.0 p.m.
  Commander COCHRANE: In the early part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave an account of the work and worth of the fishing population, and with his statement I am in entire agreement. But the right hon. Gentleman also gave examples of the earnings of fishermen, and he mentioned £47 as the earnings of one man during a year. I do not wish to contradict that as a possibility. My only comment on the statement is to draw attention to the extreme danger of generalities in connection with the fishing industry. There is no other industry in which the difference between effort and reward is so large as in the fishing industry. That comment applies also to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Caithness (Major Sir A. Sinclair), who opened the Debate, with regard to the installation of wireless in the drifters. I do not wish to belittle the suggestion. There are circumstances in which it might be of advantage, but I would ask the Committee to consider the conditions in which the herring fishing is generally carried on. Take the fishing off Yarmouth. There, you have an area of about 40 square miles which is fished night after night by boats with nets as closely together as they can get. It is never known, and no one can possibly predict, which boats will get a good catch and which will have empty nets when they come home in the morning. The hon.

  477
  Member says, "Fit these boats with wireless, so that they may know where the shoals of fish are." If he is going to carry that out effectively, he will also have to find some method of marking the movements of the shoals of fish, and that is something which even the most experienced fishermen have always failed so far to do.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) said that as far as he was concerned the question of trade with Russia was not a political question, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs adhered to that to a truly remarkable extent. Certainly, in anything I may say with regard to Russia there will be no political complexion, because I have always held that this question of selling herrings to Russia should be reduced to its proper proportions as an economic problem. During the course of the Debate my hopes and fears in that respect have alternated. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) rather depressed me on that point. He said, "Bring about better diplomatic relations, and all will be well."
  The CHAIRMAN: I intervened at that point to tell the right hon. Member that he could not pursue that subject on this Vote.
  Commander COCHRANE: I apologise, but it was a situation which I was unable to envisage—hundreds and thousands of barrels of herrings lying, perhaps, at Peterhead, an improvement in relations, and the herrings are consumed by the Russians. That is the only point in which the fisherman takes an interest in reference to the sale of herrings to Russia—when the herring finally disappears down the throat of the consumer. Until that happens, no amount of export credit or bogus sales or transfer of herrings from this or that port to Russia can in any way benefit the fisherman. It is only when the stock has been removed off the market that there will be free buying when the new fishing harvest comes along.
  Members who have addressed the Committee from the opposite side appear to have taken it for granted that the ultimate fate of every herring caught in Scotland is to be pickled. I admire the conservatism of hon. Members who have spoken from below the Gangway, but I would prefer to consider if there are not
  478
  other means of dealing with the herrings, and whether it is not possible to find other markets than that for pickled herrings. The figures of the latest Report of the Fishery Board give an interesting indication in that respect. In 1924, there were 52,000 cwts. of Scottish herrings treated by the process known as Klondykeing. In 1925, the figure had gone up to 280,000 cwts., and in 1926 to over 500,000 cwts. This process, as hon. Members may know, is one by which the herrings are exported fresh. It is a primitive process. The herrings are lying in the harbour, and an empty trawler or other small ship is cleared. With some ice and a seasoning of salt they are all dumped into the hold of the ship and taken across to Germany, where they are treated in many ways which make them far more palatable than the ordinary pickled herring.
  In Scotland, a generation or two ago there was a considerable consumption of pickled herrings, but that has largely died out on account of the increased prosperity of the people. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile, but I am perfectly certain that, if they had to choose between a pickled herring and a beef steak, they would not choose the pickled herring. The point I wish to make is that the same tendency is taking place in Northern Europe. In Russia, we have the difficulty of the poverty of the people, and the inability to buy these pickled herrings. In other parts of Northern Europe, we have the phenomenon of the increased prosperity of the people as the beneficent result of the capitalist system which they enjoy. The import of meat has largely increased—there is no doubt about that—and, as a consequence, the demand for pickled herrings is being reduced.
  I made reference just now to this increase in the Klondykeing of herrings. There is no doubt that a large quantity of those exported are treated in Germany in ways which make them very much more palatable than ordinary pickling, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some research could not be conducted into this matter with a view to finding a more palatable way of preparing the herring. Certainly, there are great difficulties in marketing pickled herrings, owing to the conditions in Russia, though may we not, if we may feel a little optimistic, look to these difficulties as temporary? But this other

  479
  condition of the increased prosperity in Europe reducing the demand for pickled herring is, to my mind, a permanent and growing one, and I ask that every effort should be made, so far as large-scale research is concerned, to try and find if there are not other methods of preparing the herring which will make it more palatable. I know the difficulties. The trade will say that the herrings are landed at uncertain times, in many different ports widely apart, and in unknown quantities, that they have to deal with them quickly, and that so far they have only been able to discover pickling as a means by which that can be done. There have in Canada quite recently, however, been very great developments in the freezing of fish, and, by a combination of our knowledge in this country and the knowledge which they have developed in Canada, we might be able to find a solution of this difficult problem, because I do not believe prosperity can come to the herring trade until this question has been definitely and successfully tackled.
  I would like to say a word or two on the other branch of the great fishing trade, namely, trawling, and that only in a very general way. Before the War there was a conflict of opinion amongst scientists and practical people as to whether trawling was injurious to the stock of fish, particularly in the North Sea. About that we are hardly concerned at the moment. The circumstances of the War enabled us to carry out what I may perhaps describe as a large-scale experiment. Trawling was very much restricted over a period of years, and, when it was resumed after the War, it was possible to judge what the effect of the partial cessation of trawling had been on the fish populations of the seas. The figures adduced as the result of investigation, and which are contained in the Annual Reports of the Ministry of Fisheries for England, are very striking. In the Report for 1925, which is the last one I have been able to get, attention is drawn to the extent to which small fish are forming a larger and larger percentage of the catch of our trawlers. Referring to the figures for different years, the Report says that those figures are, as a whole, fairly comparable and justify the Board in the deduction that the proportion of small fish was distinctly larger in 1925 than in 1924 and, except in the
  480
  case of haddocks, larger in both those years than in the other post-War years or in the pre-War years of 1906 to 1912. That refers particularly to cod, haddock, hake and plaice, which are the main standby of the trawlers.
  I will only give a few other comparable figures. In the North Sea—and this is perhaps the best comparison that can be given to show the commercial results of trawling—for every hundred hours' fishing the catch averages 122 cwts.; in Iceland, during a hundred hours' fishing the catch averages over 1,000 cwts.; and in the Faroe Islands district it is somewhere about 400 cwts. These figures appear to me to show a tendency towards the depletion of stock in the North Sea, which should be seriously considered, and, if in addition to that tendency there are causes which are likely to increase the effect, I think the time has come when it should receive the serious attention of the Government.
  I suggest two causes which are likely to increase the unfortunate depletion of stock in the North Sea. Undoubtedly, during the last few years there has been a great increase in the efficiency of methods of trawling. I do not wish to give a gratuitous advertisement to any particular type of trawl, but trawlers have been working in the past few years alternately using the old otter type of trawl with some of the new trawls, and there can be no doubt that the new trawls do catch fish over ground where the stock has been so depleted that the otter trawl would have been unable to take fish in paying quantities. As a result of that, the stock is being still further depleted. The other cause which I would refer to has not yet come into full value. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife in a direction which I did not quite appreciate, and that was in regard to the question of immature fish. As far as I could understand him, he said that it was the wicked middleman who prevented immature fish from being sold on the markets of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not press it. The point with regard to immature fish is that in the past there has been no effective demand for it and the catching has been mainly a matter of accident. But there has recently grown up an increasing trade in fish offal.

  481
  So far as this is confined to offal, it can be of nothing but the greatest advantage to the fishing industry, but I would suggest a word of warning as to the increasing demand for fish products, such as fish meal for the feeding of stock. I think there is no doubt that that will be largely increased when the Government's agricultural policy comes to be better understood and appreciated.
  Mr. STEPHEN: What policy?
  Commander COCHRANE: The policy contained in the White Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman must have read. At present, this meal is largely exported to Germany, where it is used for feeding stock. I suggest to the Secretary of State, as a definite proposition, that fish-meal and fish by-products ought not to be acquired from edible fish. There are large quantities of fish in other parts of the Empire, particularly in tropical seas, which are not really edible. They can be eaten but are not pleasant to eat, and certainly would not be eaten in this country. The problem of maintaining our stock of edible fish in the North Sea and the waters surrounding this country is such a vital one that we ought not to allow any quantity of edible fish caught here to be used for conversion into feeding stuffs for cattle. These questions of the regulation of the taking of fish by trawl and the use of the product can only be settled by international agreement. For that reason, I ask my right hon. Friend to give the subject his careful attention. What is required now is an authoritative statement as to whether trawling does dangerously deplete the stock of fish in the sea or not. In the past, there has been a difference of opinion. In so far as I am competent to express a view, I believe the experience of the War has given evidence—which cannot be disputed—of the fact that human effort by way of trawling depletes the stock of fish. In view of the fact that to obtain an international agreement must take, on the most optimistic view, at least three or four years, I beg of my right hon. Friend to give this question his most serious attention.
  Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: As one who is in touch with certain sections of the fishing community in Scotland, I wish to express disappointment at the speech
  482
  of the Secretary of State. The fishing communities in Scotland will not get much comfort from reading that speech to-morrow morning. We all know the dreadful state of the industry and of the smaller villages round the North-east Coast of Scotland. Those villages have been almost depopulated owing to economic conditions, and the fishermen now are unable to make a living. Surely the last thing the Secretary of State would wish to see is the population of those villages following in the wake of the crofters who have disappeared from so many parts of the Highlands. The Government ought to do something towards providing new gear and new boats for these people and helping them with capital to carry through a very depressed period. In conversation with the leaders of these men, in the villages along the coast of my constituency, I have learned of the great difficulties which they are experiencing. I ask the Secretary of State to do something towards removing certain restrictions which apply to fishing at present. At such a time as this, every restriction or obstruction which interferes with the fisherman in earning his livelihood ought to be removed if possible.
  Concerning inshore fishermen, I would point out the case of the area of water called St. Andrew's Bay. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for East Fife (Commander Cochrane) knows something about it. This is a wide area of water very suitable for the catching of plaice, and during the autumn fishing a number of the fishermen along that coast from Arbroath northwards go into that bay in order to catch those fish. In 1921, certain regulations were issued by the Fishery Board to the effect that boats larger than 40 feet should not fish in those waters. No notice was taken by the inspectors of these regulations up to 1926, when certain complaints were made from the constituents of my hon. and gallant Friend; and suddenly the inspectors came along and prohibited boats of 43 feet or 44 feet from fishing in those waters. The fishermen had put money into these boats owing to the fact that the regulations were not enforced from 1921 to 1926. The inspectors knew that these boats were fishing, and suddenly they were prohibited from fishing. Surely, in the present state of the industry, especially

  483
  in regard to inshore fishermen, there should be some amelioration of these regulations. The Secretary of State ought to be able to do something to help this very hard-pressed and hard-working section of the population. The argument has been used, I think wrongly, that the use of the larger boats depletes the stock of plaice in the bay. The actual data of the catches made disprove that theory. There are more plaice in the bay to-day than there have been for some years, and the number of catches reported by these fishers, who have very good data in this respect, shows that there is no depletion and that the larger boats have in no way destroyed the growth of the fish.
  It is very sad to see, as I saw in one of those harbours only the other day, a beautiful 44-feet boat being cut, and a regular stern post being put into the bow, so that one wondered what kind of craft she was, in order that she might come inside the 40-feet regulation laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a pity to see the beautiful lines of that boat mutilated in order that she might be able to go into the bay and fish. Anyone knows that each of these fishing boats can only use one net, whether she is a 40-feet boat or a 45-feet boat. Further, in the rough seas which are experienced in that bay, especially in the outlying parts, it is necessary for the safety of the men to have stronger and stouter boats. The whole tendency of this industry, like other industries, is to get better equipment, thereby cutting down overhead costs, and I would beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter carefully. If there be a doubt, let him give these people the benefit of the doubt, and let them have something to go on with in these very hard times.
  There is one last point I wish to make. If there is to be any reconstruction of the Fishery Board, I would ask him to see that a representative of the inshore fishermen is included. There are many leading men among the inshore fishermen who would be suitable and people who represent other fishery interests may not be able to put exactly the point of view of the smaller men from the villages on the north-east coast. With every hope that the Secretary of State will see fit to help this
  484
  deserving class, I conclude by saying that the concession for which we ask would enable them to tide over a period of exceptional severity.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I, too, must apologise, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for intervening in a Debate which is supposed to be purely Scottish. The right hon. Gentleman at any rate had a perfect right to intervene in this Debate. We know the great efficiency of the Scottish Fishery Board, but I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that that the chairman of that Board is a Welshman. I wish to mke a few remarks on this subject which may be helpful to the Committee. I have a great admiration for the Scottish fishermen. I have known many of them for many years. I know a great deal of the work which they did during the War along with our English fishermen, in minesweeping and so forth and those who are interested in the trawling industry realise the great value of these men when they leave their small boats and come as fishermen in the big trawlers. We find that they are the best men for that purpose, and I feel it would be a great matter if something could be done to assist them over a difficult time. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on his statement. As a practical man who knows something about the industry, I say it was a clear, straightforward statement of the position. The right hon. Gentleman told of the difficulties which confront the industry and dealt with the subject very well indeed. At the same time, I also offer a word of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) who held the position of Secretary for Scotland under the Labour Government. He did all that was possible to help the industry. In some ways I think he was mistaken in his policy, but his was an earnest and honest attempt to help the industry over a great difficulty.
  The question of the Russian market has been mentioned time and again in this Debate. I know something of the position in that respect and the figures of imports of herrings from Scotland and from other parts of the United Kingdom into Russia for the last few years are astounding. They are astounding in this

  485
  respect, that they fluctuate enormously. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) gave us figures of the total imports into Russia in pre-War days, but he carefully pointed out that we are now dealing with a different territory altogether. Territory which was reckoned as Russian territory before the War no longer belongs to that country, and it is very difficult to compare pre-War figures with post-War figures in that respect.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The post-War figures related to the post-War Russia and the Baltic States.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: My point is that this question of the Russian market is not what some hon. Members think it is, and that in comparing the figures you have to take Russia as she is to-day and Russia as she was before the War. I admit that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland gave us the two figures. According to the official reports in 1924, which cover the period when the Labour Government were in office, 806,841 cwts. were imported into Russia. Why had they such a large import in that year? In the previous year they imported only some 13,545 cwts. There is only one reason. The Russian Government undoubtedly wanted to create a very favourable impression in this country so that the Trade Agreement which they were angling after might be completed, and they made a huge purchase in that year for that purpose. When they got the herring into Russia, the prices which they put on, for sale to their own people, were so prohibitive that quantities were left on their hands and there was no demand for herrings in the following year.
  Then we have a remarkable figure for 1926, and I call attention to this figure because we shall no doubt hear that the present Government in severing certain relationships did injury to the trade. In 1926 when they had a trading agreement and could do anything they liked as regards buying they only took from us 11,750 cwts. of herring. That was simply because they wanted to get the herrings at the very lowest possible price, and they held back from buying during that period. Being in a position to create what is, to all intents and purposes, a ring in buying, they could command the
  486
  market, and they came immediately into the market and took, not from the Scottish but from the East Anglian boats, in the first three months of this year, 63,300 cwts. at a very low price indeed, buying at this low price after the market had been spoiled by their remaining outside during that period. If hon. Members imagine that they will help this industry to any large extent by anything the Government can do as regards further agreements with Russia, I can assure them they are very much mistaken. The position will right itself in time, because the Russian people must have this fish, which is a staple article of food for them, and the less interference there is on the part of Governments in this matter, the better will be the chance which the industry will have to recover itself.
  There is another great difficulty facing these in-shore fishermen—leaving the herring fishery alone for the moment—and that is the fact that steam trawling and the motor-driven seine-net boats have come to stay. It is really machine fishing as against hand fishing, and just as in other industries the machine-made article is driving out, slowly but surely, the hand-made article, so it is with the fishing industry, and we must face that position. At this very moment, according to the figures of the Department, 80 per cent. of the fish caught and exported is caught by steam trawlers. We must face the position as we find it. I think it would be a great pity indeed if this very fine type of man were driven out of the industry altogether, and anything that can be done to assist him should be done. I want to point out that at the moment there is a great advertising scheme being considered by the fishing industry, and I would like the Government, through the Empire Marketing Board, to assist in this matter. A scheme has been brought out by an eminent Scottish trawler owner, Sir John Irvine, which is a very fine scheme indeed, and they are asking the trade to subscribe a matter of £50,000 towards it.
  When the Empire Marketing Board scheme was brought before this House, in answer to questions put by myself and other hon. Members, we were told that there was going to be a fair allocation to help advertise the fishing industry, and the Scottish industry would, of course, get the benefit along with the

  487
  rest, but so far I have seen very little that has been done in that direction, and I hope we shall see some help given in the near future to the industry in that way. As regards the question of the industry receiving some benefit from a Government scheme, I want to point out that, in my opinion, it is up to the industry itself to bring forward a reasonable, sound scheme and to put it to the Government, and if the Government will not accept it, the industry will then have some reason to complain. This is a very intricate and difficult industry to understand from the outside, and I say that if a reasonable scheme could be brought forward by the industry itself, it ought to receive some assistance from the Government.
  What has been the fate of former attempts to help the Scottish, and incidentally the English, fishermen, but principally the Scottish fishermen? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs told us this afternoon of his own scheme, and there is no doubt that a real, square attempt was made to help, but when it was attempted to be carried out in practice, it was an awful muddle. A sum of £1,250,000 was allocated for this particular job, and what happened? Official purchases of boats were made at high prices, and men were placed in them who could not hope to make them pay under the conditions. Like everything else that is managed by a State Department, when it comes to trade and industry, it was not a success, and I hope we shall never again see an attempt made to do anything of the sort. There is one way which I could suggest whereby the Scottish drifter owners, or at any rate the Scottish trawler owners, and the English drifter and trawler owners could be helped by the Government, without it being anything in the way of a subsidy or protection against foreign fish.
  It has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that the work done by these men and by their boats in mine-sweeping during the War was of great value, and he told us that the position for the future was rather doubtful, inasmuch as many of the boats were getting old, obsolete, out-of-date, and would not be available if required again. The suggestion that I would make would be this: Why should not the
  488
  Admiralty, instead of building elaborate mine-sweeping boats of their own, specify that if these boats came up to the standard required by them for the particular work of mine-sweeping, they should receive a small subsidy per annum to help maintain them in that position? If a reasonable subsidy was given, it would enable the owners of these boats to keep them absolutely up-to-date in the way of renewals and repairs, and they would be available for the use of the Admiralty at any time if required, and, in my opinion, it would help considerably both the men who are trying to keep their boats in an efficient state for fishing, and the Admiralty, if necessary.
  Mention has been made of the trouble caused by illegal trawling, and we had an illuminating speech by the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) on the difficulties that confront any Minister who is trying to deal with this question. He told us that some of his own Scottish boat owners were complaining because the constituents of another hon. and gallant Member had complained about them going into St. Andrew's Bay to fish. You have a very difficult question to face when you take up this question of illegal trawling. You have a great stretch of water, known as the Moray Firth, which has been marked off as not for English or Scottish fishermen, but the foreigner can come in, because the biggest portion of it is outside the three-miles limit. That is a question which has given rise to criticism on the part of the Scottish and English trawler owners for some years, and we know the difficulties of the position, but there it is—a large stretch of water, well outside the three-miles limit, and it is declared to be illegal to fish in it. Can hon. Members wonder that men sometimes get over the line inadvertently? I say that in dealing with any legislation on this matter, whoever undertakes the task will have to be very careful indeed, because it is possible otherwise that he may do far more harm to the fishing industry as a whole than he would do good, by making these penalties so prohibitive that men would fear to go anywhere near the water.
  The existing legislation, in my opinion, is adequate to deal with any offence. It provides for a penalty of £100, or 60 days' imprisonment and forfeiture of the nets,

  489
  and if you were to double that penalty, I doubt whether it would make very much difference. I am not here to defend the type of man who is a persistent poacher. I believe he ought to be wiped off the face of the sea. He is no pride either to our trawler fleets or to the country in which he lives, but there are so many cases where men inadvertently get inside the line, and are therefore liable to be prosecuted and fined, which does happen, that you want to be very careful in any legislation that you may bring about. The suggestion was made this afternoon—and I was astounded to hear it—by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he was at present consulting with the Board of Trade about the question of the cancellation of certificates. I hope that nothing will be done in that matter until this House has been consulted and given a fair opportunity to deal with it, because there is another side to the question than the one that has been placed before the right hon. Gentleman. A certificate is granted to a man by the Board of Trade for competency, for passing certain examinations, and if inadvertently, or even guiltily, he goes within these limits, I doubt whether it is a reasonable suggestion to make that he should be deprived of the certificate whereby he earns his living. If a man goes to prison for burgling a house, at any rate you do not say to him, when he comes out, "You shall not earn your living," but that is what it would amount to if this certificate were forfeited. I hope that, before any decision is reached on that matter, this House will be given some opportunity of dealing with the question.
  I think this discussion has served a very useful purpose indeed, because there is no doubt that the fishing industry is passing through a very critical period of its history. Not merely the herring fishermen and the small in-shore fishermen, but, believe me, the larger trawlers are having a very difficult time indeed to get along at all. Many of the share fishermen that are going to sea in those trawlers from Aberdeen and Grimsby- and other ports along the coast are finding it very difficult indeed to earn a living at all, and, in fact, many of them are in debt. The question as to whether anything can be done by the Government is a very difficult one, in my opinion. My own opinion is that much could be done,
  490
  at any rate for the Scottish trawlers and the English trawlers, if we went in more for what I call voyages of exploration rather than merely research work. I think also it is possible that assistance could be given in the way that I have indicated, as regards a subsidy to the boats which are at the disposal of the Admiralty when necessary, and I suggest that questions that have arisen during this Debate will, at any rate, have brought some enlightenment to the Committee.
  A question was propounded by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland as regards kippers. I do not want it to go out that the Scottish or the English kipper is not fit to eat, because statements have been made about certain kippers being coloured and dyed. I prepared a short memorandum myself on the question of kippers, and I would like to read it, because it may dispose of a good deal of misapprehension on this subject. The best kippers are made from fresh herrings—it is essential to have them fresh—which, after being split, washed, and pickled for a short time, are cured by being smoked over a fire of oak turnings for about 10 hours. In order to save expense, some curers—and I am sure we have not any of them in Grimsby—use soft wood turnings instead of oak and smoke the kippers for a shorter period, and make them look as though they had been thoroughly and properly smoked by dyeing them with certain vegetable colouring matters. These colouring matters are, in themselves, harmless, and you could take any quantity of them without hurt, but the kippers upon which they are used are not so well cured, and have not the same taste as those cured in the proper way. They are also said to be less wholesome, and they certainly would not keep as long as the properly cured herrings.
  The reason why this is done is this: Kippers insufficiently smoked do not shrink so much as those properly smoked, and, therefore, it takes a less number to fill the standard box, and the manufacturer is able to get a larger number of boxes out of a given quantity of herrings. My advice to the British public is this: Insist on having kippers that are not dyed and smoked in this way. Do not be deceived by the size of the kipper, because that may indicate the fact that it has not been properly

  491
  cured. See to it that you buy your goods from a reliable fishmonger, who will not sell you a wrong article; and then I think perhaps after all we shall begin to realise that there is nothing more palatable than a well-cured kipper.
  Mr. MAXTON: As English and Welsh Members have apologised for intervening in this Debate, I, as representing an industrial constituency, wish to enter my apologies also for intruding on a matter which is essentially of interest to the coast-wise population, but I feel that I have a duty in the matter, and I am going to try to emulate the half-smoked kipper, and not shrink from it. I notice that several of the speakers representing constituencies interested in this trade seemed to think that the way out for the fishing industry is for us to eat more fish. I am anxious to serve my country in every possible way, and I have endeavoured to buy British goods, to eat more fruit, and to drink more milk. And I am being asked to put on the top of all that, and on to a very defective digestion to begin with, a larger dose of fish, in order that this industry should prosper. I do not feel that I, personally, can make any response that can encourage the right hon. Gentleman to believe that the fishing industry, by my efforts, will be much better this year than last year, and I was frankly disappointed that that was the only practical suggestion that has been made in the whole course of this Debate.
  I have listened to every speech that has been made to-day, and there has been no really practical suggestion made as to putting the fishing industry of Scotland back on its feet. The fact that strikes my attention is that this industry, one of our primary industries, is in precisely the same position as the mining industry and the agricultural industry. A large proportion of the capital is going out of use, a large proportion of the men who have been used to working in those industries are standing by uncalled for. The products are on the market, but are not able to command on that market a price which will adequately recompense the persons engaged in the industry. The right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member far Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and
  492
  several others, in talking about the fishing industry, said it was passing through a bad time. If I could believe it was "passing through" this bad time I would be prepared to be philosophical, but every year since I have been in this House, whether we have been discussing agriculture or coal or fishing, we have been told that we were "passing through" a bad time, and next year the figures are worse than they were the year before.
  What reason have we to believe that we are passing through this bad time? The figures would lead any ordinary person to believe that, instead of passing through the bad time, We are going into an infinitely worse time, that we are approaching a state of affairs where our primary industries, those that go right to the natural sources of wealth, like fish and coal and agricultural produce, are in a process of decay which is growing increasingly bad year by year, with no Government making any attempt to arrest that decline? I am inclined to think the Government must depart from the attitude they have adopted of looking for cures inside individual Industries and look for the causes of the decay and their removal, not in anything that applies to any particular industry, but in some general reconstruction that will apply to industry generally. Probably I have been getting on to a somewhat wide train of reasoning, seeing that we are discussing only a Fishery Vote, but after listening to this same Debate for several years, and always finding the figures worse each year, I feel that the philosophical attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman when he presents his report is not good enough, and that the Prime Minister must direct the attention of his Cabinet to the fact that, although we are spending money in fishery research, in agricultural research and in mining research, none of those industries is showing any signs of improvement and all are growing steadily worse.
  After that I want to raise one or two minor matters that apply to the fishery trade. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the condition of the fishing industry. I cannot congratulate the Prime Minister upon the condition of the Scottish fishing industry three

