Sitting of 16 March 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nar Valley Drainage Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Yeadon Waterworks Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill, Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bury and District Joint Water Board, Chorley, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lancaster, Shrewsbury and West Kent Joint Hospital District," presented by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH PASSPORTS.
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of passports that have been issued to unmarried females between the ages of 16 and 22 for the purpose of visiting France, Germany, or any of the South American States for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether the application for the passport has stated if same was required for holiday, study or work;
  1978
  and, if for the latter purpose are any and, if so, what inquiries made as to the bona fides of the intended employer previous to the passports being granted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The statistics required by the first part of the question would entail the examination of over 200,000 applications. A statement as to the purpose of the journey is required in all applications for passports, and in the case of applications from young women and girls, special precautions are taken and, where necessary, inquiries are made through British Consuls and other sources as to the bona fides of the prospective employer and the conditions of the employment.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many girls receive contracts to go to South America, and when they get there there is no work for them, and they have to go into licensed houses?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not been able to give so much study to the Report submitted to the League on this subject as I might wish. The copy only reached me just on the eve of my departure. I do not think there are many English girls or women who have been trapped.
  Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take precautions, if any girls are offered engagements in South America in future, to find out the bona fides of their employers?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Every precaution is taken that can be taken to see that girls are not trapped in these places.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the practice of the Passport Office, in cases where a British subject has changed his name by deed poll, even if it is only his Christian name, to insist upon the original name appearing upon any passport issued to that person subsequently; and, if so, will he state the reason?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the invariable rule that in eases of change of name a reference to the former name shall appear, but such reference can take

  1979
  the form of a simple statement in the observations column of the passport. A passport, being an official document of identity and nationality, must contain a reference to the name in which the holder acquired his British nationality, i.e., the name in which his birth was registered, or in which he was naturalised.

  CHINA.

    DISTURBANCES, WUHU.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to recent events at Wuhu, when one of His Majesty's ships had to intervene; what is the number of British nationals and other foreigners, respectively, normally resident at Wuhu; how many of these British and other foreigners, respectively, have been evacuated; and whether the position of foreigners at Wuhu is under negotiation with the Cantonese Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Serious rioting and looting broke out at Wuhu at 5.0 p.m. on 8th March. The native Customs and tie Customs Club were looted, and the Maritime Custom House was surrounded and some Europeans locked in by soldiers. The rioting was the work of a mob incited by agitators; the police and troops endeavoured to afford protection, but the latter were tardy in their action. The local authorities subsequently took steps to deal with the looters, and business, Chinese and foreign, was resumed on 10th March.
    The Customs have also resumed normal working, except for the native Customs, whose building is completely wrecked. Most of the foreign men have returned to their residences, though some still sleep on board ship. All British women and children have been evacuated. There were large demonstrations on 9th and 12th March, but these passed off without incident. I have no exact statistics as to the foreign population of Wuhu, but, according to estimates based on available information, there are normally about 140 foreigners residing there, including about 60 British. I have no information regarding the evacuation of non-British foreigners. These disturbances have been brought to Mr. Chen's notice by
    1980
    Mr. Teichman, who has asked him to telegraph instructions for the protection of British life and property and the suppression of anti-British agitation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to the last part of the question, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the position of these foreigners in Wuhu, including our own people, or is the matter still under negotiation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Teichman has asked Mr. Chen to telegraph instructions for the protection of British life and property. It must depend upon the way in which the Chinese authorities discharge their responsibilities.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that these nationals of ours depend really upon the good behaviour of the Chinese authorities at Wuhu and their troops?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government are most loath to interfere, and have dealt with the authorities of Southern China and the Nationalist Government on the basis that they, having assumed responsibility, would discharge their duties. I hope they will.

    TREATY PORTS AND TRADING AREAS.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give a list of treaty ports in China and a list of areas, not treaty ports, conceded by the Chinese Government for trading purposes in China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the list is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:

    Treaty Ports in Chine.

    Aigun.

    Hunchun.

    Amoy.

    Ichang.

    Antung.

    Kiaochao (Tsingtao)

    Canton.

    Kiukiang.

    Changsha.

    Kiungchow (Hoihow)

    Chefoo.

    Kongmoon.

    Chinkiang.

    Kowloon.

    Chungking.

    Lappa.

    Dairen.

    Lungchingtsun.

    Foochow.

    Lungchow.

    Hangchow.

    Lungkow.

    Hankow.

    Manchouli.

    Harbin.

    Mengtze.

    Nanking.

    Tiehling.

    Nanning.

    Tungkiangtze.

    Newchwang.

    Yingkow (port of Newchwang).

    Ningpo.

    Pakhoi.

    Liaoyang.

    Samshui.

    Taonan.

    Sansing.

    Changchun (Kwangchengtze).

    Shanghai.

    Shasi.

    Kirin.

    Soochow.

    Ninguta.

    Suifenho.

    Ohuitzuchien.

    Swatow.

    Toutaokou.

    Szemao.

    Paitsaokou.

    Tatungkow.

    Tsitsihar.

    Tengyueh.

    Hailar.

    Tientsin.

    Kashgar.

    Wenchow.

    Kuldja.

    Wuchow.

    Tarbagatai.

    Wuhu.

    Urumchi.

    Taonan.

    Kiakhta.

    Mukden.

    Urga.

    Fakumen.

    Kiayiikwan.

    Fenghuangcheng.

    Gartok.

    Hsinmintun.

    Gyangtze.

    Ports voluntarily opened by the Chinese Government.

    Chinwangtao.

    Pengpu.

    Santuao.

    Choutsun.

    Yochow.

    Tsinanfu.

    Chihfeng.

    Weihsien.

    Dolonor.

    Woo sung (near Shanghai).

    Kueihuacheng.

    Hulutao.

    Haichow.

    Liaoyiian.

    Wuchang.

    Kalgan.

    Yunanfu.

    SHANGHAI.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply will be returned by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Commissioner for Foreign Affairs at Shanghai who sent a letter to the senior Consul at Shanghai protesting against British troops being stationed outside the boundaries of the international settlement at Shanghai, and asking for their immediate withdrawal; whether a similar protest has been received from the Nationalist Government of China; and what reply will he returned to it?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, on 9th March, and to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, on 10th March.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to whether on the arrival of troops sent from this country to China in January and February, 1927, forces belonging to the Chinese northern armies on duty outside the international settlement at Shanghai at the time of such arrival were released for duty elsewhere?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to know the plans and detailed military dispositions of either the Northern or Southern commanders, but I have no reason to believe that the landing of British troops at Shanghai has had any such consequence as the hon. Member suggests.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America is now taking part with the British, French, Italian and Spanish troops in the defences around the international settlement at Shanghai, or are they still acting independently?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that, American forces have not been landed at Shanghai, but are held in reserve on board ship.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does it mean that they are only there for the purpose of protecting their own nationals, and take no part in the general defence of the settlement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Member wants to know the exact position of the American Government, I really would prefer that he should address his question to them.

    HANKOW (EVACUATION).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the cost of the evacuation of the British community from the British concession in Hankow last January; by whose authority the expenditure was incurred; whether the return of the persons evacuated to Hankow will involve an equal expenditure; and, if not, how much it will cost and whether these expenses will be charged to public funds?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member.

    CHINESE WORKMEN (ASSASSINATIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the numbers of Chinese foremen and workmen in Shanghai who have been killed by extremists; and whether he is taking any steps to protect the lives of these workmen?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My latest information from Shanghai is to the effect that assassinations of loyal foremen and workmen by agitators, in preparation for a renewal of the strike, are increasing. The protection of these men is primarily the responsibility of the municipal authorities through the machinery normally under their control.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is not a Russian form of peaceful picketing?
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Have these incidents taken place in the international settlement or in the native settlement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am dealing with the international settlement, and not with what happens in the Chinese city It is the duty of the municipal authority primarily to deal with these matters, and I think it is very undesirable that British troops who happen to be there for another object should be used for that purpose.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: is it not a fact that the Chinese people, about 800,000 of them, prefer to live in the international settlement in Shanghai, instead of in the Chinese portion?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. There is a very large Chinese population in this and other international or national settlements.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further papers with regard to labour conditions in China will be published; and, if so, when?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The question is under consideration. I will give my hon. Friend definite information as soon as possible.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: When this report is being prepared, can we have a clear distinction shown of the labour conditions prevailing in the British-owned factories and the Japanese and Chines factories? It would be very useful to know the facts?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The whole question is now under consideration.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE (SUPPLIES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War why supplies of potatoes, onions and other vegetables for the British Defence Force at Shanghai and Hongkong are being bought from Chinese in British Columbia and not from Canadian and British settlers, many of whom are ex-service men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): Shipments of potatoes and onions have been arranged by the Canadian Government, at the request of the War Office. I have no information as to the source from which these vegetables were obtained, this having been left to the discretion of the Canadian Government.
    Mr. HURD: Seeing that the money is ours arid the responsibility is ours, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that in regard to future contracts, care will be taken to ensure that adequate means of tendering are given to British and Canadian settlers?
    Captain KING: I think when we ask the Canadian Government to act as our agents, we must allow that discretion to them.
    Mr. HURD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to the Canadian Government his desire that British and Canadian settlers should have first chance?
    Captain KING: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my answer.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BULGARIA (POLITICAL PRISONERS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken any objection in the League Council to the proposal of M. Vandervelde that it would be desirable for the Bulgarian Government to amnesty

    1985
    its political prisoners; and whether he has instructed His Majesty's Minister at Sofia at any time during the last two years to secure just treatment for these political prisoners?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I expressed no opinion for or against a, further amnesty of prisoners by the Bulgarian Government. But in the interests of the League, and from respect for the sovereign rights of its member States, I took exception to any discussion of the purely domestic affairs of a State at the Council table. As regard the second part of the question, His Majesty's Minister at Sofia, under instructions from me, did from time to time offer to the previous Bulgarian Government such advice regarding their political prisoners and opponents as was compatible with respect for the sovereign rights of Bulgaria, and I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the present Bulgarian Government, on assuming office in December, 1925, passed a wide amnesty measure whereby no fewer than 7,000 persons benefited.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that there are over one thousand political prisoners still in prison in Bulgaria or in internment camps, could the right hon. Gentleman not have avoided putting Great Britain in the uncomfortable position of being the Power to object on this occasion?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I could easily have shirked my duty by leaving it to someone else. As a matter of fact, had I been silent, one or other of several members of the Council would have spoken. It is really vital to the success of the League and to its authority that it should not interfere in the internal affairs of different member countries.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment Great Britain is always being charged with backing up these terrorist Governments?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg that I may be allowed, at least, to protest against the right hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that the Bulgarian Government is a terrorist Government. He forgets what has passed in Bulgaria,
    1986
    and overlooks the immense measure of amnesty which the present Government has granted.
    Mr. BECKETT—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must not discuss other Governments. We have enough to do with our own.

    SAAR VALLEY (INTERNATIONAL POLICE).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform this House of the precise nature of the agreement reached by the Council of the League of Nations with regard to the international railway police force for the Saar?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will repeat this question in a few days time, as I find that I did not bring back with me a copy of the text of the Council's resolution.

    HOURS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he will circulate the information compiled by the International Labour Office upon the question of hours, and which was considered by the conference held at Geneva in January, 1927?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): I am not sure how far this document ought to be treated as confidential, and I will communicate with the. International Labour Office on this point. I may add that I understand that the International Labour Office is revising and supplementing the information contained in the Report, and it may be better to wait until the fuller information is available.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate it if he find it possible, to do so?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes. I will do so.

    NICARAGUA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of His Majesty's ships of war are now in Nicaraguan waters; how many British subjects have taken refuge in His Majesty's ship or ships or have been assisted or defended in other

    1987
    ways; and how long it is intended to maintain His Majesty's ship or ships in those waters?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Only His Majesty's Ship "Colombo" was despatched to Nicaraguan waters. She left them on 5th March, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, having reported her presence no longer necessary, since sufficient American forces had been landed for the protection of foreign life and property. No British subject took refuge on His Majesty's ship. As to the number of British subjects in Nicaragua, I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on 2nd March. It is not anticipated that, in the present circumstances, it will be necessary again to despatch one of His Majesty's ships to Nicaraguan waters.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not asked how many British subjects there are in Nicaragua?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No, but you have been told.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DOVER HARBOUR (BLOCK SHIP "GANTRY" ).
    Colonel DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to ships entering and leaving Dover Harbour on account of the block ship "Gantry"; and what action has been taken with a view to the removal of this danger to navigation?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statements made in answer to questions on this subject OH 21st April last (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1194–5). Parliament has now given the Dover Harbour Board the powers they asked for, and I understand they are about to exercise them.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this work will be commenced?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; it is a matter for the Dover Harbour Board.

    SHORT WAVE WIRELESS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the short-
    1988
    wave wireless used by the Admiralty for long-distance communications is of such a nature that the messages cannot be intercepted by private individuals or operators in the service of other nations?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no secrecy in the methods of short-wave wireless telegraphy communication used by the Admiralty, except in so far as codes and cyphers are used. Messages as coded, or those in plain language, can be intercepted by anyone.

    ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what Vote payments made to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service appear in the Navy Estimates; and Where the terms of engagement and duties of this service are laid down?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The payments referred to mainly appear under Vote 8, Section II, K, of the Navy Estimates. Certain other payments are provided for under Vote 8, Section I, and Vote 3. The terms of engagement and duties of this service are those ordinarily prevailing in the Mercantile Marine.

    PENSIONABLE DOOYARDSMEN.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has now decided or will decide that any pensionable dockyardsman who chooses to retire may do so and take his accrued pension to date and, similarly, allow dockyardsmen to take their gratuities to date if they retire of their own volition?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The matter is under consideration, as I informed the hon. Member during the course of the Debate on Navy Estimates (OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, cols. 1771–2.)

    INVALIDITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men were invalided from the service in 1926; how many of these were denied pensions on the ground of non-attributability; how many appealed to the Admiralty against the original decision; and in how many cases the decision was modified?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would refer the bon, Member to the reply given on the 7th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Buteshire and North Ayrshire—(OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 864)—as to the numbers of men invalided and granted pensions. Particulars as to the number who appeal are not recorded.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    VACANCIES NOTIFIED.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of vacancies notified to the Employment Exchanges by employers and the number of persons placed in employment through the Employment Exchanges in England and Wales for the years 1924, 1925 and 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    NUMBER OF VACANCIES Notified to and Pilled by Employment Exchanges in England and Wales.

    1924.

    1925.

    1926.

    Vacancies notified.

    1,222,052

    1,352,403

    1,165,373

    Vacancies filled

    1,036,112

    1,162,868

    1,010,512

    APPLICATIONS TOR EXTENDED BENEFIT CONSIDERED BY LOCAL COMMITTEES.

    13th January, 1925, to 11th January, 1920.

    12th January, 1926, to 10th January, 1927.

    Area.

    Applications considered

    Applications recommended for

    Applications considered.

    Applications recommended for

    Allowance.

    Dis-allowance.

    Allowance

    Dis-allowance.

    Stourbridge

    …

    …

    7,651

    7,189

    462

    6,047

    5,162

    885

    Cradley Heath

    …

    …

    14,156

    12,854

    1,302

    13,948

    11,909

    2,039

    Oldbury

    …

    …

    4,415

    3,713

    702

    4,704

    4,035

    669

    Great Britain

    …

    …

    3.449,067

    2,975,545

    473,522

    3,830,995

    3,239,383

    591,612

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct managers of Employment Exchanges and rota
    These figures include Post Office Christmas workers. For the years 1924 and 1925 casual workers such as dock labourers and coal porters are excluded but for 1926 they are included and separate figures cannot be given. Statistics of the number of individuals placed in employment are not available.

    EXTENDED BENEFIT.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are at present receiving extended unemployment benefit; how many of these are ex-service men; and how many, if any, are persons who have had no employment since the War?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics are not available giving the information desired.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Labour if he can give information as to the number of applications for extended benefit that were received, and the number rejected, during 1925 and 1926, at the Stourbridge, Cradley Heath and Oldbury Exchanges, respectively; and how these figures compare with those for the country as a whole?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    committees not to take into account lump-sum settlements made under the Workmen's Compensation Acts when considering applications for unemployment benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These lump-sum settlements are, generally speaking, only material in cases where the family income is a factor. I think that in such cases usually it is only right to have regard to these lump-sum payments, but I shall be happy to consider any individual case of hardship if the hon. Member will give me particulars.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position having regard to the principle underlying the answer he has now given?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. It has been considered quite carefully, and I think it is fair.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases employers refuse to reinstate their injured workmen unless they accept a lump sum settlement, and in that case is it not merely a question of taking from a man, or refusing to give to a man, that portion which he would have been given if he had continued to take his weekly compensation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put any additional cases before me I will consider them, but I cannot give an answer on the spur of the moment to a rather complicated question like that.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that this is not income, as such, but is the result of payment for an accident?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: And will the right hon. Gentleman take note of this fact: that a man's wages in the future are permanently reduced as a result of his accident?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If hon. Members will put these points to me, I will undertake to give them careful consideration.

    FARM WORKERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Labour how many schemes are now in operation for the training of farm workers; and whether the establishment of further schemes has been decided upon?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Two centres have been established by the
    1992
    Ministry of Labour where men are given training in farm work, with a view to employment overseas. The Army Vocational Centre at Catterick includes a similar course for serving soldiers, and there are one or two training centres conducted by voluntary organisations. I cannot say whether it will be possible to increase the Government training facilities.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are there any consultations going on between the Ministry of Labour and the Army?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think they are in touch generally with one another.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been trained under his farm-training schemes; how many are now under instruction; and how many have been placed on the land in this country or in the Dominions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The scheme of training in farm work is conducted with a view to fitting men for employment on the land in an oversea Dominion. 346 men have completed a course of training in farm work; of this number 335 have been placed on farms overseas, five are awaiting embarkation, and six failed to embark after completing training. 255 men are now in training; of this number 114 are due to sail for Canada on 18th March.
    Mr. SKELTON: Are we to understand that men intended for settlement on the land in this country have no opportunity under these schemes of receiving training?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are primarily intended for land settlement in the Dominions.
    Mr. SKELTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman keep in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, so that men intended for land settlement in this country may have preliminary training?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is another question.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering an extension of this very successful system?
    Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: That is a question of finance—what it will cost.
    Captain GUNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress of these schemes?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes; I think they have justified themselves completely.

    INSURANCE BILL.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Labour when the Unemployment Insurance Bill will be introduced?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope that it may be possible to introduce this Bill before Easter, but I cannot yet give the precise date.

    MINERS (TRANSFER).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to secure the transfer of unemployed miners from one district to another, and for giving such miners the first chance of obtaining colliery employment either in their own district or elsewhere in preference to the recruiting of outside labour?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer by Noble Friend to the reply given on Monday last to a, similar question by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman is going to place these proposals on the Table of the House; as he promised to do in the recent Debate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am expecting to have these proposals within a very few days—either at the end of this week or the beginning of next.
    Mr. JONES: Will these proposals cover the point raised in the question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the larger collieries are refusing to employ their own miners since the stoppage and are victimising them?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The proposals I have to make are those which I intimated to the House. I hope to lay and probably confer with the miners' organisations with regard to them. That is the procedure I propose to carry out. I have no doubt that those who are com-
    1994
    petent to represent the different parties will bring before me any considerations which they may have to urge.

    LLANHILLETH (G. T. CRISP).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that G. T. Crisp, of 16, Hyde Place, Llanhilleth, Monmouthshire, was allowed unemployment benefit, dated 16th August, 1926, by the Court of Referees; that the decision was appealed against by the local insurance officer and referred to the umpire, who disallowed benefit; that Crisp was never notified to attend before the umpire, and the case was heard and decided in his absence; and will he have the case re-opened so that Crisp can defend the claim to benefit as awarded to him by the Court of Referees?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I told the hon. Member a fortnight ago, the umpire has power to reconsider his decision on receipt of new facts. He has considered the correspondence which the hon. Member was good enough to forward to me, and has decided that he would not be justified in re-opening the case.

    ALIENS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the numbers of foreigners who are employed in this country and the numbers who are on the unemployment register?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that there are no statistics available giving the information desired.

    BRICKLAYERS AND BRICKS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of bricklayers employed in 1913; the number employed at the present time; the output of bricks in this country in 1913; and the rate of annual output at the present time?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is estimated that in 1913 there were in Great Britain 69,000 bricklayers in the building industry within the scheme of unemployment insurance, of whom 5,760 were recorded as unemployed at 21st February, 1913; as compared with 71,090

    1995
    insured at July, 1926, of whom 3,145 were recorded as unemployed at 21st February, 1927. It is estimated that the output of bricks in Great Britain during the last 12 months was about 6,000 millions as compared with something in the neighbourhood of 3,500 millions in 1913.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of the bricklayers are now engaged on new construction and what proportion on repairs, and give the comparable figures?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Why is it that with this huge production of bricks, the price has not gone down?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot say that, any more than can I say why with the increased production of houses prices have not gone down.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not because of the big demand that the price has not gone down?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Every Member is a good enough economist to put his own construction on the figures.
    Mr. THORNE: The law of supply and demand, always.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (UNIFORM CLOTHS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air what, action has been taken by his Department following the Report of the Select Committee of this House on Estimates relative to the testing of uniform cloths?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR. (Sir Samuel Hoare): The recommendations contained in the Select Commitee's Report are still under consideration.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these recommendations will be acted upon, as the matter is very important?
    Sir S. HOARE: There has been a correspondence between the various Departments concerned, since the Report of the Estimates Committee, and I understand that the Estimates Committee itself wishes to go into the matter further.

    SCHNEIDER CUP (BRITISH ENTRIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is ensuring the entry of a British machine or machines for the next race for the Schneider Cup?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am informed by the Royal Aero Club that the full number of British entries, namely, three, have been made for the next Schneider Cup race.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these machines will actually take part in the race?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have every hope that they will take part in the race, and I have every hope that one of them will win the race.

    CIVIL AVIAT [ON (LIGHT AEROPLANES).
    Mr. G. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the civil aviation authorities have tested any other type of light aeroplane than the de Havi-land Moth; and, if so, with what result?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; 20 other types of light aeroplanes have been tested at various times and have received certificates of airworthiness.
    Mr. HARVEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the other makers consider that they are not getting a fair chance?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot imagine what is the reason for that, if they think so. If my hon. Friend will draw my attention to any specific case, I will certainly look into it.

    ROYAL PARKS (DUTCH BULBS).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, following his announcement of the gift of 56,000 Dutch tulip bulbs for Hyde Park, his attention has been called to the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction among British horticulturists at the acceptance of the gift; and whether he has received

    1997
    any offers from British bulb growers to make a showing of the home-grown article in the royal parks?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS): The First Commissioner is aware that some criticism has been made of the acceptance of the gift, but, as the effect of such displays in the royal parks is to increase the interest in horticulture generally, he believes that British horticulturists also benefit. There have been occasions in the last few years when similar gifts of home-grown bulbs have been accepted, and the First Commissioner would always welcome any such offers. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that no funds were available for the purchase of such a quantity of bulbs, and the refusal of this gift would have deprived the public of the enjoyment of a splendid display of tulips in Hyde Park and St. James's Park.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend do what he can to persuade the Dutch to reciprocate, and have a showing of British bulbs in the parks of Amsterdam?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not be possible to arrange for foreign motor companies to put up advertisements in Hyde Park?
    Captain HACKING: There were estimates for motor cars for the various Government Departments in the last Estimates, hilt not for bulbs.
    Major OWEN: Would it not have been possible for the First Commissioner, first of all, to have consulted with the British growers before accepting this gift, and to have given them an opportunity, not only of making a display but of encouraging the industry in this country, and giving employment to working men?
    Captain HACKING: There is plenty of room in St. James's Park and Hyde Park for other gifts.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Has this gift in Hyde Park anything to do with the "Hands off Britain" propaganda?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will any money payments be made for this wonderful advertisement?
    Captain HACKING: No money payments whatever, and no conditions are laid down.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES (HEATING).
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has had complaints of the inadequacy of the heating arrangements in the Government buildings at Acton and at the Savings Bank Department at West Kensington; whether he will consider the desirability of having thermometers fixed in all the north rooms in both these buildings, so that a reasonable temperature can be maintained and any necessary steps taken to ensure that it is not allowed in any room to fall below 55 degrees at any time while the staff is actually working?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): The heating arrangements at the Savings Bank Department at West Kensington are under the control of the Postmaster-General, to whom any question on the subject should be addressed. As regards the Government building at Acton, the First Commissioner is advised that the heating installation is satisfactory and capable of maintaining a temperature of 60 degrees on the coldest days; temperature readings are recorded in certain of the coldest rooms, and it is not considered necessary to supply additional thermometers; excessive ventilation is, no doubt, responsible in most cases for temperatures lower than 55 degrees, but complaints are invariably investigated and additional radiators supplied when found to be necessary.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that, if a private firm carried on work with their rooms in exactly the same condition as this, they would be prosecuted?
    Captain HACKING: If a private firm opened its windows because of a desire for ventilation it would let in the cold air. That is exactly what happened in this case. They can get the higher temperature up if they close the windows.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that repeated complaints have been made about this,

    1999
    and that these girls have not been treated as the Government compel private employers to treat theirs?
    Captain HACKING: I am not aware that repeated complaints have been made, but I am having the matter further investigated, and if there be any justification for the complaints in this case, they will be attended to.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact, that complaints are practically unknown in Acton?
    Mr. MACKINDER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman have some responsible person to go with him to see that these complaints are thoroughly aired?
    Captain HACKING: All inspectors of the Office of Works are competent.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ENLISTMENTS (BOYS UNDER 18).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War the number of boys who were irregularly enlisted under the age of 18 years during the last three years for which figures are available; and whether he will take energetic measures to minimise their recruiting?
    Captain KING: I presume that the hon. Member refers to recruits under 18 years of age who enlisted as men by mis-stating their age. I have no information as to the total numbers who so enlisted, but the number who did so, and were subsequently discharged during the last three recruiting years were as follow:

    1923/24

    793

    1924/25

    560

    1925/26

    527

    As regards the last part of the question, there is a standing instruction that where there is the slightest suspicion that the recruit is under the age of 18, full inquiries are to be made before his enlistment is finally approved. I do not consider that it is practicable to go further.
    Mr. BAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it is the duty of the War Office to keep a complete return of all such irregular enlistments?
    Captain KING: Unless they are brought to light, we cannot make a list of them. I have given the hon. Member the number of cases which have come to light and have been discharged.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is there any difficulty in the way of the War Office acquainting the parents of individuals, so as to ensure that the parent's consent, in the case of a boy under 18, has been obtained?
    Captain KING: These are not cases of the enlistment of boys. We are not knowingly taking these boys under 18. These are eases, as I have already said, of boys who over-state their age in order to get enlistment as men.
    Mr. THOMAS: There are cases to which I myself have drawn the attention of the War Office, where a boy has given a false age, and the parents have known nothing about it, and where the parents desired the boy to come out of the Army. Is there any difficulty in the way of the War Office acquainting parents in these doubtful cases?
    Captain KING: In any doubtful case, as I have just stated, we make very strict inquiries.
    Mr. BAKER: Is it not the fact that every case which comes to light is dealt with by the release of the boy in question; and if not, is it not possible to give more complete figures than have been given?
    Captain KING: I am not in a position to give more complete figures than I have given.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Could not all this trouble be avoided if instructions were given to the recruiting authorities to insist upon seeing the birth certificates in these cases?
    Captain KING: That has been considered, but it is not thought to be a practical suggestion.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

    HEADQUARTERS STAFF, WAR OFFICE.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the headquarters staff at the War Office is 2,451 for the administration of a total of 463,636 troops, while the respective figures in 1913 were 1,878 personnel at the

    2001
    War Office and 713,236 troops, he will say what are the reasons for the increased personnel at the War Office?
    Captain KING: As I explained in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock) on 2nd March, the principal causes of the permanent increases of the work at the War Office are fully set out in Appendix 32 of the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1926.