  493
  years after he has come into office. The promise of a steady revival in trade and industry, which was to be brought about by the confidence which was to spread through all sections of the community by his election to office and the return of a constitutional and safe Government to power, has not, so far, borne any result in the Scottish fishing industry. I cannot congratulate those two right hon. Gentlemen, but I can congratulate those workers in the office of the Fishery Board, who have produced the Annual Report, on having accomplished a very good piece of work, with an admirable collection of statistics and some useful graphs. I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that with the other statistics he should include some showing the ownership of the fishing fleet, and, if possible, the change that is taking place in the ownership of that fleet. I mean how many boats are now owned by the men sailing them, how many boats are owned by individual owners who take no personal part in the fishing, and how many boats are owned by limited liability companies, who have very little interest in the fishing industry except to own boats and to draw interest on money. I would like statistics showing what is the trend of the change. Is the limited liability company, with its fishermen having absolutely no interest in the catch or in the profits obtained, on the increase? To put it in the language that I know best and use most frequently, is the proletarian fisherman on the increase, as distinct from the small-owner fisherman?
  I would also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me on what principle loans and grants are given to the various fishing villages and towns for harbour construction? A certain portion of the money advanced is grant, and a certain proportion is loan. Perhaps I should not use the words "certain proportion," because the one thing noticeable about the figures is that it is an uncertain proportion, and that no principle seems to run through the expenditure of this public money. Some of the villages or towns seem to get mostly grants and only a small portion on loan—which they have to repay and on which they have to pay interest while it remains unpaid—and others seem to get a very small proportion
  494
  of grant and a very large proportion of loan. I would like some explanation as to how these grants are made.
  There is another branch of research which the Fishery Board might take up. I think it would be desirable to have more adequate facts as to where Scottish fish goes. About £4,500,000 worth of fish is brought into Scottish ports in the course of the year. That is about the same figure as the population of Scotland. If the people of Scotland consumed £1 per head of fish per annum, they would consume the whole of the Scottish catch. That works out at an expenditure of somewhere about 4½d. per head per week. I should like the experts of the Board to trace in some detail where the fish is actually consumed, in order to find out whether the working people of Scotland are able to get fish at all. In the rather more prosperous years towards the end of the War and immediately after the War, there was a tremendous development of the fried fish industry in my constituency in the East end of Glasgow. Now a huge proportion of those traders have gone bankrupt and have had to shut up shop, which seems to indicate that the working people, whose wages have been reduced, and the unemployed people, are now unable to get fish, even in that cheapest and simplest form in which they got it in fried fish shops. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably find that the weakness of the fishing industry, the lack of progress and development and profit and employment for the people engaged in it, turns in the ultimate on the poverty of the working classes in our big aggregations of population. They are unable to purchase that variety of food which in easier times they were able to enjoy. They have to stick to the simplest and plainest commodities, those which provide the maximum of nutrition and the minimum of cost. If the right hon. Gentleman will persuade his Government to direct their attention to the remuneration of the working-class population generally throughout Scotland it will be a big step in the direction of stimulating both Scottish fisheries and Scottish agriculture.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in that very pleasant way he has, managed while keeping within the limits of Parliamentary procedure to work in some of

  495
  his favourite views, and of course one has no quarrel with the general proposition he has made that if everybody was a great deal better off we would all be a great deal more comfortable.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend does not want to misrepresent me. I would not for one moment put forward the proposition that if everybody was a lot better off, but I say that if some of the people were a lot better off it would be better.
  The CHAIRMAN: The art of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) consisted in his keeping those observations in one sentence. If he had gone on to a second sentence I should have had something to say.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: When you see the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will find that there is only one full stop in the remarks I have made. With regard to the interdependence of different people, nothing strikes one more than the fact that 75 per cent. of the herring trade used to be with Russia and that now we do not get that trade. It is not our fault. The herring are there, but the Russian people cannot buy. The Russian Government do not leave them with sufficient money. If the fishermen of this country found on returning from their fishing that all the fish they had caught except what was sufficient for themselves was taken over by the Government and the local town council, I think the fishing industry would languish for the want of people to catch fish. That is precisely what happens under the Government of Russia, which is so much admired by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. The producers are left with only a bare subsistence; the balance is taken from them, and they have nothing left with which to buy. That is the true explanation of why the Russian market has gone, and until Russia is reconstituted morally and politically we shall not got that market back.
  Mr. MAXTON: Tell me how Bridgeton market goes on, under a Tory Government?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No possible arrangement that we can make with them will alter that, even if we go on to any further Trade Agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter that would be appropriate to the Foreign Office Vote, as I have already stated to two or three other hon. Members who have referred to it.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was only giving a bit of history; I was not suggesting any remedy. That is the real position. We cannot get that market for some time, and we must just hope for the best and that wiser counsels will prevail on the part of our late customers. I can confirm what has been said to-day in regard to the large market we have in Germany. It is a good and growing market, and it is a peculiarly beneficial market to the west coast fishermen. The Germans have acquired the practice of coming across here and buying the smaller fish which are thought to be too small for our own markets. They put them into the holds of their ships, in salt and ice, and take them swiftly across to Germany and dispose of them in all the European markets. I have seen two or three German trawlers lying outside the little harbour at Tarbert in Loch Fyne, waiting for the small fish which were formerly thrown away but which they can dispose of in the German market. That is an entirely new outlet for fish of a small size for which there was formerly no market at all. During the last three or four years, it has been of immense benefit to that part of the west coast fishings. Many fishermen have come from the east coast, and they have confessed that the west coast fishermen can give them all a lesson in the fishing industry. We are very hopeful that this benefit will continue. It is in these markets that I think we can hope to supply the lost market of the late Russian Empire.
  I do concur with various hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate in that I would like to see our home market very much more developed. Why is it that fish is so costly? It is not that the fishermen get a large price for it, because they do not. It is because of the cost of marketing the fish, and marketing is the problem not only with fish but with agricultural produce. The price of nearly everything that is seen in the retail fish shops is quite out of proportion to the price that is paid to the producer or the appropriate profit that ought to go to the middleman. It

  497
  is no use denouncing the middleman, because you must have the middleman, and you must remember that the middleman has to spend a large proportion of his turnover in paying rates and rent and taxes. The retailer, however, has learned from his experience in the War that it is much better to have a small turnover at a high price than it is to have a large turnover at a small price, and that is why the consumer has to pay so much and why the producer gets so little. That applies not only to the fishermen but to the agricultural producer. The system is largely due to restrictions which still exist. If we could restore the large number of small shopkeepers, who used to carry on business in back streets, paying a small rent and engaging little or no assistance, it would do an immense lot to bring down the cost of living, but we cannot get that, and the party who say they are trying to obtain better wages and better conditions for the shop assistants are the Prætorian Guard of the large multiple stores all over the country which are exterminating the small shopkeepers.
  You will find in any part of London that the owners of the fish shops are advised by telephone as to what price the fish is to be sold at. If it were a small shopkeeper that was concerned, he would not have a telephone to begin with, and he would be content with a small profit. I remember being told of a small shop, which was run by an ex-soldier who charged very moderate prices and took small profits; but in time his prices increased. When he was asked the reason for this he said, "I used to be content with the prices that I got, but people came in and when they saw how moderate my prices were they sniffed at my goods and said, 'they cannot be fresh!'" It is very unfortunate that a very large number of the people in this country have no other standard by which to judge value than the standard of price. They do not know a good article when they see one, and, if it happens to be cheap, they are suspicious of it and will not buy it. The consumers themselves have done a great deal to encourage high prices. If we could solve the problem of getting the producer in the fishing industry to come closer to the consumer—although how it is to be done in an industry which is so
  498
  widely scattered I do not know—it would mean that the consumer would get fish at cheaper prices and it would be a great advantage to both. If the price were even 50 per cent. above what the producer gets, it would not be so bad; but we find that the prices are 150 per cent. or 250 per cent. above it, owing to the profits that have to be paid to the wholesaler, the middleman and the retailer, and on account of the overhead charges, the rent, rates and taxes and the cost of transport. There is not a chance for the poor fisherman.
  The same applies very largely to the agriculturist. He is solving the problem a little because of road transport, but the fisherman has not got the same chance. That is the problem to which all parties must direct themselves—the problem of marketing, because there is nothing that would bring the same results as would be obtained by getting the consumer and the producer closer to one another. There is far too little fish consumed in this country. When I was in the East, I was astonished to find that an enormous number of people in China and in the other largely populated countries subsist largely on fish. There the sea is not covered with great fleets of trawlers spoiling the fishing banks, but it is covered with tens of thousands of small fishing boats, many of them motor boats which bring in a colossal harvest. These hundreds and millions of people find that fish is an excellent diet. It may be true that our people here do not fully appreciate the value of herring as a food. I remember hearing people saying in Scotland, "It is wonderful to see a man brought up on herring," but I am glad to see that medical men are now assuring the public that herring is one of the most nourishing foods, not only among fish, but among foods of all kinds. When I was a boy, I could go and buy a whole string of herring for 3d., but now you have to pay 2d. or 3d. for one herring. I believe if you could get closer to that price level, there would be an enormous consumption of herring in this country.
  Certain remarks were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) as to what he did for the fishermen when he was Secretary for Scotland. I wish to say that we all feel that he was very sympathetic to the fishing industry in Scotland when he was

  499
  in office, and he did his best with the means at his disposal, but I am afraid a great deal of what he wished to do did not go further than good intention. We found that not more than 3 or 4 per cent. of the loan which he offered to the fishermen was taken up; the terms were too steep. I am not so sure, however, that that was the only cause which prevented the loan being taken up. I think it was due largely to the native integrity of the Scottish fishermen, who do not want to borrow money even from the Government unless they are sure they can see their way to repay it. Then he also spoke about a matter which strikes one as being very shocking; he spoke about fish being brought in and thrown back again into the sea. But that is not confined to fish. It is only a few years ago since there was a tremendous production of potatoes in this country, and one big potato-grower had no less than seven miles of potato pits. There, again, you came up against the question of transport and distribution. Although the potatoes were so plentiful that it was not worth anyone's while to lift them, you were made to pay 8d. or 10d. a stone for them in the greengrocers' shops. That is where the trouble comes in; you cannot get the producers and the consumers together.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): We are not dealing with the potato trade on this Vote.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was only giving that as an illustration. On the question of trawlers, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that there was some proposal to cancel the certificates of captains who were convicted of trawling in-shore. But that is not the proper remedy at all. The people who are realy guilty are the owners who drive these men on to do it, and I suggest that the proper remedy is to lay up the boats for a number of months. Fines of £100, or even of £200, will not do any good, because the trawlers can get catches worth £2,000, and they can avoid having to pay the fines by not coming too close to the land. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) spoke about the trawlers accidentally slipping over the line, but the real reason why they do so is because
  500
  they are so close to the land and that they are watching the fishery cruiser. This is certainly a very great grievance in the Highlands and Islands, and it destroys the livelihood of the land fishermen and the small fishermen. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will take very much more drastic steps than I think he is proposing to put an end to this practice.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I rise to take part in this Debate after having prepared a speech which I shall not now be able to deliver. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If hon. Members below the Gangway knew that I am the only Member of this House who is the son of a fisherman I think they would allow me to have a word or two on a Fisheries Vote. I only rise to say two things; the rest will keep for another time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he is making up his mind as to discrimination between the harbours, will not act on the lines which he seemed to indicate in his speech to-day. The ablest and best seamen are the men who learn to sail small boats in small and difficult harbours. If you go to Cowes during the yachting season, you will see that the ablest skippers and hands on the great yachts are men who came out of very small villages on the coasts of England and Scotland. That is why it is so difficult to get co-operation among these men; they are scattered so much in small communities. As one who has tumbled in and out of a boat since I was a small boy, I would like to say that there is nothing which makes so much for independent judgment in difficult situations as the occupation I have been alluding to.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a kindly thought to the small harbours rather that to the larger ones. The small harbours breed the very finest of this very fine race of men. Hon. Members seem to deal with trawling in a manner entirely out of all proportion. Trawling appears to be discussed always from the point of view of illegality. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) seems to think that the policy adopted should be a sort of universal sabbatarianism for trawlers—seven days a week off the sea. I can assure him that the relations between the inshore men and the trawlers are not on that basis at all. As a matter of fact,

  501
  convictions are very few, and the Report of the Fishery Board points out that they are growing less, and that illegal trawling has been more successfully dealt with in the last year or two. On this point, I would like to read just one extract.

  A TRAWLER'S GOOD TURN.
  A kindly act by the crew of the Buckie steam drifter 'Available' enabled the crew of the sailing boat 'Choice' to sell their herring catch for £20 when a few hours' delay would have made the fish valueless. The 'Choice' was becalmed for 12 hours before the 'Available' towed her into port before she herself went fishing."
  That shows that there is another relation between the trawler and the inshore man which appears to be out of the perspective of those who discuss the condition of the fishing industry. I hope these points will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) intervened in this Debate, he apologised for doing so, and well he might. We Socialists, and more particularly those from the West of Scotland, know quite well why he has taken part in this Debate. We know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party are closely watching the part we are playing in Scotland as far as their seats are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs intervened in this Debate in order to try and hoodwink my fellow-countrymen once more. The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) might have told the truth when he was speaking in this Debate. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not speak the truth about the promises which he made to these men some time ago? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs trying to hoodwink the fishermen again, and he will not be allowed to do so as long as I am in this House. The right hon. Gentleman when he was returned in 1914 said:
  "Send us back, and we who have won the War will win the great peace. We are going to make this land"—
  he was referring to Scotland—
  "a land fit for heroes to live in."
  The right hon. Gentleman had four years in which to do that, and I leave the fishermen themselves to judge whether he
  502
  has made this country a land fit for heroes to live in. This country has always been fit for heroes to live in, and it did not require a Welsh wizard to tell us that. The right hon. Gentleman has made it a land in which only heroes can live. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is going to do this and that. What did he do when he had the opportunity after being returned on the coupon ticket with a powerful majority? He did nothing at all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must recollect that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that he had a brass face to stand up and say what he did say. Tonight, the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, and then left the House, and this is not the first time he has done it, although I told him that I was going to reply to his speech. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has also made his speech and left the House. He stated that the reason why Russia is not purchasing herrings from Scotland is because of the action of the Soviet Government. I would like the hon. and learned Member to read the views of the late Member for Argyll (Sir W. Sutherland) who was private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and who in giving his evidence before the Food Commission said:
  "The Loch Fyne fishermen got a penny a dozen for herrings, and those self-came herrings were sold at from 2d. to 3d. each."
  That is not in Russia. That is what is being done by the middlemen who are represented to-day by the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is pledged to support Home Rule for Scotland. Yesterday he got an opportunity of supporting his expressed views, but he went into the Lobby and voted with the Government. I will now come back to the question of herrings and the deplorable situation in which my fellow-countrymen find themselves. I do not apologise for defending the fishermen of my own country. I am ready to defend my countrymen against all others. I stand for my country first. I am not in

  503
  favour of Home Rule for India, Egypt, and everywhere else but Scotland. I am in favour of Home Rule for Scotland first and for other countries afterwards. All those who have taken part in this Debate to-day have paid a great tribute to the outstanding qualities of these fishermen, but what do we find when we go among them? We see a hardy, intelligent race whose prospects have been ruined, not by Russians or Germans, but by the conditions imposed upon them by the Tory Government. You, Sir, are responsible at the moment. I told you, when you were made Secretary of State—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks had better be addressed to me.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Well, Captain FitzRoy, when the Secretary for Scotland was made Secretary of State—he is the first Secretary for Scotland to be made Secretary of State—I told him, standing here in this House, that greater honour brought greater responsibility, and that, if he was going to be worthy of being a great Secretary of State for Scotland—we have never had one—he had the opportunity now of being the first Secretary of State for Scotland to do something for these outstanding men. Hon. Members have pointed out how they fought the submarines in the North Sea, the most difficult task that had to be done during the War. What do we now find in the Island of Lewis, which I visited some time ago? There were 1,200 men who never returned to that island, who gave their all, and their dependants are left stricken. No one gives them any assistance. The trawlers' representative, again, is absent, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). They make their speeches and fly. They ruined the fishing grounds around the Island of Lewis, which were teeming with fish, and where the people were practically comfortable before the War. Now, when you go there, the schoolmaster can point out to you the children dying before his eyes, living on potatoes three times a day, and not very good at that.
  These are facts that are known to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, surely, I have a right to a little latitude from you, Captain FitzRoy. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that those
  504
  are the conditions that prevail. Not only that, but when they came back—and this nice, kind, generous Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is responsible for this—what did they find? Every man, from 16 years of age to 60 volunteered for service. They believed that the Germans were the enemies of their country, and that they had a right to go and volunteer to defend their native land. If the Germans had won the War, not only the fishermen in this country, but the miners and the engineers in this country, would have been better off. Those are the conditions that prevail at the moment. Do you think you are going to get away with it all the time? No fear! You are going to get the truth, no matter what it costs me. As I have said, these men, from 16 years of age to 65, volunteered for service; there were no men for six years to look after their gear, and when they returned they found their boats and gear destroyed.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says that they were given a million, but a million was a bagatelle; it was no use, because the men in the Island of Lewis caught nothing—absolutely nothing. They found nothing but starvation staring them in the face. Then along came Lord Leverhulme, to organise a great canning factory that he was going to put down at Stornoway. He was going to take them away off their crofts to take them from their fishing, and industrialise them—to have them running at the call of a whistle blowing in the morning and again in the evening. But the Highlandmen said "No." They value their liberty, and are prepared to pay the price for liberty—eternal vigilance. They would not give up their liberty, they would not go into the canning factory, and so Lord Leverhulme, with all his organising abilities, was crushed against that wall of Scottish independence that prefers starvation rather than submission to industrialism. Lord Leverhulme and Company, therefore went to the wall But what is before the men now? Absolutely nothing but starvation. In come the trawlers—in past the three-mile limit. I put it to the Secretary for Scotland that what should be done is to provide, not a cruiser, but a seaplane. The fishermen told us, when we visited them in the Island of Lewis, that when they went out in a small boat

  505
  to get the number of the trawler, the people on the trawler threw big stones at them, so as to knock the bottom out of the boat and sink them. I asked them, "What do you do when they do that? They said, "What can we do?" I said, "Buy a gun and shoot them." You can take it from me that all history goes to show that the only thing the ruling class in this country understand is when they get a rifle levelled at their heads Do you think the Irish would have stood by and seen this—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is getting too far away from the Vote. It is a Fishery Vote.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am dealing with the Fishery Vote, and am saying that, if the Irish had been here fighting for their rights there would be more heard about it; and it is our duty to put up as stiff a fight as we possibly can for our people. The Irish were forced to take drastic measures, and, if our people are not going to get a fair deal, I am prepared to go out to my folk and advocate that they take drastic measures, too. We have evidence of it. What about the men in Scaristaveg, the five crofters that were arrested? What did the Secretary of State for Scotland tell me? That they never would get land, never as long as he was Secretary of State for Scotland. What happened, because we held them by the throat? The men went back, they got land, and they are on the land in spite of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The fishermen all round Scotland are watching what is going on here to-day. They know perfectly well that they have never got a square deal. They made immense sacrifices on behalf of their native land. The people in this industry, whom you are all praising and saying are such good men, are dependent on Russia. There is no doubt about that; no one can deny the fact that 75 per cent. of the export of herrings from this country went direct to Russia; and now this Government goes out of its way to quarrel with the best customers that these men had, and tells them to clear out. Why have they to clear out? Because, the Government say, the Russians are bad men, wild men with great, big, black beards and their hands dirty with blood. Fancy Churchill and Birkenhead—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of relations with Russia does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not think I shall have any difficulty in proving that it is due to the action of this Government. It is a silly, stupid Government, I know. I know there are some very able men in it; I do not deny that for a moment; but of all the duds! Lloyd George is right in some things and he said they were a lot of kitchenmaids, because it was the action of a kitchenmaid to quarrel with the best customer that these fishermen had. These fishermen are absolutely essential to the welfare of Britain. It is perfectly true what my comrade Maxton said—I mean the hon. Member for Bridgeton. He said what is perfectly true, that all our staple and most important industries are on the decline; and that is most particularly true regarding Scotland. Scotland is on the decline. There is no denying the fact. There are 24;000 fewer fishermen this year than there were before the War. Can the Secretary of State name one other industry that is on the increase? I can—gamekeepers. In the last census, there was an increase of 8,000. Our mining industry is helplessly bleeding, metaphorically speaking, at the employers' feet through the action of this vicious, vile Government. Take the agricultural industry.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot roam over every industry. We are discussing the fishing industry.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: These industries are all linked with one another. The fishermen of the island of Lewis have crofts. They are not entirely dependent on the sea. They also till the soil. The hon. Member for Bridgeton talked about the fishing industry, agriculture, mining and engineering—my own trade. The chief industries of my native land are on the down grade, and have been ever since the Tory Government came into power. These are my last words to my fellow-countrymen. "I do not care about the House of Commons. Have nothing to do with the Tory party. Let them work as they have never worked before to defeat them. And, whatever they do, let them have nothing to do with the Liberal party, who, in my opinion, are a hundred times worse." We know what

  507
  the Tories are, and we know what to expect from them, but the Liberal party are milk and water. They are neither fish nor flesh nor anything else.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £44,976, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 158.

  Division No. 277.]

  AYES.

  [8. 40 p.m.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Amman, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scurr, John

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, G, H.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Batey, Joseph

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Kelly, W. T.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

  Briant, Frank

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Lee, F.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Lowth, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox]

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lunn, William

  Strauss, E. A.

  Clowes, S.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Mackinder, W.

  Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  MacLaren, Andrew

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Maxton, James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Murnin, H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dennison, R.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edge, Sir William

  Paling, W.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wllkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Gillett, George M.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cope, Major William

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hopkinsor, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Balniel, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Bennett, A. J.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Berrtinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Dear, Arthur Wellesley

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Bethel, A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Blundell, F. N.

  Ellis, R. G.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Brlscoe, Richard George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Burman, J. B.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Chadwick Sir Robert Burton

  Gates, Percy

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grace, John

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Harland, A.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Preston William

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

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

  Price Major C. W. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ramsden, E.

  Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

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

  Remer J. R.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Roberts E. H. G. (Flint)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Sanders Sir Robert A.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

  Sanderson Sir Frank

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Savory S. S.

  Waddington, R.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen'sUniv.,Belfast)

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Penny.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £296,617, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War."—[Note: £205,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My object in rising to-night is to call the attention of the Committee to the proceedings of the Geneva Economic Conference, and to invite from the President of the Board of Trade a statement of the attitude of the Government towards the findings of that Conference.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Vote is for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Trade, and practically every question for which the Board of Trade is responsible and for which there is no separate Vote can be discussed, but before allowing the Debate to proceed on the Economic Conference at Geneva, I should like some assurance from the Minister as to what extent his Department is responsible for the proceedings, of the Conference.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I can certainly give that assurance. While this Conference was not a Conference of Governments or Government representatives, the representatives who went from this country were selected by me as President of the Board of Trade. Their secretariat was supplied by the Board of Trade and is paid for out of my Vote, and the working out of all the economic work which the League of Nations has to do through its Economic Committee is
  510
  conducted by the Economic Adviser to the Government, whose salary figures in this Vote. I think that that amply justifies the raising of the subject on this Vote.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With that assurance, I shall be satisfied that the subject can be raised on this particular Vote.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The President of the Board of Trade has in two or three sentences given the genesis of the Economic Conference itself, for it was the preparatory stages for which the Government were mainly responsible and in which they participated which made it possible to hold the Conference at all. It follows quite naturally on the old Brussels Financial Conference of some years ago. That was the only ground on which it would have been possible to have called it together for it to have attained anything like the unanimity which characterised its business. That is due to the fact that events have moved rapidly up to the stage where all the European countries have come to the conclusion that it was impossible to go on on the present basis with the interests of our various countries at stake, and that the sooner we had a clearing of the ground the better it would be for Europe and for everyone concerned in European trade.
  It is not generally known that one of the first duties of the Conference when it met was to deal with the subject of agriculture. About one-third of the Conference was directly interested in agriculture. The representatives who went there were selected in many cases because of their special agricultural knowledge, and many of them because they were good representatives of agricultural interests and organisations. The wisdom, of the League of Nations in selecting agriculture as one of the main subjects of the Conference was to be

  511
  found in the fact—it is well known to anybody who has taken the trouble to study economic conditions—that industry and agriculture are inseparably mixed up. You cannot completely disentangle the one from the other. No matter what the country is, if its agriculture is depressed, its industry cannot flourish, and, similarly, unless some of the same modern methods are applied to agriculture, it is equally certain the farmers cannot make ends meet.
  I had the honour of being at the Conference as the representative, not of this country, but of the International Chamber of Commerce, which shared with the Government and with the economic organisation of the League of Nations the duty of preparing the work for the consideration of the delegates. The International Chamber of Commerce had worked partly through its national committees but principally through its Trade Barriers Committee which met in Paris, in London, and elsewhere. Throughout the two or three years of this preparatory work they had the advantage of the collaboration of men from almost every trade. They had 22 national committees to aid them, and the 22 national committees were themselves representatives of the main industries of their various countries. These committees and the central committee of the International Chamber of Commerce never attempted to isolate commercial and industrial affairs from agriculture, and I think it is only fair to say that they found, as we found at the Conference itself, that in every country in the world the plight of the farmers appeared to be similar. We all know from our own experience that farmers never anywhere at any time admit having made a profit on their trading. It is the common complaint of all farmers in all countries, and there was no complaint made by the agriculturists in this country which was not repeated with equal sincerity and with equal emphasis by the representatives of every country in the world, including, strangely enough, the farming representatives of the United States of America.
  They all held the view, in the long run, that nothing was to be gained by artificial State assistance. In their findings they came to the conclusion without
  512
  a single dissentient voice that improvement must, in the first place, be the work of the agriculturists themselves. In the second place, they declared that it was impossible for agriculture to flourish unless co-operation and association of interests was not only recognised but organised. They all believed that the high rates of interest affected their industry more directly than anything else. They complained also that heavy taxation in every country in the world hampered production. They were unanimous in their desire for better instruction and better training, especially among younger farmers, and they begged for the removal of all hindrances, for the free circulation of, and trade in, agricultural products. And, finally, they joined up with all the other sections of the Conference in favour of the reduction of Customs protection to a minimum. There were some other recommendations which they made which had to do with a agricultural credit, and the diseases of animals and plants, the furtherance of agriculture in undeveloped colonies, and they all adhered strongly to a national policy in afforestation for every country in the world. These findings were agreed to without a single dissentient voice, but I ought to say at once that in the plenary session with which the Conference concluded the Russian representatives were an exception to that rule. They did not, however, vote against any of the findings of the Agricultural, Industrial, or Commercial Commissions. The Russian representatives were in a position by themselves. They held a view which was peculiarly their own, not shared by any of the other delegates at the Conference, whether they were men of business, financiers, or leaders of great labour organisations.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What was the Russian point of view?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Russian point of view was that the only way you could make the agricultural industry prosperous was by leaving it to the farmers to work for themselves and not under the control of the State. They explained that their own moujiks, the small farmers, would have nothing to do with State control or State ownership. The moujik adhered just as strongly as the rest of us do to the view that the only way in which agriculture in Russia could recover was by the agriculturists working in their

  513
  own interests. There was official disagreement with our phraseology, but in sentiment they shared our views.
  The Industrial Commission was set a much more difficult task. It was not that they had the task of registering the complaints of men depending on and engaged in great industries, but they tried to gather together the views of the manufacturing and producing concerns of the world, and, under the guidance mainly of the French delegates, an effort was made to substitute what is called rationalisation for other means of solving our international trade troubles. I do not think I am saying anything indiscreet when I tell the Committee that, so far as one could ascertain, the leaders of French opinion at the Conference held the view that by rationalisation, which they meant to include international organisations in the nature of cartels, they could get over all the disadvantages of high tariffs and trade barriers, and that it would enable them to turn the corner without raising any of the old controversies which have raged in this country and Europe for a 100 years.
  They found, however, as the Conference went on, that they had a difficult task to define exactly what was meant by rationalisation. They also discovered that any attempt to organise European trade on the cartel basis raised a very large number of very thorny questions. In the first instance, the consumers, speaking as they could only do through the representations of men representing large bodies of distributing organisations like the co-operative societies, would have nothing whatever to do with the cartel arrangement. The distribution of great industries on a national basis and the settling of quotas, in their view, meant that the consumers in the various countries were to be placed at the disposal and made the victims of great international trading organisations. Day by day the Conference was blocked in its work because this point of view was put with all the variations which came from the national peculiarities and from the individual views of the delegates. Ultimately, the Industry Commission declared in favour of a by no means new principle, namely, that maximum efficiency with minimum of effort was what they wished to secure. One cannot see very
  514
  much in the way of practical policy to be got out of that admirable phrase. They also declared in favour of the avoidance of waste of power and materials, a principle to which I need hardly say every one of us is prepared to make his contribution. They also declared in favour of the reduction of all unnecessary charges for distribution, a principle with which I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will heartily agree. They wanted to get rid, as far as they could, of the middleman.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Hear, hear! They showed their intelligence.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: But they admitted that without the middleman there can be no extension of commerce in any direction. That was what they meant by rationalisation. On the question of cartels, there was no agreement, and it is hardly likely that there will be any agreement. An international arrangement will be made from time to time, and in some industries it is quite conceivable that it may do a certain amount of good; but, on the whole, the view of the Conference was against placing the trading communities of the world under the control of international organisations.
  9.0 p.m.
  The most difficult questions came before the Commerce Commission. There were three Commissions in this Section, and they had to deal with the most controversial subjects. Both in the Commission and in the plenary session we all felt, even those of us who held the strongest views on economic questions, that it would be absurd for us to waste our time over controversies in the old form between Protectionists and Free Traders. The Conference, therefore, while it could not pledge itself to anything that could be called Free Trade, was universally in favour of what it caled freer trade. For that, I think we have every reason to be thankful; it was due not only to the good sense of the delegates themselves but to the pressure of our own times. They wanted to get rid, naturally, of all trade barriers in so far as they interfered with international trade. There was a general feeling that nationalism had run riot in Central Europe and had harmed not only Central Europe but the world at large.

  515
  When they split up their subjects into these various categories, they were all favour of reducing, for instance, the obstacles to rapid, easy and cheap rail transport. They had some practical suggestions to make—which may have a much more potent effect upon trade and prosperity in Europe than a great many of the political movements—in favour of uniformity in rolling stock, interchangeability of engines, wagons, and so forth, and uniform regulations throughout Europe, so that traffic might be conducted everywhere without interruption, and the simplification of all Customs formalities. In sea transport, the Conference declared unanimously in favour of the abolition of every form of flag discrimination. That was one of the most useful things on which agreement was obtained. There is now, as far as we know, in Europe only one important maritime country which maintains anything in the nature of flag discrimination, and it does not dare to do that openly. They condemned subsidies to shipping companies or individual shipowners. They declared that the maintenance of State shipping was leading to a good deal of depression in the shipping industry, was not cheapening the carriage of goods over the high seas, and was having the disadvantage of placing those who had shown enterprise in the building up of shipping concerns at a great disadvantage compared with State-owned fleets.
  They made some progress in the solution of the difficult problem of double taxation and urged that sanitary Regulations, which are so essential for the good health of our ports and ships, should not be so manipulated as to be turned into a form of protection or flag discrimination. Finally, they pleaded, as did other sections of the Conference, for the diminution of all vexatious Customs Regulations and methods. On most of these points, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the Committee that some progress has been made by international agreement. A great many of them could have been attained by Conventions if the Conventions to which national signatures have been attached had been ratified. Therefore, the Conference urged that in every case where the findings had been
  516
  agreed to ratification should take place at the earliest possible moment.
  When we come to the extremely thorny question of tariffs, four declarations were made by the Conference, and they are so remarkable and so plain that I venture to read them, briefly, to the Committee. Their view was that of all trade barriers none was more mischievous than that of the unduly high tariffs which had grown up since the War. There was no doubt that the temporary difficulties of the years from 1919 to 1925 had led to tariffs being rushed up in some countries in order to keep pace with a heavily depreciated exchange in others, and that a number of purely temporary causes had justified the Governments of various European countries imposing tariffs out of all proportion to the normal needs of their countries, and now, as these temporary conditions had entirely changed the necessity for maintaining these absurdly high tariffs had passed away. We are gradually reaching a stage of normality, currency troubles are less than they were, the stability of the exchanges is being more and more assured, and the Conference from end to end felt that the time had now arrived when it was possible to change the whole course of tariff making, and when, instead of sending tariffs up to a higher level, they should all be sent down to a lower level. Therefore, they declared that, the present high tariffs have a harmful effect on trade and production; and under that heading the view was held, as far as I can gather without protest or reservation in any quarter, that the attempt to work out international trade over and through the obstacles of high tariffs did far more harm on the whole to the trade of Europe as a whole than it did good to the individual countries.
  Where it was thought that an individual trade or one separate country could gain by high tariffs, they came to the conclusion that the harm that was done to European trade as a whole far more than counter-balanced that small degree of good which might he done locally and to carefully selected trades. Therefore, the Conference believed that these high tariffs had a harmful effect on trade and production. Secondly, they held the view
  "that substantial improvement in economic conditions can be obtained by increased facilities for trade and commerce."

  517
  The work which had been done by the Statistical Branch of the Economic Section of the League of Nations made it quite clear that, whereas in the world the power of production now is greater than ever it was, the amount of goods which are actually exchanged as between the various countries of the world was far less not only in value, but in volume, than it was previously to the War. They therefore held the view that by increasing the facilities far trade and commerce there should be a substantial improvement in economic conditions; and by economic conditions they meant not only the amount of prosperity which may accrue to those who own and organise industries, but to those who are employed in them. Thirdly, they held the view that:
  "Tariffs, though within the sovereign jurisdiction of the different States, are not a matter of purely domestic interest."
  That meant that they were taking a far wider view than could be obtained by merely sitting each at home in their own economic departments or in their own counting houses, or chambers of commerce, and paying no attention to what happens outside. They held the view that, if the general international trade of Europe is to remain good, it can only be improved by largely increasing the purchasing power of the people of Europe; that, if their purchasing power is increased, the prosperity of our international trade must, of necessity, increase also; that nothing could add more to the purchasing power of the people of Europe than by preventing prices being raised to an artificially high level, and that to maintain them at a high level by means of tariffs was only to injure trade or industry which, in the long run, we sought to benefit. The Conference, therefore, held the view that the domestic effect of tariffs was not the only aspect of these trade barriers which they were discussing and examining.
  Lastly, their view was that some of the causes which have resulted in increased tariffs have now largely disappeared, while others are diminishing. In the words of the Conference, they say:
  "The time has come to put an end to the increases in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction."
  Nothing could be more emphatic, and what is most remarkable about this finding is that it came from every nation,
  518
  from men of every trade, and it was the opinion expressed by every national delegation. There never has been an International Conference where the unanimity was so complete, and, however that may have been attained, it was not attained by any false phraseology or secret reservation, because the whole Report is plain speaking from beginning to end.
  Furthermore, they suggested four lines of action. The first was, independent action by the several States to remove or diminish trade barriers; and we must quite frankly face the fact that it means in every one of these States that an effort should be made to reduce the import duties on goods which come from abroad. Secondly, they thought that concerted action by commercial treaties was the best way of attaining this end, and one of the reasons why that view was held was that the only way in which business men are able to make their arrangements far ahead, to enter on long contracts, which give security for them and steady and continuous employment for their workpeople, was by knowing that the tariffs would not be altered spasmodically, or suddenly, or sporadically. Therefore, they urged that whatever was done by way of a maintenance of import duties should be done under commercial treaties—commercial treaties which provide for most-favoured-nation treatment. Their third line of action was to abolish the practice of imposing bargaining tariffs in advance of negotiations. That is a method which is well known to anyone who has studied tariff history in Europe. Whenever there was a likelihood of a new series of negotiations spreading over large groups of trade, it had become the habit in Europe for the negotiating countries first to put up their tariffs in order that they might have something on which to negotiate. The Conference declared emphatically against the practice of these bargaining tariffs in advance of negotiations. Then, for the purpose of making some practical progress in each of the various Governments concerned, they asked that greater powers should be given to the economic section of the League of Nations. That, I am sure, everybody will agree with, for it has proved to be one of the most efficient branches of the League of Nations' organisation.

  519
  Those were the views and findings of the Conference. How are we to put them into practice? The first thing that is made clear is that we must have public opinion behind us in all the countries concerned. There is no need for us to return to the old controversies and travel along the same old lines. All that we need to do for the purpose of making our national business arrangements is to treat every one of these problems as if it were a business problem, and it will then be found that the combined wisdom of the economic world was well expressed in the findings of the Conference and in the lines of action which have been recommended by the Conference.
  What can be done by the Governments concerned? I must confess that I hoped that our own British Government would have taken the lead. There was a great opportunity for them, and it is a pity that the lead should have passed away to any other statesman. The International Chamber, however, has just recently met in Stockholm, and it has endorsed every one of the findings of the Conference. It said quite emphatically at the Congress last week that in endorseing the work of the Conference that
  "the work depends for successful result on the execution of the principles laid down and approved by the delegates of 50 nations, and that these principles must be carried out by sound national policies and by mutual collective agreements."
  Already some of the Governments have taken those steps. The Austrian Government, which has been passing through troublous times during the last week or ten days, was one of the first to declare that it would accept these findings as a whole and without reservation. Belgium followed almost immediately. Czechoslovakia accepted the findings and declared that it would act upon them, and, what was still more remarkable, the German Government adhered to them throughout, and Herr Stresemann at Geneva, during the meeting of the League of Nations Council, moved a strong resolution in favour of the recommendations of the World Economic Conference.
  It was observed that while the nations which gave their adherence were maritime nations, Great Britain, although the leading maritime nation, appeared to
  520
  hesitate in giving its approval to the work of the Conference. If that is still the attitude of the British Government, I should greatly regret it, for I do not think that any better service could be done not only to the trade of this country but of the world, than for the British Government to take the lead in this new movement and become one of the foremost spokesmen of the new feeling in European trade. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that the Government intend not only to give their adherence to the general principles which have been laid down, but will accept the findings as a whole. The foreign countries which have already set us a good example are just as jealous of their sovereign rights as we are, and they have just as great financial difficulties and probably greater. The only objection there can be to the main findings of the Conference with regard to tariffs is that by pledging itself to international action our Government might be giving up some portion of their sovereign rights.
  It may be suggested that the attempt to lay down a settled tariff policy for a period of years, to make no alterations contrary to the commercial treaties entered into, does mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer surrenders each year a right which he has, and which has always been accorded to him by the immemorial custom of this, House, of imposing Customs duties at short notice. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to get full value out of Customs duties if long notice were given of their imposition. I doubt whether any Government at any time would give up that right. But that need not conflict with the findings of the Conference, for the Conference referred only to Customs duties which were put on as protective duties and which were not also associated with countervailing Excise duties. It has been our practice in the past, in the main, to have, countervailing excise duties whenever we impose Customs duties. If we return to that practice and adhere to it in future, there need be no difficulty in carrying out the findings of the Geneva Conference, nor need there be any surrender of sovereign rights.
  Are we quite sure that if we do nothing in this matter the world is going to stand

  521
  still to suit our feeling? As one sees the development of feeling in Europe, it becomes more and more clear that the central European countries are more prepared now to act together than they have been at any time since the War. Their local jealousies are being overcome, whether by weight of circumstances or otherwise it is not for me to say. But they are being gradually overcome, and if it should so happen that in the next few years there is formed a Central European or Eastern European Zollverein with Germany at the head of it, there is only one way of counteracting a measure that might be to the detriment of this country, and that would be by Great Britain taking the lead rather than leaving it to the Germans to prescribe for Europe what they believe to be best. We are in a position to do that, far more powerful than any other country in the world. We are even now the greatest importing country in the world. One-fifth of the entire exports of the world are into Great Britain. A good deal of it certainly is for re-exportation, and in the process it gives good employment in our ports and elsewhere. But that is the fact; one-fifth comes to this country.
  The representatives of foreign nations had to listen to that tact on many occasions at Geneva, and it made a profound impression on their minds. A great many of them who had been looking at the statistics piecemeal found, when they were put in that simple form, that the best they could do for their-own countries was to keep on good terms with this magnificent customer for what they produced. It therefore enables us, if we take full advantage of that position, to take a lead in the economic improvement of Europe far greater than that which can be given by anyone else. But there lay behind the whole of these findings—and everything that was suggested there has been endorsed by the International Chamber of Commerce—a general recognition of the fact that it is impossible for us to live in isolation, that we are as dependent on the trade of other countries as we are on trade in the several portions of our own. There can be no depression anywhere without its reacting here. There can be no increase of prosperity in Great Britain without its equally reacting on the trade of other countries.
  522
  It was this idea of interdependence which animated the representatives of 50 nations, men gathered from countries more diverse than ever assembled before in Geneva, for we had the great advantage of having present not only those who are members of the League of Nations, but delegates from the United States of America. They all recognised the general principle that world prosperity is now so much one unity that it is impossible for us to go on on the assumption that we can bring about any degree of prosperity in our own great basic trades by injuring the basic trades of other countries. We cannot, indeed, hope that there will be large purchasing of what we produce unless our neighbours are more prosperous than they are at the present time. It was that idea of interdependence which bound the delegates together in arriving at what is an epoch-making decision by all the nations of the world; and I invite my right hon. Friend to assure the Committee to-night, and to assure the world outside these Islands, that we in Great Britain avow that international interdependence, and that we intend in the future as in the past to be the leaders of world economic progress.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: My intervention will he very brief indeed. I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, though whether we agree with him or not is a different question. Apparently all the delegates who attended this Conference in Geneva must have left it with a very self-satisfied air, but I am very much afraid that quite a number of them must have agreed to certain of the resolutions that were passed there with their tongues in their cheeks. Speaking as one who, perhaps, may be considered to be labelled for the time being as a Protectionist, I should like to say that, if we could attain the ideal that has been referred to, I for one should be the very first to subscribe to it, and agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am very much afraid that, as a matter of fact, we in this country are one of the greatest obstacles that exist in the way of attaining this object. That is because we are still a Free Trade nation. I believe that if we were fortunate enough to possess a form of tariffs similar to those possessed by most of the Continental

  523
  nations there would be very much more chance of success for anything of this kind. As the situation stands at the present moment, we have practically nothing to offer, and other nations have every advantage in maintaining the status quo as far as tariffs are concerned.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the large quantity of goods that come into this country every year. I am afraid those goods will continue to pour into this country and that we shall not obtain the benefit of reduced tariffs on the part of other nations unless we ourselves have something with which to bargain. I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade, although perhaps he may agree in principle with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will also realise that, if we are to achieve anything really practical, we shall have to have a tariff system of our own, and it is only then that we can obtain what we all desire.
  Mr. DALTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) who opened the Debate gave the Committee a very interesting account of the Economic Conference and its conclusions. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) who has just sat down has spoken the average mind of the Tory party on this matter, but, if he has, then evidently, instead of being in the front rank, as we had hoped, of the movement towards the more rational working of the trade of the world, we are evidently hanging behind. It is a curious thing that on the morrow of a Conference of this kind it should be argued in this House by a supporter of the Government that our duty is to increase our tariffs at the very moment when the representatives of all the nations of the world, including the representatives of our own country, have been arguing in exactly the opposite direction. It will be interesting to hear the President of the Board of Trade later on explaining the attitude of the Government.
  I should like to join in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that our Government did not at an early stage throw itself wholeheartedly behind the recommendations of the Conference. At the meeting of the Council of the League our Foreign Secretary not only hung back behind the representatives
  524
  of the foreign countries there represented, but even used his influence to get toned down the very mild and moderate form of words suggested by Dr. Stresemann, who had proposed—
  "That the Council invites all countries and Governments to give to these principles and recommendations their close attention and the active support necessary to facilitate their adoption and application."
  But our Foreign Secretary made the characteristic remark that he was afraid they were going too far at too early a stage. That is a characterisic attitude when he attends the meetings of the League of Nations. Our only fear whether he is not going too far in a backward direction. I should have thought it would have been perfectly easy, and a gesture which would have cost nothing, to have supported the appeals of the Belgian, German, and other representatives, for the adoption of the Resolution in its original form. My hon. Friends who sit on these benches have never taken quite the same emphatic view of the importance of Free Trade as that taken by the Liberal party. We have in the past opposed departures from Free Trade by the present Government, but we have never been able to forget that even under Free Trade we have known continuously poverty, unemployment and bad social conditions. I hope therefore—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not develop this into an argument of Free Trade and Protection. It is a very different Debate. That argument really concerns something outside the Vote of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member must keep strictly to the lines of the subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman).
  Mr. DALTON: I think I shall he able to keep within those lines. I was merely anxious to emphasise the point that, although our attitude has differed somewhat from that of the Liberal party, none the less there is no difference on this issue between us and them, nor I hope between either of us and the Government, in welcoming the appeal made at the Conference, and the recommendations for a general abatement of tariff barriers, although, as I was indicating without wishing to pursue the argument at length, we do not regard Free. Trade

  525
  or even freer trade as so universal a solvent as it is regarded in some quarters. None the less, it is evident that one of the chief reasons for the slow recovery of the world since the War, and particularly in Europe, has been the enormous multiplication and the raising to such unparalleled heights of the economic barriers which the International Conference recommended should be abated. Much has been said about the difference between conditions in Europe and the United States, and it is quite obviously true, as the Conference observed, that one of the causes of that difference is that the United States is not hindered within itself by these economic barriers. In spite of the observations of the hon. Member for North Bradford, I cannot but believe that an action by His Majesty's Government in the direction of at once taking off, as a gesture to the world, the small and, from the revenue point of view, comparatively unproductive Safeguarding Ditties., which the President of the Board of Trade—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that question. This is a question of the proceedings of the Economic Conference; and such responsibility as the President of the Board of Trade has attached to him for the nomination of the delegates, and any instructions given by him. To discuss the safeguarding of industries covers a matter of legislation, which, while relevant on the Finance Bill, cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. DALTON: I am anxious to bow to your ruling. I am sorry that that will deprive the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) of the opportunity of speaking on that point later. May I submit to you, Mr. Hope, on that point of Order, that your predecessor in the Chair has permitted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea to deal in some detail with the recommendations of the Conference, the chief of which is, of course, the abatement of Customs barriers. The right hon. Member for West Swansea has been permitted to express the hope that the Government will not be backward in giving effect to the recommendations of the Conference, and I am merely repeating, from a slightly different angle, that same aspiration, and if we are to translate that vague and general aspiration into concrete
  526
  form, what it amounts to is that our hope is that the President of the Board of Trade will use his influence to remove the Safeguarding Duties. I do not wish to carry the matter further, but it seems to me difficult to distinguish between the argument permitted and that which in your judgment is in order, but I do not want to pursue it in any greater detail.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman appreciates what the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would have to say in answer to his arguments. I think he would see to what lengths we should go if he opened such a discussion and pursued his argument.
  Mr. DALTON: I will not pursue that. I only hope within the limits of the ruling the President of the Board of Trade may be able to give some information to the Committee when he comes to reply. If I may turn from the commercial to the industrial and agricultural parts of the recommendations, I am bound to say I do not find anything there which is very impressive. "Rationalisation" seems to be one of those high-sounding words which, while it is new and before it becomes hackneyed, is apt to mislead people into the belief that something new has been discovered. I do not think we are called upon to take any very definite or effective action on the industrial section of the Report. Hon. Members who are associated with me on these benches prepared, or there was prepared on their behalf, a memorandum which was put before the Economic Conference, which received some attention, and on which I should like to say a few words. The memorandum which was sent with the authority of the Labour party and the General Committee of the Trade Union Congress expressing their views, differs in some respects from the general body of this Report and it approached certain fundamental questions which the Report has left alone. The view was taken in this memorandum that the chief purpose of the Economic Conference—one of its many purposes and, to us, probably its chief purpose—was to examine those economic tendencies which affect the peace of the world. Although there is a reference in the Report, to that purpose, it is merely a suggestion that in future other conferences should pursue