    MALTA (GARRISON).
    Brigadier-General CHARTERISasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the relatively small military garrison at Malta and the need for economy, he is prepared to consider the reduction, either in grade or in numbers, of the military administrative and departmental staffs, which according to the Army List includes seven full colonels for a garrison of only one battalion of infantry, one company of Royal Army Service Corps, one company of Royal Engineers, one signal section, and seven batteries of artillery?
    Captain KING: Although only one infantry battalion is stationed in Malta at the moment, the normal infantry garrison is at least three battalions, and having regard to this fact and to the importance of the station, it is not considered that any general alteration in the number or grading of the administrative and departmental staff is justified.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers that, even with a garrison of three battalions, it is right that there should be a paymaster of the same rank as the paymaster at Aldershot?
    Captain KING: That is what is inferred in the answer which I have just given.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER RATES.
    Mr. OAKLEYasked the Minister of Transport if the Railway Rates Tribunal have fixed the scale of charges under the Railway Act, 1921; if so, what are the mileage rates for ordinary passengers; the rates for season ticket
    2002
    holders; the rates for traders' season tickets; and the scale of charges for workmen's tickets?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Railway Rates Tribunal have provisionally approved scales of charges for ordinary passengers, for workmen's tickets, and for ordinary and traders' season tickets. It is not possible within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to give details of the charges so approved, but they will be found in the schedules deposited by the railway companies with the Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 30th December, 1926.
    Mr. RHYS: Can representations be made on the question of workmen's fares?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think the decision has been arrived at.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' VEHICLES (TAXATION).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, subsequent to the passage of the Finance Act, 1926, special instructions were sent to motor taxation authorities to rate mechanically-and electrically-propelled vehicles owned by local authorities and used in non-trading services at the commercial rate; and will he state his reasons for such a change in policy?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The change in classification referred to in the question was effected by the Finance Act, 1926, arid the reasons for it were fully explained by me in the House on 21st June last, in dealing with an Amendment put down in Committee on the Finance Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Wornersley).
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why there should be this change in classification of vehicles owned by local authorities, if those vehicles seldom or never go beyond the bounds of the local authority in question?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot go over the whole Debate which took place on this subject in connection with the Budget last year.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, previously to the last Finance Act, a special classification was provided for vehicles owned by local authorities working inside their own areas; and will he consider a re-arrangement of this taxation?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; this decision was arrived at by the wisdom of Parliament which discussed the matter only last year.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (CANADA).
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General why there is no telephone service between this country and Pacific centres within the Empire, like Vancouver, seeing that a service with San Francisco is in operation?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there is no high power station in Canada capable of conducting a direct telephone service with this country. The use of the beam system for telephonic transmission is still in the experimental stage. The possibility of an extension of the existing trans-Atlantic service via New York to Canada is under consideration.

    LETTER DELIVERIES, ORKNEY.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Postmaster-General if he can give a General estimate of the increased cost that would be entailed by a restoration of the daily delivery of letters in the County of Orkney?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSO'N: The latest estimate was about £2,000 a year.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Has any county in England only a delivery every other day?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman must give me notice of that question.

    BEAM WIRELESS STATIONS (AUSTRALIA).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the House any information with regard to the tests of the Australian beam station, and any approximate date as to when it will be available for public service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Beam wireless stations which have been erected at Grimsby and Skegness for the Australian service have passed the seven-day test required by the contract, and will be taken over by the Post Office at an early date. Many detailed arrangements have to be made before the beam service with Australia is opened to the public, and I cannot yet give an approximate date of opening.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will these successful results be followed up by tests in regard to South Africa as soon as possible?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes; I understand it is the intention of the Marconi Company to proceed with further developments as soon as possible.

    BROADCAST TALK (SIR ARTHUR LAWLEY).
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Postmaster-General if it was by his permission that the broadcast talk by Sir Arthur Lawley on Empire trade was given on the 11th instant; whether the manuscript of the talk was passed by him; whether he is aware that the talk advocated a policy about which there are acute differences of opinion among political parties, traders, farmers and economists, and that it was controversial and partisan; why, in view of the ban laid upon the Broadcasting Corporation not to broadcast political, economic and religious topics, this talk was permitted; and will he permit some responsible organisation to broadcast the other side of the question of overseas trade?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation did not consult me about this talk; and it is my desire to interfere as little as possible with the Corporation's responsibility in deciding whether a talk should or should not be excluded on the ground that it is of a political or controversial character. I have, however, now read a copy of the talk in question, which dealt with certain aspects of Empire settlement and Empire marketing, and I see no ground for objecting to it. The question whether a further talk should be given on other aspects of the subject is a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. HUDSON: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has read the manuscript of the talk, would be prepared to recommend to the British Broadcasting Corporation that they ought to consider a talk from the other point of view?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not desire to put myself in the position of making recommendations to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The responsibility is theirs.

    WEST HAM GUARDIANS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether the accounts of the West Ham Poor Law Union Commissioners have been duly audited; and whether the auditor's Report has been circulated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The appointed Guardians did not come into office until the 19th July last. The first audit of their accounts will be for the period from that date to the 31st instant, and has, therefore, not yet been held.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: If the appointed guardians are supposed to be an improvement on the old guardians, why cannot they give a report?
    Sir K. WOOD: The appointed guardians have to obey the law, just the same as the others ought to have done.
    Mr. JONES: The appointed guardians are supposed to save expenditure and surely if the ratepayers of that area ask for special information they are entitled to it.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he has received a statement from the West Ham Poor Law Union Commissioners showing the income and expenditure for the half-year ending September, 1927; and, if so, whether it is ready for circulation?
    Sir K. WOOD: A copy of the guardians' budget statement for the half-year ending September, 1927, to which the hon. Member refers, will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement promised:

    WEST HAM UNION.

    Estimated Common Charges for Half-Year ending 30th September, 1927.

    £

    In-maintenance

    56,000

    Out relief

    312,000

    Salaries of temporary staff

    14,000

    Loans—(Ministry of Health)—(Principal and interest)

    138,000

    Lunatics

    76,000

    Non-resident relief

    6,000

    Vaccination fees

    1,000

    Registration fees

    1,000

    Legal expenses and Court fees

    500

    Salaries and wages

    80,000

    Superannuation

    4,000

    Rations

    12,500

    Building and repairs

    8,000

    Furniture and property

    5,000

    Maintenance in hospitals, etc.

    7,000

    Printing, postage and stationery

    2,000

    Rents, rates, taxes and insurance

    11,000

    Loans—principal and interest

    10,172

    Emigration

    250

    Drugs and medical appliances

    6,000

    Boarding out

    1,350

    Audit stamp

    550

    Subscriptions to hospitals

    370

    National Insurance stamps

    3,000

    Other accounts not mentioned above

    2,500

    Administrative charges

    1,700

    Total common charges

    759,892

    Income.

    £

    Precepts

    709,078

    Moiety of grants to be received from County Councils of West Ham, East Ham, and Essex, under Local Government Act, 1988, and other receipts

    50,000

    759,078

    RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Devon County Valuation Committee estimates that its expenditure under the Rating and Valuation Act for the coming year will he £2,500; whether any part of this sum will be met by Exchequer grants; and in what way

    2007
    the Rating and Valuation Act will effect economies to counterbalance this expenditure?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given to him on the 10th February.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman make any suggestion of any way in which this is a form of economy, or are we merely going to add expenses on to the rates?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I am unable to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. He will see in the reply which was given to him a few days ago that in the judgment of my right hon. Friend, given a little time, the result of this Act will be to show substantial economies.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any ways in which it will show economies?
    Sir K. WOOD: I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait a few months, and see the results.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether £2,500 is about the average charge to come on to a county?
    Sir K. WOOD: I mast not be taken as assenting to these figures at all.
    Mr. RYE: If it is clear that there are no economies, will the Minister and the hon. Gentleman see their way to repeal this Act?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not accept the major premises of my hon. Friend.

    CHESTER-LE-STREET GUARDIANS (REPORT).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Health what question has been submitted to the Public Prosecutor in connection with the Chester-le-Street Report; whether all the charges will be brought under review; and, if not, will he cause a public inquiry to be made into the whole of the Report of the appointed guardians?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend proposes to submit the Report of the guardians as a whole to the Public Prosecutor, whose consideration will be directed to the criminal aspect of the matter.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, that the ex-guardians will welcome any opportunity of giving evidence in respect of these charges, and that such opportunity was never given by the three appointed guardians who wrote this Report and made the charges; and, if the Public Prosecutor fails to take steps, will the hon. Gentleman agree to hold a public inquiry?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think we had better await the decision of the Public Prosecutor on this matter.

    COAL PRICES, LONDON.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary for Mines if he can state any reasons why the selling price of coal in London is, approximately, 1s. 6d. per ton more than it was for the corresponding month last year; whether he is prepared to call a conference of the large London coal importers with a view of trying to ascertain who is responsible for the high prices of selling coal and who is responsible for the thousands of trucks of coal being delayed on the railways between the collieries and London?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The stocking of coal, both by merchant and householder, that ordinarily takes place before the winter sets in but was impossible last year, is vital to the normal course of the winter trade in household coal in London; failing that, normal conditions cannot be restored until the cold weather is over. But I am glad to note that prices seem to be steadily falling. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already held such a conference as the hon. Member suggests, and arrangements were made for co-operation between the railways and the merchants in such a way as to get rid of traffic delays as far as possible.
    Mr. PALING: With regard to the latter part of the question and the tremendous number of complaints about the

    2009
    delay on the railways, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put into operation the recommendations of the Coal Commission about the pooling of wagons?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think we had better wait and see what the arrangements that have been made bring forth.
    Mr. PALING: May I ask when we are likely to come to an end of the period of "Wait and see" with regard to this matter?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I hope when we get to a normal period following the stoppage.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when that will be?

  AGRICULTURE.

    TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give figures showing the general percentage of cattle in Great Britain estimated to be affected with tuberculosis; and if he can state whether there is a material variation shown in different parts of the country?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): No reliable figures exist on which even a rough estimate could be based, either as to the total number of cattle affected with tuberculosis, or their distribution in the country.

    PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the loss to the taxpayer over the Patrington settlement?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the accounts of this settlement are for the year ending on the 31st March, I regret that. I have no later figures than those contained in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 17th November last. The accounts for the current financial year, when completed, will include the results of the realisation of the farm and estate assets, but I am afraid that it will be impossible to complete these accounts for several months.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in submitting a balance-sheet, place on it the saving in unemployment
    2010
    pay due to the increased number of men who were working on the Patrington Scheme under the Government, as compared with those who were working previously?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As they would be agricultural workers, I think they would not have been in receipt of unemployment relief.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give, in the final return, a list of the number of men who have been trained to agriculture in the colony?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It was not an organisation for training, but an estate which was started on a profit-sharing basis.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If agricultural labourers would not have been in receipt of unemployment pay, would they not have had to resort to Poor Law relief?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

    COMPANY LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade when lie proposes to introduce the Company Law (Amendment) Bill?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to introduce the Company Law (Amendment) Bill?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I hope the Bill will be introduced in another place at an early date.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of making provision in Parts I and II of the Cinematograph Films Bill as to the prosecuting authority, in view of the danger of the inability to enforce enactments through lack of specification in this direction?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I would ask my Noble Friend to await the Debate on the Bill.

    LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, for each of the years 1913–14 and 1925–26, what was the total amount of revenue raised by local authorities in Scotland and what was the total amount paid in grants-in-aid by the Treasury in relief of local taxation; and, if the sum is to be treated as distinct from grants-in-aid, what amount was spent upon highways from the proceeds of motor taxation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The amounts raised by local authorities in Scotland by assessment (excluding water assessment) were in 1913–14, £7,709,000 and in 1924–25, £18,070,000. The Government grants including roads grant for the same years were £3,014,000 and £11,336,000, respectively. The figures for 1925–26 are not available.

    REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA.
    The Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people convicted of spreading revolutionary propaganda have been deported since the end of the coal dispute; and how much financial support for their propaganda has been sent to this country during the same period?
    Captain HACKING: Since the 19th December last, i.e., the date of the withdrawal of the Emergency Regulations which were rendered necessary by the coal stoppage, no alien has been reported to my right hon. Friend as having been convicted of spreading revolutionary propaganda. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Have no aliens been deported during that period?
    Captain HACKING: Yes. During the last 12 weeks no fewer than 40 undesirable aliens have been deported from this country, but they did not come under this particular category of people who have been convicted of spreading revolutionary propaganda.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many more ought to have been deported?

    OMNIBUS AND TRAM TICKETS.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Home Secretary whether he can issue an order requiring receptacles for used tickets to be placed in omnibuses and tramcars in London, so as to prevent the present littering of the streets?
    Captain HACKING: As experience has shown that the public make very little use of such receptacles, my right hon. Friend does not consider that he would be justified in requiring omnibus and tramcar undertakings to incur the expense of providing them.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this method is carried out in other, more go-ahead municipalities, and, if so, why cannot it be done in London?
    Captain HACKING: Yes, I am aware of that fact, but this was tried in London during the War, when there was a request made that people should put their tickets in receptacles in order to save paper, and as a result those receptacles were filled with all sorts of rubbish, but very few tickets were put in.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the City of Glasgow have adopted this system on their cars and that they make a good deal of money in the year through it? Why cannot London do it in the same way? Is there more intelligence about the travelling public in Glasgow than in London?
    Captain HACKING: This has been tried as an experiment, and it has failed, and my right hon. Friend does not think he is justified in renewing the experiment.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether these receptacles are provided in the capital city of Orkney?

    POLICE CONSTABLES (CONVICTION).
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sentence passed at the Sussex Assizes upon two police constables of the A division on the 12th instant for thoughtlessly accepting one or two trivial, gratuities at the last Goodwood race

    2013
    meeting; and if he intends to give this sentence his consideration with a view to remission?
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the probability of an appeal in this case, ought this question to be asked?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It does not appear to be a matter for me to deal with, but no doubt the Minister will have had the point in mind.
    Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir. I have seen reports of the trial, but there is nothing before my right hon. Friend that renders it necessary for him to consider the question of advising the exercise of the Prerogative. The prisoners are entitled to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against their sentences, if they think fit to do so.

    SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that charitable institutions are in danger of losing a large proportion of their revenue unless the Sunday Observance Act is either repealed or suitably amended in accordance with present-day needs and practices; and will he consider such amendment and relieve owners or lessees of theatres, cinemas, and halls from their present anxiety, seeing that such places are usually lent free of charge for charitable purposes?
    Captain HACKING: I have no such information, nor do I know to what particular difficulties the hon. Member refers in the first part of his question. If he cares to send me any information that he has, I will consider it, but my right hon. Friend cannot hold out any prospect of legislation on this very controversial question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that under the terms of the Sunday Observance Act, any proprietor of a cinema, theatre, or hall who grants the free use of his hall for charitable purposes and then allows a charge to be made for admission is liable, if one single person should object to that payment, to a fine of £200, and for that reason will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the matter further and amend or repeal the Statute?
    Captain HACKING: I am aware of some of the contents of the Act in question, but do not know of any particular difficulties that have arisen, and if the hon. Member will send me details of any, I will have them investigated.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the duty paid on first-class railway passenger fares, what was the amount of tax received for 1925 and the estimated amount for 1926?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The receipts in respect of railway passenger duty for the financial year 1925–26 amounted to £414,424, and it is estimated that the receipts for the financial year 1926–27 will amount to £380,000. While the greater part of the receipts is in respect of the duty paid on first-class passenger fares, the information available is insufficient to determine the exact amount.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILM DUTY.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a drawback is paid in respect of a re-exported cinematograph negative film in those cases where positives have been printed from the negative while it was in this country?
    Mr. McNEILL: Drawback would not be allowed on the re-exportation as merchandise of an imported negative cinematograph film from which positives have been printed in this country, unless the whole of the prints made from the negative were destroyed without having been used or reproduced in this country.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the law is enforced in this respect, and what steps are taken to verify the fact that no positives have been printed?
    Mr. McNEILL: As far as my recollection goes, there have been very few cases, and I do not think I can tell the exact proceeding which is adopted for following the history of these films.

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amounts spent on the defence of this country from April, 1920, to date?

    DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

    Year.

    Effective.

    Middle East.

    Annual Charges for the Service of previous Naval and Military Works Loans.

    Non effective.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1920–21

    …

    259,656,000

    —

    2,238,000

    15,988,000

    277,882,000

    1921–22

    …

    159,342,000

    23,246,000

    2,238,000

    14,066,000

    198,892,000

    1922–23

    …

    95,552,000

    8,190,000

    2,194,000

    18,935,000

    124,871,000

    1923–24

    …

    93,352,000

    5,944,000

    2,068,000

    15.793,000

    117,157,000

    1924–25

    …

    97,404,000

    4,485,000

    2,068,000

    16,092,000

    120,049,000

    1925–26

    …

    102,457,000

    3,737,000

    1,488,000

    16,383,000

    124,065,000

    1926 (estimated)

    …

    98,684,000

    3,455,000

    1,488,000

    16,388,000

    120,015,000

  BERMUDA.

    MOTOR CAR PROHIBITION.
    Sir WILFRID SUDDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that under a law, dated 1908, passed by the Bermuda. Legislature, all motor cars are prohibited in that country; and will he take steps to secure the repeal of this prohibitory law?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am aware of this law, but the question of its repeal is entirely a matter for the local Legislature.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could the hon. Gentleman be given a joy trip to Bermuda in order that he may experience the great benefits arising from that prohibition?

    RAILWAY CONTRACT.
    Sir W. SUDDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a contract for the construction and finance of a railway in Bermuda at a cost of £400,000 has been let by the Bermuda Railway Company to an American firm of constructors; and were any steps taken by the Colonial Office, when the licence for the construction of this railway was approved, to secure this business for British firms?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of the conclusion of such a contract, but am inquiring into the matter.
    Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's consent, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement prepared on the same basis as the answer to his question of the 10th March, 1926.
    Following is the statement:
    Sir W. SUDDEN: When the right hon. Gentleman does inquire, may I ask that special reminders be made of the preferential consideration given for loans on the British Money Market of this Colony, and the need for business by the British engineering companies?
    Mr. AMERY: Bermuda enjoys fully representative institutions, and the matter is primarily one for local decision.

    SINGAPORE (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a full report from the authorities at Singapore relative to the disturbances and shootings which took place in connection with the Sun Yat Sen celebrations; can he say whether any property was destroyed; how many Europeans or others employed against the demonstrators were seriously injured and if any of these have since died; the number of Chinese killed or who have died as a result of injuries; the number seriously and slightly wounded; was the crowd or any of them armed; did any firing take place from the crowd; was any warning given before the firing took place and what period of time elapsed between the warning and the firing; and does he propose to hold a public inquiry into these happenings?
    Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made pn the 14th March in reply to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. PethickLawrence). The Governor has since reported that an inquest on the dead, who number six, and not seven as previously stated, will be opened to-morrow: The Governor states that he proposes to await the conclusion of these proceedings before considering whether any further inquiry is desirable.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to advertisements appearing in Scottish papers stating that the Canadian Government guaranteed employment throughout the year to emigrants from Britain; whether he is aware that Mr. Forke, the Canadian Minister of Immigration, has denied that such a guarantee exists; and whether he will take steps to see that the real conditions of the Empire Settlement Scheme are brought more prominently before intending emigrants, so that they may not be induced to emigrate under a misconception as to their prospects?
    Mr. AMERY: I understand that the advertisements to which the hon. Member refers were inserted without the approval of the Canadian authorities, and steps are being taken to amend them. The actual position is that assisted passages to Canada are only granted by the Dominion Government when farm employment—or, in the case of women, household work—is guaranteed, Every endeavour is made to ensure that the employment shall be continuous, and the Dominion Government undertakes to keep in touch with and to supervise all assisted settlers for a period of at least five years.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the installation in certain modern office buildings of apparatus for the ozonising of the air;
    2018
    whether he is, aware that such experiments have resulted in improved health and intelligence of the staff; and whether he would be prepared to consider the installation of similar apparatus, in: the House of Commons in view of the unsatisfactory state of its present atmosphere?
    Captain HACKING: The answer to the, first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the First Commissioner has no-definite information regarding the result-of the experiments referred to by the hon. Member, and he is not convinced that the installation of the suggested apparatus in the House of Commons would have the desired result.
    Miss WILKINSON: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be willing for an experiment to be tried, say, in the Lady Members' room in the House, where the atmosphere is particularly bad, in order to see whether such an experiment would be likely to be successful?
    Captain HACKING: The hon. Member suggests that such an experiment would result in improved health and intelligence of the Members. I am sure you could not improve the intelligence of the Lady Members.
    Miss WILKINSON: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman be willing, at least, to have the health of the Lady Members improved, and then go on to deal with the intelligence of Members?
    Captain HACKING: What I meant to say was that I could not improve their intelligence, and I should hope I could not improve their health.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the atmosphere of the House of Commons has improved very much since the last Parliament?

  CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC, LONDON.

    PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House as to what decision the Government have reached with regard to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on London, bridges and their approaches?
    Sir GEORGE HUMEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what action the Government propose to take with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): His Majesty's Government have given most careful consideration to the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London, presided over by Lord Lee. I desire, in the first place, to express the appreciation of the Government of the ability and energy displayed by the Commission in their consideration of the difficult and complicated problem referred to them.
    I propose in this reply to deal, first, with the recommendations of the Report which are concerned with the central area of London.
    His Majesty's Government are prepared to make a grant from the Road Fund to the London County Council of 75 per cent. of the approved cost of reconstructing the existing Waterloo Bridge in the manner recommended by the Commission.
    The acceptance of the proposal to preserve Waterloo Bridge involves the provision of further facilities for cross-river traffic at Charing Cross. The Government are, therefore, inviting the London County Council and the Southern Railway Company to join with them in appointing engineers to examine the scheme for the double-decker road and railway bridge put forward by the Commission, and will be prepared to contribute to the scheme if, after examination of its engineering, financial and aesthetic aspects, it appears satisfactory.
    As regards the proposed Ludgate Bridge, if the City Corporation decide to proceed with this scheme, the Government are prepared to make a grant on the same basis as the Government had contemplated in the case of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme, namely, 50 per cent. of the net cost of the road approaches.
    The Government also agree with the Commission in thinking that the Victoria Dock Road is a scheme of urgent importance, and are prepared to make a grant on the basis of 75 per cent. towards its approved cost.
    The other projects recommended by the Lee Commission are of varying degrees
    2020
    of urgency. The general financial policy of the country renders it impossible, in the view of the Government, to accept the suggestion of the Commission to raise a large loan on the security of the Road Fund. Consequently the rate at which these projects can be carried out must depend upon the allocation which can be made each year from those revenues, due regard being had to the other claims upon the Fund. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have decided to authorise the Ministry of Transport to negotiate with the local authorities concerned on the basis of grants of a suitable percentage towards the execution of the remaining schemes as funds are available, the total expenditure upon all the schemes dealt with in the Report being limited to a sum which, upon the average of a series of years, will not exceed £1,000,000 a year.
    The Government consider that these proposals constitute the maximum commitment of public money upon which it is now prudent to embark for this purpose.
    It is not intended to adopt the recommendation of the Commission for the constitution of a special traffic authority. The Government are confident that they can rely upon the co-operation of existing local authorities of the Metropolitan area without the intervention of any new body.
    The London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London are being informed accordingly.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Do I understand from that, that the other 25 per cent. will be found by the London County Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER
    Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Have the Government made up their mind for how many years they will be prepared to grant this concession of £1,000,000?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I think that before that question could be answered accurately, it would be necessary to have a certain amount of consultation with the local authorities—a consultation which is being embarked upon at once.
    Major CRAWFURD: May I put two questions? The first is, do the Govern-

    2021
    ment consider that the grant of 60 per cent, of the net cost of road approaches to Ludgate Bridge, which are intended to serve the very congested district to the South of the River, will ensure the undertaking of this work? The second question is, as he has ruled out the idea of a loan on the security of the Road Fund, will he consider, with regard to all these schemes, the question of reimbursement of the cost by means of levying an improvement rate on the enhanced land values created?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first question is, I cannot foretell what the result of consultation will be. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as far as the building of bridges is concerned, the City has resources and facilities which the London County Council have not. With regard to the second question, I think the existing financial methods will be sufficient to deal with the problem.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask whether the arrangements with regard to Charing Cross bridge rules out the possibility, if this triumvirate is to be established, of the Southern Railway terminus being removed to the Southern side?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the Commission reported against that on the ground of expense.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Yes.
    Mr. ALBERY: Has any decision been come to about the Lower Thames Tunnel with reference to the London traffic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I could not answer that without notice.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  RURAL INDUSTRIES.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON-BROWN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the condition of Rural Industries, and move a Resolution.

  INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: I beg to give notice 5at, on this day fortnight, I will
  2022
  call attention to the tendency of modern legislation to interfere with Individual Liberty, and move a Resolution.

  COAL RESOURCES.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the methods of production and utilisation of our Coal Resources, and move a Resolution.

COAL MINES.
Mr. TINKER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the employment of young persons at night below ground in coal mines; and for other purposes connected therewith."
The young persons referred to in this Bill are boys under the age of 16 years. At present they come under the Eight Hours Act, and there is no contravention of the law so long as they are not below ground more than eight hours during every consecutive 24 hours. I should explain that the winding-time is in addition to the eight hours. The average winding-time is 40 minutes, so that every person is below ground 8 hours 40 minutes. I do not want hon. Members opposite to think that on this occasion I am attempting to get through the Eight Hours Act. I am leaving that for about 1929, when I hope it will be dealt with very effectually. The point I want to deal with is the shifts for boys. At most mines three shifts are worked, the morning, the afternoon, and the night; at almost every mine two shifts are worked, the morning and the night. The night turn commences somewhere about 9 o'clock. To get down in time the lads go on at half-past 8. The shift ceases at 5 o'clock in the morning, and the boy gets to the surface about half-past 5, goes home, has a wash and some food, and then goes to bed. He gets up in the afternoon and joins his companions at football or cricket, or, if he is of a studious turn of mind, he may occupy himself with schooling, When 7.30 comes he has to prepare himself for work, and at half-past 8 he starts to go down the mine. I want hon. Members to imagine youths at the age of 16 working through the night. I have worked on the night shift, and even as an adult I know how difficult it is to

2023
resist the call of sleep, and one can imagine what it must be in the case of a boy. I am asking the House to consider this matter from that point of view.
At the present time there are 25,000 boys under the age-of 16 working underground, in fact there are more than that, for those figures were given in December last, when there were only 900,000 miners at work, and as the number of miners has risen to over 1,000,000 there would be more than 25,000 dads working underground. I do not want it to be thought that a large majority of the boys are working on the night shift, they are not, because many mine managers view this matter in the same light as myself, that is, that it is morally wrong and economically, unsound to work boys on night shifts; but there are some managers who do work them on the night shifts, and it is to prevent those managers taking advantage of the youths that we are introducing this Bill. Even now boys at mines are prevented from working at the surface between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. and I cannot understand why that prohibition has not been extended to boys below ground. It may be argued that below ground it is always night, and so it is, but that does not do away with natural tendencies, and a boy will want to sleep during the night time.
On Friday last I was an interested listener to a Debate on a Bill to prevent the teaching of sedition to young children and the Mover of the Second Reading said, in a calm and reasoned speech, "We want to protect the young mind; while it is in a pliable state we do not want this kind of teaching to get hold of it." I say that, equally, the young life ought to be protected in the matter of working hours. The Bill to which I refer secured unanimous support from the other side of the House, and I would ask that on this occasion the same support be given to this Measure. In the course of Friday's Debate the Home Secretary said, "What I am trying to prevent does not apply to my children, it applies to the children of the working classes." This Bill does not deal with the children of the wealthier classes, but
2024
with the children of the poorer classes; but, for all that, I think that even on the other side of the House there is a generous feeling for the young people of the country, and it is in that hope that I confidently ask the House to give support to the First Reading of this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tinker, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Greenall, Mr. Batey, Mr. Sutton, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, and Mr. Barker.

COAL MINES (No. 2) BILL,
"to prohibit the employment of young persons at night below ground in coal mines; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 30th March, and be printed. [Bill 91.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
"That, in the case of the Mercantile Marine Memorial Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the Bill be permitted to proceed."
Resolution agreed to.

CROWN LANDS (No. 2) BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Crown Lands (No. 2) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords], That they communicate that they have

2025
come the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that the Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Indian Affairs,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Rouses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL,
"to amend the Law relating to the sale by retail of excisable liquors," presented by Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE; supported by Sir Herbert Nield, Lord Apsley, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Penny, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Harney, Mr. Hayday, and Mr. William Thorne; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  4.0.p.m.
  I think the importance of securing greater production and wider distribution of British films is gencrally recognized throughout the country. The necessity was enforced in the strongest language by the Imperial Conference last Autumn, in a Resolution which I will read to the House. The Resolution was as follows:
  "The Imperial Conference, recognising that it is of the greatest importance that a larger and increasing proportion of the films exhibited throughout the Empire should be of Empire production, commends the matter and the remedial measures proposed to the consideration of the Governments of the various parts of the Empire with a view to such early and effective action to deal with the serious situation now existing as they may severally find possible."
  That was a unanimous Resolution of the Conference, and the measures proposed in this Bill are the measures considered at the Imperial Conference. The House will remember that the Conference added to that Resolution a rider:
  "It was recognised that circumstances vary in different parts of the Empire, but the opinion was expressed that any action which it might be found possible to take in Great Britain, the largest producer and largest market for films in the Empire, would undoubtedly be of the greatest assistance to the other parts of the Empire in dealing with the problem."
  I believe that that Resolution expresses a sentiment which is prevalent in the House and the country and throughout the Empire. It is based on a realisation that the cinema is to-day the most universal means through which national ideas and national atmosphere can be spread, and, even if those be intangible things, surely they are among the most important influences in civilisation. Everybody will admit that the strongest bonds of Empire—outside, of course, the strongest of all, the Crown—are just those intangible bonds—a common outlook, the same ideas, and the same ideals which we all share and which are
  2040
  expressed in a common language and a common literature. Should we be content for a moment if we depended, upon foreign literature or upon a foreign Press in this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "We do"] I do not think so. At any rate, the greatest proportion of the Press is British, and we should be very anxious if the proportion was in the opposite sense as it is with British films. To-day films are shown to millions of people throughout the Empire and must unconsciously influence the ideas and outlook of British peoples of all races. But only a fraction, something like 5 per cent., of the films which are at present shown in the British Empire are of British origin. That, as I submit and as the Imperial Conference held, is a, position which is intolerable if we can do anything effective to remedy it.
  From the trade point of view, the influence of the cinema is no less important. It is the greatest advertising power in the world. Just let the House imagine the effect upon trade of millions of people in every country, day after day, seeing the fashions, the styles, and the products of a particular country. It inevitably influences them in their trade purchases. If it be worth while, as it is, if it be sound business, as it is, for manufacturers to spend millions of money on advertisements in the daily Press, which may only obtain the usual glance of the majority of readers, much more important is the advertising influence of the film which they see the whole time? That is not theory it is practice. It is realised by our own people: it is realised above all by the people of the United States. I wonder if hon. Members have seen the evidence which was given by the Department of Commerce of the United States before a. Committee of the Congress, I think, in January, 1926. The Department was justifying to the Committee an appropriation for the cinema section, and Dr. Julius Klein, in charge of the Department, said this:
  "I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that the motion picture is perhaps the most potent single contributor to a better understanding of the United States in Latin America.
  Mr. ACKERMAN: Is it not helping in China also?
  Dr. KLEIN: It is invaluable in China. It is invaluable in all roarkets where there is a high percentage of illiteracy among the

  2041
  people, for from the pictures they see they get their impressions of how we live, the clothes' we wear, and so forth. In fact, there has been a complete change in the demand for commodities in dozens of countries. I can cite you instances of the expansion of trade in the Far East, traceable directly to the effects of the motion picture."
  Then he went on to speak of how in South America, before the War, if you went into the stores, you found that the bulk of the commodities were of British origin. He said that in 1919 or 1920 he was shipwrecked on the coast of Peru and went ashore to be re-outfitted; he found that in all the shops there were no longer British articles, but that American articles had taken their place. On making inquiries he found that a great deal of that change was due to the fact that the people were constantly seeing American films and American styles. That is completely borne out by our own representatives in these countries. I have a report from our Consul in Peru, who writes exactly the same thing:
  "Fashions in behaviour, dress, furniture, and houses, as seen on the films, not merely have an unconscious effect, but are sought for. Peruvians with a social problem, a dress to buy, a room to furnish, or a house to build, will deliberately go to the cinema as to an animated catalogue to get ideas."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who has been a keen supporter of these proposals, thinks that is putting it too high, but that is not the view expressed by those trying to push our trade in these countries. Those engaged in trade realise their tremendous interest in this matter. Exactly the same thing comes to us from the Dominions them selves. Our Trade Commissioner in New Zealand, in his most recent report, writes:
  "Even in New Zealand, with its staunch British traditions, one finds evidences that customs and the demand for goods are being largely influenced by changes in ideas and fashions other than those associated with British habits and tastes. Such preferences are, without comment, accepted as desirable, and there seems little doubt that American films have played a part in moulding public tastes in many directions."
  The same story comes from Canada:
  "The cinema film has also operated against British trade. The production, distribution and exhibition of films in Canada is almost entirely controlled by foreign interests. The effect of the constant exhibition of foreign films on the sentiment, habits, and thought of the people is obvious.
  2042
  The picture show the foreign flag, styles, standards, habits, advertisements, etc."
  If that be at all true of the importance of this matter from a trade point of view, I submit that the need for the development of the British film, from a national point of view and from a trade point of view, is firmly established; and if it cannot be developed without Government intervention, then, I submit, the case for Government intervention is made out. If all sections of the trade, the producers, the renters and the exhibitors, could have agreed upon a combined voluntary effort which would have been effective, there would have been no need for Government action, and the Government were determined that an opportunity should be given to the trade to make such an effort. In view of some of the criticisms, I think it is only right that the House should realise that an attempt was made within the trade, and that that attempt failed in spite of the very genuine effort made by a large number both of exhibitors and renters.
  I would like the House to realise what were the proposals which were prepared in the trade itself, and which were canvassed in the trade. In November, 1925, a joint trade committee, representing renters, producers and exhibitors, was appointed by the trade. That committee presented a report, which proposed, exactly as this Bill proposes, first of all, the abolition of blind booking and block booking, and, secondly, a quota upon renters and exhibitors. And I will ask the House to observe that the quota proposed was higher than the quota which the Government are proposing in their Bill to-day. It was a quota on both exhibitors and renters. It was 10 per cent. for part of 1926–27, 14 per cent. for 1927–28, 20 per cent. for 1928–29, and 25 per cent. thereafter. The quotas on the renter and exhibitor were the same, there being a three months' lag between the two. That proposal was adopted by the exhibitors' council. It is quite true that on a referendum, it was rejected by a fairly small majority—679 to 609.
  I think it is right to give the House that information, because, whilst fair criticism ought to be made and ought to be met in the consideration and administration of this Bill, it is, I submit, fantastic to say, when both the quota and

  2043
  the booking proposals—the quota on a still larger scale—has been formulated within the trade, and is considered by many in all sections of the trade to be necessary—that it is an entirely novel proposal which ought not to be considered upon its merits. I say at once that fair criticism of the details ought to be made and ought to he met, and certainly I shall welcome the fullest consultation with all those who are competent to judge on the subject, just as I have had consultation in the preparation of this Bill. But there is a type of propaganda which I do not think will appeal to the House. I have received a telegram, which I understand was sent fairly broadcast to exhibitors in these terms:
  "If you object to the Film Bill wire your protest to your Member of Parliament,"
  and a prepaid form was enclosed. The gentleman who sent this to me used the prepaid form to telegraph to his Member of Parliament to say that the Bill was exactly what he, as an exhibitor, wanted, and he hoped that his Member would vote for it. The telegram is signed "Unfilman" and I thought it might be useful to ascertain who is this protagonist of British liberties. I find that "Unfilman" is the telegraphic address of a company called the European Motion Picture Company, Limited. A search of the register discloses that it has a capital of £25,000, of which £19,000 is held by Carl Laemmle, a naturalised American in New York, and £2,000 by a Mr. Cochran, the Vice-President, also resident in New York. The House will be interested to know one further thing about this company. The name of the European Motion Picture Company has cropped up in this House on a previous occasion, and the House may remember a certain incident which filled everyone with disgust in which a territorial officer in command of a brigade was brought out with his brigade under false pretences, put into an entirely false position, and made to escort a foreign film. The House will be surprised to learn that the company which sent this telegram was the same company which perpetrated that outrage on British troops.
  While all reasonable criticisms ought to be made, and met, when we have telegrams of that sort I think the House should realise one source and type of the agitation which is being carried on
  2044
  in regard to this question. After the trade had been called together I met the producers, renters, and exhibitors on behalf of the Government, I drew their attention to the necessity of doing something which would encourage the production of British films. I asked them to agree upon a voluntary scheme, but I made it clear to them that if the voluntary effort failed, the Government would not hesitate to seek compulsory powers. There was afterwards joint trade discussions, but it disclosed no disposition to agree to a voluntary scheme. A voluntary quota was regarded as impossible, because there was no guarantee that voluntary obligations would be fulfilled.
  That failure was followed by the Imperial Conference in the Autumn, when every one of our Dominions emphasised the importance of this subject from a national and an Imperial standpoint, and they invited the Home Government to give a lead. In those circumstances, having tried to get the 'voluntary effort, and having failed, and having been invited by the Imperial Conference to give a lead, Government action can only be rejected if we admit that we cannot produce films within the British Empire which would attract audiences to the cinema. I do not think this House or the country will accept such a proposition, because in this country we were pioneers in this industry before the War, and we were then making great progress. I have been given an estimate showing that before the War 25 per cent. of the films were British films. That was when we were starting in the industry, and I was told only last week by an exhibitor who exhibited in an industrial area before the War that in 1914, 46 out of 104 feature films shown by him were British.
  There was one thing which stopped our progress in this industry. It was during the four long years of the War when the whole effort of this country was concentrated on winning the War, that our competitors in the film industry in America forged ahead, very often by using British talent in production are in their acting, writing, and technical staffs. The result, is that to-day we are flooded throughout the Empire with foreign films, backed up by enormous financial resources, and aided by a system of blind booking and block booking, a system

  2045
  under which exhibitors in this country may be forced to take films which they have never seen, which indeed may not have been made at all, and under that system they are forced to take the films, and the space is blocked for long periods. Faced with that competition in foreign countries which developed the film industry during the War and gained a great advantage, it is not surprising that the British industry now needs some measure of security, in order to place it on its feet again. I submit that it is only by the provisions of this Bill broadly that you can give the necessary security. I would remind the House that, although there is plenty of destructive criticism in regard to this Measure, up to the present no one has suggested any alternative scheme to that which was put forward at the Imperial Conference which is that which we are putting forward in this Bill. All the trade discussions have ranged round blind booking and the quota, and this Bill deals with both. Of course it is essential to deal with both.
  This Measure abolishes blind booking, puts a time limit on block booking, and fixes a date beyond which a forward contract may not be made. It also imposes the quota on renters and exhibitors, and defines the quota to be put on both the renter and the exhibitor. It puts the quota on the renter in the first place, because he is the distributor from whom the exhibitor obtains the films. It is right that the quota on the exhibitor should be lower than the quota on the renter. That is clear, because it gives a direct incentive to the renter who is concerned with the distribution of both foreign and British films to interest himself in securing the best British films. The renters' quota begins in 1928, and the exhibitors' quota in 1929, and the original quota is 7¾ per cent., rising 2¾ per cent. in each year. That figure is considerably below the quota which found its place in the report of the Joint Trade Committee. Although this has been criticised as being too low, it is not in fact too low, because we do not want to fix the quota at a figure to cover the whole British production. It is important that it should not be fixed too high, and that there should be a certain amount of competition among British producers. That is why the quota is deliberately kept at a low figure
  2046
  The machinery of the Bill has been drawn up after a very long consultation with all sections of the trade, and I am very grateful for that, because we feel in regard to a new matter like this that it is of enormous importance that we should interfere as little as possible with trade convenience and trade practice.
  May I now briefly draw the attention of the Committee to the main provisions of the Bill? Clause I prohibits blind booking, that is the booking of a film that has not been shown, by enacting that after the beginning of this Act, which is fixed for the 1st October, 1927, no agreement to rent a film shall be valid unless the film is registered, and Clause 6 provides that no film shall be registered unless it has been trade shown. Clause 2 fixes a limit upon advance block booking, and provides that a film must be delivered within six months of the agreement. Whether six months is the best period is a matter which can be discussed in Committee, but I am quite clear that some time limit is necessary if we are to get rid of the difficulties of block booking. Clause 4 brings existing agreements into line with Clause 2, in regard to blind and block booking. That is necessary, otherwise the foreign renter selling foreign films could force exhibitors into long-term contracts before this Bill comes into force.
  Part II deals with the registration of films, and Clauses 5 and 6 require that on and after the let January, 1928, all films shall be registered. Arrangements are made that a provisional application may be made, and that is a condition suggested by the trade to meet trade practice. Clause 7 provides for the inspection of the register, and Clauses 8 and 10 deal with the correction of the register. Clause 9 gives a right of appeal to the High Court in cases where there has been a refusal by the Board of Trade to register a film as a British film or a film has been wrongly registered. Clause 10 makes provision for alterations of the length of films, and Clause 11 provides that registered films shall be marked in such a way as to identify their nationality, number and length. Clause 12 contains special provisions with regard to serial films, which conform to the ordinary trade practice.

  2047
  Part III deals with provisions for securing the quota of British films. Clause 13 provides for the Renters' quota, and Clause 19 for the Exhibitors' quota. Clause. 14 gives power to small renters to combine—again an arrangement to meet trade convenience. The administration of the Act rests with the Board of Trade, and this is exactly what the trade desires. I took counsel with the trade on this matter, and without any hesitation they said that, if there was to be such a Measure passed, they preferred that its administration should be in the hands of the Board of Trade. I may say that in this respect there is not the least intention of employing an army of bureaucrats in order to enforce the Act, as at least one hon. Member fears. I believe 99 per cent. of the people affected will be ready to observe the Act when it is passed. I do not think such an army will be necessary, and I have no intention of asking for any powers in that direction. I think therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Berner) may rest assured that at least his anxiety will be more than allayed.
  Mr. HARRIS: What will be the cost of administration?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It will be between £4,000 and £5,000 at the outset, and that cost will be defrayed by a scale of fees so that no charge will come upon the taxpayer at all. I Propose, also, as a further measure of efficiency, speed and economy, that there should be an Advisory Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will they be paid?"] I hope not. I have inserted no provision for payment. I think I can rely on people's readiness to serve. It will be an Advisory Committee, consisting of exhibitors, producers and renters, with an independent element, and upon its advice I should largely rely in any difficulties that might arise administering the Act, particularly in regard to such questions as whether it had been beyond the reasonable powers of a renter or exhibitor to comply with the quota.
  Clauses 17 and 20 provide that renters and exhibitors shall be licensed. Clauses 18 and 21 provide for keeping the necessary records of films rented and exhibited, and the necessary returns to show
  2048
  whether the quota has been complied With. Licences are to be granted, and renewed yearly as of right, subject to any order of the Court revoking a licence. The penalty for failing to comply with the quota is a fine, or, on indictment, the Court is to have the power, if it think fit, to revoke a licence for a period. This more onerous provision would only apply where there had been a prosecution on indictment. If the Board of Trade are satisfied, on the advice of the Advisory Committee, that failure to comply with the quota was beyond the control of an exhibitor or renter, it will be the duty of the Board to issue a certificate exonerating the renter or exhibitor. Clause 26 defines the films to which the Bill applies, that is to say, it excludes films which do not form part of the ordinary staple programme of films usually rented for regular performances. Sub-section (3) of Clause 26 defines a British film, and the House will see that, in order to comply with that Sub-section, the film must have been made by a British subject or a British-controlled company; the studio scenes must be photographed in a studio in the British Empire; the author of the scenario or of the original work must be a British subject.; and not less than 75 per cent. of the salaries, wages and payments for labour and services, exclusive of payments in respect of copyright and of the salaries of the producer and one actor or actress—
  Mr. JOHNSTON: If, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 26, the author of the original work on which the scenario is based must have been a British subject, will that rule out anything based on the works, say, of Dumas or Victor Hugo?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that point. He will see that it says:
  "The author of the scenario, or of the original work on which the scenario is based."
  That would not rule out—
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The Bible comes into that.
  Sir P. CUNILIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will observe that these four conditions have to be complied with, and I think the point is really one that we had

  2049
  better discuss at length in Committee. It is right that, if the scenario is by a British author, it should be admitted. You can produce a film which is distinctly British in its character, although it may be founded on a foreign story, and I do not think that, if such a film is produced, we ought to exclude it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: You will have to alter this Clause.
  Sir P. CUNL1FFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The clause has been drafted to give effect, exactly to what I have said. Sub-section (5) of Clause 26 defines a British-controlled company, and Clause 28 empowers the Board of Trade to make the necessary regulations. Clause 30 is the definition Clause, and in includes a number of trade terms, and gives to them the regular definitions that are in current practice in the trade. The whole Bill has been drafted as far as possible to comply with trade practice, after very full consultation with the trade, to whom I am very grateful for their assistance. When we get into Committee, I hope we shall consider the various Clauses carefully and fully, in order to see if they can be improved and made more consonant with trade convenience and trade practice, and more effective. Certainly, that will be welcome. We shall, however, maintain the position that the Bill must deal with these two essential issues. The case for the Bill, I submit, has been plainly established. You can only, as I have said, attack this Bill by saying that nothing should be done, that no encouragement should be given. That has been tried, and has not succeeded. If you want to carry forward the attack logically, you would have to show that it is outside our power to produce an effective British film, and I do not believe that that is so for a single moment. If action is to be effective, it must be action which deals both with blind booking and with the quota. You cannot treat the film industry as if it were an isolated industry or trade, the activities and the success or failure of which affect only those who are engaged in it. On the success or failure of the British film industry much more depends than its own future. It inevitably involves great interests, national and Imperial, and the anxiety
  2050
  which was expressed at the imperial Conference, and the determination which was registered there to remedy an intolerable position, are shared, I believe, by the majority of British people through out the whole Empire. That determination must be translated into action, and I commend this Bill to the House as the only constructive proposal which has yet been put forward to achieve that end.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House, whilst welcoming proposals to restrict blind hooking of cinematograph films, thus providing a fair field for British producers, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which compels British traders to supply goods irrespective of their comparative merits and the demands of their customers."
  The House has listened, I think, with a good deal of surprise to the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward for this Bill. He really must not run away with the idea that he and his friends are the only people who are interested in British films. Everyone admits that the position in regard to the production of British films is one that requires very serious consideration, and justifies Government assistance, but, we really did expect some sound reason why the Government have made up their minds to produce a Bill like this. Take the right hon. Gentleman's own argument. He read quotations from Consular Reports, he read quotations from evidence given before art American House of Representatives Committee, and what was his complaint? His complaint was that British hats were being supplanted by. American hats because American hats were used in the production of films. Then there is a great omission from the Bill. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade—and I am not at all surprised that the film industry prefers dealing with the Board of Trade to dealing with any other Department, if this is the way in which they can wangle it—surely, the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade must see that they must not only protect British scenario rights, but must also make such provision that when, say, Miss Sybil Thorndike is going to pose in front of a film camera for the new company, which