  527
  investigations. The Conference recommend:
  "That the Governments of the peoples and countries here represented should together give continuous attention to this aspect"—
  that is the maintenance of peace—
  "of the economic problems and looks forward to the establishment of a recognised principle designed to eliminate those economic difficulties which cause friction and misunderstanding in a world which has everything to gain from peace and harmonious progress."
  With such general terms one can hardly quarrel, except by suggesting that it does not carry one very far. The memorandum to which I have referred made much more specific proposals—in particular one for the setting up of an International Economic Office parallel with the International Labour Office under the League of Nations. It was proposed in that memorandum—and I shall be interested to hear whether the Government have any suggestion to make along those lines—that such International Economic Office ought to be given considerable functions in the way of organising periodical surveys of various problems such as international trusts and so on, and also, perhaps, acting as arbitrator where both sides so wished, in any disputes arising through the action of international trusts in relation either to Governments or important bodies of consumers. Various other detailed suggestions were made in that memorandum. We drew attention to certain matters and certain economic tendencies affecting the peace of the world which are not dealt with in the Report of the Conference. We drew attention to the difficulties arising from the development of what are called "backward countries" and the clashes and competitive difficulties arising as between investors of different nationalities and so forth.
  My general conclusion, comparing our Memorandum with the Report of the Conference, is that the Conference evaded a large number of fundamental questions which sooner or later will have to be surveyed boldly and constructively. This Conference has been remarkable in that it is the first of its kind. It has been remarkable in the fact that so many nations have been represented and so many representative people including co-operators
  528
  and trade union leaders in addition to representatives of employers' organisations and of various business organisations, have been present; but my feeling is that, although the recommendations which were made in the Report are in the right direction, so far as they are positive at all—and I hope they will he accepted by the Government—yet there are many questions which still await formulation and recommendations regarding them. It is clear that this is only the first of a series of Conferences of this nature and I hope the second is not very far away. I hope now that we have got such remarkable unanimity of opinion on certain points among the members of this first Conference that those who are doubtful as to whether such Conferences serve any useful purpose will be encouraged, particularly if the various Governments implement the resolutions which were there passed and that at a very early date it will be possible to summon a second Conference which will go rather more deeply and courageously into particular questions which were well within the terms of reference of this Conference but were treated somewhat superficially or left altogether out of the final recommendations.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has raised this subject in Debate, because I think we can more conveniently present our view in Debate than in the limited space of questions and answers. Great Britain is more interested than any other country in the world in the development of international trade, and therefore, whatever Government is in office here, Great Britain must welcome any movement which will increase the facilities for international trade. I at once respond to the challenge thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman when he asks what part is Great Britain going to play, by saying this—that long before this Conference took place Great Britain had taken a lead on the very lines of policy which this Conference recommends. We have granted greater freedom of trade than any other country in the world. We have been as active as any country—I think I may say with confidence, more active than any other country—in negotiations both under the auspices of the League of Nations and otherwise for the

  529
  making of agreements to facilitate trade and transport, and we welcome wholeheartedly any progress which can be made in that direction.
  I think this Conference was of real value for two reasons, principally, which appeal to me. In the first place, it was of value because of the principles which were enunciated and the agreement with which they were subscribed, but it was also of importance because this was a free and unfettered Conference of experienced men, representing commercial opinion of every class, and was a free expression by them of what they think from their practical experience is necessary if trade is to flow more freely. I agree that it is of vital importance not merely that Governments should make professions, but that those professions should be followed by action. But action will not follow the professions, unless in each country there is a predominating determination that those principles shall be carried out.
  I should like to pay a whole-hearted tribute to the work of the British delegation at the Conference. They were selected by the Government while the Government, of course, left them as members of the Conference an entirely free hand. I think it is already recognised that that delegation played a most active part in the whole work of the Conference. Its preparatory work, its work while it was in session, and the Report which was drawn up owe a very great deal to that British delegation. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend was able to be present on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce, and I think the closer the International Chamber of Commerce works with the economic organisation of the League, the more fruitful in future is likely to be the work. There is no doubt about our policy and our good will, and that policy and that good will are evidenced not by mere professions but by acts In. these matters justification by works is more compelling than justification by faith, and I sincerely hope that, as a, result of this Conference and of the, agreement which practical men reached at the Conference, works, and works all round, may follow.
  I should like for a few moments to justify the claim that in our actions we have led the world to freedom of trade in the widest sense and in accordance
  530
  with the spirit of the Conference. Indeed, I think I could make, with safety, the claim that the great bulk of the recommendations of this Conference are largely based upon the experience of this country and upon the action which this country has taken. We have taken that action, firstly, as an individual nation, and, secondly, by international agreement. We have taken it, therefore, and we are taking it year by year, exactly in the way which the Conference laid down. My right hon. Friend cited the recommendation which said. "Let States proceed by individual action within their own jurisdiction, and let them also proceed by international agreements and conventions and treaties," and in both those ways we have taken action.
  Let me take individual action first. Our ports are free to all the world. The shipping of every country receives national treatment in every port in this country. Take another principle laid down by the Conference, namely, the treatment of foreign nationals. Foreign nationals are free to trade in this country, they receive national treatment when they come here, and they are subject to the same taxation as our nationals when they are here. Take the tariff. Our tariff is the least protective tariff in the whole world. Excluding, as is fair—as the right hon. Gentleman, I think, agreed, and as I think is made plain in the recommendations and Report of the Conference—excluding revenue duties which are countervailed by excise, the duties here which can be held to have any protective element, as was said by the British Delegation at the Conference, cover only two or three per cent. of our total imports, and even if you were to include, in the scope of duties to which the Conference referred, duties of a purely revenue character countervailed by excise, we compare favourably with other countries. We are negotiating at the present moment with the French Government. To-day two-thirds of French imports into this country come here free of any duty at all. That is more than the total of our exports to France, practically all of which are subject to a duty.
  Take another point which both the right hon. Gentleman and the Conference stressed. There is in our administration no sort of discrimination, no manipulation by which one foreign country is advantaged

  531
  as against another or by which our nationals are treated differently from the nationals of other countries. Again, no privilege is accorded in this country to a State enterprise. The Conference laid stress upon the value of each country having good production statistics. We have our Census of Production, and it is well known to the Committee that we are trying at the present time to keep that Census up to date year by year, by securing voluntary returns from the great staple industries of this country. I think I have said enough to show that where the individual action of a country can help, this country may claim that in deeds as well as words it has led on the lines of the principles of this Conference.
  If I turn to the sphere of international action, we have tried to carry equal treatment as far as we possibly can. The most-favoured-nation Clause is a cardinal feature of all our commercial treaties, and it is extended equally to all foreign countries, as the Conference recommended. We have reduced the prohibition of imports to a minimum, and we have proved that we are willing to commit ourselves in that matter in the German Treaty, which I negotiated three years ago and which this House has approved. We have been active in the making of international Conventions, and we have been active not only in the signature of those Conventions, but we have been more active than any other country in the world in their ratification. I could take the Committee through a list of Conventions which have been negotiated under the auspices of the League, but I will touch on only a few. I do not think it is too much to say that in nearly all those negotiations Great Britain played a leading, if not the leading, part, and we were able to do it because we were able to draw upon the practical experience of men like my right hon. Friend, whose business experience was at the disposal of the Government of the day.
  We have signed and ratified the Freedom of Transit Convention, the object of which was to facilitate international traffic and to make through traffic free of Customs duties. We have signed the International Waterways Convention, to secure equality of treatment for vessels of all nations in navigable water
  532
  ways of international concern. We have signed and ratified the International. Railways Convention; and the same is true of the Maritime Ports Convention, which is of the greatest importance, and it is vital that other countries should follow in our footsteps in that matter and should not merely profess adherence to but should ratify and carry out that Convention. We are parties to the Convention on Customs Formalities, to the Protocol on Arbitration, and to the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation.
  Passing from the League, I should recall to the Committee those other Conventions on maritime matters which have been negotiated by the International Maritime Convention and diplomatic conferences following upon it. One example, to which I know all hon. Members interested in commercial matters attach great importance, is the Convention for the Unification of the Rules relating to Bills of Lading. What a lead we gave to the world there! We signed. We did not wait for the protocol of ratification to be opened for signature. We showed our belief to the whole world by passing legislation to carry out in their entirety the recommendations of that International Convention. It is of the greatest importance that countries which, while they are nominally parties to those Conventions have either not ratified them or not carried them out, should come into line. There are not a few of such countries. We are ready and anxious to continue on the same lines, and the work is beginning. Already the Economic Committee of the League have begun their work on the simplification of tariff nomenclature, which was what the Economic Conference desired first to be put in hand. They have already had the first meeting. We are looking forward to a diplomatic conference in the Autumn to try to arrive at a Convention for the Prohibition of Import Restrictions. In that we shall most certainly be in the forefront.
  We have proved our goodwill as regards these principles by action, and I think we are entitled to ask, and ask in a spirit of hopefulness after this conference, Is our lead going to be followed? Able men from many countries, in complete sincerity, signed the resolutions of this Conference because, like my right

  533
  hon. Friend, their practical experience led them to believe that if we could get freer trade in the world, if we could remove more international obstructions, there would be more trade done generally and each country would prosper. We are entitled to ask, Do those countries mean it? I hope they do, but I think the strictures which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) saw fit to pass upon our Foreign Secretary were singularly out of place. He would surely reply that his justification was by works, and he and I and this House are entitled to ask whether other countries are going to follow where we are not waiting to lead but where we have already led? I hope, and I believe, that a reply will come from all those countries. I hope that they really do intend to do all in their power, individually and by agreement, to make trade easier; but we are bound to face certain facts. It was not long after this Conference concluded that we found an embargo put upon the import of our coal into France. We must speak frankly of these matters. If anything was contrary not only to the spirit but the precise, dogmatic recommendation of this Conference, the imposition of that embargo was plainly contrary to it. There is pending in France at the present time a new tariff proposal, it is before their Chamber. I hope most sincerely that in the negotiations which we and other countries are having now over that proposed tariff something of the spirit of this Conference may be realised in the result.
  10.0 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) contrasted with the action of the British Foreign Secretary the pronouncement made by the German Chancellor at the meeting of the Council of the League. While I hope that it is true that Germany, which has a general tariff, is contemplating some reduction of the general rates, I am bound to point out, when the action of my right hon. Friend is contrasted with that of the German Chancellor, that three German duties have since been increased—those on sugar, potatoes and pork. The United States were present at the Conference. The United States have the highest tariff in the world, with the exception of Russia. Do the United States intend to reduce their tariff? I sincerely hope that they will follow out the recommendations
  534
  which are made by this Conference. I come to a much smaller country, but one with which we do much trade. We have been questioned in this House about flag discriminations in Portugal. Portugal was represented at the Conference. We have never practised flag discrimination, we do not intend to practise flag discrimination, and I am entitled to ask, Is flag discrimination going to be abandoned in those countries which still practise it? Is it going to be abandoned when there is a convention of the League of Nations, open to the whole world, which forbids it? We are only too anxious to see progress made by treaties and through the machinery of the League. We ourselves have made 17 commercial treaties since the War. In every one of those commercial treaties there is a most favoured-nation clause of the widest kind.
  What, then, is the pratical course? I have no doubt that the practical course is the course which, I understand, the League of Nations are already adopting. It is that the economic organisation of tile League should tackle these questions in detail. I am bound to say, and I think the Committee will agree, that there is really more merit in a few accomplished facts than in any number of resolutions. Resolutions are excellent if they represent the determination of countries, but the tackling of these problems one by one and their carrying through by joint agreement show whether the countries are adopting the recommendation, and therefore, I think, the action which the League are taking is obviously sound. Their line is that nations should try to ensure the carrying out of those Conventions which have already been made, and that the economic organisation of the League should take up the individual subjects one by one. As I have already indicated, they have taken on that work. They have taken up tariff nomenclature, they have taken up the question of import prohibitions.
  The hon. Member for Peckham said he hoped the Government would indicate that they would regard with favour the establishment of some new organisation in the League, or associated with the League, to deal with economic affairs. I cannot give him encouragement in that direction. That matter was prominently brought before the Economic Conference, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member

  535
  for West Swansea will bear me out when I say that it was practically the unanimous feeling of that Conference that no attempt should be made to set up a rival organisation to supplant the existing machinery of the League. The Economic Committee has worked well. It has a large number of Conventions to its credit. I think—and here I speak with some diffidence—that it could well be strengthened. I am sure that you do not want to make that Committee too big. I am sure that, if any attempt were made to convert the Economic Committee of the League into a representative organisation where all sorts of interests were represented, you would get a body of enormous proportions which would be cumbrous and which would not do half the work which the existing body is able to do.
  But I do believe that it would be of value to the Committee, and I should suppose that it would be within its competence as constituted at the present time, that it should be able to call in, as it deals with these questions, one by one, the best men, whatever their nationality, to help it in dealing with any particular job of work. I think that you would get men to come and help the League if you called them in for this or that specific piece of work. You want the most practical men you can get, and those are the men who are actively engaged in business to-day. They are the men the Economic Committee want, I believe, to call upon, but you cannot expect them to give an enormous amount of time. On the other hand, I think that you might call on them, and I think they would be willing to come and do any particular job of work which they knew would be a practical job of work to be taken in hand.
  I would like to make an appeal, and this is only a repetition of what I said in the right hon. Gentleman's presence at a large meeting of business men in this country when we were preparing at the outset for the meetings of the Economic Conference. I would like to appeal to the business men of this country that more of them, and particularly more of the younger generation, should take their part in international economic work, work like that of the International Chamber of Commerce. It is the same
  536
  men who too often have to carry the load, and it is not only a duty which I think this country—a great commercial country—owes to the general commerce of the world, but, if that work is undertaken, the influence of Britain will be greater for securing the economic facilities we want, greater than by any action which Governments can take, the practical men will meet their opposite numbers. They will be meeting the men who, while they are competitors in the same line of business, will be taking the same view, and will recognise the same over-riding interests. Individual firms will find those who render that service becoming more valuable members of their own individual firms. I hope have said enough to convince the Committee that we have not been backward in the past; that we shall certainly not be backward in the future; that we shall play our part in the forefront; and I am sure that it is on the lines I have indicated, lines which the League has already shown that it means to follow, that a really sincere and practical advance will be met by success.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very lively, useful and striking speech. I am not sure that all the Members of the Government party in the House are as equally delighted with all his sentiments as some other sections of the House may be. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), who spoke earlier in the Debate, professed a very stout view to the to contrary, and I could wish very much that the President of the Board of Trade had expressly repudiated it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bradford, in dealing with the recommendations of the Conference, expressed the gravest doubt as to whether the recommendations would be found, in the end, to lead to any practical and valuable result, and, in particular, he asserted that, in regard to the recommendations of the Conference, that the countries of the world should work for a general reduction of tariffs, so far as we were concerned, the recommendations would be very difficult to put into practice, because, in his view, we could not hope to induce other people to reduce their tariffs unless we first increased ours. I have not the slightest intention of raising any general discussion

  537
  on these hoary controversies, but, when I heard that argument used, I at once recollected the case of those people who assure you that they do not feel that they will ever be able to be satisfactory temperance reformers, or be themselves strong abstainers, until they first have taken part in a really good carouse. If the words of the President of the Board of Trade mean anything—and, of course, they mean a great deal—he has rejected that old school of thought.
  But there is one consideration upon which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman touched. He pointed out, I think with complete truth, the justification for assuming that the evils which this Conference joins in regretting and denouncing are recognised as evils, and, while he admitted that they exist in many parts of the world, he said that they still exist in this particular country to a much less degree than in many other countries. He said, for example, that the tariff in the United States was extremely high; that, alike as regards the height of the tariff and the number of articles touched by it, we were not, at any rate, as bad as some of these other more benighted lands. I am sure that the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will agree entirely on that score.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am afraid, hovering on the brink of disorder.
  Sir J. SIMON: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth, but I think it is strictly relevant to consider how far the Government of this country can usefully shape its course or allow itself to be influenced by these recommendations of the Conference. It is not enough, I think, to point rather complacently to the fact that other countries are in much more immediate need of salvation than we are at the present moment. We are all miserable sinners. The most important question is whether we are worse sinners new at the beginning of the third year of the present Administration than we were when this Administration began. There are sinners of all sorts. There are occasional sinners and perpetual and continual sinners. There are also repentant sinners who return to the true
  538
  fold. The really practical point for any Government must be as to which way a given country is tending. It is all very well to say that the matters to which the Conference called attention are evils which, by the conjoint action of the different States of the world, ought to be reduced and removed. It is all very well to say that, at any rate, we are comparatively without offence, and that there are many people much worse, but we do not know in what direction they are tending.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have my doubts as to whither the right hon. and learned Gentleman is tending.
  Sir J. SIMON: When the President of the Board of Trade is asked to say what course the Government propose to take in view of these recommendations, he contents himself by saying: "Look at our record, and see how admirably we stand as compared with the other countries of the world." That is all very well, but ought we not also to make a comparison between where we stand and where we stood a few years ago, and, although it would be out of order to illustrate that position, one can imagine any country one likes saying the same thing. The Minister of Commerce in a particular country might say: "I thoroughly applaud these Resolutions; they embody in suitable language my dearest aspiration, and they represent, the object at which my Government is aiming." This Minister of Commerce might go on to say, "I must search my conscience. Have I been improving or going worse?" He might ask himself, "Is there any single case which this Government can quote to-day, in 1927, in which they have reduced any tariff since they came into office?"
  Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I want to say a few words on the subject under discussion. The general ground for this Report has been fully covered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and it really covers the whole ground of trade barriers. Speaking ac one who has been engaged in this matter as a member of the Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce which prepared the trade barriers report for Geneva, and subsequently endorsed it at Stockholm, I want to say how very satisfied I

  539
  am with what the President of the Board of Trade has now stated. It is important to remember that the Economic Conference dealt with every barrier to the flow of international trade, and not merely with the tariff issue. The very large Conference of the International Chamber of Commerce held recently at Stockholm, and comprising representative business and industrial men, fully endorsed all these resolutions. As one illustration of the importance of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I would mention that, in the Transport Section, the whole matter was very carefully studied, and a resolution was unanimously adopted to the effect that there was no necessity for new conventions, but that, if the nations of Europe who had signed the Conventions already made carried them out in the spirit as well as in the letter, the whole of the difficulties would be removed. Therefore, I feel that in this matter His Majesty's Government have long ago given a very strong lead. At the Stockholm Conference we felt how impossible it was to ask the British Government to take a lead, and this is the only exception I take to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea has said. I do not think it is for this Government to do so. It has been clearly pointed out that they have done what they can themselves, and have asked the League of Nations to remove as far as possible every restriction on trade between the nations.
  I know that the nations represented at the Geneva and Stockholm Conferences will welcome what the President of the Board of Trade has said to-day as further proof of our goodwill. There
  540
  was a unanimous feeling, arising from a sincere and deep conviction, that, as far as the delicate and difficult question of excessive tariffs was concerned, it was largely a matter of education, and some of those nations have already received a very painful education in that matter. I do not want the attention of the House to be diverted by considerations of that kind from what is being done at the Economic Conference and by the International Chamber of Commerce to remove all the different barriers. I know, from experience and from what has been said to-night, that we can count on His Majesty's Government supporting to the very utmost all those necessary steps which have to be taken piecemeal on every different subject by those concerned, in order to help forward the flow of trade and remove the absurd anomalies which exist in many places. We recognise that this country, of all countries, stands in the forefront in that respect, and has been of the greatest help, and we hope and believe that other countries will signify that they intend to act in the direction of removing the barriers they have set up so that there may be an opportunity for Europe in the future to recover from a good deal of what we are suffering at the present moment.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow: Committee to sit, again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Commander Eyres Monsell.)
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  "BURGHERS OF CALAIS."
  "BURGHERS OF CALAIS."
  SLATE QUARRYMEN (INJURIOUS DUST).
  SLATE QUARRYMEN (INJURIOUS DUST).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MOTOR DRIVING (STANDARD TEST).
  MOTOR DRIVING (STANDARD TEST).
POST OFFICE.
  SORTERS (ANNUAL LEAVE).
  SORTERS (ANNUAL LEAVE).
  TELEGRAMS.
  TELEGRAMS.
  NEWSPAPERS (DELIVERIES).
  NEWSPAPERS (DELIVERIES).
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  FOREIGN MALTING BARLEY (TREATIES).
  FOREIGN MALTING BARLEY (TREATIES).
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  SHOT-FIRING, MINES.
  SHOT-FIRING, MINES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EAST ANGLIAN ELECTRICITY BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the first Bill on your Lordships' Order Paper is the East Anglian Electricity Bill and there are Amendments on the Paper to be proposed by my noble friend Lord Askwith. I am glad to say that a conference has taken place between the parties this afternoon. They are not in agreement, but, feeling as I do that it is eminently desirable there should be agreement if possible, I suggest to your Lordships that the Third Reading should be postponed till Monday. I, therefore, do not move the Third Reading this afternoon.
Third Reading put off till Monday next accordingly.

COLCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce
664
a Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
LORD BRAYE LORD BRAYE asked His Majesty's Government whether, in their scheme for reform of the House of Lords, they propose to retain in the House all the Lords Spiritual, or only a certain number of them, or none of them; and whether they propose to include elected representatives of any religious bodies in this country other than the Anglican. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a month ago a debate was initiated in this House on the reform of this House. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack read out to us a scheme which the Government proposed to put before the House more fully on a later occasion. He adumbrated certain changes under the heading of the reform of the House of Lords. "Adumbrate" is a very favourite word with the newspapers. In fact, he shadowed forth certain changes which were anything but shadows when you came to examine the substance of them. They were the most far-reaching, important and novel propositions which have ever been shadowed forth or put forward in this House. They did not meet with concurrence on the part of some noble Lords, who were, however, in a minority on that occasion. They did not meet with the concurrence of the country at large.
It is a question now whether this catalogue of changes, which were, as I say, very far-reaching—I need not enter into them now because they were thoroughly discussed at that time—will be revived or resuscitated on some near occasion in the future. We do not know at all. We do not know it in Parliament and we do not know it in the country at large. There have been several opinions expressed on the subject since that occasion a month ago, and it would appear that the Government have the intention of producing a programme either identical with or similar to the one which they then laid before us. However that

665
may be, we have had no official pronouncement from the Government, so far as I am aware, as to what they intend to do. There has been no absolute declaration on their part as to the position which they mean to take up in reference to what they term the reform of the House of Lords. It is certain that nothing will take place this Session in that direction, but a new Session will be very soon upon us. I presume there will be an autumn sitting, and I suppose we must wait until then in order to be informed of the Government's intentions in this regard.
But the question is one which must be faced sooner or later, and there is one item in that programme which was given us by the noble and learned Viscount which seems to me to call for special attention. That is the question of the inclusion of Lords Spiritual in this Assembly, because they do form an integral part of this House and of this great council of the nation. If this was not a House of Parliament but a lecture hall, I should be tempted to go into the question of their position in this House. Anyhow, I will say that, before the Reformation, for hundreds and hundreds of years, they were not only an integral part of this House but they were the chief part of this House. But one night—to be exact, November 17, 1558—came when the whole history of Parliament and of the nation was changed. The last Catholic Sovereign died and the same night the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury died at Lambeth. All the Bishops of England were exiled, persecuted, deprived of their sees. A new order of things was instituted. New statutes of the Church were set up, and the very names of the sees (which had been reverenced in England for hundreds and hundreds of years) were adopted for the new sees by the new Ministers, or rather by the new Minister, Cecil, and a new current to the whole of English history was set going.
As I say, to venture upon that controversial and very important item of history would be out of place at this moment. I confine myself to the state of things at the present hour, when we find that the statutory Church has the right and the privilege to constitute twenty-six of her members as legislators in this Chamber. I do venture to think that if
666
you begin tinkering with the constitution of the House of Lords this question will loom very large in your endeavours to bring about a reform. Personally I must say that the word "reform" seems to me out of place in all this large controversy. Surely "reconstitution," or "alteration," or "change" would be more applicable to the projects which the Government have put before us and which have so much interested the nation at the present time. However that may be, whether reform or reconstitution or alteration is the right word, a very great change, in plain English, has been contemplated. I do aver that in that change the question of retaining or of eliminating the representatives of the statutory and Established Church ought to be included. It is a question that must be faced sooner or later, and the people should have it placed before them in order to form an opinion and to be able to contemplate the change that is contemplated here.
The whole of this controversy will, I presume, be before us at no very distant date, and the question will arise sooner or later whether any religious body in this country should have representatives here besides the representatives of the Established Church. There is a problem too vast and too profound, in my opinion, to be discussed in this House or in the other House. It is a question that ought to be considered by the whole country, and should be referred to the country by a referendum or at a General Election a General Election and a referendum in that aspect being synonymous. This is a question, in other words, which should be before the public. Certainly it is not before the public now. It has aroused no attention that I am aware of, it has certainly aroused no controversy in the country, and it is one of those points that will not be comprehended as important until it is really before Parliament.
At present only one section of the religious bodies in this country is represented amongst us. All the others, to use a common phrase, are out in the cold. I am not here to advocate their representation in the House of Lords or, for that matter, in the House of Commons either. Whether religious orders, as such, should have representatives in any Senate or Parliament is a

667
question too vast to discuss now. It is certain that there are different opinions on that topic. There are many in this country, and very many all over Europe and elsewhere, who would debar any religious personages, representing sects or sections, from Assemblies or Parliaments in their various countries. If I am not mistaken, there is nothing of the kind in the Parliament of France. I know that Louis Philippe, the last King of the French, admitted Bishops into the Senate, but that is long ago and I do not think that since the Empire in France anything of the kind has been renewed. Whether any of these numerous and influential bodies, such as the Wesleyans and the Baptists, should be represented in this House, I am not here to say, but I do say that as long as one section of the religious bodies in England is here and enjoys this privilege, then in the name of common sense and of all sober reason the others should have a chance also to expound their views, to bring forward their projects and to express their opinions on non-political questions such as temperance and the like. But at the moment they are excluded.
This whole question, when it was discussed in this House, came upon Parliament like a thunderclap. It is too sudden, too important and too far-reaching to be dismissed in two or three debates. It may come up again, and if it does, as presumably it will, I hope that more attention will be paid to it in both Houses of Parliament, that the importance of it will be recognised, and that, along with larger questions, the question to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention of the representation of religious bodies in this House will also be considered, and either negatived in toto, or partially allowed, or wholly embraced as a new device for obtaining the opinions of these large and influential religious bodies. Personally, I think the time will come, and not perhaps in any far future, when all religious bodies, as such, will be excluded from the councils of Europe. It is certain that the religions of Europe are in the melting-pot. The Catholic religion alone is eternal, and in this country there is and will be more and more division in the Anglican Church of the various sects and sections, which now hardly hang together and do so only because of the large funds that support them, the large and ample endow-
668
ments, taken from mediæval times and intended for entirely other purposes, that have passed to them.
I venture to think that the country has not paid sufficient attention to this important change which has been—to use that word again—adumbrated, shadowed forth. But I think that it will, and the more attention is called to the matter in preparation for that event the better. The people of this country, of our England, are not a political people at all. No country in the world is so immersed in sport, or what is called sport, and the most important questions are left entirely to the Government. The Government enjoy a reign which no other Government ever enjoyed in this country. They are almost absolute, and, with the female electorate being enlarged, they may look forward, so far as I know, to a very long reign indeed in this country. When the Government enact what they like the country follows suit quietly and without controversy. We seem, as a nation, to follow most devoutly the dictum of Sir Robert Walpole, or, begging his pardon, perhaps in this House I ought to call him the Earl of Orford, the greatest Prime Minister we ever had, for he kept the country at peace during a whole war. Quieta non movere, which, being interpreted, means "Let sleeping dogs lie." He would not raise controversial matters in the House of Commons or afterwards in the House of Lords.
When I say that this matter of the inclusion of Lords Spiritual has not been noticed, I may remind your Lordships that it was hardly touched upon by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on the occasion to which I have already called attention, a month ago. Let us see exactly what he did say on the topic. As he did mention it once, it is very germane to the matter to see exactly what it was that the noble and learned Viscount said. He said:
"So, with regard to the constitution it may be put in this way: That the House shall consist of not more than 350 members and shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual and Law Lords, of (a) hereditary Peers, elected by their Order, and (b) members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute; that with the exception of the Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election."

669
That is the only passage in the noble and learned Viscount's speech, which we all followed with the greatest possible attention, in which he mentions the Lords Spiritual.
It does not appear from that whether the Government intended that they should elect one another, or elect some of their number as representatives of the rest, or whether they should remain intact. That, I think, should be elucidated by the Government before the Session closes, and if the noble Lord, whoever he may be, who is destined to answer the Question I have put on the Paper, will give us an answer one way or the other, merely as a fact, what is going to happen with regard to the Spiritual members of this House, I think it would be of great advantage to the House itself and to the public in general.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, I would like to say a very few words before the Question is answered, and I am sure your Lordships will extend to me the indulgence which is always accorded to a member who addresses this Assembly for the first time. My reasons for speaking on what may possibly be regarded as a thorny subject is that I am one of the small number of Nonconformists sitting in this Assembly, and possibly—I do not know—I am the only one on this side of the House. As a lifelong member of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, which numbers millions of adherents in this country and other English-speaking countries, I can perhaps claim to know something of Nonconformist opinion as regards Church representation in Parliament, although, of course, I do not venture to speak as a representative.
I believe there exists some law or regulation that no clergyman of the Church of England can be a Member of Parliament, but there is no such disability regarding Nonconformist ministers. In spite of that fact, however, it is a very rare occurrence for Nonconformist ministers to seek or secure election, and at a recent General Election—not the last one—although there were four or five such candidates, I think it is correct to say that not one succeeded in attaining his political ambition. The fact is that there is no great desire that the spiritual leaders of the Nonconformist Churches should engage in politics. How far that view
670
may be modified, if the reform of your Lordships' House became a very live question, it is impossible to say, but the difficulties of providing for representation of ministers of Churches other than the Established Church of England would be almost insurmountable.
There is another aspect of the case. If the presence in the House of Lords of Nonconformist ministers should be definitely suggested, not only would some opposition be aroused,, but I fear there would be a counter demand for doing away altogether with the representation of the Church of England by its Bishops—a demand which I, personally, would deplore and resist, for the spiritual Lords have in this Assembly, of course, rendered and do render invaluable service to the country. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his usual fairness and catholicity of mind, has suggested that a reduction in the number of Bishops in this House may be accompanied by the election or selection of representatives of other Churches and religious bodies. Such a suggestion, coming from such a quarter, will without doubt be much appreciated by all friendly Nonconformists; but I cannot help thinking that, whatever may be done regarding the existing representation of the Church of England, it will be found that there is little reason for believing that other Churches desire that any of their ordained ministers should become members of your Lordships' House.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion is evidently one of those persons of a simple and trustful disposition who, whenever they see that a Motion has been debated by this House, are under the impression that it will be followed by immediate legislation. I am not quite so old as the noble Lord, but I am afraid that I am of a more sophisticated nature, and I do not anticipate anything of the kind. What I do anticipate is that for many years to come we shall be discussing the composition of this House, and I think that questions as to whether the Catholic faith or Nonconformity, or anybody else, from Peeresses in their own right to conscientious objectors, shall be represented in this House, will be debated with considerable vigour for many years to come.

671
But I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord has afforded me of responding to the pressing invitation which was addressed to me and to other persons interested in this question in the important manifesto issued by my noble friends behind me the other day, which appeared in the Press, I think the day before yesterday. When a question of this kind arises there is always any amount of candid criticism, and the candour often verges upon unfriendliness, but I hope that nothing that I am about to say this afternoon will be interpreted as unfriendly by my noble friends on the Front Bench. In the first place I desire to pay the Government this compliment. I think that they have committed the error, which is very rare on the part of a Government, of trying to be too honest. The fact is that in their anxiety to fulfil various pledges, nebulous or distinct, which have been given from time to time, and with an equal desire to satisfy much-respected supporters who sit behind them here and elsewhere, they appear to have committed themselves, on paper at all events, to a programme which, in my humble opinion, is of far too ambitious a nature. My experience is that if you try to do too much you end by getting nothing at all.
I have been associated with this particular question for more years than I care to recall, and that is my excuse for intervening on the present occasion. I have come to the conclusion after all these years that in this matter we ought to proceed gradually, and to satisfy ourselves with as little change as possible. However convincing may be the arguments which have been advanced by my noble friends behind me, with whose objects I entirely sympathise, and however powerful may be the arguments in favour of turning this into a modern Assembly, what I am perfectly convinced of by my own observations is that, although this may be advocated upon platforms, nearly everybody, with a few solitary exceptions, is anxious to do as little as possible. I am quite convinced that what people want in this matter is not, in short, a maximum, but a minimum. As regards this particular question I confess, perhaps more or less with a sense of shame, that I am a man of peace. I am all in favour of settling this question, if pos-
672
sible, by arrangement, and by trying to get something small by agreement rather than courting failure by attempting too much, by creating violent opposition amongst our opponents, and promoting dissension among our own ranks.
If I might be allowed—and I only venture to make these suggestions in view of my long interest in this question—if I might be allowed to offer advice to my noble friends it would be this, that they should concentrate solely upon essentials, and I will indicate what I consider those essentials to be. They are to my mind three in number. First of all, we should strive and insist upon some alteration of the iniquitous arrangement whereby a man who may be indirectly under Bolshevist influence may decide what is a Money Bill and what is not. The second object which I would strive for is to obtain absolute security for the period of two years' delay to which we have the right. The third object—and perhaps it is as important as any other—is to eliminate from this House the numerous persons who are no use to us whatever, and who in many cases bring discredit upon this Assembly. I contend that these are perfectly reasonable objects foe which to strive, and that it would be very difficult for any sensible and fair-minded person to oppose them.
In a word, I claim for these three objects which I have enumerated that they are practical politics. On the other hand, much as I respect the object aimed at by my noble friends behind me, and although I fully agree that in theory there is nothing to be said against them, I feel that we are almost beating the air if we endeavour to carry them out. If we confine ourselves to obtaining a minimum we may succeed in obtaining it with the assistance, as I have already said, of all reasonable politicians in any Party. If we strive for more we are only inviting failure, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Braye) will go down to his grave—and so shall I probably, as far as that goes—without the question of the composition of this House ever having passed the stage of academic discussion.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Braye, as your Lordships know, is a well-known Roman Catholic Peer and I think is anxious as to the fate of Roman Catholic Peers in a reformed House. Unlike my noble and

673
sophisticated friend Lord Newton I am of a very simple disposition myself, and, speaking as a Protestant Peer I might enquire as to what will happen to Protestant Peers. But I should like to go a step further and ask if the Government now have any scheme of House of Lords Reform at all. My reasons for asking the Government that are these. I was unfortunately abroad and therefore absent from the very important debate which took place in this House last month. In that debate explicit proposals—not definite but still explicit proposals—were put forward by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for reforming this House, and these were confirmed in the course of the debate by the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Marquess the Leader of this House. Noble Lords spoke of these proposals being embodied in a Bill and the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who was asked whether it was the intention of the Government to carry this Bill into law in the lifetime of the present Parliament answered: "Of course it is." The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, suggested that the Bill was to be regarded as a matter of substance rather than of form, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, replied: "Substance and effect." Therefore it is quite clear that it was intended that the proposals should be embodied in a Bill.
Then a debate took place in the House of Commons, and now as far as I can make out, although nothing definite has been said in this House, these proposals are regarded as dead, but I believe that some mystery still attends their fate. Your Lordships may have seen last week a cartoon in that excellent periodical Punch, although I regret that in these days it has rather a bias in favour of noble Lords opposite. It is entitled "A Futile Course" and it shows the Leaders of the Opposition Parties as greyhounds, and a hare wearing a coronet labelled "Lords Reform Scheme." One greyhound says: "After all, it is only a disappearing dummy." I regret to say I have no experience myself of this new and thrilling sport of greyhound racing, but I should like to ask the noble Marquess, or whoever replies for the Government, whether "disappearing dummy" is a substantially correct description of the proposals which were put forward in your Lordships' House.
674
And there is a leading article in The Times this morning, dealing with the Prime Minister and his visit to Canada. Speaking of the Prime Minister and these proposals, it says:—
"The accepted view nowadays is that they never interested him personally except as a curious whim of some of his friends, that he was not sorry to see them come to grief, and that the whole incident may now be dismissed as a necessary process of educating Ministers in 'post-war mentality.'"
I happen to have been a member of the Bryce Conference where we fully discussed the functions that are appropriate to a Second Chamber, but it did not occur to any of the members of that Conference that a Second Chamber should be used, more particularly this Second Chamber, for the purpose of educating Ministers in post-war mentality or in mentality of any other kind. I trust that the impression I have gathered in the Lobbies and elsewhere and in the Press is correct and that the noble Marquess will be able to reassure me that these proposals are dead. In passing, I may say that he will certainly greatly comfort many of his supporters in another place by doing so. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and give an opinion of my own on the large question of House of Lords reform, but I would like to add one word with regard to the bearing of these recent proceedings upon the position of your Lordships' House.
I happen to have been a member of this House now for a good number of years. My memories of this House go back to the days when the late Lord Salisbury, father of the present Leader of the House, was Prime Minister and Leader of this House. In those days the House was a rather different place in some respects to what it is now. For instance, in those days the Press Gallery was full, not only on the occasion of what is known as a full-dress debate, but on an ordinary working day in this House, and there were lengthy reports of our proceedings in the daily Press. On the steps of the Throne could frequently be seen the Leader of the House and Cabinet Ministers and Under-Secretaries, who had come to listen to what was said be their colleagues in this House; for in those far-off days what was said by Ministers in this House really mattered. I wonder, if that great man, the late Lord Salisbury, could

675
have witnessed the recent proceedings in this House, what he would have thought and said about them. There has been a full-dress debate lasting over three days. Three Cabinet Ministers have spoken and gone very fully into the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. Then there is a debate in another place. Now we learn, as far as we can ascertain, that these proposals are dead. Speaking as a humble individual member of this House, who attaches some importance to the privileges he still retains as a member of this House, I wonder whether these proceedings altogether redound to the credit and prestige of your Lordships' House
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the rules of your Lordships' House are a mystery to almost everyone and I confess that the observance of them is always fertile in surprise to most of us. But I must say that when upon the Paper of your Lordships' House there appears a Question as to the representation of Spiritual Peers in a reformed House of Lords, and upon that there is founded a sort of rechauffée of the debate we had almost a month ago on House of Lords reform, we have almost the strongest example of very liberal reading of the rules that I have ever witnessed. I suppose same consideration ought to be extended to the noble Lord who has just sat down. He happened to be away on business—I hope on pleasure perhaps—from this country a month ago and he thought it necessary that your Lordships should not lose the benefit of his speech, and he therefore gave it on this occasion. I shall not be tempted to go once more into a discussion on that topic which occupied three nights of your Lordships' time a month ago. I will only, however, say that the proposals which were made by my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack on that occasion were the proposals of the Government and they remain the proposals of the Government. If the noble Lord had been present at the debate, he would have been well aware that they were only offered as a sketch, and that we distinctly said we were most anxious to hear and to consider any suggestions that might be made from members of your Lordships' House or from other quarters in respect to those proposals. But there
676
they are. Now the noble Lord says your Lordships' House has fallen in reputation of recent years.
LORD DENMAN: I did not say anything of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord made a sort of sketch of how leaders of the House of Commons and Cabinet Ministers of every description used to appear in crowds on the steps of the Throne listening to our debates on ordinary days. He told us how on ordinary days the steps of the Throne were occupied by Privy Councillors in regiments listening to your Lordships' debates. It does not become us to boast of our reputation, but I think the debate a month ago made no little noise in the country. I should have said that we produced a very considerable effect on that occasion. The difficulties, if there were difficulties, were not in your Lordships' House, but in the House of Commons. The debate in your Lordships' House on that occasion, I say with equanimity, will challenge comparison with the debate that subsequently took place in the House of Commons on the same subject. We must not be tempted to go back into that discussion. I will only say, with reference to what my noble friend Lord Newton said, that I do not think those proposals were very ambitious. I do not agree with him. It may be that sufficient steps were not taken to prepare public opinion for these proposals. That may be; I have nothing to do with that. But as to their being in themselves ambitious, I would say, and I think he will agree with me if he considers them carefully, that they were very moderately conceived and very moderately put forward.
LORD NEWTON: They will take a Session to get through.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He was perfectly right in the final observations which he made. In any proposals which are put forward let us have nothing to do with anything except essentials. I certainly do not belong to a Party that is in favour of reckless reform. Nothing more than essentials ought to be proposed; nothing more than essentials should be carried. Let them be as moderate as possible. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to go back

677
to the Question before the House. I will say in reply to the noble Lord that in the proposals which were put before the House by my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack it was contemplated to retain Spiritual Peers in the reformed House of Lords—Spiritual Peers not in the same numbers as they sit now, but in a less number, and if the noble Lord will do me the honour to refer to the remarks that I made on the third day of the debate he will find that I dealt fairly fully with the topic.
LORD BRAYE: The noble Marquess will pardon me, but the number of Spiritual Peers was not mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly did not say the number. What I said was that no conclusion had been arrived at by the Government as to the numbers except that they would be a smaller number than they are at present. That is what I venture now to repeat. The noble Lord has spoken of the representation of the ministers of other denominations in your Lordships' House. That is a subject which has been before House of Lords reformers for the last thirty or forty years. The project is a very interesting one for which there is a good deal to be said, but there are very great difficulties in the way, as my noble friend who sits behind me (Lord Hayter) mentioned. May I say, parenthetically, how glad we are to welcome him in your Lordships' House and how glad we were to listen to his maiden speech. As I was saying there is a great deal to be said for the inclusion of ministers of other denominations, but there are very many difficulties in the way, and upon that matter, as upon the other, no conclusion had been come to by the Government and no conclusions were put forward by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the only observation I have to make is this. The difference which has arisen is, in the view of those whom I represent, a domestic difference with which we do not propose to interfere. You will doubtless accommodate your household relations among yourselves.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

(1) What amount of tithe or tithe rent-charge is due to ecclesiastical tithe owners;

(2) What amount of such tithe or tithe rent-charge has in fact been paid over to the ecclesiastical tithe owners;

(3) What is the ratio to parity of the tithe rent-charge as ascertained under the recent Act and what would have been the ratio if such Act had not been passed;

and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, owing to the courtesy of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I have been supplied with a Paper, which was sent to me last night, which contains sufficient information to answer the Questions I had addressed to him, and I need now refer to them only in order to emphasise their application. I am not going back to the discussions which took place in this House when the Tithe Act, 1925, was passed, but I did indicate then my fears that that Act would not lead to economy or to a speedy collection of tithe, and that it would probably work very unfairly, especially in regard to existing incumbents who had vested interests. I think that at that time the noble Lord himself recognised that was likely to occur. Now that we know what the facts are, I want to put them forward and make one or two suggestions in reference to them. The last date named in the Act of 1925 for taking over the duties of collection of tithe by Queen Anne's Bounty was April 1, 1927. I understand that no steps were taken by Queen Anne's Bounty as regards the collection of tithe up to that date. I am further informed in the information before me that Queen Anne's Bounty, who no doubt are at the back of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, cannot give any later information in regard to their progress in this matter than that available at the end of May, so that unfortunately the period of time with which we have to deal is comparatively a very short one.
The position is this. The amount of tithe to be collected from all benefices and also from the ecclesiastical corporations is a little over £2,200,000. It is not

679
necessary to give the exact figure. So far as the ecclesiastical corporations are concerned, in substance they have exercised the option which was left to them of collecting their own tithe in their own way and nothing really turns upon that part of the question. As a matter of fact I think it is all collected by their own agents for their own purposes, as was done previously, except to the extent of about £2,000. But the position is different in regard to the tithe of the ordinary incumbent. Of that tithe £1,600,000 has to be collected by Queen Anne's Bounty and about £500,000 by the incumbents themselves as the agents of Queen Anne's Bounty. That is where the difficulty arises.
In regard to the amounts collected by them the incumbents have the same opportunities and advantages as they had before the passing of the Tithe Act, but as regards the larger sum, which amounts in the aggregate to £1,600,000, a complaint has reached me that those who ought to have the benefit of the tithe and who are undoubtedly poor men, have been put into very straitened circumstances owing to the arrears in its collection. So far as this portion is concerned, only about one-fifth of the total amount has so far been collected. I know that we have to consider the dates and times, but so far as the information which has been supplied to me goes, no sum has been collected so far as Queen Anne's Bounty is concerned except the sum of £488,000. That, so far as I can gather, is the whole amount which has been collected and it is something like one-fifth of what should be collected. That is one part of the case. I always felt myself, and I feel still, that tithe had much better be collected locally, as it was in the past. It is not paid by tenants, but by owners and landlords, and in a very large number of parishes, particularly in the poor parishes where stipends are low, the amount could be readily collected, probably from one or two tithe-payers who are the only tithe-payers in that particular district.
There is another matter that I want to ask the noble Lord about and to my mind this is of still greater importance. The effect of the Tithe Act, 1925, has been to reduce the amount which would have been payable to the poor incumbents and others if that Act had not been
680
passed to the extent of nearly £600,000. The actual figure is £584,000. It is the difference between the two figures which have been given to me of £2,133,000 (which is the amount collectable under the Act.) and £2,717,117 which would have been collectable if the Act had not been passed. I think I am right in the figures. That means, in other words, an immediate loss to the parish incumbents of about £600,000 a year, which is a very large figure. It works out at about 25 per cent. of the income which they would have got if the Tithe Act of 1925 had not been passed. Let me put it in this way. A man who now gets £400 a year, which is not an unusual figure to take, would have got £500, and a man who now gets £300 would have got £375 a year. There is no class of men in this country poorer in relation to the work they have to do and the responsibilities which they incur than the incumbents, especially the incumbents of our poorer parishes. We have all seen in the papers reports of applications for Poor Law assistance because the tithe has not been forthcoming and has not been paid in the usual way.
This is a matter which I hope noble Lords opposite will consider, because it seems to me to be of extreme importance. They often use the words "Bolshevism" and "confiscation" and words of that kind. In this instance existing incumbents who had a vested interest were deprived of 25 per cent. of the income which they might have expected. That is an entirely novel matter in our English law. I have often argued in the strongest way that compensation is of the essence of the proper dealing with proprietary rights. Suppose this had been a Bill for the disestablishment of the Church and we took the precedent of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill: all existing incumbents would have been protected in their income as long as they lived or, in the alternative, would have had their income assessed for commutation on annuity tables. That is perfectly right and perfectly just, and it really is a matter of great moment as regards the future in dealing with proprietary rights of this sort that under this Act an existing incumbent, who would have been entitled to a 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. increase in his income, has been deprived of it without any compensation either in respect of having his rights reserved or having a commutation

681
figure fixed in respect of it. I quote these two alternatives because in the Welsh Disestablishment Act and the Irish Disestablishment Act and, I think, in all cases where vested or existing interests are concerned, that principle has been adopted.
I want to ask the noble Lord opposite a question if he will give me his attention for a moment. At the present moment the loss is £600,000 in round figures—0584,000 to be exact. When he was dealing with the matter before, he said—I think I am right in my recollection—that in succeeding years the loss would be still greater. That is to say that the difference between what the incumbent would have been entitled to but for the Tithe Act and the amount which he would be entitled to under the terms of that Act would mean a larger deficiency—I do not say in the far future but in the immediate future—than there is in this particular year. In other words, the deficiency which now operates to the disadvantage of our incumbents to the amount of £600,000 a year, in future, years—he gave us figures at the time—would be still larger.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am not quite sure if I understand the noble Lord. Does he mean the deficiency reckoned on the fifteen years period without including the War years, because we have no reason to believe that the value of corn upon which tithe is based, as he knows, is likely to be maintained at anything, like those figures.
LORD PARMOOR: I can make it perfectly clear. As the matter stood, you had a system of calculating tithe on the past values of certain cereal crops. That was changed under the head of stabilisation, about which I shall have a word to say. The difference I am putting is the difference between what the tithe rent-charge would have been if so ascertained and the amount at which it is ascertained under the terms of the Tithe Act, 1925. The difference in the way of loss to the incumbents is £600,000 a year, or as I have said, nearly 25 per cent. of their income. That is the existing figure as supplied to me. The noble Lord no doubt has the figures. What I am putting to him is that, although that loss is the true figure for the current year, next year, putting these calculations side by side, the loss will be still larger. Of
682
course, if you go on to the future I quite agree that no one knows what may happen, because no one can prophesy as regards these prices in the future.
Now I want to say a few words as regards stabilisation. I do not agree that you will get stabilisation in matters of this kind by taking the gold standard, but that is what is done. I think you will get a much firmer and truer form of stabilisation by retaining the average prices of cereal products, because a tithe is a proportion of the prices of produce irrespective of rent. I do not want to go further into these matters because they may in the distant future operate one way or the other. The present position is that existing incumbents only get £400 instead of £500, or £300 instead of £375, which they would have got if the Act had not been passed. The difference between these figures means the difference between poverty and what I may call decent comfort. Many of these men calculated—because they knew they were entitled to it under the terms of their incumbencies—on this improvement in their income. They have not had it. I have had a very large number of complaints—I suppose it is the experience of everyone who is concerned in this matter and is in the same position as myself—as regards diminution of income and in many cases as regards not getting income at all. I do not think the noble Lord will be able to say that I have in any way exaggerated the position. My object has been to bring the case of these poor incumbents to the notice of your Lordships' House.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I think it desirable that something should be said from the landlord's point of view. My noble friend who has just addressed the House has taken only the point of view of the present incumbents. He does not seem to realise that the Act of 1925 was passed in the interests of the Church as a whole and not simply in the interest of individuals. It is undoubtedly true that individuals had to make a sacrifice of present income, but they did so for the benefit of the Church as a whole. If they had not done so tithe might have stood at £109 10 s. as a permanent charge upon the land of the country. "Permanent," of course, is not strictly accurate. It would have been two