  2051
  I hope will have a successful career, she is not dressed in Paris clothes, because otherwise these British-produced films will be a tremendous advertisement for Paris fashions.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or Russian furs!
  Mr. MacDONALD: They must also see that, when her co-operators put on a hat, it must be a British felt hat, and not an American one. I am not quite sure what the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and the right hon. Gentleman decided about the name of the hat.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I never heard of it.
  Mr. MacDONALD: In any event, what we understood was that the right hon. Gentleman was introducing this Bill in order to advance British industry, on account of the propaganda that is contained in films, and the Board of Trade, be it remembered, which is specially charged with the advance of British industry, forgets, in all its precautions, to lay it down that a British film shall be produced with British costumes, British setting, and so on. The whole argument is absurd. There is one serious reason—I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of it; at any rate, he said nothing about it—why every one of us is interested in British films being shown abroad, and that is that British films should uphold to foreign nations a better conception of the moral conduct and social habits of people who profess to belong to the leading nations of the world than, unfortunately, is the case with so many films that are being exported, for instance, to China.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: Non-British films.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Only a few months ago I happened to be wandering up and down a little village in one of the outposts of civilisation—and not only an outpost of civilisation, but an outpost of life. There I came across a cinema. I was in the company of a very noble and dignified member of the foreign race in whose land I was at the time, and, when we passed that cinema, it was emblazoned
  2052
  with advertisements which ought to have brought a blush of shame to the cheek of the thickest-skinned and most corrupt and abandoned of men and the actors in that film were white people. And yet certain markets seem almost to he abandoned to that kind of sinful and abominable rubbish, which is held up to these people who, a few years ago, regarded us as being a dominant and ruling people. That sort of rubbish is given to them every day of the week, and every week of the year.
  Sir JAMES REMNANT: Were they British films?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I really do not think I said they were British films.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Were they British?
  Mr. MacDONALD: if hon. Members will allow me to develop and finish my argument, they will find what I am driving at. Ii by any kind of conspiracy, or any kind of co-operation, we could displace those films with British films—I am not going to say what films they were; they were not British films—I do not believe if we had a virile and a flourishing industry in the production of British films British films would be turned out on the moral and social level of those films. Therefore do not let any hon. Members, do not let the Government, the President of the Board of Trade or anyone imagine that we are not interested in British films.
  But when he presents his argument we come back to the Bill and inquire how far it is going to help the object he has placed in front of us. It is not going to help at all. He has told us he was up against difficulties. We know it. He has told us thas the Government asked the various sections of the interest concerned to meet and try to agree. Having failed to get a voluntary agreement between the rival sections the Government has come down on one side. This is a party Bill. It does not consider the full needs of exhibitors and producers and renters. It has been prornpted and handed over almost Clause by Clause by one side engaged and interested in this controversy—the side of the producers, and not all of them, but one section of the producers. Everyone will admit that this is a very novel

  2053
  Bill and its principles are very novel principles. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered how he is going to extend the application of the Bill? We hear a great deal about British music. Will he extend the principle of the Bill to provide that if we go to a promenade concert at Queen's Hall at least 25 per cent. of the music must be British-produced music every time we go there? Take anything else you like. This is the whole principle of propaganda, the whole principle of the economic blindness of the mind that produces this kind of support for British trade and British industry. Take tobacco. What is the objection, if the principle of the Bill is sound, to imposing upon every tobacconist the necessity of selling at least 25 per cent. of Empire-produced tobacco to every customer who comes along? I am interested in the Empire and in the production of tobacco, but this principle, if it is sound for films, is equally sound for the products of the Empire. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a false analogy!"] It is not in the least a false analogy. It is the Bill applied to interests which have not yet asked for its application. When, and if, they ask for its application, if the House passes this Bill it has approved of principles that it is bound to apply in other directions.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he could not divide the two parts of his Bill, block booking, blind booking and quota. What is the point of blind booking and block booking? He is not going to do anything by the Bill to prevent voluntary and friendly agreements which are not of the nature of contracts. Why should not I, if I am an exhibitor, believing in the products of a certain firm, whether it is American or Swedish or Russian or German or British, come to an arrangement with them for the continued supply of their products? What this Bill prevents—and I am at one with the Government in this respect —is that producers should be able to bring coercive measures to bear upon renters and exhibitors to take their goods when those renters and exhibitors do not want to take their goods. That is the whole point. That is where compulsion comes in by economic force. Where, owing to the special nature of the product, or owing to its cheapness, or owing to some other economic reason, a
  2054
  firm of producers is in a position to compel renters and exhibitors unwillingly to accept their goods, that is bad. The Bill says, "You must not contract ahead for this particular firm's products and that particular firm's products, but you must contract ahead for a certain group of firms' products provided they are in Great Britain and conform to the conditions of this Bill." There you have your compulsion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Those who object to compulsion of one kind cannot support compulsion of another. But I am prepared to remove the possibility of compulsory booking. It is a strange doctrine for the right hon. Gentleman to do that, though, because, after all, what does this mean? This is again a development of private enterprise. Private enterprise, looking after its own interests, having formed a ring or a virtual monopoly, takes advantage of its power. That is in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's principles. Why should he object? We, on the other hand, quite properly say that when any group of persons have acquired so much economic power that they are in a position to compel other people to accept their goods, they ought to be deprived of that power, therefore we will vote for that part of the Bill. Blind booking and block booking will certainly receive our support in so far as they are made illegal, in so far as they are compulsory and in so far as they form a contract.
  Now what about the quota? When you come to the quota you are in a totally different position. The right hon. Gentleman says no one will say British film production cannot be successful. He does from beginning to end of this Bill. The whole point of this part of the Bill is that British film production cannot be successful. The whole point of this part of the Bill is that British film production never can hold its own on a market which, be it remembered, is already a protected market, because the foreigner has not a free access to it. But even with a protected market the right hon. Gentleman says: "British films cannot hold their own, and, therefore, by law I am going to impose a compulsory quota upon renters and exhibitors." There is no limitation to profit. He puts a possible monopoly in the hands of a group of British film pro-

  2055
  ducers, he gives them all the economic conditions from which a monopoly arises and then says to them, "Exploit at your pleasure "—no question of limitation of profits, no question of regulation of prices and rents and charges for these films. He creates the monopoly, as the producers who are behind the Bill desire him to do, and he leaves it with them to fix their trade terms. There is no question of quality. The only idea the right hon. Gentleman has is, so many feet to be foreign and so many to be British. There is no protection on the part of the exhibitor. He cannot even reject films on the ground that he does not wish to exhibit them, not because they are British films, but becalm, they are not of the quality that he wishes to show. There is no protection given that first of all the right sort of film should be produced, and after the production of that right sort compulsion is going to be imposed upon exhibitors to put them upon the screen.
  The idea the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, I think, is the economic equivalent of a bounty—to say that for a certain time there shall be certain economic privileges given to British produced films. There is a great deal to be said for a bounty. If we find an industry of national importance handicapped on account of artificial economic conditions, the Government is perfectly justified in trying to counteract those artificial economic conditions for the length of time that is required by a new and languishing industry to gather a strength of its own which will enable it to face the world and to make its way to success in the world. But the justification of bounty is that it ceases to be necessary. There is no justification, there never can be a justification for a bounty that is going to go on and on and on because if provisions are made for the continuance of a bounty for an indefinite period that is a proof positive that the bounty is failing to fulfil its purpose and ought never to have been started at all.
  Major CRAWFURD: The coal subsidy —does the right hon. Gentleman want that to go on?
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. MacDONALD: If the hon. Member desires a debate on the coal subsidy I am ready to have it, and if he is under the delusion that I was in favour of a
  2056
  continuation ad infinitum of the coal subsidy he is prepared to believe anything. I lay down this doctrine, which is absolutely incontrovertible, that if a justification is made for the payment of the bounty, part of the justification must be that within a limited period of years the bounty will have so affected the industry receiving it that it requires it no longer. But this is exactly the opposite of what is done in this Bill. What the right hon. Gentleman contemplates is that as far as he can see—because he finishes with "etc." he places no limit of any date to the end of his Bill—for the British film industry to be successful he must compel users, against their will, to show 25 per cent. of British films for an indefinite time, and the assumption is that the exhibitors would not show these unless this Bill were put into operation. Why does he not give the exhibitor a quid pro quo? The quid pro quo which the exhibitor wants, and that ought to be given to the exhibitor, is a subsidy for using the 25 per cent., after British 'films have got a good start, if the exhibitor cannot do it at a profit in the ordinary way. But, if the exhibitor is compelled to use them, the assumption is that he cannot make a profit by it. Therefore, the Government ought to add a clause to the Bill for subsidising the exhibitor or, what would be more in accordance with the ideas of the Bill, compelling a certain number of people to go to the cinemas every afternoon and evening to look at these films. These provisions are an insult to the British film industry, and they will do a profound disservice to it. There is not a film-producing industry cr country but next week will laugh at us for having to confess by this Bid that we cannot produce good films. Von will have the American producer his journals, the German, the Swedish and the Russian producers in their journals, holding up this Bill as a proof that their films are so superior to ours that the present. Government has got to provide a 25 per cent. maximum quota.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a 50 per cent. quota in Germany?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The 50 per cent. quota in Germany is, as a matter of fact, a purely nominal thing. If the 50 per.

  2057
  cent. quota in Germany is at all an effective argument, it is an argument against this proposal. If the film industry in Germany is going to hold its own in the markets of the world, after this 50 per cent. quota was imposed when the film industry was in its infancy and very largely in the position that we are in now —if that is to be continued and provided for up to 1936, and thereafter, that in itself is a confession that the industry is not on a sound footing. I believe that the British film industry can get itself on a sound footing, and I believe that if the bounty system is to be adopted it ought to be adopted in the only way in which such a system should be adopted, it ought to be terminable. It ought to continue for a number of years, but instead of going up and up year after year and then being fixed at the peak point of 25 per cent., it ought to conic down, and the industry ought to be left alone. Only under these conditions will you get a really strong and powerful film production in this country. If it gets this bounty for four or five years and then cannot go on without the bounty, other means must be found for devising bow British films can be put upon the market. Here, in the interest of producers, we are jeopardising the interests of people who have invested at least £50,000,000 capital in exhibiting and renting undertakings. There is not a single exhibitor in this country but will now find his programmes interfered with and find himself compelled to put films upon the screen that, if he were a tree man, he would not think of putting on the screen. If it is necessary to ask him for a limited period of time to do that, I am perfectly certain he would respond, but you are asking him now to do it not merely for a year or two while a new source of supply is being created in his ultimate interest, but you are compelling him for all time, so far as this Bill is concerned, to show, for every four inches of film, not more than three foreign and not less than one British. That is not the way to put the producers of British films upon their mettle.
  My conclusion is, that the exhibitor should be freed from oppressive contracts and should be freed from booking long ahead against his own will films that he has never seen and about which he knows nothing. He ought not to be hampered in making contracts of his own free will,
  2058
  otherwise you are interfering in his business in a way you ought not to do. Secondly, we ought to make producers trust to their own skill and efficiency. If any assistance is required for them to do that, let us consider it. But when we have considered it and if we decide to do it in the form of a bounty, and the form that the bounty would take is this idea of a quota, then I say the scale of this quota and its continuance is thoroughly wrong, thoroughly objectionable, and altogether unfair both to producers and exhibitors. What we want above everything is quality and a quantity test of quality is all wrong. I hoped when I came to the Committee that was to let up that the Board of Trade would show they were aware of the real problem, which is that of quality. But this Committee is the very worst Committee that could possibly be set up. In a Committee like this it is not the interests that you want represented, it is the people who are interested in the cinema industry not merely from a production point of view but from its social and artistic point of view. What is wanted on the Committee is a representation of educational people, who understand the political implications that I have referred to in the earlier part of my speech, people who will bear the same relation to the film industry that the Broadcasting Corporation bear to broadcasting. To put on eight members who are interested in production, in renting, and in exhibiting out of 11, is really to stereotype the whole industry and prevent it developing qualitatively as well as quantitatively. I hope this Bill will never go to a Committee but that it will be sent back for reconsideration; but, if it does go to a Committee, I hope a very large part of the time of Committee will be spent in discussing what is the function and what ought to he the function of this proposed Committee, and, having decided what its function ought to be, then considering how it ought to be composed. But its position as a trade committee is surely wrong, and is only going to condemn the British film industry to an even deeper death than it has been suffering from for so long.
  I am so much interested in films that, from my point of view, the British film industry has, most unfortunately, been dead for at least five or six years. What we could do, what we might do, what we

  2059
  ought to do, and what we can do, when we are considering Government support —not this sort of thing; not this throwing together of a jumble of ideas which consider only the very narrowest interests of the industry—what we might do, if we laid our heads together, would be to produce the circumstances, the art, the personalities and the ideas that must lie at the background of successful film production; to use our own natural scenery: to use our history, which is more magnificent for film production than the history of any other nation in the world; to use the romance, the folk-lore, the tradition that has never been exploited for the film industry although it has been nibbled at merely, but which has never been approached in the way that it ought, to be approached, with plenty of capital, and with the requisite talent 1,194 genius. When I opened the Bill that was what I had in my mind, and I hoped that I could support it. But when I read on and on and saw what the effect of it was and what the motive was, then, with profound regret, I found myself once again facing an abortive proposition, and I decided that I should move the Amendment which is down on the Paper in my name, and I have the greatest pleasure in doing so.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: The speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made seems to me to reduce this controversy to the narrowest possible limits, and, as far as I am concerned, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes. I aim sure we all agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, in the eloquent passage at the close of his speech, that there is no country with a history or with a scenery which are, more adaptable to use in cinematograph exhibitions than those we are capable of using. All of us, I am sure, will agree with what he said at the beginning of his speech, that it is lamentable at the present time that the British film industry should be in such a backward position. There was a passage in which the right hon. Gentleman referred to an experience of his own, which is only too frequent in the experience of those who have also travelled in the East. I do not suppose that there is anything which has done so much harm to the
  2060
  prestige and position of Western people and the white race as the exhibition of films which have tended to degrade us in the eyes of peoples who have been accustomed to look upon us with admiration and respect. I am sure that, everybody would like to see something done which would tend to get such a production of British films as would overwhelm the exhibition of depraved pictures which come from other parts of the world and, unfortunately, are looked upon by eyes that do not sufficiently understand what is being exhibited. From that point of view, the right hon. Gentleman agrees, I am sure, with everybody and with the Minister, that something is required to be done in this matter. The only difficulty that he has, as T understood him, is with regard to the method which the Government are employing, but when he came to the end of his remarks I think he rather modified his original criticism in that respect.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the announcement of this provision will tend to make all the other countries in the world which produce films laugh at and deride us, on the ground that we require to take these measures in order to protect our own naive production. I confess that. I do not understand that argument. I find that in every part of the world, notably in the country which is producing films, they erect portentous tariffs against our goods. I do not find that we gain any particular satisfaction from laughing at America, upon the ground that they are taking measures to protect themselves against our goods because they find our goods are better than their own or can be sold more cheaply in their markets. This particular protection is one which is understood in every country in the world, and we alone make very inadequate defences for ourselves in this respect. I do not think that anybody in any other country will misunderstand the principle of the provision which the President of the Board of Trade is suggesting for the encouragement of a great industry in this country. The only thing with which the Leader of the Oposition disagrees, as far as I could understand, is the particular method which the President of the Board of Trade suggests. He would prefer, it appears, a bounty system. I am not in favour of bounty systems where they can be avoided.
  Mr. MacDONALD: To prevent misunderstanding, I may say that this is a bounty. The quota is a form of bounty. I did not put up the bounty system as an alternative, but this is a bounty, and it ought to follow the economic laws of a bounty.
  Sir R. HORNE: I understood the tight hon. Gentleman to say that he would prefer some distinct subsidy of this trade, which, in course of time, would come to an end. If that is not his argument. I will leave it, but it did occur to me that when he said that the result of the proposed system would be to compel people to exhibit films which otherwise they would never think of using, that no system of bounty that he could suggest as an alternative would have been of the slightest use or encouragement to the trade if British film making was so bad that nobody would think of presenting British films. Therefore, the whole crux of this issue is, what are we to do in favour of a cause about which we are all agreed? The right hon. Gentleman wishes to see British films encouraged and exhibited, just as we do What is his suggestion? If the method proposed is not the proper method, what method is to be adopted? Until we have something better than the method proposed by this Bill, I think we are entitled to give support to the Bill. It is a very sensible system.
  The President of the Board of Trade has recounted to us the extent to which British films were produced before the War. We produced 25 per cent, of the films exhibited in this country. He does not propose to go higher than that now: he only proposes to get to that figure by a process of gradation, as I understand it, starting off with an extremely moderate figure of 7½, per cent., which is well within the production mark which the British producers can give. If we can go on that principle, it seems to me that that is a very sensible arrangement to make. As far as I can understand the two alternatives before us, the process by which you can succeed in bringing steadily before the British public the excellence of our own film production is the way in which to encourage that production. For these reasons, and having, as I think, covered the whole of the arguments raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I propose to support the Bill.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speeches delivered on this Bill to-day have concerned the Government, the renters and the exhibitors. Up to the present, nothing has been said about the public. I hope that I am not suggesting anything ridiculous when I say that British films and foreign films alike are exhibited for the benefit of the public, and that there is no other justification for them. It is the public that pays for them; they make the income of the British film industry; they are the people who out of their wages, their salaries, their investments, or whatever may be the source of their income, take seats in these cinema houses, and it is as well that, in the discussion of this Bill, we should not forget that they have a case. The case that I would put on their behalf is that they are entitled to the best films which the world can produce, no matter from where they come. I cannot look on the British film business as though it were a thing that one could cut apart from international art. The picture houses are very nearly akin to the theatre. They certainly impinge to some extent upon the music halls. Who on earth would ever suggest that in the music halls you should have quotas such as are set up in this Bill? Who would ever for a single moment suggest applying the quota system to the theatre? If the President, of the Board of Trade were to suggest applying the quota system to Covent Garden, he would close down the coming opera season. The truth is, that this Bill has been devised by those who, have a commercial interest in the British film industry, and have no consideration whatever for those who get either enjoyment or education out of attendance at the picture palaces.
  If the object of the Bill is artistic, it is doomed to failure, and it is doomed to failure for economic reasons. As I understand the Bill—and it is not a very easy Bill to understand—the object is to create every year an increasingly large monopoly of British film producers. If there is to be a monopoly on which the British film producer can rely, what inducement is there left to him to improve the quality of his films? [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Hon. Members say, "Oh!" 'What is their' reply? What is the inducement to British film producers to produce better films for the sheer love

  2063
  of art? They do it in order that their films may be in larger demand by the public, and if the public do not like British films, it is because British films are not of sufficiently high quality. The only inducement there can be to the British film producers and those who are engaged in every grade of it to improve the quality of the films, is by placing them constantly in open competition with the rest of the world. If that is done, there is no reason in the world why, for a certain range of films, but not for all, it should not be possible to produce as good films in this country as elsewhere.
  Do not let us exaggerate the possibility of good production in this country. We have not the advantage of the clear air of some of the great film-producing centres. It is true—nobody knows it better than a Scottish Member like the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir Horne)—that we have some of the most beautiful territories in the world in the United Kingdom, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to suggest that the climate of Scotland is suitable for the production of films all the year round. It is because of the clarity of atmosphere that film production has found itself concentrated in a few —very few—districts in America and Europe. Whatever attempts have been made over here have been handicapped on the commercial side as well as the artistic side because of our atmosphere being so much against the production of clear pictures. What this Bill can do to deal with that matter, I cannot understand. All that the Bill says is that good, bad, or indifferent, from 1929 to 1936 and thereafter, we must have British films in a, certain proportion placed before us in every one of the picture theatres.
  That idea suggests to me at once that there is no provision against the film producers raising their charges without any let or hindrance from the Board of Trade or anyone else. There is no economic restraint upon them making any charge they like. The President of the Board of Trade is mainly concerned with the commercial side of the industry. It would have been as well to insert in the Bill some provision for the limitation of the charges to be made under the monopoly which he is creating. If the rents
  2064
  are to be put up, is it not clear that he is actually creating in this monopoly an entirely new interest? I cannot look forward with any of the hope expressed by the Leader of the Opposition of this benefit ever coming to an end. Once it is created, it will apparently go on, and the demand will be as strong for it in the future as now. To halve an interminable monopoly of that kind within the region of art, appears to me to be utterly ridiculous. It is bad economics and extremely bad for international art.
  The Leader of the Opposition gave one or two absurd illustrations to the House of the effect of the Bill. Many others must have occurred to hon. Members. We have only recently had one of the most remarkable picture exhibitions ever known in Europe. I refer to the Flemish pictures at the Royal Academy. Those pictures, I presume, are of the nature, though they are not in the same compartment, of the film industry. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. We must admit that both are artistic; but the artists who produced them are foreign. Those artists have just as little British nationality about them as the producers of the foreign films, but who would suggest that in a picture exhibition of that kind you should insist on having 7½ per cent. quota of British art or a 25 per cent. quota after 1929?
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Do they degrade the white race in Asiatic countries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What has this Bill to do with that? It never touches it! I was pointing out that the thing is absurd if you apply it to any other form of art. Apply it to music, and you land yourself in a very ridiculous position One hon. Member says that there is no analogy between these various forms of art. I do not know whether there is any analogy between the film and the orchestra, but it would be just as reasonable to say that you must have 7½ per cent. or 25 per cent of British fiddles in an orchestra of Strads as to say that you must have 25 per cent. of British films in the picture theatres. The thing is ridiculous, immediately you test it by any form of art except the moving picture.

  2065
  Having heard the discussion on the second Beading, I think we should give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of reconsidering the whole position. He has found himself with almost the entire Press of the country against him. He certainly cannot have any support whatever from the public who enjoy these moving pictures. As far as I can understand it, he does not seem to have considered the question from their point of view at all. I suggest to him that he should have in mind the various evils pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Hillhead, and that he should remember the corruption of the East which is carried on, at any rate, by the process of picture advertisement if not by actual films. He may look through this Bill from beginning to end, but he will not find a single line which will provide for the only thing on which the House appears to he agreed. If the President of the Board of Trade is going to take this matter into consideration, let him think of that. The censorship has everything to justify it, but this form of protection of the most brazen character can find no excuse in art or trade, and for these reasons I heartily support the Amendment.
  Sir C. OMAN: Listening to the first part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I was under the impression that our sentiments on this matter were much the same—that we agreed that there should be no more misrepresentation of the British Empire by foreign films, and that we agreed on the duty of making available for the public eye all the wonderful stories that lay in the history and romance as well as the folk-Iore of this Kingdom. I thought our aspirations were much the same; but in spite of what he might very well have done in the way of proposing to amend not to reject the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of considering the importance of this Bill to the British Empire and instead of considering moral advantages, went off into total opposition to the Bill and concluded with a highly melancholy declamation against its whole character. I do not think that is helpful. The duty of an Opposition, when the interests of the Empire are involved, and when it is
  2066
  a question of good living, is not to oppose a Bill, but to propose Amendments which will help and assist those who, it cannot be denied, have an excellent end in view.
  The right hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the question of tobacco and music and said that a 7½ per cent. of compulsory British music in every concert would be absurd, and that a 7½ per cent. of compulsory British tobacco would be absurd. But the position of the British film industry is entirely different from that of music or tobacco. In the times before the War English films were good, numerous and interesting. There never was a time when British tobacco swept the world, and there never was a time when English music swept the world. We are only trying to restore in the film industry the state of things which existed before the War, not trying to introduce a wholly new and different status. To call 7½. per cent. a monopoly is absurd, and it is equally absurd to call 25 per cent. a monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition contended that when the 25 per cent. limit was reached then, automatically, the operation of this Bill would keep a 25 per cent. of compulsory British films in operation for ever. Did he reflect that what we want there is 75 per cent. or non-compulsory British films, and it may be that they will win a larger percentage by their own merits. At least that is what some of us hope. His re mark about the 25 per cent. seemed to me to be quite beside the point, when we hope to get at least 75 per cent. of British films chosen for their own merits.
  There is a slight stirring among the dry bones of the British film industry. Already the effect of the appearance of this Bill has been to encourage it to a new effort. There is not the slightest doubt a-bout that; and if this is the effect produced by the mere bringing forward of this Bill, we are quite justified in expecting that when it is in operation it will achieve all that is expected. There is, of course, some opposition to this Measure. I have been receiving certain documents on the matter. First of all, there is an opposition based on the theory that to vary the conditions under which the business of exhibiting cinema films has been built up, and successfully built up, must be wrong. But are they being successfully ex-

  2067
  hibited? Is anybody proud of the conditions of the British film industry to-day? I do not think it has been successful, and we want to alter these conditions, not keep them as they are. Secondly there is the view that not enough films to meet the popular taste can be produced in England, the climate and the artists both being lacking. I dispute the contention that the films cannot be produced in England. There are not only out-door scenes, but indoor scenes. Almost any domestic tragedy is produced indoors, and the greater part of every comedy can be produced indoors. The greater part of Shakespeare's plays can be produced indoors. We can always do the indoor scenes, and as to the outdoor scenes, well, after all, the English climate is not much worse than that of Germany, and there are occasions and times when we can do the outdoor scenes also. I think the climate and the artists can be found in this country to produce good films if the British film industry is given the necessary encouragement. At the present moment there is apathy, but this is being removed by the hope that this Bill is going to do something for the industry.
  Then there is a third objection, that the exhibitors' judgment must be the only ruling consideration in the choice of films. They say that any attempt to go against their judgment is misplaced. That is one of the most foolish statements I have ever seen. It means that the exhibitors claim that they only know best what the public want. Let me take an analogy. Why have one-third of the plays produced in London to be with drawn in a fortnight or three weeks? It is because the manager does not know the taste of his public. Why, therefore, are we to think that the judgment of exhibitors of cinema films is going to be any better than the judgment of theatre managers? Are they any better judges of their public? I think the public should be the judge, not the exhibitor. In my opinion it is a most insolent demand to say that the exhibitors' judgment must be final. Are managers who produce impossible plays to have the right to demand that the public should go to see them? The public must be the judge, not the producer. I have the greatest distrust of the judgment of ex-
  2068
  hibitors as well as a distrust of the judgment of managers. Then it is asked why we are objecting to films and plays representing British life in its not most favourable aspect, being represented to Oriental audiences as a mirror of English life. It is said, are there no villains and villainesses in England and Europe? Who would dispute the fact that there are villains and female villains in English life? But who would desire to show such films as specialise on their misdoings to Oriental races, as being typical of English morals? Who would desire to make a voluntary presentation of the "Police News" of England to the Whole civilised' world? It would give a wholly wrong impression to Oriental races. Why should we not do our best to prevent such misrepresentations of English life being broadcast among other races?
  I will not deal with the question of freedom of contract, except to say that the State interferes again and again in everything, and as far as I can gather hon. Members of the Opposition would-like the State to interfere even more. While we may never see football in St. James's Park or fruit stalls around the Abbey, to go on clamouring for complete freedom for everyone to produce what he likes and deprecate all, interference from the State seems to me to he foolish. The last and most curious of the objections I have seen is one which is in a caricature, and it represents some Americans going to an English picture palace and being, told that they will not hear the "Star Spangled Banner" or "John Brown's Body" played there, and that if they asked for them we arc shown they would get 14 days in gaol. I cannot imagine an English audience calling loudly for the "Star Spangled Banner," or making great noise when the orchestra refuses to play it. I should rather like to see the supposed prevision in the Bill, which would make it criminal for anybody to make this rather unusual demand, and get in consequence 14 days. I commend the Bill to the House. The Amendment which has been moved would meat: that it would become an emasculated and truncated Bill, reducing it to a very small thing indeed. But there are other amendments which I would gladly see inserted. I look forward with great hopes to the operation of this Measure. I think I see

  2069
  already some benefit to the industry and I hope it may be the beginning of a better era. For these reasons I heartily commend the original Bill to the approval of hon. Members.
  Colonel DAY: As one who has been connected with the cinema industry since its inception, I wish to offer some objections to the Measure in the hope that I may be able to induce the President of the Board of Trade to further consider its provisions. I can remember the cinema industry before we had any cinemas, when we had only a machine, and we used to take public halls or any hall that we could get for the display of films. From that we got to the shop which was a glorified small cinema. Then we managed to persuade theatre and music-hall proprietors to let us show films. The evolution of the trade then went on to larger shops converted into cinemas. The trade progressed until theatres and music-halls were taken, and converted into cinema theatres. We got larger cinemas built in the provinces, and now there is the big super-cinemas such as we have in the West End of London. That progress has gone on until many millions have been invested and the exhibitor and the renter have many millions at stake. But this Bill in no way endeavours to protect the exhibitor, the renter or the public. All that it does is to protect the producer who, it is acknowledged, cannot produce films in this country properly. The Bill gives him every protection that is possible, and, protection that he does not receive anywhere else.
  The President of the Board of Trade in framing this Bill has overlooked the most important factor of all, and that is sunshine. Without sunshine you cannot get good production of exterior films. We had a short while back a very big cinema studio built in the North of London for the purpose of taking interior films. A very considerable sum of money was spent on the fitting up of that studio, but the producers found that on foggy days they were not able to eliminate the fog from the studio. Notwithstanding the most expensive electric light plant, when fog came along they found they could not take even interior photographs satisfactorily. Then in the ease of exterior
  2070
  films, I have known—unfortunately I have been interested in the production—a case where 400 people were taken twice outside London for the purpose of taking a big scene. Heavy fees were paid to these people for their day's work, and there were the expensive transportation and everything else that goes to the entertainment of these people far the day.
  I see that an hon. Member opposite laughs. It is probably because he has not lost his money in such ventures, as I have. I quite understand his methods and tactics. When the company got out to the chosen spot to have the film taken the camera-men were not able to take a single foot of film. That happened on two occasions and cost about £3,000. Those are some of the difficulties that a producer has to face in this country. The President of the Board of Trade in this Bill is protecting the producer, but he does not guarantee to the exhibitor or to the renter that they are to have good British films to show to the public. Last year the percentage of British films made was 3 per cent. A great amount of capital was invested. Out of that 3 per cent. there was not 1 per cent, of what one would call good films worth showing. What is the experience now? In nine cases out of ten, when you ask friends to visit a cinema, they turn round and ask you, "What is on?" An hon. Member opposite nods his head. I am giving the House my own opinion and experiences. I am sure many hon. Members will bear me out when I state that if the answer to the question is "It is a British film," the reply is "Do not let us go there. What is on at the other place?"; and then they go to see some American or Continental film.
  If it be the idea of the President of the Board of Trade or of the Government that they are going to make the British film industry thrive by means of this Bill, I wonder whether they have taken into consideration the fact that with the small number of cinema theatres in this country it is not possible for us to put on super-productions of the magnitude that will draw thee public to see them. We cannot make these British productions, because we have the American and Continental markets closed to us. The first problem that we have to face is how the British film producers can

  2071
  capture the American and Continental markets as an outlet for British films. The American market and the American exhibitors, I understand, have five times as many theatres as we have here. The President of the Board of Trade stated that one exhibitor, whom he did not identify, had told him only last night that before the War he showed 25 per cent. of British films in his theatre. I think I am quoting him correctly. That being so, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us what kind of theatre that is and where it is situated, because I venture to say that if that theatre is one of the prominent theatres in any of the principal towns, with any violent opposition it would not be open to-day and showing 25 per cent. of British films in a year.
  But even in addition to that we have to consider the fact that at the present time we have a great many more theatres and converted cinema theatres and a great many more super-cinema theatres than we had before the War, and if we could produce last year only 3 per cent. of British films, not, half of which were any good, how are we going or how can we hope to produce next year 7½ per cent. of the films that are required? A remark was made by an hon. Member about plays. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade has considered that in the West End of London nearly every success of any outstanding magnitude in the theatres is either an American play or a play that has been rewritten from one of the Continental successes? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not attempt to restrict the theatres and the music halls in the same way, and say I hat in future they must produce 25 per cent. of British plays? Take the case of the great national theatre, Drury Lane. During the last two years it has had running one of the greatest successes that. London has ever had. It is an American play, and it is to be followed by another American play. If the theatres had to suffer the same restriction as the cinema theatres, in a very short time we would have to try to make plays that would be suitable to the British public.
  The last speaker mentioned that, of every two plays produced in the West End of London, one is closed down within
  2072
  a fortnight. I quite agree. But that is not the fault, as he thinks, of the exhibitor or the manager. It is more or less the fault of people who do not understand the theatrical show business or the financing of plays in the West End. Those who finance such plays are, commonly known among a lot of West End managers as mugs or angels and they are the people who lose their money. It is not generally the theatrical manager or the music-hall manager who loses his money, nor would it be the exhibitor in the case of the cinema business, if he were allowed to control and run his own business in the way in which the business has been built up. My opinion of this Bill is that it is iniquitous. It places a restriction on the cinema exhibitor by trying to control his business, after he has invested many millions of money and taken years to build up the business to the present basis. If we start considering what is to happen to the trade, we can only surmise that, if this Bill passes into law, the British film producer will eventually put up his prices to such a prohibitive level, because the exhibitor and renter will have to take films according to the quota, that it will Dot only make it impossible for any exhibitor to carry on his theatre, but will drive him and the renter eventually out of the business.
  I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade why lie desires to compel the public—that is what it amounts to—to witness films in which they have no interest? The principal factor in the whole matter is that you cannot make the public patronise films that they do not want to see. This Bill is a protection, and not a proper protection, either, of the bad film producer, and it is no protection at all of the exhibitors or the renters, those people who have built up a vast business and have expended millions of money on it. If the Bill is passed, not only those businesses, but the goodwill of them will be destroyed. I suggest that a business that has been built up in the Navy that the cinema industry has been built up, should be left to supply the needs and desires of its patrons without any hindrance. Those patrons are the general public, who are and must be at all times the judges of what they want to see. As far as my experience has gone, British productions,

  2073
  if they merited it, have always been given preference by exhibitors in this country, but I am very sorry to say that, as a rule, the British productions have been far inferior, not only to American productions, but also to many Continental productions.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Bill, as I understand it, is a protection mainly for the incapable producer. The good British producer will always be able to produce a more or less passable film in this country, but he will never be able to produce the simple film that one gets from America. The whole fabric of the trade has been built up in such a way that it is impossible to build up an industry of this kind in this country. One of the principal points of the Bill is the destruction of one method of building up the trade, that is, by blind booking. In America the producer who has an idea for a first-class film scenario, after engaging his principal artists, is able to book that film probably at 100 or 200 theatres. Having secured those contracts, he can go to his banker and obtain a sufficient advance to enable him to go on with the making of the film. Our banking laws and our banking system are entirely different in this country. I do not say that the advantages of our system are not great to the ordinary commercial man, but the banks here will not take the risks that the American financiers and bankers take in this respect, and that has been the great trouble in connection with the production of larger films, outside America, apart from considerations of climate. If producers here could be financed as the American producers are financed they would probably he in a position to take companies over to warmer and more suitable climates and to meet the additional expense of transportation. A great deal has been said this afternoon about the effect of films on the native races. The last speaker referred at some length to a pamphlet on this matter and asked whether it was desired to convey that there were no white villains. I suggest that the way to eliminate the bad influence which certain films might have on the black races is to have all films of that nature prohibited from exhibition in those countries. But even if this Bill goes through it does not ensure that films showing the white races in a bad light
  2074
  will not be seen by native races. American, German, Russian, even British films are being displayed in all Eastern countries. The contention that this Bill will prevent films of the kind indicated being shown to the black races is to my mind quite ludicrous.
  The ultimate outcome of this Bill if it is passed is that you will have during the year repetitions or re-bookings of British films which "play return dates" and I would like to know from the President of the Board of Trade how this is going to affect the comparison in regard to the quota figures. In the ease of some American films shown in this country there are probably 10,000 or 12,000 feet of film. These films are sometimes shown four times a day in the big cinema theatres. What is the suggestion then as to the method of comparison of the figures when fixing the quota? Is such a film as I have mentioned to be taken into consideration as 12,000 feet of film, or is it going to be calculated on the basis of 48,000 feet of film exhibited on a particular day. Is there any guarantee from the President of the Board of Trade that the producers are going to produce good and efficient films for the public—films which the renters can rent to the exhibitors. To start with, we have not in this country studios large enough to make a quota of films such as is provided for in the Bill and it would be impossible to build them before 1928. I would like to deal now with one or two points in the Bill itself. Clause I contains the restriction on blind booking and in this connection I suggest that this provision is not consistent with the answers to questions which I addressed to the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty in November and December last year. On 16th November, 1926. I asked the President of the Board of Trade:
  "Whether he has received from the cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain a draft Bill relative to the blind hooking of films; and can he make any statement in this regard?"
  The President of the Board of Trade replied:
  "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part the question of the production and exhibition within the Empire of Empire films is being considered by the Imperial Conference, and I am consequently unable to make any statement on the matter at present."

  2075
  I then asked:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am particularly referring to the blind booking of films?"
  He answered:
  "I am aware of that. All these matters have been brought before the Imperial Conference."
  I then asked:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the Government Departments, the Admiralty, are interested in the film Falkland,' and that the blind booking of the film has been arranged to a very large number of theatres in this country?"
  The President of the Board of Trade said:
  "I was not aware of that, but if the hon. Member has a question to put to the Admiralty he had better put it to the First Lord."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1926; col. 1657, Vol. 199.]
  [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am obliged to hon. Gentlemen for their cheers, but perhaps they will wait until I have finished. On 24th November I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty:
  "What facilities are being given by the Admiralty to the producers who are making the film 'Falkland' which aims at reproducing incidents of the late War; what Government ships or material will be used in this production; how many, if any, naval ratings will be employed; what payment the Admiralty will receive for such use; and whether the Admiralty will have any interest in the said film."
  The reply which I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was:
  "Facilities will be given to the producers to take cinematograph pictures of incidents occurring in His Majesty's ships in the ordinary course of naval routine, but neither ships nor men will be specially employed for the purpose, and no extra expense will be incurred thereby. The Admiralty will receive a proportion of any profits accruing from exhibition of the film."
  I then asked:
  "Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what proportion will be received by the Admiralty, and if bookings have already been secured?"
  The reply was:
  "It would not be in the public interest to make any statement of that kind."
  I also asked:
  "Can the hon. Gentleman say if bookings have already been secured before the film has been made:"
  And the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary was:
  "I should like notice of that question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1926; cols. 383–384, Vol. 200.]
  2076
  On the 1st of December—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] It is all very well, but I am going to read these questions and answers, because they show the inconsistency of the Government. While the Government were thinking of bringing in this Bill and while the President of the Board of Trade was saying that he was against blind booking, another Department of the Government was entering into contracts on the blind booking system in connection with a film in which they were financially interested.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I say at once that I am against blind booking, and we arc providing in this Bill against it. But, as long as you make it free to every American firm to "blind book" as far as they can, I see no reason why the British firm should not take advantage of the same privilege.
  Colonel DAY: I quite agree. That is the reason I ask why if you are absolutely against it, you should encourage it in the Government as has been done here. The President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty in December and January last in this House practically denied that there was any encouragement of blind hooking and I propose to read on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it as read!"] Hon. Members may take it as read, but I want this to go into the OFFICIAL REPORT. I want to show the position which the Government took up in December and January last.
  Sir FRANK MEYER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT, in order that they may go a second time into the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not think I have any power to prevent it.
  Colonel DAY: On 1st December, 1926, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty:
  "What percentage of takings or profits the Admiralty will receive from the bookings or engagements of the film 'Falkland'?"
  The answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was:
  "I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my statement of 24th November—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Cols. 383–4]—to the effect that it would not be in the public interest to give such details."

  2077
  I then asked:
  "Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any bookings have been obtained for this film?"
  The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was:
  "I require notice of that question."
  That was the second time he said he required notice of the same question, and I then said:
  "That is the point of the question. That was the same answer as I had before—that the hon. Gentleman would like notice. I have now put the question on the Paper, and the hon. Gentleman gives me the same reply"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1926; cols. 1176–1177, Vol. 200.]
  On 6th December, 1926, I asked the President of the Board of Trade
  "Whether it is now intended to introduce legislation with a view to the abolition of blind booking of cinematograph films."
  And the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1926; col. 1676, Vol. 200.]
  On 7th December, I asked the President of the Board of Trade
  "What action has been taken by his Department with a view to the effective organisation for producing and distributing Empire films?"
  The President of the Board of Trade replied:
  "The whole subject…is receiving careful consideration, but as I informed the hon. Member…I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1926; cols. 1873–1874, Vol. 200.]
  On 8th December, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
  "Whether he is aware that the film 'Falkland,' in which the Admiralty has a financial interest, has been booked by the producers before the film has been made, and whether in giving facilities for such productions in the future he will make at a condition that the policy of the Board of Trade with respect to blind booking of films is observed?"
  The right hon. Gentleman answered:
  "The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the hon. Member may be assured that the action and policy of my Department and the Board of Trade are not, and will not be, in conflict."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1926; col. 2087, Vol. 200.]
  2078
  On the 14th December, 1926, I asked the President of the Board of Trade
  "whether he has considered the proposal to introduce legislation with regard to the Wind booking of films; and, if so, whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill covering this subject?"
  The President replied:
  "The whole subject of Empire film production is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement."
  I then asked:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that tile policy of the Admiralty is to have their films blind booked at the present time?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1926; cols. 2740–1, Vol. 200.]
  On the 15th December, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
  "what bookings have been received to the last convenient date for the film 'Falkland'?"
  The First Lord replied:
  "I am unable w give any information."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 15th December, 1926; co. 2904, Vol. 200.]
  Sir F. MEYER: What was the result?
  Colonel DAY: There is no result, with the exception that the policy of the Government as outlined in those questions and answers is entirely inconsistent with the policy suggested in Clause 1 of this Bill. They themse1ves, when it suits their purpose, take advantage of blind booking. They themselves, when they are interested in the profits of a film, although they contemplate bringing in this Bill to prohibit blind booking, are evidently advised by the producers of that film that the whole system of the cinematograph trade, the whole fabric of the industry, has been built up on blind booking, and that if they want their films to be successful financially, they must arrange for blind booking.
  Now we come to the second part of Clause 1, and I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade has realised that the people who are producing films and are going to spend vast sums of money on them are not going to take the whole of the risk. What he wants them to do is to take the liability of probably £100,000, or more, which some of these super-productions cost, without being able to get one week's bookings for a film before it is produced. It is an absolutely absurd suggestion. The whole business

  2079
  has been built up by producers being able to arrange with the renters to sublet or let their films to exhibitors, so that they would be assured of the return of a certain portion of the money they are expending on the production, even before the production is made. What the right hon. Gentleman does, in prohibiting blind booking, is not helping the British film industry at all, and my opinion is that you are more or less going to kill the British film industry before you even start. You are destroying it, because you are saying to the exhibitors and the renters: "You must not book a film until you have seen the trade show." By that system the producer is not going to spend £100,000 or £200,000—these figures seem large, but they arc small compared with what some of the big super-productions cost—unless he can be insured in some way against big losses on his productions. The whole business —not only the cinematograph industry, but also the music hall and the theatrical industries—has been built up by contracts being made in advance, by advance hooking. I have known in my experience—and so have other hon. Members—of many artistes who have been booked complete, without a week out practically, for 10 years in advance, and I have known some films that have been booked solidly at many theatres practically for a Year before they were released. This Bill, in fact, destroys the whole system. You are trying to alter the whole system of the trade, which it has taken years to build up, and which it has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and I might say millions, to do.
  I now turn to line 5, on page 3, which states that no film can be booked until a trade show has been given. How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to enforce a Clause like that without destroying the whole industry, which has taken probably 30 years to get into the successful state that it is in now? Then, in Clause 6, it states that the Board of Trade shall keep a register, and lower down it says the Board shall be supplied, where it is desired to register a British film, with
  "such information as may he necessary to determine whether the film is a British film."
  and overleaf we get what is intended by the term "a British film." I wonder
  2080
  whether the President has taken into consideration what has happened here in the last year or so with companies called British film companies, where a nominal amount, or an amount of, say, £2,000, or £3,000, or even £5,000 in one company that I know, has been subscribed wholly by British shareholders, but sums of money to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in the production of that business, but that has been by American money, lent to the company, either on debentures or on preference shares of the original holding in the company, and is called a British company and proved to be so because the whole of the ordinary share capital is owned by British shareholders. The finance of the company is, however, carried on by American money. The President said it would not be necessary to have an army of officials to inspect the books, but. I contend that it will be essential to have an army of officials in order to watch what is going on in this cinematograph business. It is not that I impute any wrong motives in any way to anybody connected with the exhibiting business, but this point has to be considered. A film leaves a renter to go to an exhibitor, and it will probably be 2,000 feet long when it is sent to that exhibitor, and it will be supposed to be on show there for three days. At the end of that time it does not go back to the renter to be re-registered and have all the particulars altered, but during the first three days there may have been 100 feet cut off it. Something may have happened to the film, such as a fire, or it may have been worn, and the exhibitor may have cut it. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr H. Williams) may laugh, but he does not want to know about it. That film has been sent on to the next exhibitor, who has to show it for three days with a piece cut off, and another piece may be cut off that week. That happens very often, through the film being worn, or through an accident in the machine, or a break, and the film will eventually be probably 200, 300, or even 400 feet shorter than when it left the renter's hands.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do the public still put up with it?
  Colonel DAY: I am not concerned with that interjection, but with the conditions

  2081
  laid down in the Bill and the forms which the exhibitor and the renter have continually to fill up, and although it may be no fault of the exhibitor, he is still, according to this Bill, liable to a very heavy penalty for not entering tip a return correctly. When the hon. Member says: "Do the public put up with it?" perhaps he is not one who regularly goes to see the films. If he does, he will have seen on many occasions films with big breaks in the centre of them, and other parts joined up. I have seen them on many occasions myself. I will go further than that and say that I have been in the theatre when films have been cut, and I have seen them cut, and if the hon. Member had been connected in any way with the industry, he would know that I am speaking the truth. Some people, unfortunately, try to know something about every industry in the world, and I am afraid the hon. Member is one of those persons. Although I am trying to explain exactly what happens in the film trade, the hon. Member keeps on trying to throw me off, although I feel certain that he has had no practical experience of the trade.
  Now I come to Part III, on page 6, where we deal with the provisions for securing the quota of British films. I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade how he would think any other business in London could he built up if he were to go, for instance, to large shops such as Selfridge's or Whiteley's, and say: "We are going to bring in a Bill that henceforward you have to supply not less than 25 per cent. of British goods." He would immediately kill all enterprise in that business. You cannot dictate to traders what they shall serve; nor can you dictate to the public what they shall buy. I wonder the Government do not try to practise what they preach. I made a statement in tie House once before and I am going to repeat it. If the Government are so interested and concerned in the buying of British goods, why do they not see that their own supporters buy British goods? Go into Palace Yard any night, and see the number of American and other foreign motor ears. I counted them one night, and gave the number in the House. I quite agree with the remark of an hon. Member opposite that they cannot all afford Rolls Royce cars.
  2082
  but they can patronise the cheaper ears, such as Morris-Cowleys; nor need they buy Continental tyres.
  Sir F. MEYER: On a point of Order. Is it relevant on a Cinematograph Films Bill for the hon. Member to dictate to his fellow Members what cars they are to buy?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was led away by an interruption, and his speech made so much the longer.
  Colonel DAY: I contend that this Bill is a Bill that is dictating to the exhibitors and renters in the cinematograph industry what films they must show in their theatres, and what films the public must see. I have already asked the President of the Board of Trade as to the effect of Clause 16 upon the quota in the matter of return engagements. That would be rather an interesting explanation, if we could have it. There can be no question that, if this Bill becomes law, the majority of exhibitors in this country will be compelled to force upon the public a lot of absolutely futile and rubbishy films. Experience in the past has proved that it is almost impossible for the British film industry in any way to keep up the supply for our theatres. Here we are trying to regulate demand before we regulate supply. I submit that the first thing we should do before trying to make this Bill effective is to regulate supply before we attempt to regulate demand. The exhibitor and the renter are forced to take out licences, according to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the fees will not be very heavy. I would like to ask him what benefit the exhibitor, the renter or even the public are going to get by having this Bill forced through the House of Commons? There can be no question that, according to Clause 21, more control is going to be put on the cinema industry than any other commercial undertaking in the country. It is almost impossible for any exhibitor to carry on his business unless he employs a clerk specially to make out the records required. The Clause says:
  "Every licensed exhibitor shall also keep at each theatre at which he exhibits films a book, and shall as soon as practicable record therein the title, registered number and registered length of film exhibited by him at the theatre to the public (distinguishing between British and foreign registered films), the dates of all exhibitions of

  2083
  each film and the hours and number of times of exhibition of each film each day, and every such book shall be open to inspection by any person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade."
  The exhibitor's life will not be his own. The President of the Board of Trade puts so many restrictions on him, that it will be necessary for him to employ a clerk to enter up the number of feet of film exhibited on every occasion—it might be 2,000 feet at the first performance, 1,800 feet at the second, and, at the third, only 1,500 feet. He is in duty bound to enter that up, make a record of all the particulars and keep the book open for inspection. I would like the President of the Board of Trade, or whoever is going to reply, to explain to the House what is going to happen to the renter or the exhibitor if he cannot secure 25 per cent. of good British films to show to the public? There is nothing in this Bill to tell us what is going to happen to him, but we are told that if he does not provide 25 per cent. of British films, he is to be under a very heavy penalty. We only produced 3 per cent. last year, and supposing we cannot produce more than 15 per cent. of inferior films, and the exhibitor is bound to show 25 per cent., what is going to happen to him? Are those penalties, which are very heavy, to be remitted? I think the only suggestion which can be offered for the relief of the exhibitor in those circumstances is that, if he cannot get the British films which he has got to show, is to shut his theatre.
  The most sensible suggestion I have heard in the House this afternoon for the purpose of obtaining these films is that the President of the Board of Trade should subsidise the British producers so as to give them an opportunity of making sufficient British films. If he cannot do so, let the Government, if they are so sure of this Measure, utilise public money in financing a trade which the people in that trade are convinced can never turn out sufficient English films to be of the advantage or use that the President thinks they will be. Another tiling which the right hon. Gentleman has not, I think, taken into consideration is that our best producers, our best artistes, are all in America. They have gone there, not because they want to go there for the sake of getting out of their
  2084
  own country, but because the opportunities are greater for making money, and the film industry there is thriving to such an extent that it can afford to pay very much greater sums to our producers and to our artistes than they can obtain here.
  I want to say a word with regard to Clause 29. I see there that the President of the Board of Trade suggests as an Advisory Committee
  "Two representatives of film makers;
  Two representatives of film renters;
  Four representatives of film exhibitors;
  Three members, of whom one shall be chairman, being persons having no pecuniary interest in any branch of the film industry."
  Some of the most important persons he has left out are the actual producers of the films. They are the people with the most technical knowledge of what is happening in the film industry. They are the people who have to produce the films; they are not the people who finance the films. As a last word, I would say that what the President of the Board of Trade has done in this Bill has been to nurse and coddle the producers, and to encourage the badly produced films in such a way that if they were human beings they would be called spoilt babies. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should have the Bill so amended that it can be, perhaps, knocked into proper shape before chiming down for Third Reading.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: We have had three speeches in opposition to this Bill—two from right hon. Gentlemen, and one from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The last speaker comes before us as an expert. The other two speakers were not, I think, experts, and I am sorry they are not present, because I really wondered to what extent they are patrons of this particular form of art. I occasionally visit the picture theatres. I should visit them more frequently, but my sense of obligation to this House prevents me. I have been much impressed with the deplorable nature of many of the entertainments, I do not mean from the moral point of view, but from the entertainment point of view. When I have been more bored than usual, I have discussed this occasionally with the management, who never attempt to defend it, and explain that, after all, they are not free agents.