683
generations, say sixty or seventy years, but for practical purposes it may be called a permanent charge. That was compromised for the benefit of the Church of England. At the same time the landlords gave up something, for the tithe cannot go back certainly to par. I regret to say that, from the point of view of landlords living in corn-growing countries, since the prices of corn, barley and oats are going down, it will go back in some fifteen years to something like £70, instead of £100, as before the War. The only reason why tithe went to that enormous figure was on account of the War and high prices, and if the clergy have any grievance it is one which they share with the landlords, who were the only class in this country who were not allowed to be profiteers. If it had been possible, the clergy would involuntarily have been profiteers owing to the War.
The noble Lord has referred to the difficulty of receiving payment. I ventured to address your Lordships in opposition to the Bill of 1925, and I pointed out that the clergy in many cases would suffer from the fact that, instead of receiving cheques, in some cases for the whole of the tithe, from one landlord, they would in future have to get it from a Government Department; and we know what that means. No doubt landlords were in the habit of paying the clergy at once, on April 1 or October 1, as the case might be. Now advantage can be taken of three months grace in paying to the Government Department—for Queen Anne's Bounty is practically a Government Department. Nevertheless, I am rather surprised that more has not been collected, because the period of grace has gone by. But it is a mistake to say that there has been no compensation. The landlord has had to make sacrifices and the Church will in future have to make the same sacrifices. I am rather surprised that my noble friend, who is such a great Churchman, does not realise the great advantage of receiving £109 for eighty years, of which £104 is paid to the incumbent and the rest into the sinking fund, and that until the end of eighty years the Church is perfectly safe and will get her funds irrespective of what is done as regards the land in future—and nobody knows what that will be. Accordingly the
684
Church is in a very favourable position at the moment—in fact, in a much more favourable position than the landowner.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I find certain points very difficult to understand. I have paid exactly the same for the last two years as I paid before, and naturally you do not pay before you get your rents. I live in the County of Norfolk, where the conditions are peculiar and are found, I think, in only two other counties. Our Lady Day does not come until April 6 and our Michaelmas is October 12. Our half-year's rent is due on April 6, and it used to be collected about the first week in July. I collect mine on June 11 if it is not a Sunday. I pay the half-yearly tithe on July 2, though, as a matter of fact, I paid it on July 5 this year, because I had been away.
In Norfolk we have very small parishes, and in many cases there are only two tithe payers in a parish. I know one person very well who did not pay his tithe through any of these agencies but paid it himself. I thought it best to go down and see him. He said: "I do not like to send it up to these Commissioners, because I do not know what they will deduct for expenses, and so I prefer having it paid by the landlord just as it is." I said, "All right; but you have made one mistake. Tell him I shall go on paying." I know that the position is almost impossible for the clergy in some of these small parishes unless they have some assistance from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Some of the clergy are worse off than an agricultural labourer who is a team man. The Church of England should not appoint people to parishes if they cannot give them enough to live upon, and if the stipends are too small the only remedy is amalgamation. I am now trying to amalgamate a small parish with a larger one, and the man in the larger parish will be better off and better able to look after his parish. I think it is premature, however, to discuss what the clergy get until they have raised the first half-year's tithe and we know exactly what it is.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord in his reply to be good enough to inform me what was the Value of tithe just before the War.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD) BLEDISLOE): My Lords, in case I forget to answer the question that has just been put to me, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give the figure at once. The value of tithe in 1914 was £77 1s. 4¼d. The noble and learned Lord opposite has addressed three Questions to me, two of them asking for certain figures with which I have furnished him and the third asking for certain relative figures upon which he has based a criticism of the scheme of the Tithe Act, 1925, as it is actually working out in operation. I hope that noble Lords will understand, as I am sure my noble questioner understands, particularly as he has been associated with ecclesiastical matters for a great part of his public life, that the Tithe Act, 1925, entrusted to Queen Anne's Bounty certain duties in regard to the collection and ultimate redemption of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, and the Ministry of Agriculture, which I represent in this House, is in no way responsible for the administration of Queen Anne's Bounty in regard to matters which, after all, are domestic to the Church. But I have obtained from the Bounty the figures which I have furnished at the noble and learned Lord's request and upon which he has based his arguments.
I think it is only fair to the House—I hope I shall not weary your Lordships—if I give in reply shortly to the first two Questions, the answers which I have given privately to the noble and learned Lord. In reply to the first Question, the par or commuted value of the tithe rent-charge now vested in Queen Anne's Bounty which was previously attached to benefices is £2,031,505. In addition to the tithe rentcharge previously attached to benefices a further annual sum amounting to £18,200 is payable in respect of what is called extraordinary rentcharge, that is, an additional rentcharge in lieu of tithe on hop grounds, orchards, fruit plantations and market gardens, and a further annual sum of £41,148 is payable in respect of annual payments in lieu of tithe (usually referred to as corn rents). This makes a total, as I think the noble and learned Lord stated, of £2,090,853, which is vested in Queen Anne's Bounty, representing tithe previously attached to benefices. I am not going to trouble the House, and certainly not in detail,
686
with the other kind of tithe—namely, that which was previously owned by ecclesiastical corporations, such as Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons and the like, because the noble and learned Lord has not based his case on any payments that are made to them through Queen Anne's Bounty, but has rightly said that the total amount payable under both heads is £2,189,669. So much for the noble Lord's first Question.
In reply to the second Question, as to the amount of tithe or tithe rentcharge that has in fact been paid over to the ecclesiastical tithe owners, taking, first of all, the figure of £2,090,853 previously attached to benefices, of this amount £488,051 is, as I think the noble and learned Lord indicated, being collected by incumbents as agents for Queen Anne's Bounty, while the remainder, £1,602,802, is being collected through area committees. I think, if I heard him aright, the noble Earl opposite expatiated upon the advantages of paying this money direct, but the object of Queen Anne's Bounty interfering in this matter is that, although the bulk of the money is retained by the incumbents who collect it, there has to be sent up to Queen Anne's Bounty the amount required for sinking fund, because ultimately redemption is involved, and for Income Tax, Land Tax and rates. Queen Anne's Bounty will send out half-yearly a statement showing the deductions for these purposes. As regards the item—and this is the item which I think the noble and learned Lord chiefly had under consideration—of £1,602,802, the amount received by Queen Anne's Bounty from the area collection committees as collected during April was £227,873, and this amount, less deductions for sinking fund, Income Tax, rates and Land Tax, was distributed on or about June 1. A further amount of £174,741 was received from the area collection committees as collected during May, and subject to the usual statutory deductions was distributed last Monday, July 18.
I am not going to refer to the amount formerly received by the ecclesiastical corporations, but I will turn at once to the third Question, and, as is often the case, the sting is in the tail. My general observation with regard to the noble and learned Lord's argument based upon his

687
third Question, is that he has sought, in the course of this debate, to discuss once more, and in some detail, the merits of the Tithe Act, 1925. I think it is only fair for me to say that this Act was passed after considerable, discussion in both Houses of Parliament, and, as Lord Strachie has indicated, did not pretend to be anything more than a compromise between conflicting interests. It is of no use pretending that in this matter the interests of the parsons and the interests of the agricultural industry—of the landlords or the land occupiers as the case may be—are identical. What I ventured to say, and what I submitted to your Lordships at this box, when moving the Second Reading of that Bill, was that we had received, with almost equal vehemence from both sources, severe criticisms of the basis on which stabilisation was suggested, and I argued, and I think your Lordships agreed, that as in both directions the criticism appeared to be equally vehement, the compromise sought by the Bill could not be an unfair compromise.
It is perfectly true that a certain number of incumbents, and I might say all incumbents, are receiving considerably less than they would have received if they were benefiting by some of the War years included within the fifteen year period on which the value of tithe had been based under the old system, which was the current values of wheat, barley and oats, for a period of fifteen years. That is perfectly true, but it is only fair to bear in mind, especially at a time like this when the landed industry is suffering severely, more than it has ever suffered since the great depression which was deemed to terminate about the beginning of this century—it is only fair to bear in mind the other side of the picture, and to express some wonder how the landed industry would be able to face the additional charge under the existing circumstances, if the Act had not been passed and if the noble and learned Lord's wishes were realised, or attempted to be realised, at the present time.
Lord Olivier, I think, asked what was the actual value of tithe in the year 1914. I gave him the figure as £77 odd. Perhaps, as illustrating what I may call the very abnormal period of the War, I might give some further figures of tithe estimates and tithe payments which preceded the War. The last year
688
when tithe stood at par value, or upwards, was 1882, until the War year of 1917; that is to say, from 1882 to 1917 the value of tithe was considerably below par. In 1883 the value of tithe was £98 6s. In 1900 it was £66 10 s. In 1914 it was £77 1s. 4d., and I suppose it may be reasonably argued that but for the abnormal conditions prevailing during the War one might have assumed that a steady, but very slow, rise would have taken place, though certainly not to anything like the figure which was reached, and which frightened the landed interest very much, in 1917—the abnormal figure of £109 3s. 11 d. Taking the whole period from 1836—from the time of the passage of the Tithe Act in the early part of last century—to 1921, the average value of tithe was £92 11 s. 9d. Can it reasonably be suggested that where there are these conflicting interests the clergy have made an altogether bad bargain in securing that for over eighty years the payment of tithe shall be stabilised at £105?
I now want to leave that consideration for one moment—and, after all, that is re-discussing a matter which has been thrashed out in both Houses of Parliament within the last two years—and I turn to the more difficult question whether there is undue delay in the collection and payment of tithe rentcharge. The noble Lord (Lord Parmoor) has made certain calculations from which he arrives at the suggestion that there is a loss to the parsons, as a result of the statutory stabilisation of 1925, of £600,000. That I want to correct, because the noble Lord has not taken into account what is a very important factor, and that is the permanent rate relief which has been afforded to the incumbents by the Act of 1925, which to a very considerable extent vitiates his conclusion. As a result of the permanent rate relief afforded by that Act these incumbents gain no less than £300,000 in respect of rates. I will explain that in this way. The Ecclesiastical Rates Acts of 1920 and 1922 were due to expire on January 1, 1926, and if the Tithe Act of 1925 had not been passed incumbents would have been liable to pay half of the rates on their tithe rentcharge, that is, to revert to the position which had obtained from 1899 to 1920. Taking the average rates in town and country at about 10 s. in the £ it may be estimated that the total rates

689
thus payable on tithe rentcharge of an average annual value of £2,717,000 would have been approximately £400,000; whereas the amount payable for rates under the 1925 Act, on the basis of 5 per cent. of the par value of the annual tithe rentcharge, is approximately £100,000. In other words, there is a gain of £300,000 in respect of rates to be set against the loss of something like £584,037.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Lord suggest that in a calculation of this kind you should take into account the rates in towns as well as country?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am taking a very general figure. I do not want to enter into the difference between urban and rural rates, but I am given to understand on pretty good authority that it is not unfair to take the average rates to-day in the country as something like 10 s. in the £. I turn to the question of the delay in collection, and, although it is not part of my duty to defend Queen Anne's Bounty, I think any impartial person who realises that you have set up here for the first time a new and big machine, which has got to operate not merely efficiently without any experience of this new system to go upon, but also economically unless the parsons themselves are to suffer, will admit that no very serious charge can properly be brought against Queen Anne's Bounty in this connection. From the figures which I have given in answer to this Question it will be seen that approximately 46 per cent. of the incumbents' tithe rentcharge due on April 1 has now been paid over to the incumbents, and, as tithe rentcharge due on April 1 last was not legally recoverable until July 1, it will perhaps be agreed that the position does not disclose any serious ground for complaint against Queen Anne's Bounty or those who act as its agents—namely, the area collection committees; although one has to admit that under the old system it is possible that some individual incumbents would actually have received their tithe rentcharge at a somewhat earlier date.
But what I do want finally to press upon the House is this. It should be remembered that any additional work must increase the cost of administration, and it would have increased substantially the cost of administration if an attempt had been made to distribute the tithe
690
at an earlier date. The costs of the central administration are borne by the general funds in the hands of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, without any charge whatever on the tithe rentcharge, but, as such funds have been primarily raised in the past for the augmentation of the incomes of the poorer clergy, the Governors are forced to keep the costs of central administration reasonably low. It has further been the aim of the Governors, I am informed, to keep the cost of collection down to the lowest possible figure, and, as they state that the average cost of collection throughout the country is a little over 3½ per cent., it would certainly seem that their object in this direction has been achieved. I venture to hope that noble Lords generally will appreciate the very great difficulties that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have had to face in operating this new machine, and I hope your Lordships will agree that on the whole they have discharged their task efficiently and without any such serious delay as the noble Lord opposite has laid to their charge.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am not going into the details which have been so clearly given in this very complicated financial matter, and I am not, indeed, competent to speak with expert knowledge of their financial minutiæ at all events. But, as President of Queen Anne's Bounty, I feel bound to say a word or two after the speech of my noble friend opposite, who implied—I am sure he did not intend to convey any actual censure—that there had been either carelessness or something worse on the part of Queen Anne's Bounty in the distribution and raising of this money.
LORD PARMOOR:I certainly did not intend to convey that. What I did convey was that the conditions under which Queen Anne's Bounty collect were certain to raise these difficulties.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very glad to understand now what the noble Lord said. Of course, no one in the House will suppose that I am able to speak from personal and detailed knowledge of the exact process of the calculations made, or the action of the agents, but every information that comes to me—and I have had

691
a great deal of it during the last six months—tends to show that not only will the administration through Queen Anne's Bounty be carried on with an efficiency and regularity which has not always been possible under the local administration, but that it is already cheaper than it was, and in the long run will become very much cheaper still. Undoubtedly there are individual cases, such as the noble Lord opposite mentioned, where an individual landlord pays the tithe not on the day when it is compulsorily due, but when it becomes technically due. They are very rare I am afraid, because I should be surprised if the noble and learned Lord, with his great knowledge, were to tell me that it is the ordinary custom throughout England for landlords to pay on the earliest day instead of on the latest day. On the contrary, I have had complaints from all over the country for years past that it seemed hard lines on the clergy that they always had to wait for the compulsory day instead of being paid on the day when the tithe nominally fell due. The advantage therefore lay with the landlord and not with the parson, who is a much poorer person.
The noble and learned Lord in his speech may have left on people who are unfamiliar with the matter an impression that there had been some real stupidity or unfairness to the clergy in bringing about the change that took place when the War began. I was the recipient of more vehemently worded complaints from both sides than anybody else. Occupying a position episcopally, being a Commissioner of Queen Anne's Bounty and having a seat in this House, I was the natural person to serve as a target for, the shafts of their criticisms. On the one side they said: "Do you mean to say that we clergy who would have been entitled, if you had left the law alone, to get £140 or £150 a year are now to be content to receive £105 or £108 a year? Are we to be content with that when, if you had left the matter alone, we would have got £150 a year? You are mulcting the clergy." On the other hand, a more effective argument came in the bitterest way from the tithe payers. They said "Do you mean to say that the clergy alone in this country are to be such profiteers from the War that, whereas if matters had gone on in
692
the ordinary course they would have been receiving only £80 a year, you are now to let them receive nearly double that and give them £140 to £150 a year? All because a war has brought about that change of conditions! We should not pay that tithe. We will go on strike. The clergy will not receive the money which they would then be greedily, avariciously raking in"—I am putting their views—"you must arrive at some compromise or arrangement between the two."
A compromise or arrangement was arrived at after any amount of discussion. It was arranged to stabilise it in years to come at £105 or £108 and that that should be the sum to which the clergy should be entitled right on. Had we gone, in the days when I was dealing with these matters, to any of the clergy or incumbents in England and asked them what they would have thought of a stabilised £105 or £108 a year, instead of the £80—in some cases it was as low as £67 or £68—which they were then receiving, they would have said that it was far beyond what they ever dared to hope for. We reached a compromise, and I was the person criticised on both sides for the compromise. All I can say is that at that time, looking at the interests of the clergy on the one side and of the country and tithe payers on the other, I believe that the compromise then made was absolutely fair and as much as the clergy could ever hope to receive reasonably in years to come.
Then we have had detailed points raised to-day about Queen Anne's Bounty and about dilatory payment at present. That is a matter of extraordinary technicality and difficulty. The payment being formerly made through agents locally, there have often been arrangements with the incumbent that something should be advanced to him by the solicitors or other agents who are looking after the matter before the landlord has paid the tithe that should actually come to the parson. That was a common arrangement, but it obviously could not be carried through by Queen Anne's Bounty. At the moment the difficulty does arise, but Queen Anne's Bounty, by a large rearrangement and financial adjustment, has arranged to pay to the clergy who are waiting large sums, which they are

693
not legally liable to pay as tithe collectors, in order to meet that difficulty. Nothing could be more carefully done than the way that that has been gone into by the man at the head of it, by Sir Lewis Dibdin, who has gone into it day by day in order to meet the needs of the poor clergy. We had the fact paraded in the newspapers of a man who was to go on Poor Law relief because he could not get his money. If any one looked into the facts, he would find there was another side to the story of that sensational picture. There is not the slightest need for an application to a Poor Law authority. I do not wish to go into the matter but if anyone would investigate he would not give that as an example.
There is undoubtedly the difficulty that the money is not customarily paid by the tithe payer to-day until the time it is legally recoverable instead of on the earlier day. There is undoubtedly a grievance on that, and I have always wondered that tithe owners should be compelled to suffer as they do by the tithe payer, or usually his agents, withholding the money until the day when it can be compulsorily obtained. That has always been hard lines on the clergy and nothing could be fairer than the attempt of Queen Anne's Bounty to meet the situation. Do not suppose that I, of all men, am unaware of the poverty that is pressing upon the clergy at the present time. It is crushing. But I believe that if you ask the parochial clergy themselves you will find that the efforts we are making are doing all that can reasonably be done to relieve that difficulty and that the large grants, which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are able to make in increase of former payments, will help to relieve that difficulty to an immense extent. But it does exist and I am not at all surprised that the men who are suffering should make the appeal and that, as the Queen Anne's Bounty is more easily attacked because it is the tithe collector, they should go for that. My belief is that in future years it should be seen that Queen Anne's Bounty by centralising collection has been able to diminish the cost of collection far more than was ever possible before and the clergy will turn out to be great gainers by all that has taken place. I think it is only fair to
694
say that, because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and controversy on both sides.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think it is extremely satisfactory that His Grace has been able to assure the House, and I hope he will assure a great number of people outside who are very doubtful at the present moment, that, although there are difficulties in connection with the change in the method of collection, yet after a short time the change will be satisfactory in both directions. It will be carried out with more regularity and at less cost than the old collection. I do not in the least wish to traverse that in any way. In fact I think it is extremely satisfactory if, as a result of this discussion, that opinion of His Grace is known very widely indeed. Everyone will desire that. It will explain what, on the figures as they stand, appears to be an anomaly.
Upon the other points let me say a word in reply to Lord Strachie and Lord Bledisloe. I was not desirous of entering upon a discussion of the principles of the Act of 1925, nor do I intend to do so now, but as Lord Strachie referred to me as though I knew something about ecclesiastical law—I think rather sceptically—I cannot help answering him by saying that he shows an entire ignorance of it altogether. Tithe is not the property of the Church; it is the property of the incumbents and the property that is vested in the incumbents has now been vested in Queen Anne's Bounty. When the noble Lord talks about the tithe he must know perfectly well that, as was laid down more than once in this House by the great Lord Salisbury, tithe is a national property, and entirely a national property, upon which trusts are imposed for religious purposes. It is nothing less and it has so been dealt with in every case of disestablishment. Therefore it is not a question between the landowner on the one side and the tithe owner on the other. In all cases in which tithe has been reduced, as it has been reduced now, the benefit has gone for public purposes.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, said, I would point out that tithe per se has nothing to do with agricultural depression, but if you were taking it away from the clergy you might have established a fund which would

695
have been of great importance to agriculture if you thought that a right purpose to which to put a public national fund of this kind. That, of course, would have been a very different matter altogether, but I will not go back into it now. When we were discussing it in 1925 I made it quite clear that the view which the noble Lord then expressed was not in accordance with ecclesiastical law and that if any change were made in the sense of diminishing what was going to the clergy the residue ought to have gone, as in all other cases, to national purposes. In fact, in every case of disestablishment where the rights of the clergy have been interfered with the residue has been regarded as national property and used for national purposes.
There is only one other point to which I desire to refer. The question of tithe being below par in the old days has really nothing to do with the question we are discussing at the present time. If in those days the landowners had come forward to say: "Oh, the clergy are very poor; tithe is only at £66; we think they ought to have par," well and good, but of course they did not do that. I do not blame them for not doing it. It is an ordinary public charge ascertained in a particular way, placed not on land but on the Produce of land, which is a very different thing—placed on the produce of land for national and public purposes of a religious kind. I have often expressed my objections to dealing with rates in any way such as the noble Lord suggested—that you may take away with one hand what is unfair and give to other ratepayers with the other hand. That is a double injustice if it operates in the way the noble Lord suggests, although I doubt very much whether it does.
Lone BLEDISLOE: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say that I only mentioned that in order more clearly and more approximately to assess the relative poverty of the clergy.
LORD PARMOOR: It was not really relevant to my Question or to what I was saying. I think the noble Lord quite appreciates that; therefore I will not go any further into it. The figure he himself gave me was the right one—£584,000 a year. I took from my calculations
696
the figure of about £600,000. It is, of course, a very heavy debit indeed. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the information he gave me and I desire to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BASLE TRADING COMPANY.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that the claim of the Basle Trading Company for the return of their property, confiscated seven years ago in West Africa under the guise of liquidation, or in the alternative compensation, has not yet been settled; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be in the recollection of some of those Peers who were in the House on one or two evenings not so very far back that on two occasions I have been asked by His Majesty's Government to postpone this Motion. I have kept it back, but I have not forgotten what the object of it is and possibly your Lordships will allow me in moving, as I now do, this Motion, to make a short statement.
When I put this Motion down originally the situation was this. The Government had not recognised the moral claim of the Basle Trading Company to restitution or compensation. Since I put a date to that Motion the Government have gone so far that they have recognised, and said they recognised, the moral claim of the Basle Trading Company to restitution or compensation, and they have offered to return the property in West Africa. Had that offer been commensurate with what in my humble judgment it should have been, then there would have been no necessity to trouble your Lordships in this matter, but to the offer of the Government there were attached conditions which, in my humble judgment, are impossible for anybody with a business mind to accept. I know negotiations are going on and have been going on for some time, but I venture to think those negotiations are not coming to a satisfactory conclusion as rapidly as one would like to see them, if, indeed, they ever do come to such a conclusion.
I do not wish to go back on the history of this matter as to the justification or otherwise of the Government taking the property, because, in view of the admission of the Government that the Basle Trading Company has a moral claim, it seems to me unnecessary to go into past history. I will, therefore, simply take up this matter from the point where negotiations began. I want to make this perfectly clear at the outset. As far as I am concerned I have nothing whatever to do—I have always refused to have anything to do—with the financial transactions or negotiations between the Government and the Basle Trading Company. I do not care a bit about them. I do not care whether the Basle Company gets half a million more or half a million less. What I do care about is that the shadow which has been cast on our always good name for fair play and justice should be removed, and it is that point and that point only that I wish to make before your Lordships to-day. I believe that the property should be given up in its entirety. I want to see fair play for the people who have had their property taken from them.
I am not going back into what your Lordships may have heard about the action of the Government in regard to the Gold Coast being against International Law. I do not want to quote more than once and that will be the official French opinion. The French had property under the same conditions handed to them. What did they do? When attention was drawn to the fact that it was wrong they had a Commission appointed and in a very short time they returned the whole of the property to the Basle Trading Company. I have made reference to the conditions which have been attached to the offer of the return of the property. I would mention that in the French version, having established the fact that this company had no German connection, these words are used:—
"That in virtue of the principle of law 'to give up and withhold cannot run,' the question of imposing conditions on the raising of the sequester desired does not arise."
That was the French view of whether conditions ought to be attached to it or not. Whether His Majesty's Government at this moment think that is a wrong opinion I do not know, but it seems to be a very reasonable suggestion. What, sort of offer is it when you say: "I give
698
it you back, but I give you back a worthless thing"? I do not know what exactly the Government's answer to me may be, but I had a letter some time ago from the Secretary of State for the Colonies—that was when he first asked me to withhold ray Motion—saying that he was afraid that the only thing to be said was that negotiations were proceeding. If that is the substance of the answer I shall receive to-day, all I can say is that I am afraid I cannot accept that. I will, however, wait and see what the answer of the Government is, and try to make some suggestion as to what in my humble opinion might be done in the circumstances, because a deadlock has arisen.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, the matter to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, has drawn the attention of the House, is, I think your Lordships will admit, a very remarkable one. I have had some occasion to be cognisant of it for reasons which do not in the slightest degree affect the debate. During the course of the War this property on the Gold Coast and also property in India which was associated with certain property in Cameroon belonging to the Basle Trading Company—a Swiss Corporation having no connection with Germany—was sequestrated. The French at the end of the War gave back what was sequestrated in Cameroon, but our Government retained possession of what they had appropriated in India and on the Gold Coast and, exercising proprietary rights, conveyed it in trust to a British Company to be administered partly for 5 per cent. and partly for philanthropic purposes. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, we have nothing to do with these conditions. The matter to which the noble Viscount has called attention is the relations between the Swiss Government and their subjects and the British Government. We have the extraordinary situation that, whereas according to the noble Viscount's information the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office—who I apprehend are the more responsible—absolutely recognise now that they had no moral claim whatever to take this property, they have for seven years or more resolutely refused any application of the Swiss Government or of the Basle Trading Company and have refused to take any notice whatever of their claim.