  2085
  They are largely under the control of the American producers, and I only wish they were in a position to give us better entertainments than they give us at the present time. That is the issue. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) have not faced the issue at all. From one point of view, this Bill is not even primarily concerned with the interests of the cinematograph industry. It is concerned with very much wider and Imperial interests—interests which were most strongly commented upon at the recent Imperial Conference.
  Quite frankly, I do not suppose any of us like this kind of legislation. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade regrets the necessity to introduce such legislation. It bears no resemblance to any kind of protective legislation. It bears no resemblance, so far as I am aware, to any previous Bill. But the real difficulty we have to face is the abnormal situation, and I cannot understand the inelasticity of mind which refuses to meet a new situation by new methods. What, broadly speaking, is the position, as far as we can make out? The exhibitor is not a free buyer. We have heard to-day of interference with exhibitors. They will not be free to buy; they will he handed over to a British monopoly. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that this Bill is introduced in the interests of the producers, and that it has the producers behind it. Broadly speaking, the producers do not yet exist; that is the real trouble.
  Many of those who may be engaged in the production of films if this Bill becomes law are not yet in the business, because the plain truth of the matter is there is no real market to-day for any large volume of British films. The American producers, building up their industry during the War, placed themselves in a peculiarly strong position, and the exhibitor desirous of showing the super-films to which the last speaker referred very frequently only has an opportunity of exhibiting them if at the same time he is willing to take great masses of inferior stuff, much of it nothing better than rubbish; and whether the British producer
  2086
  comes along with a decent film, and tries to get a market for it, he finds the theatres are booked up with masses of American rubbish forced on them by the monopoly of the American interests. [Interruption]. The trouble is that when you visit a picture palace you can see only what is available, and, as I said earlier, one is often bored by the programme. What I cannot understand is why the three critics who have spoken have not faced up to this issue. They deplored the situation. We heard mush vigorous, and occasionally ponderous, eloquence from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition deploring the Bill, describing it as a bad Bill, an iniquitous Bill, and telling us in language much more impressive than mine of the evils which exist at the present time, but not one word as to a solution came from the right hon. Gentleman, nor from the Liberal benches. What is the use of deploring the grave situation, and then attacking those who put forward a scheme when you have no alternative to put forward? [Interruption]. A right hon. Gentleman says we cannot grow bananas in this country. It is quite true that we can only grow them under glass, under very abnormal conditions, but there is not the, slightest doubt that we can produce a large number of films with every success provided we offer some market to the producers, and at the present time the market open to them is so extremely limited by the iniquitous system of blind booking and block booking that there is no substantial market, and therefore people are not attracted to the industry.
  The hon. Member for Central Southwark made some reference to people in the West End, whom he spoke of as either angels or "mugs." He said they were the people who were responsible for staging a very considerable proportion of unsuccessful plays. Evidently, there is a considerable amount of money available for the production of entertainments. Yet later in his speech he explained that the real difficulty that would arise with the British film industry would be the lack of money if this Bill became law.
  Colonel DAY: Do not confuse the two. The hon. Gentleman is confusing theatres and the cinema industry, which are entirely different. The production of cinema films is entirely different from

  2087
  the exhibition of plays in West End theatres.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am perfectly well aware of that; it is fairly obvious to most intelligences that there is some difference between a play and a picture. I am talking about people who are not experienced in either the production of plays or the production of pictures, but who are stimulated to finance entertainments either by a desire for profit or a desire for social notoriety, and I should think it would be quite easy for them to stimulate their vanity by financing British films.
  Colonel DAY: You try!
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not much impressed by the financial argument the hon. Member for Central Southwark presented to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition condemned blind booking and condemned a thing which is associated with it, though not necessarily the same, that is, block booking. As he condemned those things, presumably he supports the Bill so far as it deals with those points, and to that extent the last speaker is found differing from his leader. That, of course, is characteristic of that party, and we must not take too much notice of it. It seems to be rather a habit in Southwark.
  Colonel DAY: It is a good job your leaders do not agree with you.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Central Southwark also condemned that part of the Bill which provides for a quota. A situation has been developing recently in Birmingham in which certain American interests sought to obtain control of some of the larger cinema theatres. I believe that, as a fact, some of the more important cinema theatres in this country are under the control of producing interests in the United States of America. If you merely prohibit blind booking and block booking, and make no provision for a quota, those enormously powerful interests may defeat your ends by seeking to obtain control of many of the more important theatres. Therefore, quite apart from anything else, it seems to me vital that the quota system must be associated with the prohibition of blind and block booking.
  2088
  The quota system as proposed by the, President of the Board of Trade is on a very moderate scale. It increases at a very slow rate, and if I happen to be a member of the Committee to which this Bill is referred I may be inclined to suggest that the rate of increase ought to be more rapid. But that is a matter for argument, and it may be the President can put up a very strong case for what I have called a moderate rate of increase. To suggest that you can attract to this industry, which at the moment is in the strangle-hold of American monopoly interests, British enterprise and British capital on any substantial scale unless the industry is given some guarantee of a market, seems to me perfectly absurd. We not only want to guarantee those people a market, but a growing market, during the period when they are seeking to build up the British industry. I think the President of the Board of Trade has carefully avoided the danger of a British monopoly growing up by fixing the quota at a figure which is definitely less than that which British industry, even under the present adverse conditions, has succeeded in supplying. The hon. Member for Central Southwark said that only 3 per cent. of films at the present time are British. My information is that something in the neighbourhood of 10 per rent, is far nearer the mark. I do not know where the hon. and gallant Member got his figures from, but they are not the figures generally current in the industry.
  Reference was made by many speakers to the evil of showing to coloured races and to, shall we say, less educated people than the average inhabitant of this country, representations of the lives of white people which are completely contrary to the life the bulk of us live. Those films have done great harm, and the question has been asked, "How does this Bill deal with that great problem"? If we are to build up a real export trade in British films, we must first get a British film-producing industry at home, and if we are to have that we must give it a market. We must put first things first, and the first thing to do is to build up a British film-producing industry of a high class on a large scale, and that we shall never do unless we can give the industry some opportunity of developing. At the present time it is denied

  2089
  that opportunity by the American monopolies. When we have built up the home industry, we can develop the export trade, and then I hope we shall in time drive out of the British Empire the evils of which complaint has been made; and if we get co-operation from the other Dominions, to which I think we are entitled, they will help, but they cannot help us until we are in a position to help ourselves by launching on the world an adequate supply of first-class films.
  Sir ALFRED BUTT: Probably nothing has made quite so much progress during the last 20 years as the cinema theatre, and what is known as the cinema habit. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that more people visit our cinema theatres every day than visit any other form of entertainment. Cinema theatres are spread throughout the country, and I regard it as a matter of national importance that the films shown in those theatres should not be solely characteristic of the habits of foreign nations. In the interesting discussion we have had this afternoon sufficient attention has not been paid to the fact that millions of people in this country every day are compelled to witness films—[Interruption]. If they wish to visit a cinema theatre, which is a very popular form of entertainment with the masses, they are compelled to witness films produced largely by those having a foreign nationality. I am making no criticism of the films, but I say that, from a national point of view, it is not good that Britishers should be compelled to imbibe the ideas which are put into those productions by foreigners. The cinema has now become a matter of paramount importance. From the purely industrial point of view, there is no doubt that a huge revenue is to be obtained by the production of films. I have here the balance-sheet of a typical American company, and I see that their assets are no less than 78,000,000 dollars, and their receipts for the last fiscal year were 62,000,000 dollars. It does not require much imagination to realise that that revenue of 62,000,000 dollars represents a vast amount of employment provided, and from that point of view alone I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway would have been extremely anxious to foster anything likely to add to employment in this country.
  2090
  7.0 p.m.
  Personally, I do not like the Bill, and I am inclined to think that probably the President of the Board of Trade does not like it. But he told us perfectly frankly that he has patiently consulted the industry—I know that of my own knowledge—and that the industry has not come forward with any unanimous constructive suggestion. He has therefore been forced to introduce a measure of his own initiative; and whilst it may be bad to start protecting any particular industry, I think the House ought to weigh up the evil and the remedy, and see which it is the more advantageous to accept. I think the President has shown great moderation in making his scale for the quota so moderate, and I believe that if the industry will accept this as being a genuine effort by the Government and by the country to stimulate and encourage production, it may considerably help production in this country. We have heard a great deal this evening to the effect that production cannot be undertaken in this country. Until 1913, although undoubtedly America was well ahead of us, we were producing in a moderate way. Then we had a period when we were very much occupied elsewhere, and the Americans were able to go ahead with their intensive production. I was in America as recently as last December, when I took the opportunity of discussing this very matter with one of the greatest film producers in that country, and he told me that America had no monopoly of the genius of film production. He said, quite properly, that we should never be able in England to produce on the same magnitude or to the same extent as they could in America, firstly, because they have a much wider territory in which to dispose of their films, and, secondly, because they have many years' experience. But he told me, quite definitely, that there was no reason why England should not produce a moderate number of films every year. He took the view that we could produce them of equal quality, and in most cases at far less cost than in America.
  We have in this country short story writers who are equal to any in America, and I do not believe that our technical people are incapable of being trained in the art of film production. What. I think is a very great loss is that the

  2091
  industry itself has not yet produced a genius. Apparently, in America they have co-ordinated production, distribution and exhibition, while in this country those three factors are working independently, and often each opposed to the others. I want the producers to realise that if this remedy is going to be given them by this House, they must not hereafter say, "We are Government-protected, we are Government-fed, we are now virtually subsidised, and there is no need for us to stimulate ourselves." For that reason, I wish to make this suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade. I think it is desirable that the quota should start moderately. But I am wondering whether he could not consider going up, perhaps, after 1928, a little more rapidly; and, when he has gone up a little more rapidly to arrive at the 25 per cent., perhaps two years earlier than is contemplated under the Bill, then for the Act itself to come to an end. If the producers knew they had four or five years of reasonable protection in which to put their house in order, and in which they would have a fair and an equal chance to get their films booked—which, of course, they have not at present—there is no reason why at the end of that period the protection should not be done away with, and they should be allowed to compete on their own merits.
  Subject to that, I would like the House to give this Bill a chance to go upstairs to Committee. I think the President of the Board of Trade agrees that there are many details which might well be discussed and amended. I do not propose to occupy the time of the House by discussing them now, but I would like to point out that no one has suggested an alternative remedy—no one inside or outside the House. None of us on either side of the House like this principle, I am perfectly certain, but you either have to face letting the film industry here pass entirely into the hands of foreigners, or you have to give some temporary measure which will stimulate and assure production. Surely, apart from helping the industry from the national point of view, we ought to make at least one great effort to see that the propaganda distributed in this country every week among millions
  2092
  of people is not wholly the conception of foreigners, and we ought at once to try and get some British ideals distributed throughout the country.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I want to intervene for a few moments to discuss what I am afraid has been largely neglected as far as this discussion is concerned. The last speaker, in his authoritative statement, said that no alternative had been offered to the Bill. I suggest that there is an alternative, but it is one that I feel nervous of putting to the House, and yet in my opinion it is the only one which can be adopted with any success if you are to meet foreign competition. The artistic side of the film is the thing which will appeal ultimately to the public of this country, and I want to say that the most abominable productions are brought out in this country by the British film producers and no sort of State protection is going to give them that genius or quality or ability necessary for successful British film productions.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, pulled out all the stops in the organ in order to appeal to our patriotic emotionalism and said that we might have been the primary producer of the world had we not been involved in the War, but that in the hiatus of the War we were somewhat distracted in the development of the cinema, and, therefore, we were handicapped as against other countries. I should like to point out that perhaps the finest film productions in the world to-day come from the Germans—certainly the most artistic productions—and yet Germany was involved in the War. Germany had as much distraction in the War as we had, if not more. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have a 50 per cent. quota!"] Is there any man here who understands or has any valuation of artistic ability who would dare to suggest for a moment that the superior artistic ability of Germany is due to some quota which she has for the protection of the industry? It has nothing whatever to do with it, and I am surprised that any hon. Member should make that interjection.
  What you want is ability and when you have that, the enterprise among business men to support it. That you have not got. You have those who are

  2093
  capable of performing in the cinema and who are going over to other countries where inducements are held out to them. I do not agree with the speech made from these benches in which it was stated that there are certain drawbacks from atmospheric conditions and so on which handicap us in producing proper films with all the artistic qualities which are now so expressed in foreign films. I have had something to do with this and have had some experience in the matter, and I say that we have every facility in this country for producing as good films as are produced in any other country in the world. No amount of quotas or State protection is going to bring out the highest qualities in the industry itself.
  I would rather, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, that he had brought in this Bill under its proper designation as a sort of Safeguarding of Industries Bill than under the guise of something to help the esthetic appeal of the film. I observed that at the beginning of his speech he was more concerned about propaganda abroad than with anything connected with the development of film art. In the speeches delivered since his opening, it has been constantly referred to as if it were an ordinary industry. It is nothing of the kind. You are getting a new field of art just as much as in music and other forms of artistic expression, and to suggest that this quota is going to make your people more artistic than they are or more capable in producing films is in my opinion a hopeless and futile path to pursue.
  There is one thing that this Bill will do if it passes into law. It will give a guarantee of monetary return and protection to the deficient producers in this country. It will give them something in the nature of a subsidy. The hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) is apprehensive of that, and he speaks with great authority. He thought the 25 per cent. might be much more sudden and he suggested a decline from that point to the terminable point reached under the adjustment proposed in the Bill. I can see that when this Bill gets upstairs in Committee the producers who are hoping to have an interminable sub-
  2094
  sidy given to them will be very busy to see that nothing shall endanger the constant flow of this protection.
  There is another thing I want to impress upon the House. Artists in this country have more than once stated to me openly that the film, as produced in Great Britain, is inartistic, lacking in vision and shows no great conception, and that that is the handicap and nothing else. Surely, if we are going to enter in the field of competition in this great artistic development of the cinema, this is the wrong method to pursue. I should not object to the Minister of Education coming and asking for an advance of money from the State to encourage schools for the development of the art of the cinema. I would encourage that, because, after all, I daresay in the future the cinema will require to be used as an educational process in this country. I should not object to that, but this Bill when you put aside all excuses, is nothing more nor less than a protectionist measure which ought to have been brought in under another designation altogether. No amount of this process will give you the efficiency in production plus the artistic qualities which are necessary to make this a successful industry in this country.
  I have seen it mooted in the Press, that certain people, a doubtful professor of history, a second-rate fresco painter and an actress, are all going to be brought into a combination. What these people hope to produce, God only knows; I do not. What is wanted is something more than that, and, if the gentlemen in the film producing industry think they are going to become more efficient in their art and in the processes of that art by means of this kind, they have only got to consult the artistic authorities of Europe. British film production has been a by-word and a joke in Germany. You are laughed to scorn by those employed in the most artistic performances of film production in Sweden. You are a byword, but there is no reason why you should be. To begin with the British film producer generally deals with maudlin sentiment in which there is no intellectual appeal at all, and they will have to be a little more astute and keen in their development if they are going to make a success. This Bill is not interested in the development of the art

  2095
  of the cinema and it is nothing more nor less than an attempt under a new guise to adopt the old game of protecting a vested interest which is unfortunate in its own craft in the world of competition, and which you are hoping to bolster up by this process. I have discussed this matter with men interested in the artistic side, and I have been asked to express their opinion on the Floor of this House in connection with this Bill.
  Viscount SANDON: I never realised until the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) addressed us how really thrilling long extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT could be. If there is one argument which has been repeated over and over again, not only in this House but outside, it is that the Government are taking up this matter because they desire to assist a certain section of the trade. We have heard cases quoted over and over again about assisting one section of trade or another, but I think all that completely misses the point. Whatever feelings may exist on this question in some parts of the House all that misses the point so far as the rank and file of the people of this country are concerned. This Bill has nothing to do with the question of business, and I contend that the phrase "business is business," is not the factor we are dealing with, and it is not the issue at stake. A far better analogy than that of business and economics would be if the Government were to give a grant towards making repairs to Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral.
  If this were a matter of trading or safeguarding I should say let us get down to something more substantial. This Measure affects more the higher as opposed to mundane interests of the country. This is not a case where we can make use of the phrase "Let us get back to an economic basis." I am not one of those who hold that this is a direction in which that argument can be applied. We have had several references made to the quota, and it has also rightly been said that no alternative has been suggested. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Central Southwark and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), have said that we cannot compete with the foreigner because of our
  2096
  weather, but they must have made a very scanty study of this Bill which covers the whole Empire. Is there not sun in Australia, India, and New Zealand?
  There is another aspect of this question in regard to which I do not see eye to eye with the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt). Of course, I can see his point. He suggested that we should lay down a certain period of time during which the quota should operate. Although I agree that is a possible and a desirable thing, and I hope it will terminate, I would like to point out that this is not a commercial question. No doubt that would be a sound argument if we based our case on it being a trading concern, but that is not the point, for we have to see that for all time we secure a predominant position as far as possible for the film industry of this country, and we cannot tell what the position later may be. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the reasons for which this Bill is necessary. It is necessary for social domestic and Imperial reasons and for trade as a whole as opposed to the Film Trade, and as so well explained by the President in his opening speech. I do not wish to pursue these points because I think we are all agreed upon them, but I would say that I think the sponsoring of this Measure by the Board of Trade is a misfortune, inevitable though I realise it is. I do not mean that in any personal sense, because I know no one could have been more keen or could administer it better than the present President of the Board of Trade and his Department. That is not my argument, but I regret that this question is to be placed under the control of that Department as a matter of principle, as it leads to misunderstanding of the objects.
  We have had a certain form of propaganda by outside organisations which is natural when applied to themselves, but it is not equally admirable When applied to the House of Commons. What I am certain of is that the House of Commons will not tolerate dictation from outside bodies, and as far as I am concerned if anyone thinks they can influence me by offering me votes to take up the attitude they suggest they are very welcome to try. We all remember that about four years ago, in regard to the Entertainments Duty, there was adopted a form of pro-

  2097
  paganda which was absolutely damning to the cause which it desired to serve. There has been a suggestion made in some probably irresponsible quarters that the screen should be used for the purpose of carrying out propaganda against Members of Parliament over this Bill. I should like to see that started in my own constituency! But they are more enlightened there. I know it emanates very largely from Manchester, where we have a vested interest of the worst type, which appears to judge Parliament by its own standards of self-interests, which of course would never appeal to this House.
  I should like to take up one or two points which have been made use of in regard to this propaganda. First of all, they make the rather amazing claim that the cinema is the cleanest recreation of the present age! If that bold claim were true, there would be no need for this legislation. Then they say that what we are doing is to cause "disaster for one section" in order to make "easy profits for another." I think the people who make such remarks as those had better go back to school and learn logic, because if it is going to ruin the exhibitor, how can the producer carry on and find his markets? That argument often appears in this propaganda, but it will not hold water amongst an intelligent body of people. I think the social aspect of this matter is of particular importance so far as a certain kind of film is concerned. I read in yesterday's "Times" an account of the film which has just been produced at one of the London theatres, and the "Times" makes this reference, which is typical of my experience of American films which I have seen both in American and here:
  "The truth is perhaps that in many of those matters English and American tastes differ so far that they cannot be reconciled."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To which film is the Noble Lord referring?
  Viscount SANDON: I do not think it is an advantage to particularise in regard to this matter. I prefer to deal with it in a more general sense, but I will gladly tell the hon. and gallant. Gentleman that privately. There are two or three questions which I should like to put to the President of the Board of Trade. I asked a question with reference to Parts I and II of the Bill, and was told
  2098
  to await a reply in the course of the Debate, which, however, I did not secure, unless I was inattentive, but as far as I can make out from a study of that part, although the penalties are set out, there is no authority provided to make a first move. I understand that under the Theatrical Employers Registration Act the whole thing has been reduced to a nullity simply for lack of a provision of that kind, and unless the Government define who is to take action in necessary cases I am afraid we shall find that the spirit of the Act cannot be carried out. As regards punishments, when once it is decided that a crime has been committed under the Act which merits punishment, it seems to me that it would be far more reasonable to punish them by the withdrawal and the cancellation of their registration, or at least alternatively if not additionally, because many of these combines are wealthy, and it would not present a very great difficulty to them even if they were called upon to find a comparatively large sum of money.
  I have a good deal of sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks about the Committee which has been suggested. Though I think it is important that all sections of the trade should be represented upon that Committee, perhaps there may be some grounds for increasing the proportion of those who come from outside in order to make sure that the interests which are really the foundation of this Bill should be adequately safeguarded. Further I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to include in the conditions under the quota that the films should pass the Board of Censors before they are exhibited. I am not entirely satisfied with certain aspects as to the question of what are British films. For instance, I think there is great danger in allowing the star actors to be excluded from the 75 per cent., and I should also like to ask whether the President of the Board of Trade cannot be empowered to raise the 75 per cent. to a higher amount, so that a larger proportion of those concerned in the films should be British, or failing that this percentage should be increased year by year, as is the quota.
  As regards the attitude of the Opposition, I must say I was rather amazed. One might almost be tempted to suggest

  2099
  that they were overcome by the idea that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose. I had really thought that here was a ease where all parties would be united. There has been a great deal of talk from the other side of the House about the question of vested interests, but it seems to me that it would be an easy case for us to make that hon. Gentlemen opposite are sponsoring at least one section of vested interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] As was more or less hinted at by the President of the Board of Trade the exhibitors are by no means unanimously, or even by a majority, at the present time, opposed to the principle of the quota. A large number of them, probably the majority, are really alive to the national aspects of this matter, and are as keen as any of us to remedy what they realise to be the grave evil that confronts us at the present time. It would be a mistake for hon. Gentlemen to run away with the idea that the views put forward by this recalcitrant body in Manchester represent the general feeling of the trade.
  The attitude of the Liberal party was even more interesting. I do not know how many hon. Members have ever seen the play of Gilbert and Sullivan called "Ruddigore," where a mad woman is always encouraged to do the right thing if the word "Basingstoke" is mentioned. In the same way, if anyone breathes the word "freedom," the whole of the Liberal party is up in arms, and, no matter what is to be done in the name of freedom, they get into such a state of enthusiasm as to make it impossible to conduct any argument. They do that in regard to Free Trade which is no free, and, in the same way, they believe in freedom for this trade, although equally it is not free, because the public are not free, under present conditions, to decide whether they shall see American or British films, but have to see foreign films every time. The truth is they willingly die for a fetish, and usually a bad one. In conclusion, I desire to make this one general observation. In this House, over and over again, when we are dealing with current legislation, there are things which loom large at the moment, but which time may prove to very small. To-day we are dealing with something which many people regard as a side-line and an unimportant Measure,
  2100
  but this strikes down to the fundamentals of our social life in this country and the Empire in particular as to safeguarding our young people and future generations will probably say that it is one of the biggest things that have been tackled in the life-time of this Parliament.
  Mr. HARRIS: We have just listened to an interesting speech, which covered a great deal of ground, including, of course, the Liberal party, and ended with a peroration in which the House was assured that this Bill deals with fundamental principles, almost vital, as I understand it, to the existence of the Empire. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last found a full-blooded supporter, for the support he has received so far has been very lukewarm. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) could not say that he liked the Bill, and even went so far as to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not himself. Another hon. Member gave very qualified and half-hearted support to it; he was desirous of achieving the purpose, but could not be enthusiastic about the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his interesting speech, said he was not surprised that the trade interests concerned were anxious to come under the President of the Board of Trade. I was surprised, because we have had some experience of the kind of legislation in which the right hon. Gentleman likes to indulge. This legislation is typical of it. There were the Merchandise Marks Act and the Safeguarding of Industries Act—bureaucratic Measures for regulating and interfering with industry, and the kind of Measures that have distinguished his Department while he has presided over its destinies.
  I have thought sometimes, when I have listened to these Measures and have studied them, as I have sometimes had to do in Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman might well bring in a Bill to change the title of his office to that of Minister of Customs, because he seems to consider it his duty, as President of the Board of Trade, to exercise his ingenuity in finding out methods to give industry some form of protection; and he has shown extreme ingenuity and skill, on which I congratulate him, in avoiding the undertaking of the Prime Minister not to deal with Protection during the lifetime of this Parliament. I think we owe him a measure of congratulation on the way