699
They stood pat upon the fact that they had taken the property and that they had got the property. But they have now made, I gather, some proposals to the Basle Trading Company and we shall hear from the noble Lord what those are. I think, however, you will admit that where an error of that sort has been committed—in good faith, no doubt—and property has been taken which His Majesty's Government now admit (as the French did very much more quickly) should not have been taken, the only reasonable thing to do is either to offer to give back the property, subject, of course, if it has depreciated, to any compensation for depreciation which an equitable commercial arbitrator would assess, or else to make such compensation in full as, again, an equitable commercial arbitrator ought to be able to assess. Those I think are equitable principles, and I do not think we could regard with satisfaction any action on the part of His Majesty's Government that falls short of making full and equitable restitution of all property in as good condition as when it was taken over, or the full value of the property as when taken over. I do hope that the representative of His Majesty's Government is going to give us that assurance.
Of course, certain further matters are involved which have a very practical hearing upon the question. I happen to have seen the balance sheets of the corporation or trust to which this property was handed over, and I have noticed year after year a steady depreciation of the assets of the corporation through trading losses of very considerable amount. The property, through trading losses or otherwise, is obviously at the present time of very much less value than before the War or at the time when it was taken over. Consequently there would appear to be a certain gap to be met. I can imagine that the question of how that gap between equitable compensation and the value of the property is to be met must be troubling His Majesty's Government. They may be very reluctant and tardy in facing the facts, but I think they will have to face them. That may bring them either into conflict with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or into conflict with the Government of the Gold Coast.
I remember more than forty years ago what was called the Florence case in
700
Jamaica. Under the Foreign Enlistment Act Jamaica had confiscated a steamer carrying arms. The matter was tried in Court and it was proved that the Government of Jamaica had no right to confiscate the steamer. A large sum—about £17,000—was given in damages against the harbourmaster of the Colony who confiscated the vessel. Although on that occasion the Colonial Government said they acted in good faith, as representing His Majesty's Government, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, just as the Gold Coast Government acted in good faith on behalf of His Majesty's Government, yet the Treasury held that they could not undertake any responsibility and that the Government of the Colony must pay the whole of the damages incurred. That produced a constitutional revolution. All the elected members of the Council resigned and the constitution of the Government had to be altered. Consequently I can well imagine His Majesty's Government being in a difficulty over the two alternatives which appear to be open to them, either to make good the depreciation of the property out of the Exchequer or to force upon the Gold Coast Colony the onus of doing so. The noble Viscount and I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships a very curious and remarkable case, one which the Government may well have difficulty in dealing with equitably, but which I think there can be no question ought to be dealt with equitably upon the principles which the noble Viscount and myself have suggested.
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords, I have listened with much interest to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite with reference to the Basle Trading Company. I have been very closely associated with West Africa for twenty years. During that period I have served on various Committees and have taken part in the work of chambers of commerce and other bodies dealing with West African development. I therefore approach the subject as one who has endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to develop the trade, commerce and general prosperity of West Africa. The Basle Trading Company was a German-controlled company registered in Switzerland with a share capital of £60,000 having a strictly limited dividend—I think it was 5 per cent.—and also £60,000 debentures, making altogether £120,000. The constitution of this com-

701
pany, the old company, provided for the return to the shareholders in full of that share capital in the event of liquidation. The company carried on operations in the Gold Coast Colony, and under the company's own regulations any balance of profit after providing for the fixed dividend on capital and the interest on debentures, and any surplus assets above the value of £120,000, were earmarked for missionary work, philanthropic work, in West Africa and were not available for the shareholders. When the business and property of the company were, quite rightly, taken over by the British Government, I understand that the sum of £120,000, which was the only interest the shareholders in the old company had in the concern, except the missionary interest, was reserved to the late German or so-called Swiss shareholders and debenture-holders in full. The original German or Swiss holders have therefore no grievance of any kind, for when they are paid off in full they will receive all that they are strictly entitled to and will have no further interest in the matter.
In 1919, at the request of the British Government, the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, a British company, was formed to take over the business with a capital of just over £50,000 and to carry on the work on the same lines as the original company. The Commonwealth Trust has carried on business for over eight years, and although, like all other companies trading with West Africa, it has passed through a very difficult time, it is now, I understand, earning a profit. This company, which, as I have said, is a British concern, employs a very considerable number of British subjects and is doing a large business, principally with Great Britain. To deprive this British company of its interests would involve loss to British trade and British shipping and be an injustice to the company itself, which was formed to carry on its work in this old British Colony. In my view there can be no question of injustice to the Basle Company, as all that is due to the shareholders and debenture-holders under the constitution of the old company has, I understand, been set aside for them by the British Government and will be paid to them in full in due course. If there is any question of injustice to the old shareholders—which I personally do not believe to be the case—it would seem to be a matter for the British Government to deal
702
with by increasing very slightly the compensation of £120,000 set apart for them; but, for my part, I should regret it if they paid even the £120,000.
I submit that it would be committing an injustice to interfere with a British company which has been developing the property far the last eight years. I should like to make it plain that the present British company, with a capital of £50,000, is limited to a dividend of 5 per cent., and airy money that it earns over and above that dividend is used in West Africa for missionary and other purposes. Thus the new company is in exactly the same position as was the old Swiss company, except that it is a British company carrying on British trade and not, as in the past, a foreign company, used as we know that many companies were used before the War. I know another case in Africa of exactly the same kind. I had personal experience of it, and when the War broke out I informed the British Government that a certain company trading in West Africa was controlled by enemies. They told me that all the shareholders were neutrals. Nothing happened for three years, and then they found out the facts that I had given them at the beginning—for I spoke of what I knew—and they came and told me of their decision to take over the company. They took over this Swiss company equally correctly, and I shall be very sorry if they part with £120,000; but, if they do, they are certainly giving the extreme that can rightly be demanded by the shareholders, or could be demanded even if they were citizens of the British Empire, which they certainly were not.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, I can answer the Question that the noble Viscount has put in a very few words. From what has fallen from both sides of the House it will be seen that this is a question that does require, and has received, the very greatest study and that, as the matter is now under negotiation, it probably will not serve any useful purpose to go very deeply into the question to-day. I should like to say, however, that I am sure that no one in the Government could take exception to the way in which the case has been put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown. I should like to call your Lordships'

703
attention to one or two points. This is not such a simple question as the noble Viscount has, I think, given the House to understand. It is perfectly true that the settlement of it has gone over a number of years and that there are several Departments interested in it, and I think the noble Viscount will admit that in such a case rapid settlement is difficult, if not impossible. Let me point out also that this company is not regarded, as the noble Lord stated, as being originally of wholly neutral origin. I think that, if we examine the case in the light of the evidence that has been put forward, it must be admitted that certainly in the management both of the mission and also of the trading company there was a considerable German element.
I am sure from what has passed that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do what is fair. This matter was brought up and examined this year in June and July. Proposals have been put forward on both sides, and I have Mr. Amery's authority for saying that on his departure for overseas he has given, so far as lies in his power, complete authority for a settlement, as and when a settlement may be possible. An appeal has been made to the good sense and the justice of the British Government. I am sure that it is desired to do what is fair, but on the other hand I do not consider that some of the suggestions that have been put forward can in any sense be said to be reasonable. One must remember that this company was originally formed as a trading company of which only five per cent. of the profits should go to the shareholders, and that it had originally only £120,000 of capital. The claim that is before His Majesty's Government is more than six times that amount, and has once been as much as ten times that amount. I do not wish be go into the question of how far the management was German, and I do not wish to take up your time by bringing forward opinions expressed by such a well-known person as Sir Hugh Clifford, but I do feel that it must be admitted that there has been a strong hostile element in the management of this company, and while we should treat justly the shareholders interested, I feel it is a question for close examination of their proper claim.
At a time when, as I have pointed out, we have got to close negotiation on this
704
subject, I would put it to the noble Lord that it is not advisable he should press for Papers. I say that in the first place because it is not usual when negotiations are going on to offer the whole of one's facts to the other side, and, secondly, because the amount of literature which exists in the Colonial Office on the subject is so great that if the noble Lord saw it I am certain he would be the last person who would wish to read it. In either case I would say that whether noble Lords vote for the presentation of these Papers or agree that they should not be presented, I do not see how it is going to help the negotiations, which I sincerely trust may come to a fruitful conclusion.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I wish to say a few words with reference to this matter, not as one who has any personal interest but as one who is interested as being a great admirer of the business capacity of the Colonial Office in ordinary circumstances. I agree with two things which the noble Lord said in his opening remarks. In the first place it is not a question on which either he or I can express any view in regard to the claim made by the Basle Trading Company, but I think it is right to say, not in reply to, but as a comment on what fell from, Lord Kylsant, that the Government here have admitted more than once that there are far greater claims than that which has been referred to, and therefore I do not think that merely to offer the £120,000 taken from the company is at all likely to satisfy their claim. Secondly, the noble Lord said that the matter had been going on a long time, not in reference to the German Government but to the Swiss Government, and no doubt it has created a great deal of irritation in Switzerland that the Government here, after admitting that the absorption or taking over of this company was illegal, did not at once, like the French Government in similar circumstances, give back the property intact to the company.
My only comment on the whole matter is this, that it is an unfortunate thing that it has gone on for so long. My noble friend, on behalf of the Government, said that you could not have a rapid settlement in regard to a matter of this complication. I do not know whether noble

705
Lords have followed the intricacies of this question, but it is nine years since the property was confiscated and since this claim was first made, and I cannot see that even the most complicated settlement ought to take nine years to complete. If Lord Templetown will allow me to say so, I think he has shown exemplary patience. For more than four years he has endeavoured to get a settlement, first by arbitration and then in some other way to bring it to a conclusion. All those years he has been sent from pillar to post by the Colonial Office or the India Office, and so far has got no further in the matter. The only person I have ever heard of who showed as much patience as he has was the Importunate Widow. She, by her importunity, got justice, but he, after four years, has got no further than he was at the beginning.
Here is a dispute as to the merits of which I say nothing. Here is a definite dispute in regard to the expropriation of a particular trading company by the British Government during the War. No one attaches any blame to the Governor of the Gold Coast or to the British Government for having, in the circumstances, taken over this property. It was done during the War. No doubt there were considerable suspicions that the company was under German influence, and so far as taking over the company is concerned no blame attaches to the British Government. But not so very long after that Sir John Simon and other legal advisers did give a definite opinion that internationally the property had been taken over illegally, and the British Government did not dispute that decision. One would have thought that in those circumstances it would have been in the interest of those concerned to bring about a rapid settlement, but unfortunately that has not been the case. At least four or five times it has appeared, thanks to Lord Templetown's good offices, that the basis of a settlement had been arrived at, but no settlement has been reached. As soon as they have got near the point of settlement the Government have gone off on some other matter, such as the interest of India and so forth, and no settlement has been reached. After many years of asking whether he might have an opportunity of seeing the Colonial Office the Chairman of the company was at last received by the Secretary of State
706
last June, and certainly he was under the impression, and I think the Colonial Office was under the impression, that they had arrived at a more or less satisfactory conclusion, subject to certain details.
I understand that that settlement has also been discarded, and that a totally new proposal is now being made to the company, on a totally different basis. As I understand the position the difficulty which has really arisen is one referred to by Lord Olivier—namely, the question of the Commonwealth Company. What happened was this When the Basle Company was taken over its property, including a considerable amount of cash, was handed over to the Commonwealth Company, a private company, which under the auspices of the Government were anxious, and very creditably so, to save this property, because after all the basis of it was missionary work, and they were anxious that it should not come to an end. Being more philanthropists than business men they have already lost a great deal more than the original capital, either of their own or of the Basle Company, and the difficulty is that the British Government admit that they have been in the wrong with reference to the taking over of the company, they admit that they have to hand back to this company such assets as are agreed as having been taken over, and have got to make restitution for the loss which has been sustained by the company not having been allowed to trade.
Unfortunately, there is something like £400,000 which the Commonwealth Trust has lost of those assets. They are offering, as I understand, to the Basle Trading Company to hand over to them the value of the property, such as it was when it was first taken over, but subject to the liabilities and the assets of this Commonwealth Trust. Is it not quite obvious that neither the Basle Trading Company nor anybody else can accept such an offer as that without knowing at all events what the liabilities and the assets are? That so far has been refused. It appears to me that all these difficulties and misunderstandings, a sort of tragedy of errors which has occurred, can only now be removed by close communication and close inquiry. Would it not be better, therefore, in the circumstances to have something of the nature of an in-

707
quiry at which the matter can be thrashed out—if, that is, the Government cannot come to terms with the Basle Trading Company? I think it is a great misfortune that a matter of this importance, and affecting the friendly relations between England and Switzerland, should be carried on over such a long period of time. Having had a great deal to do with the Colonial Office, I have the greatest possible admiration for them, but I do not think it increases their credit that they should allow such a matter to go on over a period of nine years. I would ask my noble friend to come to a rapid decision—by which I mean in a few weeks—or, if the Government cannot come to any proper conclusion in regard to the matter, that they should have an inquiry at which both sides might be properly represented.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, with reference to the reply made on behalf of the Government, it was very much what I expected it would be. If not exactly an appeal not to take this Motion to a Division to-day, at any rate it was a very strong request, on the ground that things are getting better and nearer a decision. The question is what steps noble Lords who have kindly helped me would be good enough to support. The Session is coming to an end, and I do not know when this question of negotiation is going to be settled, so I am prepared to do this. I will withdraw my Motion, but I give the noble Lord notice here and now that at the beginning of next Session I shall move for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances of the taking of this property. I think that is a fair and reasonable suggestion. If anything happens in between which justifies me in not proceeding with that course, then when the next Session arrives there will be no necessity for a Select Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
S. 1. of 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 92. to be permanent.
1. So much of Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, or any Act extending the duration of that section,
708
as limits the duration of that section shall cease to have effect; and, accordingly, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to insert at the end of the clause:—
"Provided that in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious grounds or persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life and limb on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates or failure to produce a permit from the Minister of Labour."
The noble Marquess said: This is in part an Amendment moved on the Committee stage by my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore, but that Amendment included a special provision regarding persons fleeing from countries on political grounds or who have taken part in a political offence. Lord Phillimore then indicated that he was prepared, if necessary, to give way upon that point. But the matter never went any further, because, owing to a misunderstanding, the Question was put, and there was no further debate upon it. I had myself intended to support the Amendment, and I know there was at least one other noble Lord who desired to support it. There was a misunderstanding for which nobody was responsible. No answer was given on behalf of the Government.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I was just getting up to speak.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The reason why I did not rise was that the noble Lord himself rose, and I gave way to him, but meanwhile unfortunately the Question was put. Consequently, the only opportunity of raising this question—because it cannot be said to have been decided on the last occasion—is now, after the Motion for the Third Reading has been passed. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind the limited purpose of the Amendment, as much confusion has been caused at times perhaps because Amendments of this character have been moved on other occasions which went further than the proposal I am now moving. Instead of the usual practice of bringing

709
in a Bill year by year containing the emergency provisions dealt with in various Acts, including the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, this Bill is introduced for the purpose of making this emergency provision of that Act a permanent part of the law of the country. It is for that reason that this proposal assumes so much importance. I should not myself be so much concerned about it if we were dealing with a measure which had to be introduced each year, when any difficulties could be brought before Parliament.
My Amendment would ensure that an immigrant who is seeking refuge in this country solely—and I lay great stress on the word "solely"—to avoid persecution or imprisonment on religious grounds should not be denied admission merely on the ground of want of means. I submit that that is a very reasonable proposal. It is of a strictly limited character. It purposely avoids any reference to political offences, or to persons who are taking part in political agitation. I do not seek, that is, to make this provision apply to politicians. There have been attempts in the past to do it. I quite realise, especially in view of certain considerations, that it may not be desirable to make the law too wide and to enable the political offender and political agitator to obtain admission into this country without the most careful inquiry. I am not seeking in the slightest degree to interfere in those emergency provisions, which are incorporated in the Act of Parliament at present and which this Bill seeks to make permanent. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to dismiss from your minds altogether any suggestion that the indirect effect might be to admit the political agitator or the political offender into this country by this means. Nothing of that kind could happen. I am quite sure I shall have the assent of my noble friend Lord Desborough in what I say with regard to that.
The whole object of this Amendment is merely to provide that, when the immigrant, who seeks refuge in this country solely because he is persecuted on account of his religious belief and who is fleeing because of his religious faith, seeks admission to this country, refuge shall be given to him. I do not ask it or claim it for a moment as a right. I agree with what Lord Desborough said
710
on the last occasion, that every country has the right to determine for itself the circumstances and conditions under which it will admit aliens. But there is a history and a tradition in this land. There are a number of cases I could give. I refrain from quoting them, partly because, they are so well known, partly because I am afraid they are quoted on every occasion of debate of this character. I would prefer to attribute to your Lordships a knowledge of history and of the circumstances which led in the past century to the immigration of persecuted Christians in foreign countries, who came to this country and not only prospered here, but contributed also to the benefit and advantage of this country.
My purpose is not to introduce any new policy. There is no new departure in the Amendment I propose. All I desire is to give effect in this Bill to the traditional policy of this country, which has been pre-eminent in its tolerance and also in the reception it has given to those who have sought admission into this country on account of persecution for their religious belief. What I ask your Lordships to do is to accept the Amendment, which I will read, and I will then detain you for two minutes more after I have read it in order to establish the propositions laid down. The Amendment says:
"Provided that in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious grounds or persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life and limb on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates or failure to produce a permit from the Minister of Labour."
I would call your attention to the fact that first the immigrant has to prove that he is seeking admission solely on the ground that he is avoiding persecution. That is the first thing he has to establish and, when he has established it, all I am asking is that the mere fact that he is a poor man and has no means shall not be a reason for refusing him admission to this country. That is the sum and substance of the Amendment which I ask your Lordships to introduce into this Bill, which is being discussed for the first time in this House but does deserve your Lordships' attention. May I

711
also respectfully suggest to you that the policy to which I have referred, that large-spirited tolerance and protection of those whose sole crime is that they are adhering to a civilised religious faith, is not merely the policy of one section or of one Party, but it is the policy of the people of this country, as has been shown on many occasions. I invoke no Party spirit On the contrary, it seems to me that I can appeal to your Lordships as a body and ask you to give effect to the views I have expressed, to give this protection, because it is not much more than that. It will only avail to enable the immigrant persecuted on religious grounds to be admitted to this country, although it may be that he is a very poor man and cannot prove that he has the means that would otherwise be necessary.
There is the whole point of it. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind what I have put to you and to recall, as I am sure you will, the tradition of this country in this respect and to remember that, if this proviso is not inserted, the Emergency Powers which are given without this protection are now to be placed permanently on the Statute Book, instead of, as heretofore, coming up yearly for revision, when we should have an opportunity of bringing forward any Amendment that we may desire. I do therefore ask the Government to consider this very modest Amendment. I would suggest to them that, if they would accept it, the utmost is that their officials shall not merely refuse a man who is being persecuted for his religion because he has no means. In that they will not be in the slightest degree affecting the Bill they are seeking to pass, but they will be introducing a provision which has the full support, I believe, of every right-minded and generous-minded man in this country.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I hope very much the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Marquess. This Amendment does not con-
712
tain the clause in a previous Amendment allowing political offenders to obtain special terms for admission into this country. Such a clause, however desirable at other times, at the present time, in view of the disturbed state of Europe, it would be wholly impossible to expect a Government to accept. But I think there is a strong case for accepting an Amendment to allow those who are leaving their country for religious reasons, owing to danger to life through religious persecution, to be admitted to this country on special terms. We are all agreed that of all forms of persecution religious persecution is the most hateful, and all classes and denominations in this country are united in regarding as both wrong and foolish any attempt to coerce a man's religious convictions by methods of violence.
We are unable to interfere with other countries when they attempt the methods of persecution, but we have been able to mitigate to some small degree some of the results of those persecutions by admitting those who are in danger of their life. By so doing we have made our deliberate protest against this policy of persecution. When we look back, as the noble and learned Marquess has reminded us, on the history of this country, we see that during the past three centuries our country has gained both honour to itself and also, to some extent, material prosperity, through this policy. I know that criticisms and strictures have been made on it, but it remains the historical fact that during the last three centuries this has been the country to which persecuted people have always turned with hope and from which they have always expected to receive welcome and refuge. The days of persecution are not over. We sometimes speak as if persecution was simply a matter of the past. It is difficult to realise that in the last thirteen years religious persecutions have taken place on a more extensive and a more intensive scale than, I suppose, at any other time in the history of Christendom. This has been the case both in Turkey and in Russia, and who would not feel overwhelmed with shame and humiliation if there came to our country some unhappy refugees, penniless, poverty-stricken and ruined, who were turned back from our ports, doomed to their death, because we were unable to admit them to this country?