  2101
  in which he has drafted his Bills; they are in such a complicated, complex and involved form that very few people, even among his own followers, understand them. Anyhow, this Bill is typical of various other Bills that he has introduced into the House of Commons. I could not help thinking, while I was listening to his speech, how pathetic it was that, after the House of Commons has been sitting for six or seven weeks, this is the first great Measure of the Government. With their big majority they are able to do anything, and now, when the country is all disorganised, when there is unemployment to deal with, when industry is disturbed, there appears, at last, the first great Measure introduced by the President of the Board of Trade to help industry and employment. I hope the Government are proud of their handicraft. No doubt they feel as the Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) said, that they have done a great deed for the Empire, that they are going to save the Empire by this ingenious Bill. The Empire must be in a very bad way if it wants legislation of this character to bolster it up. I am sorry to say this to the Noble Lord, but I know the Empire, having travelled all over it, and the Empire is much too strong to require legislation of this character to strengthen its bonds or keep it together.
  A good deal has been said to-night about the quota, which is a very ingenious proposal. It was said, I think, by the hon. Member for Reading, that it was quite wrong, and a libel on the industry, to say that only 3 per cent. of the films at present produced were of British origin. He assured us that at least 10 pen cent. were British. In that case, of course, the quota is unnecessary. I could not help thinking, when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing the Bill, how cumbersome the machinery is, and how very difficult it will be to work. He was very anxious to assure the House that a large number of officials would not be required. A register is to be set up, and every film, whether foreign or British, is to be entered in this register, which is to be kept at the Board of Trade. That sounds a very simple thing—merely a matter of making an entry giving the title and description of the film; and, surely, it would not need a large number of clerks to do that. But that is not the whole story. The
  2102
  right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House the whole problem with which his Department will have to deal. It is not only that the name of the film that has to be entered, but he has to be assured that 75 per cent. of the production is British, and there are all sorts of qualifications, such as the allowance for the artists, the allowance for the producer, and various other qualifications, in order to meet the requirements of the trade. If this machinery is going to work, something more than a mere logbook will be required. It will be necessary to have a horde of officials travelling round the country to find out how far the provisions of the Bill are being complied with. It will also be necessary to have an inquisitorial inquiry into the origin and history of each film, because the Bill specifically lays down that a film need not necessarily be manufactured in this country. If that were to be the regulation, it would be a comparatively simple problem, but the films may be made in any part of the Empire—in Mesopotamia, or in mandated territories like Palestine; and, with the ingenuity of producers, it will be very difficult, without a very detailed inquiry, and without a great number of forms, such as the right hon. Gentleman's Department loves, to obtain a great deal of this information, to find out the exact history of the film, and whether it meets the requirements of this Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Of course, machinery of this kind is going to be very difficult to work, and, when it comes to the question of leasing out these films, the difficulties of the Department will be greater. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. You can exhibit these films, but you cannot make the public sit them out. The public will go just where they want to go to see the films that they desire to see. The British public are very sensitive about their amusement, and nothing would be more resented by them than that a certain form of entertainment should be pushed down their throats at the request of a Government Department; and when there is shown on the screen the announcement that the next film will be one displayed in order to satisfy the Regulations of the Board of Trade as regards the quota, I have a very shrewd suspicion that a large part of the audience will leave their

  2103
  seats. They will resent the forcing upon them of a certain form of entertainment. I hear someone say that they will be allowed to do that under the Bill, but I suppose that there will be a Clause imposing a penalty on people who leave their seats when a British film is shown, that a register will have to be kept of those who attend the entertainment, and that anyone leaving his seat will be subject to a penalty.
  It is monstrous and absurd. You cannot work machinery of this kind. You cannot do everything by Act of Parliament. I could understand some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, who are great believers in the State, thinking that you can do everything by Act of Parliament, but an anti-Socialist Government that thinks it is possible artificially to give a new lease of life to an industry by legislation of this character must be under a delusion. We are told, and, of course, with some reason, that if we criticise it is our business to make some constructive alternative suggestion. My own feeling, on the whole, is that it would be better to leave the thing alone. What the public are entitled to have is the very best productions that can be produced in the world. The great advantage that the film has over other forms of entertainment is that there are no limitations of language. An English audience can enjoy the productions of France, Italy, Sweden, Germany, or America without any of the limitations of the spoken word. If it is necessary to help on the British industry, a far better way would be for the Government to do something to assist experiment and education. This is an industry in which science plays a very important part, and in which the technique of the actors is of vast importance. The success of the American films is largely due to the skill of the actors, the Charles Chaplins, the Mary Pickfords, and the dozens of well-known actors. It would be much better, if the Minister wants to help the industry, to subsidise, or even start an institution to train the actors so that they can learn the art and acquire equal skill with some of their foreign competitors. And of course the same applies to scientific experiments. This country is handicapped by its climate. One of the
  2104
  reasons of the immense success of the American films is that they have many months of dry sunshine in which plays can be produced in the open air, and if we are to meet that competition it may be necessary to make experiments to get the kind of film which can be produced indoors or which is not so much handicapped by our climate.
  Viscount SANDON: What about the rest of the Empire?
  Mr. HARRIS: That is one of the ways we can get over the handicap. By all means let films be produced in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other parts of the Empire. This Bill does not compel people, as the "Times" pointed out, to make experiments abroad. If they can produce a good article, there is always a demand for it and it is not necessary to bolster up an industry by an artificial Bill of this kind. This industry already is protected to the extent of 33½ per cent It is specially singled out for protection in the very skilfully drafted Clauses of the Budget of the year before last to meet every contingency. I am going to oppose the Bill. It is wrong in principle, and it is not going to help the industry. It is limiting the supply of an article which has now become a public necessity. It is not going to produce an improvement in public entertainment. On the contrary, by limiting the area of supply it is going, if anything, to injure the entertainment of the public. No one doubts the right hon. Gentleman's patriotism. I have no doubt every night before he gets into bed, he waves the Union Jack and feels satisfied that his patriotism is real. But I believe the Union Jack stands for something more than Bills of this kind. Wherever it flies, it has always been the symbol of liberty and freedom, and this country has become great and important in the world of nations because it alone has stood for liberty and freedom. I intend to fight these provisions because they are against the interests of the country and of the trade and are bad in principle and bad for the well-being of the country.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I do not like to give a silent vote on this Bill, and wish to address myself to the provisions of the Bill and not to indulge in the rhetoric to which we have just been

  2105
  listening. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that the cinema trade as a whole has no objection to a Bill to encourage the film industry, but there are provisions in this Bill which will do far more harm than the right hon. Gentleman has any idea of. I listened to the speech of a Member on the Opposition benches who is an expert in the trade and I agree to a very great extent with what he said, but I should like to deal with one of the main arguments against the Bill with which I do not agree, that is, with regard to blind and block booking. Blind and block booking has been the curse of the, exhibitors in the cinema trade. If you want to book some of these super-films from America, you are compelled to take another six films which you have never seen and which may be total rubbish, and you either have to show them or to pay for them and not show them at all. In that respect the Bill will do a great deal of good to the exhibitors. But where I find the main fault with the Bill is in Clause 19, with regard to the quota. I regard that as one of the most vicious forms of protection you could possibly have. You are protecting an industry which is not only inefficient, but which can never flourish owing to climatic conditions. You are practically saying that a British company can turn out a number of films and it does not matter whether they are rubbish or not, the exhibitor has to pay whatever price the company chooses to charge. Again, if you take even the 7½ per cent. quota, take one town alone, say, Manchester, where you have 60 cinema houses, how are you going to get enough British films to go round? It will take years even if we could produce them, which I do not think we ever shall, for these British films to go round.
  Again it has been said some of the films are very objectionable which are shown in India and other countries. I quite agree, but how are you going to combat that under this arrangement? The only way is for us to produce films far superior to those being produced in other countries, which will be bought on their merits and not simply because they happen to be protected films. If films can be successfully produced in this country, I am certain we shall find plenty of financiers ready to put down their money even to start the industry in our Dominions and produce films
  2106
  where the climatic conditions are suitable. The reason they have not done so is because we have not the facilities for producing them in this country. The only way is for them to get down to the film industry in the same way that they have got down to the motor industry. That is the only way it can ever be made pre-eminent. We can only get it by competition. Under this quota you would have no competition at all, because the British company knows that, whatever sort of film it produces, the exhibitor has to take it from the renter and, therefore, you will not get the same competition and the same ability displayed as von are doing to-day when it is an open market. If the right hon. Gentleman could only devise some means whereby, before a renter got his quota of British films, those films should be in every respect equal to foreign films, I should go all the way with him. But unless something can be put into the Bill by which a renter can refuse a film if it is no more than what I call rubbish, I consider that the quota is going to do a great deal of harm and will mean ruin to some people who have put an enormous amount of money into the trade. On the whole, I think the provisions of the Bill with regard to block booking are needed, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way in Committee to devise some means whereby a renter shall not have to take a British film unless it is worth the sum asked for it and up to quality in every respect.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: It is not very often that I find myself able to support any Measure brought in by this Government, and I hope they will not take it as excessively complimentary to their general policy if I offer my support to this Bill. I do so not because I believe it has anything to do with Protection and Free Trade and Tariff Reform. I do not regard this as primarily an industrial question. I regard it as primarily an educational question in so far as the proposals of the Bill are before us. I think the House ought to realise the extent to which the industry has developed in America and the extent to which it is possible to develop it in this country if it is only given a fair start. American producers and exhibitors receive every year £7,000,000 for the rent of their pictures in England alone,

  2107
  and 90 to 95 per cent. of the pictures shown in our Dominions are American. In addition to that the American film industry employs 300,000 people. That, at any rate, establishes a case for the consideration of what measures are possible to start the industry in this country. But I support this on general educational grounds. The exhibitors in this country, in my opinion, cannot show the public the proportion of British films proportionate to their merit. Films in this country are controlled by block booking, by the ownership of theatres, which is on a growing scale, and by alliances which have been concluded between the German and American film industries, and though in the last resort it is the British public who go to the film theatres and pay for what they see, who must be the final judges of what pictures they shall see, I am convinced that if they were fully alive to all the merits of this question they would choose, rather than see a 100 per cent. of American pictures all of which are claimed to be perfect, let us say 75 per cent. of American pictures and 25 per cent. of British pictures of uncertain merit as yet but which I am convinced will become fully equal to the American pictures when the industry has had a chance.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: My excuse for intervening in the discussion is that I spent about five years of my life on a town council where we ran a municipal picture show, and where I was a member of a committee which had something to do with its control. It is perfectly true, as the President of the Board of Trade said, and it has been disputed in very few quarters of the House, that the evil of blind booking and block booking is a very serious one. He proposes to get rid of it but to substitute another kind of blind and block booking. The kind he proposes to substitute is to be a collection of British films. We have some of those British films now, and if the British public are to be compelled to pay to witness some of these British films as they are now, there will be trouble in large sections of the country. I wonder if the President of the Board of Trade has ever seen a recent British film called "The Life of Robert Burns." Robert Burns was a Scottish poet, and here is
  2108
  a British film insulting the life of a great national bard. The hero is a sort of combination of Harry Lauder's character
  "the Saftest o' the Family,"
  and a sort of Chinese bandit with a highly developed Mongolian expression on his face. All the captions are wrong, and all the history is wrong. Cold shivers go down the back of every Scotsman when he sees the national bard at the field of Culloden where he takes off his tam o'shanter most reverently in front of a cairn that, was not erected until about 100 years after Robert Burns was dead. We see "Tam o Shanter," one of Burns great poems, being produced. The witches are seen dancing Morris dances, and some drouths are dancing an Irish jig inside a public house. All the captions are wrong, all the history is wrong, and all the life story is completely wrong. If this is the sort of thing that is going to be foisted upon the British public we are going to be very little better off than with some of these monstrous American films. The mere fact that a man has got a British naturalisation certificate for 25s. does not, ipso facto, authorise or qualify him to be a director of œsthetic taste in this country. In the film to which I have referred, as Burns is solemnly writing his poem "To Mary in Heaven," the musical director of the piece, who is also a Britisher, orders the orchestra to strike up "The Road to the Isles." That is a farce.
  I can give the right hon. Gentleman the names of half-a-dozen similar films. The film "Mons" is propaganda. Cuttings from the London "Times" are stuck into the middle of this film. It is an official film, with quotations of leading articles in the London "Times" such as
  "Our interests must have compelled us to join France and Russia even if Germany had scrupulously respected the rights of mall liberties."
  That is an entirely different point of view from that officially expressed by the leaders of the nation during the time of the War. Then, when you see the Battle of Mons, you get "Land of Hope and Glory" played, and "The Soldiers of the King" and "The Deathless Army" sung, and German music is also brought in. The fact that you can give a man

  2109
  a naturalisation certificate which can be got for about 25s., not only in this country but in the Dominions, does not constitute him as the director of æsthetic taste to the British public. This is the serious part of the Bill, this quota part. Under Clause 26 the right hon. Gentleman exempts from the provisions of this Bill
  "films depicting wholly or mainly new or current events; films depicting wholly or mainly natural scenery; films being wholly or mainly commercial advertisements; films used wholly or mainly by educational institutions for educational purposes; films depicting wholly or mainly industrial or manufacturing processes; and scientific films, including natural history films."
  Why are historical events to be excluded? No longer shall we be able to include the story of the "Mayflower," the picture of Christopher Columbus, the picture of Captain Cook discovering New Zealand and the story of William Tell. All the historical events which one would have thought the present Government at any rate might have been anxious to portray before the young mind of the people of this country are expressly barred from this catalogue of films, to which the artistic geniuses of the world might contribute. Then we come to Sub-section (iii) which says:
  "The author of the scenario, or of the original work on which the scenario was based, must have been a British subject."
  It is a sine qua non that the original author must have been a British subject. If that is so, then I understand that by this Bill the Bible would be barred, unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to claim that Moses, by virtue of the present mandate held by the British Government, was born on British soil.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the word "or" does not mean "and" If he will read the Sub-section again, he will see that if one or the other alternative be complied with, the requirements are met.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of this Clause, I submit that the matter is not clear. But supposing it is so, where do we land ourselves? The author of this scenario may be a Frenchman or a Portuguese, a Spaniard or a Yank, provided the original author was a British subject. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny
  2110
  that. The author of the scenario may be a foreigner from any country in the world, provided the original author of the work upon which the scenario was based was a British subject. See where we land ourselves now. Let us take a film of Palestine; a film depicting any scene in the life of Palestine. It is based on the Bible story. In that case the original author cannot by any stretch of the imagination be held to be a British subject, and under the Bill that film will be barred. Whichever way you look at it, and whether you emphasise this word "or" or not, you are simply barring oat from the operations of this Clause great historical and artistic events which the young persons and the adults of this country—
  Sir P. CUNLJFFE-LISTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he will become a scenario writer, he may deal with the whole of the Bible and he will be within the terms of the Bill, he being a British subject.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Provided that the original author of the work was a British subject?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No: "or."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The author of the scenario may be a foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispute that. It is as clear as words can make it. The author of the scenario may be a foreigner, provided that the author of the original work was alleged to be a British subject. It is a commonly held opinion in the artistic and cesthetic circles of this country that the right hon. Gentleman is barring out, from the beneficent operations of the conclusion provisions of this Bill, great artistic and æsthetic stretches by this Clause.
  I only want to add one word mere within the few moments that remain before this Debate must close, and that is about this quota. People are to be compelled to take 5 per cent.,7½ per cent. and 10 per cent. of films over which they have no control. Whatever the artistic merits of the films may be, these people have got to suffer. What happens if a film cannot be supplied, or if the exhibitor dare not show it? Supposing one of your pictures has in it angels with top-boots, and Rebecca at 90 years

  2111
  of age with a set of teeth that would do credit to Marie Studholme at her best. That is the sort of thing that any decent-minded exhibitor throws out altogether. He will not use it, and what will happen if he does not use it? Is he to be fined and his picture show shut up, whatever the artistic merits of the particular film may be? I could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would provide a subsidy for a certain standard of artistic merit. We are providing subsidies to all manner of educational institutions, and artistic and æsthetic institutions. If the right hon. Gentleman would make that subsidy for a limited period, perhaps five or ten years, I could understand it, if he gave it in order to give the industry a chance to get on its feet, and I would agree with it. But simply to come here and say that, whatever the artistic merit of a picture may be, whatever rubbish is foisted upon the industry in this country, it must be accepted under a penalty and perhaps under the threat of having a cinema closed up, is nonsense. I am perfectly certain, if the right hon. Gentleman gets his Bill through unscathed in the Committee stage, when he comes to operate this Clause he will find himself in difficulties that he has not con templated. Has he considered the alternative of a subsidy? There is a problem to be met. We know that the producing industry in this country is inefficient. We know that in the British colonies and Dominions you have a climate where you can produce films. We know that the actors go from this country to America. Your Charlie Chaplins leave London and go to Hollywood. You could get your artistes and the climate; what you want is production. But what use is this sort of comic protection? What use is this method of compelling the industry to accept rubbish, provided that rubbish is compiled by somebody who has purchased a British naturalisation certificate? That is not a satisfactory method of developing the producing side of the industry. I see the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury is ready to jump to his feet, but I have a moment longer.
  I only want to say that I trust that the Government will give us an adequate
  2112
  opportunity of really discussing the various Clauses of this Bill in the Committee stage, aid that they will not move the Closure. It is really vital from the Government's own point of view. If this Bill is going to do any good, and if it is going to be of any service whatever to the cinema industry in this country, then every possible care must be taken that every interest is protected, and that we simply do not have foisted on the consumer this Bill, a Bill backed by the Federation of British Industries, a Bill evidently a compromise and one which the right hon. Gentleman himself did not dare to give his whole-hearted assent to. There are certain parts of the Bill which I believe will bring the retail side of the industry into ridicule and contempt, if ever some of these alleged British films are attempted to be shown. For these reasons I trust that, while this House will assent to the passage of a Bill which would prohibit blind booking, it will not assent to the quota method which would, I believe, be disastrous to the artistic and æesthetic side of the industry.
  It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: I beg to move,
"That this House approves of the foresight of the Government and congratulates it on its prompt action in taking steps to safeguard the lives of British subjects endangered by the civil war in China."
Before I deal with the Motion, I would like to refer to the efficient manner in which this force was raised and transported. Two Departments of the Government were concerned, the War Office and the Board of Trade. The War Office had to select the troops to send out, they had to fill up the ranks from the Reserve and they had to see that they were supplied with equipment suitable to the different climates. The Board of Trade dealt chiefly with the transport. The chief operation which the War Office had to undertake was to fill up the ranks of the battalions going out, and I think the House will hear with pride that out of the 1,581 men who were called upon to fill up the ranks of

2113
the battalions only four failed to turn up to answer the call. The "A" Reserve is a special reserve the men of which can be called up at once provided they have not left the Service for more than two years. They get extra pay for coming back. It is a matter of great gratification that so many, practically the whole of them, answered the call. The House has heard a great many of these details before; they were referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for War on the Supplementary Estimate that was moved for the Shanghai force, but the whole of the facts of this operation are so creditable to all concerned that the story will bear repeating again, if only briefly.
The second operation was to commission the transport and to transport the force from these shores to Shanghai. There, again, we see signs of great efficiency. The whole transaction was carried through with smoothness and in the quietest and most unostentatious manner. When the ships had been commissioned, they had to be altered and fitted with special fittings. Stabling arrangements and water Mg arrangements had to be provided for the horses. All these gigantic operations, which went on clay and night, were concluded so swiftly and efficiently that it was only a week from the time that the orders were given before the first transport left this country. I think all Members of this House must feel proud that these two Departments of State were able in such a short time and so efficiently and so quietly to carry through the operation which is the subject of our Debate tonight. It was just as if the War Office and the Board of Trade had merely pressed a button and the whole operation had taken place without any further trouble or ostentation. With these few remarks on the, efficiency with which the operation was carried cut, I will pass to the subject of my Motion.
Hon. Members will notice that I particularly stress the words "foresight of the Government" and the "prompt action" taken to "safeguard the lives" of our fellow-countrymen in Shanghai. The Government had not an easy derision to take eight or nine weeks ago. For the foresight which they displayed on that occasion we may have reason to congratulate ourselves in the course of the
2114
next few days; I hope it may not be so. Hon. Members will surely agree with me in this that when you have to make arrangements for safeguarding the lives of our fellow-countrymen 10,000 miles away and four weeks distant by ship, it is no use waiting until the crisis is actually upon you. You have to use foresight and moral courage. The whole situation lent itself to the most flagrant misrepresentation. At the moment that very mischievous organisation "Hands off China" was at work: but the Government had to take all things into consideration and decided, and rightly decided, that they must at once organise this Defence Force and send it out to succour our fellow-countrymen in Shanghai.
The best way to appreciate what the Government have done will be to contrast their action with the suggestion put forward by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, both inside and outside this House. It is very instructive but very difficult—I have tried it during the last few days—to try to find any policy at all in the proposals which the Opposition have put forward. Take the proposals which they made in the Debate on the Address, in the Amendment which was proposed from the Front Opposition Bench by the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). What was the real point in that official Opposition Amendment. It contained this most astounding sentence. It asked
"for the immediate diversion and recall of the Forces now on their way to China."
I would ask lion. Members to pat themselves in the position of the men and women living in Shanghai when this particular Amendment was proposed in this House, and I would ask them to consider what the result would have been if that Amendment had been passed. The troopships were already ploughing through the Indian Ocean, near Colombo. What would have been the effect on our fellow countrymen at Shanghai had they heard that a telegram bad been sent and that these troopships, following the advice of the official Opposition, had turned 16 points and started for home again? What would have been the effect in China and on our fellow countrymen there? There would not, have been a Treaty Port that would not have been ransacked and looted within 24 hours.

2115
It would have been said that the British Government, which had already dispatched its force, had turned tail, following the advice of His Majesty's Opposition, and there might have been the most appalling disasters in China inside 48 hours. I do not know who drafted the Amendment. I suppose it was their back benchers. I understand the Opposition were not very keen about it. Hon. Members opposite have great imagination on the platform and elsewhere. Can they conceive what would have been the result of the policy of turning this force back, on the whole situation in China? It is amazing to think that they could lend themselves to such an Amendment. Curiously enough, it is a real policy of scuttle. And why? I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition voted for that Amendment. I do not know how on earth the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for writing in the "Forward" newspaper that
"a settlement could not he obtained by surrender, and is not to be obtained by scuttle "
was able to vote for an Amendment containing the last sentence which I have read. It absolutely passes my comprehension, and it surely passes the comprehension of anybody who seriously thinks the matter over. I do not think our fellow countrymen and women in China, who are carrying on most useful work in Shanghai and helping—
An HON. MEMBER: To make profits!
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Yes, I hope so. I do not know anybody who does not work for profit. Whoever heard of a Socialist at the end of a week saying "I do not want any wages; I do not work for you for a profit." Of course they are working for a profit for themselves, and for people in this country too. They arc working for a profit for Lancashire, and I am told that the works in Shanghai and the business that is done in Shanghai provides wages for no less than 50,000 people in this country. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should sneer at the word "profit," but our fellow countrymen and women in Shanghai would not have been reassured by the remarks of the mover of the Amendment to the Address, the right
2116
hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) or the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pcthick-Lawrence) who associated himself with the policy on the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"There is a risk of mob violence and uncontrolled soldiery in Shanghai."
Yes, there is a civil war going on there. But the right hon. Member says in the easy kind of way Which we can adopt sitting comfortably on these green benches:
"We first of all say that we have no right to put that risk very high."
I am sure that will be most consoling to the people who are menaced by these dangers in Shanghai. The right hon. Gentleman says we need not put the risk very high, and that remark found an echo in the breast of the hon. Member for West Leicester who said the same thing and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who said:
"I do not really think that our people in Shanghai are in very great danger."
Those gentlemen who have the responsibility of advising His Majesty's Government, our Minister in Pekin, our Consul-General at Shanghai, our Consul-General at Hankow arid Mr. O'Malley, put the risks very high, and it only proves how right the Government were in taking these steps and sending this force to China. But perhaps a more amazing argument still—the action of the Labour party has been so amazing that it is impossible to understand what they are driving at—is that the presence of these troops will endanger the lives of the people in Shanghai.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Outside Shanghai!
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I shall have something to say about that. Many hon. Members opposite have taken this line a very foolish line indeed. The argument is that there are only about half the number of English people in Shanghai that there are outside and, therefore, by sending troops to protest Shanghai you are endangering the lives of those people who are outside Shanghai. That is the argument. Let me observe how very little hon. Members opposite have reflected on the matter.