713
I venture to say that every one of us would feel humiliated if that happened, to whomsoever it happened if he was driven out of this country for religious reasons. We may be told that no Home Secretary would allow this to happen, that the Home Secretary would use his discretionary power; but we cannot always rely that we shall have Home Secretaries who are not only good and wise, but also have the time to deal with these individual cases. Besides, this is a question of principle, and it is surely right for Parliament, while barring the door against undesirable aliens, to leave at any rate some wicketgate open through which those who are persecuted for religious causes may enter into safety. We may also be told that this Amendment, if adopted, may increase the amount of unemployment in this country. I recognise fully that we cannot use the argument which has often been used in the past that those who come to this country will probably bring some special experience and some special skill at their own industries. I fear that argument is not applicable to-day. Those who come here will come here with poverty, will come here ruined, will come here with very few special abilities, but they will come with their consciences, with their strength of religious conviction which has made them ready to endure for the sake of their faith.
After all, you cannot decide these issues merely on material grounds, merely on weighing up whether we shall gain or lose a certain number of pounds. Probably only very few will be admitted to the country under the proviso which has been drawn so very carefully by the noble and learned Marquess, and if we lose financially we shall gain in other ways. We shall gain by preserving a great and noble national tradition, by which those who have suffered through religious persecution have been able to find safety and welcome in this land.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to return a very brief reply to the arguments which have been submitted in such very eloquent terms by my noble friend opposite and supported so warmly by the right rev. Prelate behind me. This Amendment really is, in substance, the same as the Amendment which was moved and which had a truncated
714
existence when the Bill was in Committee, with the exception that it leaves out political refugees. The words are solely confined to those impecunious religious refugees who should not be denied the hospitality of this country merely because they are paupers. The Government are quite ready to say that they would not consider impecuniosity a bar in any special cases which might be brought to their notice. They have, under the present Bill, full power to admit any of these unfortunate individuals, but the special exemption on religious grounds, which I will deal with very briefly a little later on, really cuts across the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is that the Home Secretary should have the power, at his own discretion, of limiting the number of alien refugees or others who come into, or seek to come into, this country.
I have given the reasons more than once for this. One is the very congested state of this country at the present time—more than 483 inhabitants to the square mile, one million of people out of work and insufficient houses for those who at present constitute our working classes. In these circumstances the Government have considered it necessary, instead of coming to Parliament every year, to make permanent till otherwise ordered, an Act under which we have been living for seven years past, and which has proved itself to be over and over again not only a useful Act, but an Act that has been most successful in its operations. None of the dreadful hardships which have been prophesied and talked about now have occurred. The position of the Government is that this power should be in the hands of the Home Secretary, a Minister of State responsible to Parliament and to the general opinion of the country. You may be perfectly sure that if the powers which he is given are ill-used that Minister, with watchful eyes upon him in Parliament, will very soon be called to task. The right rev. Prelate who spoke last seemed to maintain that right of asylum which I understand the advocates of this proposal have given up—that is to say, there is no right of asylum inherent in aliens to come to this country whenever they like.
I have in my hand a leading article from a famous paper in the provinces

715
which laments that this right of asylum is now going to be trampled upon and torn up and that the old traditions of this country are going to be departed from. I may quote something that it says because it is rather interesting at the present moment. Dealing with this right of asylum, it quotes Vienna, of all places, as an example, and this is what it says with regard to Vienna:
"Factions that in their native haunts would operate with daggers and dynamite melt and overflow with goodwill in the genial atmosphere of Viennese freedom."
The article refers a great deal to Viennese freedom and the wonderful results which have flown from the admission to Viennese cafès of Russians White, Red or Pink, Macedonians, Albanians, and every sort of person. Unfortunately, two days after these words were printed the one place of all places which they burned down in Vienna was the Palace of Justice. I commend that to my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It had nothing to do with religion.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I did not say it had. I was answering the right rev. Prelate who went rather outside the Amendment. But my noble and learned friend opposite did not confine his most eloquent words entirely to people who suffer from religious persecution.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Forgive me, I was most careful, not once but twice to do it.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I accept that at once. The Amendment which has been moved is really modelled on the Act of 1905. It is practically the same except that politics are eschewed. But the case then was entirely different. There was no general restriction then. What happened at the ports was that there was a restriction with reference to steerage passengers. First- and second-class passengers came in whatever their religious views were, and whether they were persecuted at home or whether they were not, but those who were steerage passengers could be excluded if they were considered undesirable—undesirable, that is to say, either criminally or for medical or other reasons. This Act of 1905 provided that if a man had fled from a country for political reasons or because he was persecuted on account of religion
716
that should be no reason for refusing him leave to come here. Now we have got an Act which enables the Secretary of State to set up a bar against all aliens. It is quite a different thing. I submit that this proviso does not fit in with the object of this Bill in any way. It might be read to mean that a pauper suffering from religious persecution must be admitted, or rather had a right to expect to be admitted.
It seems to me that if the proviso merely means "may" then that is the case now, because the Home Secretary may do it if he likes. If it means "must," and that a man who says he is persecuted and has no money therefore has a right to come to this country, then in view of the fact, as I have said, that we have over a million people unemployed, the Government must take exception to that Point of view. There are many sorts of religion. Take the case of the Armenians, for instance. The Government would not object to one or two distinguished people coming here, but the Armenians are a much-persecuted people and, I believe, indigent people, and the Government would be averse from throwing open the country to hundreds or thousands of Armenians who prefer this country to their own. Then there are Russian Christians who have been terribly persecuted. We de not want them all here. When we have a million unemployed we do not want to add several thousands—I do not know how many thousands—of Russian Christians. Then there are Russian Jews. They are most estimable people, we have tried to do our best for them in Palestine, but they might prefer this country, with free education and hospitals and doles, to Palestine, where they are already meeting with difficulties. They are religious people suffering from persecution and they would also undoubtedly be indigent.
Then there are the Doukhobors. I believe they fully come up to all the necessary requirements. They are very religious—almost too much so—and I believe at the same time they meet the necessary requirement of indigence. They have given a great deal of trouble, I understand, in the United States. They are addicted in their religious rites to dancing without a sufficiency of clothing. Do we want to welcome them here? Then there are also the Mormons. They have

717
suffered cruelly for their religion. They went far to the West to avoid persecution and they thought they had found a safe place, but now they find civilisation is creeping up to them. Many of them might want to land here with all the odour of religious sanctity and the necessary insufficiency of money. If this Amendment were passed it might very well be argued that they had a right to come. The Home Secretary can at the present time admit those suffering from, religious persecution if they can establish a claim to come here. I am afraid that, in view of the state of the country and its trade and employment, and of the housing congestion, that. I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
LORD PABMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word in answer to my noble friend Lord Desborough. I think, if I may say so with great respect to him, that he has really not understood the scope of the Amendment. The scope of the Amendment is that a religious refugee shall not be refused admittance on the ground merely of want of means. That is to say, poverty alone shall not be a sufficient reason for refusing a refuge here to a person suffering from religious persecution. I think everyone would desire that. It is not a question of a right of asylum—I heard what the noble and leaned Marquess said on that point—but by custom and tradition we have allowed this asylum, much to the honour of this country, and it has increased our standing in other countries on grounds of freedom and liberty.
The only argument, as I understood, that the noble Lord really addressed against the Amendment, was the argument of congestion and unemployment. Can it reasonably be said for a moment that allowing these religious refugees to come here could possibly affect questions of that kind? How could it? It really is impossible to suppose that religious refugees could possibly affect large questions of that kind. I do not want to repeat what the noble and learned Marquess said so admirably, but when we come to the point the question really is whether a refugee from religious persecution is to be refused an asylum merely on the ground of poverty. That is the simple question and the only question. While the right of discretion was being discussed a refugee might be sent away
718
from this country. It is impossible in matters of this kind to assume that you can exercise in each case an individual discretion. I regret very much that within these very narrow limitations the Government have not been able to accept this Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am sure many of your Lordships must have felt sympathy with some of the eloquent remarks of the noble and learned Marquess and the right rev. Prelate, but it seems to me that the answer to that argument is an exceedingly simple one. We agree that in proper cases victims of religious persecution should be admitted into this country. That is the substance of the argument of the noble and learned Marquess and the right rev. Prelate, but they cut the ground from under their own feet because they have admitted—in fact they alleged, and truly alleged—that for three hundred years this country has allowed asylum in proper cases to victims of religious persecution. There was no necessity for the noble and learned Marquess's Amendment in order to enable victims of religious persecution in proper cases to come into this country. They have come as, indeed, he and his friends and the last speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, have asserted. Accordingly I venture to submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is wholly and absolutely unnecessary.
If the noble and learned Marquess had come to your Lordships' House and had brought definite cases of hardship and oppression of men who had been persecuted for their religious convictions, and who had been refused admission into this country simply and solely because they were poor men and were likely to become a charge upon the rates, he might have presented a stronger case for this Amendment; but none of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken to-day ventured to put forward any such case. Why? Because there is no such case. The truth is that under the Act of 1919, which has now been in existence for seven years, the Home Secretary has an absolute discretion to say what aliens shall or shall not be admitted into this country, and that discretion is working remarkably well. The noble and learned Marquess admits that he must have a discretion in other matters, but he would

719
except the victims of religious persecution. He admitted in terms that the Home Secretary must have a discretion in regard to victims of political persecution. I think he was wise in making that admission and, indeed, it was obvious that he must make it. But why, in the sole case of victims of religious persecution, the Home Secretary should be deprived of his absolute discretion I cannot see, and no case was made out for the suggestion. I venture to think that this Amendment is wholly misconceived and that your Lordships would do wisely, for the reasons that have been stated so forcibly by the noble Lord below me, to reject it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, both my noble friend Lord Desborough and my noble friend Lord Danesfort have, if they will permit me to say so, made my case even stronger than I was able to make it. I understood from both of them that the Home Secretary
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE (APPEALS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
does exercise a discretion in this matter, and to say that no case has arisen merely strengthens my position. This is a permanent measure, and what I am asking is that, if we have an emergency measure giving special powers to the Home Secretary which he exercises in a particular way, care should be taken in a Bill for permanency that in this respect there should be a statutory provision. All I ask is that want of means alone shall not be a sufficient bar. The mere fact that a man is fleeing from religious persecution is not sufficient to entitle him to be admitted, but if he is fleeing from religious persecution and nothing but want of means can be urged against him, then my Amendment will apply.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Buxton, E.

Gainford, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Southwark, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Olivier, L.

Parmoor, L.

Arnold, L.

Shaw, L.

Reading, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Charnwood, L.

Strachie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Farrer, L.

Swaything, L.

Treowen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mayo, E.

Danesfort, L.

Midleton, E.

Darling, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Morton, E.

Daryngton, L.

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Sutherland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wellington, D.

Westmeath, E.

Forester, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bath, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Greenway, L.

Elibank, V.

Hayter, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Novar, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Clarendon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Teynham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton, L.

Wharton, L.

LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I think I can save your time by moving the Second Reading of this Bill in a very few words. The Bill has already received a good deal of attention elsewhere. It passed all its stages in another place without a Division, and it has been through Standing Committee. It is the

721
result of certain conversations which have taken plate with all the parties concerned, and I think it is an agreed Bill. It is submitted to your Lordships on that basis. It gives a policeman who is dismissed—and dismissal is a terrible sentence in the case of any policeman because, of course, by the regulations, he can never be accepted for any other police force—under certain conditions which it is not necessary to go into, a right of appeal to a Secretary of State—namely, the Home Secretary in England and Wales, and the Secretary of State in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill is very similar to Bills which your Lordships have passed before. Its object is to enable the Postmaster-General to acquire land in London, Blackpool and Cheltenham, chiefly for the purpose in London of new automatic telephone exchanges, and at Cheltenham to increase the post office buildings. It also gives power to build over disused burial grounds in Leicester. There is no opposition to the measure in any of the districts concerned, the local bodies, such as the City Corporation and the London County Council, being practically agreed. If there is any further information required I shall be glad to explain, but as the hour is late I will merely ask your Lordship to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I understand and appreciate the fact that this Bill is entirely on the lines of Bills introduced every year, chiefly at this period of the Session, and therefore I have nothing to say in contradiction of it. Indeed, I only rise to say that I
722
shall not feel the same with regard to the next measure on the Paper, when it comes up.
TER MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that this is a regular routine Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed for to-morrow.

CROWN LANDS (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a very technical Bill, and I believed until I entered the House this afternoon a wholly uncontroversial Bill, which the Government are extremely anxious to see pass through your Lordships' House before the adjournment of Parliament. The Bill is designed in the main to bring up-to-date the powers of the Commissioners of Crown lands in the management of their estates. Originally all revenues from Crown lands were paid to the Exchequer, but after the increase in the reign of Henry VIII, two Surveyors-General were appointed. The Commissioners were first appointed in 1786, and their duties in the main rest on the Crown Lands Act, 1829, as amended by various later Statutes. In 1923 the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act transferred the Crown woods and forests, for example, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, to the Forestry Commission, and the Crown Lands Commissioners are no longer responsible for Crown forests. Perhaps I may here say that I understand the Motion on the Paper in the name of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for the rejection of the Bill has special reference to the New Forest. Therefore it is significant to note that the Bill in no way refers to the New Forest, the administration of which was transferred by the Forestry Act, 1923, to the Forestry Commission.
At the present time the Commissioners of Crown lands are individuals, and Clause 1 incorporates them, thus avoiding difficulties on change of personnel and bringing their office into line with other Government Departments. Clauses 2 and 3 codify the Commissioners' powers of sale on the lines of the Settled Land

723
Act, and the University and College Estates Act of 1925, and allow them to sell for a perpetual or terminable rent as well as for a capital sum. Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 enable the Commissioners to grant leases, subject to Treasury consent, up to 100 years, instead of for the varying terms authorised at present according as the lease is for building or mining. At present they are limited to sixty-three in the case of mining and ninety-nine years in the case of building. Clause 8 is modelled on Section 50 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and contains general provisions for sales and other dispositions of lands, allowing reservation of minerals and various easements which will be of use in dealing with mineralised areas. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 give the Commissioners power, where it is for the benefit of Crown lands, to grant water rights to statutory bodies, to provide land for such public purposes as the erection of churches, school-houses or village institutes, and to appropriate land for laying out roads, parks and open spaces. His Majesty's consent must be obtained in any cases which may involve the permanent alienation of Crown land gratuitously.
Clause 12 gives power to the Commissioners to make agreements in connection with town planning schemes. Clause 13 enables the Treasury, with His Majesty's consent, to authorise the Commissioners of Crown Lands to take under their management and lease houses in the Royal parks and place at His Majesty's disposal other houses in lieu. Clause 14 is a general clause enabling the Commissioners to enter into contracts for the purposes of sales, leases and other authorised dispositions, while Clause 15 applies to Crown lands the provisions of the Settled Land Act, 1925, relating to improvements, thereby extending the Commissioners' powers in that respect. The first subsection of Clause 16 proposes to repeal the exemption from stamp duty of leases and other instruments made with the Crown. The remaining subsection of Clause 16, together with Clauses 17 and 18, remove certain doubts as to the appointment of receivers and other officers of the Commissioners, the management of houses in Royal parks, and the return to the Commissioners of land granted for the erection of churches and schools and no longer required for such purposes.
724
The Commissioners are trustees of certain ecclesiastical funds in the diocese of Gloucester, and Clause 20 transfers their functions to the diocesan board without changing the beneficial application of the moneys, and thereby relieve the Commissioners of an inconvenient trusteeship. The Bishop of Gloucester, I understand, fully assents to the transfer, in fact he desires it. The remainder of the Bill consists merely of definitions, the necessity for Treasury authority in the case of any transactions of upwards of £1,000, restrictions on the sale of land in Royal parks and forests, and certain savings as to forests and foreshores being transferred to the Forestry Commission and the Board of Trade. The Bill is a very technical Bill, and it almost exclusively provides for matters of machinery. It has already passed the House of Commons, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Perhaps the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) will allow me to say that I am perfectly well aware that he is likely to raise some objection to the Bill's reaching your Lordships' House at very short notice after leaving the Examiners, and after—as I think he will suggest—some dilatoriness on the part of the House of Commons in disposing of the Bill. Since he was good enough to mention the matter to me I have been at some pains to find out what actually happened in the House of Commons. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on March 14, read a second time on March 30, and, being a hybrid Bill, it went to a Select Committee, which was set up on April 6. The Easter Recess then intervened, and the Select Committee commenced sitting at the beginning of May. The Bill was reported from the Select Committee on May 16, and then the Whitsuntide Recess intervened. It was re-committed on the floor of the House of Commons on June 16, and the rest of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading all took place on July 12. Between June 16 and July 12 the House of Commons was exclusively, or almost exclusively, occupied with the disposal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill and the Finance Bill. On July 19 it came before the Examiners of this House. It has been with the Examiners for a week and now comes at the earliest possible opportunity before your Lord-

725
ships. Personally I entirely share with the noble Earl the regret that this Bill should come before your Lordships' House at the end of the Session at very short notice, and I can only ask the indulgence of the House, and particularly the noble Earl, to allow this Bill to pass its Second Reading in view of its urgency and the great desire we have to get it through this Session.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of this Bill, but since I put it down I have had some conversation with the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading, and I have received certain assurances from him in regard to the possible effect of this Bill on the New Forest. We are, naturally, in the New Forest very suspicious in these days of anything which contains any allusion whatever, however remote, to the Forestry Commission, and I think that possibly justifies my suspicions. But I am glad to say I have assured myself now that the Forestry Commission will have nothing to do under this Bill with the New Forest, which, I am sure, must be a great relief to your Lordships on all sides of the House. There is only one point I should like to mention. In regard to Clause 23, can the noble Lord tell me whether the New Forest comes definitely under the definition of a Royal forest? It has its own legislation, but I do not know whether it is included under that definition. As I put down my Motion under a misapprehension, I shall not now move it.
LORD OLIVIER: The noble Lord, by the explanation he has given to the Leader of the Liberal Party, has disarmed certain criticisms I was about to make myself of the way in which this rather solid and indigestible Bill is thrust upon us at this time. I have looked through the Bill, and I agree with the noble Lord that it is an innocent and harmless Bill, and I shall not offer any opposition to it. But I should like to ask what is done with the proceeds of Crown lands and Crown property that are parted with under the present arrangements, and under this Bill. Is
726
the money treated as revenue, or is it funded in any way for the benefit of the Commissioners?
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is all treated as capital except in the one case to which I specifically referred, where there will be a terminable annuity. Of course, part of it will be treated as sinking fund, and part otherwise.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord opposite on the skill with which he discovered my intentions, which I thought were locked in my own private breast. However, he seems to have divined from my action in connection with previous proceedings that I wished seriously to raise the point that this Bill was only put down for Second Reading this morning. Apparently, the noble Lord has had some private communication with Lord Montagu of Beaulieu which was not made to us or to the Front Opposition Bench, because evidently Lord Montagu had time to put down his Motion on the Paper.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I put this Motion down last week because the very title of the Bill filled me with alarm; but I had no communication until to-day with the noble Lord who represents the Government.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am glad to hear that that is the state of the case. This Bill was only brought to this House on July 13, it was circulated on July 15, it went to the Examiners on July 19, and was put down to-day. Do two or three days really matter so much that there should be this tremendous haste? The Bill itself is evidently a difficult Bill. The noble Lord twice told us that it was a very technical Bill. In spite of that fact, we are refused the opportunity of considering it before its Second Reading. He himself took no less than ten minutes in explaining this very technical Bill to the house. For my own part, I do not understand how many of these powers which are now to be given to these Commissioners are already possessed by other analogous bodies. I confess that with regard to Clause 2, giving the Commissioners of crown lands power to sell any Crown land, that does rather fill me with alarm. It may be that they had that power already, in which case it

727
would make a good deal of difference; but, if not, it is certainly a matter that we ought to go into in Committee with a good deal of care. I cannot pretend that I have been able to go into the rest of the Bill carefully, and I therefore venture to say to the noble Marquess that, even if he insists on taking the Second Reading to-night, I hope he will give us some little time to consider the Bill before it goes into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I am sure this House will acquit me of any desire to delay business, or to bring any frivolous complaint forward, but there are several of us who feel very strongly about some parts of this Bill. As my noble friend has said, we knew nothing about when this Bill was going to be brought forward until this morning. On the Paper this morning we discovered that the rejection of this Bill was going to be moved by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. We could anticipate why that was. It was concerning his fear that the New Forest, which is such a great national asset, should be interfered with in some improper way. We could understand that. I understand now that the noble Lord has been satisfied by the Minister of Agriculture on this point. Therefore, I should like to ask leave to state very shortly some apprehensions I have on the subject. The Bill is a long one of some twenty-four clauses and, as the noble Earl said, it is highly technical. Clause 2 of this Bill gives power, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to dispose of all the Crown lands, subject to the saving clause, Clause 23, as to Royal forests and parks. I should like to ask the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, whether the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary represent the whole of the Commission and whether they have absolute power over the gigantic estates of the Crown in succession to the old Crown Commissioners. Are the old Commissioners broken up and have the Minister of Agriculture, as Chief Commissioner, and the Secretary absolute power over the whole estates of the Crown?
LORD BLEDISLOE: They have absolutely the same power as they have possessed for many years past from the
728
time when the noble Marquess himself was a Commissioner. This Bill creates no new power of sale.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I I do not think the noble Lord understood my question. Have they power over all the urban property as well as the agricultural property?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes, they have power over the urban property as well as the agricultural property, but they require the consent of the Treasury for the disposal of certain lands. But the powers of sale and of disposal are exactly the same as previously existed before this Bill was introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Then the Minister of Agriculture and his Secretary at this present moment have the entire management of the whole of the agricultural and urban property in London and everywhere else. That is a most important matter because the Crown estates are something of stupendous value. Yet here we are with this Bill brought in, and the noble Lord cannot answer the simple question whether the Minister of Agriculture and his Secretary have absolute power over these estates.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I really ought to intervene at this point. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well, because he himself used to be a Commissioner of Woods, that the Minister of Agriculture is ex officio a Commissioner of Woods, or rather he used to be in the noble Marquess's time. He is now a Commissioner of Crown Lands and the other Commissioner is also the Secretary of the Commission. To speak of the Minister of Agriculture and his Secretary as able to dispose of Crown lands is not strictly accurate, but the two Commissioners of Crown Lands at the present moment are the Minister of Agriculture and the other Commissioner, the Secretary, who will join with him in the disposal of these lands.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The noble Lord will forgive me. It was during the Campbell-Bannerman Government and at my request that the agricultural land, 70,000 acres, was handed over to the Minister of Agriculture, but there was no question of a Minister of Agriculture interfering in any kind of way with the urban property, with Windsor

729
Castle, or with the Home Farm at Windsor Castle or anything like that. It was only the agricultural part of the Crown lands, amounting to 70,000 acres, which was handed over to the Minister of Agriculture. Now we are told that this Bill hands over the whole of this enormous property to the Minister of Agriculture, who is ex officio Commissioner, and the other Commissioner, who is the Secretary of the Commission. For that proposal to be sprung on the House of Lords at a moment's notice is really rather strong. I do not want in any way to make any difficulties of any sort, but it is a little strong that at ten minutes to eight o'clock this matter should be raised in this House. Look at the benches of the House. It is a little strong to bring a Bill of this sort before the House at this moment. However, we are in the hands of the Government.
There is one thing I would respectfully ask the Minister of Agriculture to take into his consideration. He said quite rightly that in old days the Minister of Agriculture had power, with or without the consent of the Treasury to sell any portion of what are called the Crown lands, but, as the House is aware, they were given over by King William IV 100 years ago to the nation. That, land is nationalised and is now the property of the nation. They are not the Crown lands at all. Crown lands is a misnomer; they ought to be called the nation's lands. It was in 1921 that a Conservative Minister of Agriculture put 7,000 acres of land into the market and amongst that land there was a farm at Egham which was divided up. Lot 9 was the well-known land of Runnymede, where King John and the Barons made their famous agreement. When that was known there was very deep feeling at this historic land being put into the market, more especially as it was put into the market in August, 1921, and failed to fetch the reserve, which was put at a very high price on account of its historical value. In Clause 23 of this Bill there are reservations as regards Royal parks and Royal forests. I suppose St. James's Park and the Long Walk at Windsor would be reasonably safe. They would come within the four corners of the Bill. But there are many historical spots that are amongst the
730
nation's lands at this moment and they are not protected under Clause 23.
I would very respectfully ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would take it into his consideration to protect these historical places. At Runnymede now we have a religious service every year held to celebrate Magna Charta. The Lord Chief Justice of England, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Dean of Windsor and the Recorder of London have all come on successive years, and thousands of people meet on that spot. Under this Bill as it stands, sprung on us at the last moment, that sacred spot is not protected. Could I induce the noble Lord to give us some sort of pledge that that will be looked into and that several of these lands belonging to the nation shall be protected within the four corners of the Bill so that such a terrible act of vandalism shall not occur again?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend the noble Marquess will forgive me if I do not wander back through English history to the dim regions of Magna Charta. I quite sympathise with his historic interest in this subject. I am informed that Runnymede is perfectly safe, that there is no threat to it and that the profane hands or the Ministry of Agriculture will not be allowed under this Bill to touch Runnymede. The noble Marquess may make his mind perfectly easy.
I will say one more word with reference to what he said in a moment, but I want first to address myself to the remarks of the noble Earl about the difficulties in which your Lordships' House is placed by the proceedings on this Bill. As the noble Earl knows, I sympathise very much with him in these matters and I want to make it as easy for him as I possibly can. The Bill has been in your Lordships' House some days, but it has been before the Examiners. It is a difficulty with this kind of Bill that, it has several more stages to pass than has an ordinary Bill. These Bills have to go before the Examiners before they are read a second time, and have to go to the Unopposed Bills Committee after they are read a second time. All these extra stages make it rather difficult to get the Bills through. I am quite willing to try

731
to meet the noble Earl if I possibly can. As soon as this Bill is read a second time it will have to go before the Unopposed Bills Committee and, therefore, I suppose we should not be able to take the Committee stage till Monday if we read it a second time now.
I suggest to the noble Earl that we might be content with the Committee stage on Monday, it being understood that if he and the noble Marquess desire to raise a debate upon the Motion to go into Committee those of us who sit on this side of the House would be content that they should do so, because I think they have been rather badly treated. We should be content that they should raise a debate then. I might assure the noble Marquess that a full answer will be given to all his points upon that stage of the Bill if that would satisfy him. If, however, the noble Earl says: "No, I hold you to your bond: I will not let you have the Second Reading to-night: we must have more time," that would create a very great difficulty for us in getting the Bill through in the course of the next week, owing to the fact that it has to go before this Private Bill Committee. I do not say it is absolutely impossible—I want to be honest with the noble Earl—but it would be very difficult. I want to treat the noble Earl fairly in the matter and I suggest we should take the Second Reading now. In that case, if there is a debate on the Motion that we should go into Committee on Monday, we shall quite understand it will be, as it were, an adjourned Second Reading discussion. If I may put it in that way to the noble Earl, I shall be glad to have his decision.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite realise that the noble Marquess has great difficulties in regard to these Bills and I think he will acknowledge that I always do my best to meet him. I am quite willing on this occasion to agree to the course which he suggests and I think it is likely that meanwhile private communications will make any debate on going into Committee unnecessary. If I had insisted on a Division I do not think the noble Marquess would have got the Second Reading to-night in the absence of thirty Peers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I put myself entirely in the noble Earl's hands.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed for to-morrow.

FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.