2117
The majority of the people outside Shanghai are at Treaty ports, where there are ships in which they can get away if the situation becomes desperate. All the time for the last nine or ten weeks those people who are living up the country have been slowly getting down to the river or to the Treaty ports. That has been going on for the last few weeks. They are coming to Shanghai as a place of refuge, and I doubt very much whether there are a great number of people who have not succeeded in getting to a Treaty port or to the river. I admit that the situation of those who cannot get away obviously must be dangerous, but the fact that most of them by now have probably got clown either to a Treaty port or to the river by every means they can take, means that the majority outside Shanghai are at the other Treaty ports, and the use of this argument is another example of the muddled thinking of the Labour party on this particular subject. But perhaps the most muddled of them all is the hen Member for Leicester West, who improves on this argument. In the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates he did not go so far as some of them who used the foolish argument that the people outside Shanghai were in danger. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member said:
"The risk of loss of life to the people in Shanghai, in so far as there is a risk at all, is very much increased by the sending of these troops."
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is a slight misprint there. I said "outside Shanghai," not inside.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I accept the hon. Member's correction. Ins and outs are very much alike, and it is easy to see how the mistake may have occurred. I thought his argument was particularly foolish, but now I find that it is only as foolish as the argument used by other hon. Members opposite. It is the same argument as that used by the hon. Member for Smethwick, who I do not see in his place at the moment. He began by saying, "I have never belonged to a more harmonious party," and then proceeded to support the argument that the troops being sent out endangered the lives of our fellow countrymen in China. It is obvious to everybody except a Labour party man in
2118
search of an election cry that the mere fact that there are troops at Shanghai turns this place into a city of refuge, and the mere fact that troops are there in sufficient numbers gives moral courage to every man and woman outside Shanghai to try and get there. The whole effect is exactly the reverse to what we are led to expect from anything the Labour party says; and it again proves the foresight of the Government. There is only one more argument to which I will refer before I deal with the Amendment, and there is about as little in it as in any other argument put forward by the Labour party. It was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). We have always thought of the hon. and gallant Member as having a bowing acquaintance with the Navy.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Seventeen years at sea!
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I should hardly have thought that the hon. and gallant Member, if he had been 17 years at sea, could have been responsible for such a silly argument as the one I am going to quote.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not question the hon. and gallant Member's knowledge of his own profession. Why does he question my knowledge of mine? It is most objectionable.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I am going to show the hon. and gallant Member why I think his knowledge of his profession failed him on this particular occasion. It is one of the many arguments that the Labour party put forward to justify their extraordinary conduct on the Chinese question.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman excuse me for one moment?
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I am sorry I cannot give way.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it usual for the professional position of a Member of this House, his professional capacity outside this House, to be impugned by an hon. and gallant Member in this way and a withdrawal refused?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): There was an epithet used that might have been left out.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, "A bowing acquaintance."
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I absolutely withdraw the adjective at once. I am now simply challenging the hon. and gallant Member's aptitude for sizing up a situation. Since he has been in the Navy for so many years, I do not mind making this acknowledgment to the hon. and gallant Member. When I was for three years with the late Lord Long as Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the hon. and gallant Member was practically carrying on the Opposition on his own shoulders, Lord Long used to say to me, "Find out if Kenworthy is getting up." He had the highest opinion of the hon. and gallant Member as a critic of Naval affairs—a very high opinion. On this particular occasion the hon. and gallant Gentleman's common sense has failed him, and, if he will allow me, I will explain why. He will have plenty of opportunities later of explaining why he thinks I am at fault. I do not want to delay the House. The argument that the hon. and gallant Member put forward in a recent Debate was that there was no necessity to send troops, that the ships could do it and that there were sufficient men in the ships. That is the argument to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But when the hon. and gallant Member was speaking the ships had not all arrived there; they were on their way.
We have been told that the landing parties from the ships at Shanghai numbered exactly 600 men. There were also about 1,300 volunteers in Shanghai, men of five different nationalities, no doubt a very useful and self-sacrificing force, but owing to differences of language not as efficient as 1,300 men of one nationality would have been. The hon. and gallant Member says that the ships would have been sufficient. The work of the landing parties would be "sentry go," two hours on and four off, so that there were available 2n0 men to keep people out of the Concession. Has the hon. and gallant Member any knowledge of the length of the perimeter of Shanghai? It is 14 miles. That is what our troops are trving to hold. But the hon. and gallant Mem-
2120
ber, with a slip from his usual accuracy, says that a landing party of 600, of whom 200 would have been available, would have been sufficient to hold a perimeter of 14 miles. That is why I say that the argument of the hon. and gallant Member was useless and absurd and fantastic, and I believe that now I have explained myself the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me.
I have a few words to say on the Amendment which is to moved by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker). I notice that he and his friends have been reduced to the use in the Amendment of the famous word "ostentatious." They refer to an "ostentatious despatch." It is not a very grave accusation. I have already said, and I repeat, that nothing could have been quieter or less ostentatious than the departure from this country of the troops for Shanghai. Had it not been that the Press photographers, correctly gauging the public interest in the matter, obtained snapshots of the Coldstream Guards marching down Birdcage Walk and other troops on the landing stage, hardly any of us would have known that there was an Expeditionary Force being sent abroad. So quietly and efficiently was the whole movement carried out that anything less justifiable than the word "ostentatious" could hardly be imagined, except possibly inside the ranks of the Labour party. I was very interested to read some remarks of the hon. Member, when he spoke on the China Debate. He said that there was no justification for sending these troops; and that the Government were doing great injury to the prestige of this country. I tell the hon. Member what I think is doing great injury to the prestige of this country, and that is the trafficking of certain elements of the Labour party with the anti-British interests in China.
Mr. T. KENNEDY: What do you mean?
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Perhaps the hon. Member does not agree with some of his colleagues, but some part of the Labour party have been—
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Which part?
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: That is the difficulty. I do not know whether the hon. Member on the Front Bench (Mr. Kennedy) would accept the views of the "Hands Off China" movement, but there are Members engaged in it. That is the difficulty of dealing with this question. The Labour party on this subject are just as difficult to deal with as the Soviet and the International in Russia. You do not know where you are. The Front Bench repudiates the back bench, and that is the difficulty of knowing where we are. An hon. Member says that the prestige of this country has been lowered by the sending of troops. That is not the way that our prestige is being lowered. My case is that it is being raised. But I do think that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called the "double diplomacy" indulged in on this matter, the Foreign Office dealing with one authority and the Labour party dealing, behind the backs of the Government, with other interests, mostly anti-British, has a tendency to lower the prestige of this country. I hope the hon. Member will repudiate that action as Dr. Haden Guest has done. The hon. Member further said:
"We have got a pledge from Mr. Chen himself that they have no intention of invading the International Settlement."
The hon. Member may feel that a pledge from Mr. Chen is a sufficient guarantee for the whole of the International Settlement in Shanghai. I hope it may be true. But the hon. Member and the House must remember that Mr. Chen speaking at Hankow, which is 100 miles up the river, and an uncontrolled mob in Shanghai, are two very different things. What Mr. Chen says might not be obeyed by those who are out for loot, if loot is easy to obtain and if there are no policemen or soldiers about. These people might not pay attention to what Mr. Chen says and I do not think we must rely too much on what Mr. Chen undoubtedly wishes to be brought about but which be might be incapable of bringing about. When the case against my Motion is put by hon. Members opposite, I hope we shall hear some better arguments than those to which we have listened previously in Debates on this
2122
point to disentangle the different arguments used by them. One of the excuses of the Leader of the Opposition for carrying on this traffic with Mr. Chen—[HON. MEMBERS: "What traffic?"]—was that he wanted to put Mr. Chen right as to where the Labour party stood on this question. I am sorry for Mr. Chen and if I could communicate with him I might tell him that I fail to understand where the Labour party stand on this question. I do know this—that everybody who speaks on this subject should take thought as to the effect which some of their words may have on our fellow-countrymen in Shanghai. I hope the newspapers have not reported some of their speeches like that of the hon. Member whom I see sitting opposite, and who said we ought to pray for the nonsuccess of our troops.
Mr. PURCELL: Quote it correctly.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I have the quotation here, and I think I can if necessary find the exact words used by the hon. Member. Does he suggest that he was misreported? That is the effect of what he said—that he hoped practically speaking that our troops would not be successful.
Mr. PURCELL: And I repeat that—wherever you use your troops against working men.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Even with that qualification the hon. Member does not make it any better. If you want your own troops to be defeated—
Mr. PURCELL: They are not our troops, they are your troops.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to listen without interruption.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: I have the hon. Member's speech here.
Mr. PURCELL: I am not afraid of it.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: The purport of it is as I have stated, and think of the effect that would have when read by our fellow-countrymen who are out in China. The irresponsibility of some of the remarks made by members of the Labour party, especially when they are out to win by-elections, surpasses belief. They are often funny and we can afford to laugh at them here because we understand them—
Mr. PURCELL: It is teasing you at all events.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member cannot listen without interruption, he ought to withdraw.
Mr. PURCELL: You must keep Members on the other side in order as well.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must allow me to judge on questions of order.
Mr. PURCELL: Then judge fairly.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Member does not want me to read his actual words. I am sure he is very much ashamed of them. Anyhow, what is useful in a by-election is hardly what I should like to be read by our fellow-countrymen in Shanghai. Speeches of that kind, especially if uttered in this House, must have a deplorable effect not only on the spirits of those bold people who are facing risks out there, but also on the Chinese with whom we are trying to negotiate. Talk about prestige! If these remarks go out there, where will our prestige be? It would be absolutely nowhere, if it were not for the very wise provision which the Government have made in sending a defence force to Shanghai. Therefore, it is with the utmost confidence that I shall ask the House to vote for this Motion. It is quite possible the Labour party will think better of going to a Division. There is nothing to be gained by going to a Division, but if they do so, I hope the House will send a real and cheering message to those brave people in Shanghai by congratulating, the Government on their foresight, and showing the real opinion not only of this House but of the country.
Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I am faced by two difficulties. The first is that in the course of what I think everybody will agree to have been a tactful and convincing speech, the Mover has covered all the principal points in this controversy. The second is that one would have supposed, in the ordinary course of things, that the proposition which he has just moved for the approval of the House, was not susceptible of controversy at all. There has indeed been a very strange alteration in the attitude of this House to foreign
2124
affairs in the last two generations. I can imagine different arguments being raised upon the Floor of this House 50 years ago. I can imagine arguments which were susceptible of controversy being raised with particular vigour in the House of Commons as it was 50 years ago; and I can imagine a Conservative Government having to defend itself with all the resources at its command against very vigorous and pertinent criticisms for having concluded at all, such agreements as have been concluded with Mr. Chen in the matters of Ilankow and Kiukiang. I can imagine that in those days such an agreement would have been criticised as nothing loss than a humiliating surrender of British interests to force; and we should have been told that in these so-called negotiations and so-called agreements, we had given everything, gained nothing, encouraged further outbreaks and exorbitant demands and seriously damaged not only the prospects of British trade, but British reputation in China and throughout the East. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you have done?"]
Now a difference is apparent and my hon. Friend and I rise to express our gratitude to the Government for doing what is its primary duty. Its primary duties are to preserve order and to govern in this country and to defend all British nationals who are upon their lawful occasions in other parts of the globe. As a matter of fact, responsible opinion on the other side of this House has conceded that that is the primary duty of His Majesty's Government. If it is, then it follows, I think, beyond all possibility of denial, that there was only one course which they could possibly adopt in the discharge of that duty and that is the course which in fact they have adopted. One of the most difficult things in the world is to adduce proof and arguments of the obvious. It is like moving a resolution that a citizen is entitled to defend his own life and property against criminal assault. One would suppose that anybody who took the trouble to deny that was a subject rather for medical treatment than for persuasion. Of course once you abandon first principles curious results arise and nothing is obvious any more. During recent times I have noticed, as I have listened to Debates in this House, as I read the publications

2125
of the Socialist Press and peruse the numerous resolutions that come to me from Labour and so-called Labour bodies in my own constituency, that the Socialist party has adopted a new set of principles in the matter of foreign relations. They are relevant to this argument because we have to consider their whole attitude in relation to these principles.
The first principle is that, in any dispute with a foreign Power, Great Britain is always wrong. I challenge hon. Members opposite to show me one case of controversy during the last 15 years where Great Britain has been at loggerheads with a foreign Power when they have not condemned Great Britain unheard and backed the foreigner. The second principle they have adopted is this: that if it is a matter of investigating facts in order that we may argue the question in this House with some grasp of its realities, you should always trust a foreign revolutionary rather than a British official. And the third principle is that it is advisable, also, in the matter of research and investigation of facts, to believe somebody who has never been outside England rather than some Member of this House who has spent a lifetime on the spot and knows a great deal about it by experience. It sometimes happens that we have a conflict, not between ourselves and some foreigners—and when I say "foreigners" I do not mean the word offensively, but as shorthand for whoever it may be who are not Britons—but between two groups of foreigners, hon. Members opposite are in a great dilemma, and they solve it by backing the particular group which is most hostile to Great Britain. But it sometimes happens that there are even deeper difficulties, because both groups are equally hostile. In that case, they find out which side the Bolsheviks are on, and back them. Finally, when anything happens of an untoward nature to our own countrymen, wherever it may be, whether in India, in Egypt, or in China, the course of action they take is to say: "They have brought it upon themselves by their own provocative and arrogant conduct, and, anyhow, they are only capitalists and not worth troubling about."
9.0 p.m.
My mind goes back to other days, and it is an interesting speculation, purely
2126
in parenthesis, what the attitude of hon. 11T1embers opposite would have been in 1857 at the Indian Mutiny, but if I am right about their principles—and I do not think I am very far wrong—I can envisage them sending telegrams congratulating Nana Sahib, and protesting against the relief of Lucknow. They say, "Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate." It is a very wise course for us to adopt, I candidly admit. We could not do anything else but negotiate. We had no power behind us. We have very little power behind us now, but the problem that has been in my mind all the time is why Mr. Chen should ever trouble to negotiate with people who by negotiation apparently mean surrender. What was to stop Mr. Chen from taking Shanghai if he wanted it, just as he took Hankow and Kiukiang when he wanted them? There was nobody to stop him. He has or had the force, and we at that time had none, and in any case why should hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who say "Negotiate" not leave the negotiations to take their course? Why should they adopt the unprecedented conduct of going behind His Majesty's representatives, who are chosen out of that party which has an overwhelming majority of public approbation behind them to conduct the negotiations, and indulging in unwarrantable and mischievous interference on their own? I say that it was unwarrantable and mischievous interference, because this is not now a question of whether it was some obscure branch accepted by the Labour party, or repudiated by them, or adopted by them, or legitimatised by subsequent matrimony with the Labour party, but it was the Labour party themselves. Their message to Mr. Chen contains the extraordinary observation that they want the ultimate abrogation of treaties "that have now no right to be enforced." These are a series of treaties conducted by a series of Governments for the past 100 years, treaties which are in existence, and on the strength of which, as the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) said, great enterprises have been built up, vast sums of money have been invested, and, incidentally, a very large business which is very profitable to the constituents of some hon. Members in Lancashire has been built up. Yet the moment there is trouble they say that

2127
these treaties are wrong and ought to be abrogated. That is the thing to negotiate with Mr. Chen! That is very much as it would be if I were to go into Court to-morrow and say: "May it please your Lordship and gentlemen of the jury, I am going to do by best in this case, but I would like to admit that neither the law nor the merits are on my side." Then they go further and they say that
"the British Labour movement sends to the Chinese workers its most sincere sympathy and support in their attempts to improve their economic conditions."
They know perfectly well that the economic conditions of the Chinese workers have nothing whatever to do with the difficulty with which we are now faced. If anybody has improved the conditions of the Chinese workers it is not Mr. Chen, nor the students, nor M. Borodin, nor anybody else, but it is those British firms in China which have set up a very high standard indeed. Perhaps we shall see another instance of that harmony that prevails so notoriously in the House of Commons and which we hope will prevail when glee singing is attempted by the party opposite. In the meantime, I am content to rely on the assertions of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who said:
"From information within the reach of all, I think it must be allowed that, while standards are low and while they afford a fruitful soil for the growth of discontent among the Chinese workers, it cannot be said that British endeavour in China has not aimed at raising the standard of industry compared with the efforts of the owners of the other mills."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1927; col. 1078, Vol. 203.]
If Mr. Chen and his friends really represent China, and really represent progress in China, and are so concerned with the economic position of the Chinese workers, why do they not make a beginning with their own mills, which are about five to one in comparison with the British mills? So much for the negotiations. Whatever hon. Members may choose to espouse or to repudiate in this House, we know that, whatever they do here, they take full advantage of the propaganda outside this House among the Communist party, branches of the Independent Labour party, and other organisations more or less remotely connected with them, which does not concern itself at all with trying to press for better conditions for the
2128
workers in China, but does spend its whole time in blackguarding Britain, and in encouraging revolutionary movements simply because they are in sympathy with revolution, wherever it happens, all over the globe.
Mr. Chen apparently thinks we should negotiate with him, but there are two questions that arise about that. If you are going to negotiate with anybody, especially when one condition of the negotiations must be the security and preservation of your own nationals, two questions arise. The first is: "Has he the power?" and the second is: "Has he the will?" Hon. Members opposite assume that Mr. Chen is to be trusted because he is high minded, and progressive, and democratic, and has all sorts of qualities. I do not know what they know about Mr. Chen, but his biography is mysterious and suspicious, to my way of thinking, and the only things that I know about him are that in May, 1922, he organised and started the Young Men's Communist party in China. Another thing about him is that he is a lawyer, and yet another thing I notice is that it has been stated—and, so far as I know, not denied —that he has been a British subject and at one time, when in trouble, claimed the privileges of those British subjects whom he would now leave to mobs and revolutionary troops. Then, he writes manifestoes in a language which reminds me more of Independent Labour party leaflets than of any other publication. But he represents China. If so, it is a very odd circumstance that he should have spent all his time up to now, when not inciting mobs to loot our concessions, in fighting fellow-countrymen. He represents the Cantonese Government, which is the national government and democratic government. What is the Cantonese Government? There are one or two features which I should have thought constitute the essence of a Government, about which we are entirely in the dark—at least I am, and if hon. Members opposite will enlighten me on the subject I shall be very much in their debt.
I want to know how the Cantonese Government is appointed, what is the system of election, how many electors there are, how many voted for the Cantonese Government, what legal powers it has of taxation, and why we never hear of the Prime Minister of the Cantonese

2129
Government? Presumably, there is some sort of Prime Minister to whom the Cantonese Government is responsible. Finally, is there any sort of national elective Assembly which ratifies the actions of the Cantonese Government and Mr. Chen? I do not think we have much information upon these points. It is enough that a man should be talkative and revolutionary for all the Labour party to speak about him as if he were a relative by marriage, if not by blood, and as though they had known him for years. But he is progressive, he is national and he is democratic. I suppose his love of progress and democracy consists in being the only person who up to the present has efficiently employed large numbers of troops. Militarism is a dreadful thing. It is a terrible thing to see a battalion of the Coldstream Guards marching down Birdcage Walk, but Cantonese troops are quite a different matter.
"The more we are together, the merrier we will be.
For your friends are my friends, and my friends are your friends."
We know that that enlightened country, which is their spiritual home, from which they take most of their ideas and most of their vocabulary, was in the forefront not only of verbal but of chemical poison gas. He must be a very righteous person also, presumably, because he is advised by Mr. Borodin. It seems odd that we should be told over and over again that this is a purely nationalist movement, that it is founded purely on Chinese sentiment, that it was bound to come anyhow. But there is Mr. Borodin. In what official capacity one does not know. I fancy if one looked in here and saw General Wrangel or General Denikin sitting beside hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, there might be a suspicion that they were in favour of White Russia; and yet, when we find this Minister of Foreign Affairs, who affects to negotiate on behalf of 400,000,000 people—most of whom I suppose do not know his name—accompanied by this Russian Bolshevist, we as reasonable men are expected to believe there is no connection at all.
Finally—and this is a very important thing which must commend itself to hon. Members opposite—he has found out a new patent method of using strikes.
2130
These strikes, as everyone knows, have got nothing in the wide world to do with economic questions in China. If they were really industrial disputes, we should have heard by now of some special terms being formulated for which some special group of strikers was holding out. We should have heard that for some particular factory or industry, the labour organisation wanted their hours shortened by so much, or their pay raised by so much. No such specific demands are ever formulated in the case of these strikes. They are of a nature which even the most ingenious hon. Member opposite could not describe as a lock-out. They are, in fact, organised and run by two groups of people. In olden days in these matters we always had to deal with governors and with troops—something you could talk to, and something you could hit. Nowadays we have to deal with large numbers of persons calling themselves students. Whenever trouble in China or Egypt arises, it always begins by large numbers of students parading the streets. To what particular university they are attached, what degrees they hope to take, or what particular curriculum they study we never hear. They are merely characterised as students, by which, I think, is meant a group of young holigans who have had a smattering of Western culture, and think they ought to get highly paid jobs.
With regard to these strikes, here is the novel method of warfare pursued in China, and here it is that the real danger exists. Most of the armies appear to fight, I was going to say, by negotiation, but, at any rate, some considerations pass between one General and another, and the military position is reversed in a very startling manner. Instead of sending forward the air arm, or cavalry or light infantry, trained battalions of agitating gas bags are sent. They go forward as they did at Hankow, and as they are now doing at Shanghai. Those who refuse to strike, not for any economic cause at all, but who refuse to create disorder and violence, loot the European Concessions and assault foreign officials, are removed by the simple, old-fashioned Oriental method of assassination. The consequence is that the real danger, in my submission, comes not so much from a comic army outside,

2131
with a lawyer at the head, as from mass disorder and violence inside the city itself, and the next thing that may happen at Shanghai, as it happened at Hankow, is that when these forces have got, as they always do get, beyond control—as certain forces are rapidly getting beyond the control of moderate, constitutional pale-pink hon. Gentlemen opposite—then Mr. Chen stands outside and says, "Here are the workers on strike to advance their economic conditions, and if one of you Europeans has the insolence to defend his own business premises or house, and fires a shot, such will be the indignation, that I am sorry to say I shall not be able to control my own troops, and machine guns will be turned on from outside." That is a very dangerous and a very perilous position indeed. I believe, from some practical experience, that the presence of British troops in Shanghai or anywhere else in the World will do nothing but make for good nature. Thomas Atkins is not a licentious, blood-thirsty, Bashi-Bazouk, but a very amiable well-disciplined creature, and his first impulse is to, fraternise with the other people.
I may conclude by telling the House a little personal anecdote to demonstrate that proposition. During the War we occupied a town on the Euphrates and the authorities erected a large gallows in terrorum against looters and brigands. I cannot recall that anyone was executed—[An HON. MEMBER: "How did you escape?"]—but I remember that a month later I witnessed a football match in which some of our wicked and licentious soldiers were engaged with a group of Arabs and some boys from the desert. One of the goal posts was represented by a pile of uniforms, and the other goal post was represented by the gallows. The British soldier is always amiable, always good-tempered, and if patience, discipline and self-restrant can avert a catastrophe in Shanghai, the presence of our troops will do it; and if it be unavoidable, we shall have reason devoutly to thank God that the Government had the courage to take those precautions and that the mischievous Amendments of the party opposite were soundly defeated in this House.
Mr. BARKER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, in line I, to leave from the
2132
word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"regrets the ostentatious dispatch of the special Shanghai Defence Force to Shanghai as being unnecessary and calculated to increase rather than diminish the danger to British subjects living in China."
We have had to-night two speeches, occupying one hour and three minutes, made up of scurrilous abuse and entirely unworthy either of the House or of the subject with which we are dealing. I am not going to follow those two hon. Members in their offensive remarks, but I will try to deal with the Motion on the Paper. They have acted as a lawyer always acts when he has no case, that is, he abuses his opponent. This subject is one of the most serious the House could be engaged in discussing, but it has been treated with unparalleled buffoonery by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Motion may be divided into two parts. First, it congratulates the Government on their foresight in sending troops to Shanghai. I am not going to say very much about that side of the Resolution, except to quote an eminent man who has already commented upon this action of the Government. Viscount Grey, speaking at Bradford on nth February, said:
"The Government might have done more to make the dispatch of these troops less full of display and ostentation … they might have made the dispatch of troops less 'boomed' than it has been. This is no occasion for bluff; the occasion calls for the very opposite of bluff. I wish the dispatch of the force had been made as unostentatious and as little noticed as possible."
That is the opinion of one of the greatest authorities on foreign affairs, and it has relieved me entirely of the necessity of dealing with that side of the subject. With reference to the second part of the Resolution, which is the most important part, the Mover and Seconder have told us very little. In what way have the Government taken steps to safeguard the lives of the people in Shanghai? We have been told about troops being sent out there, but is there no other way of saving the lives of our people? Is it not the: duty of the Government to try to save lives without the use of force at all? Is it not their duty to exhaust all the methods of diplomacy to save the lives of the people in Shanghai? [An HON. MEMBER: "Have they not done so?"] No, I say they have not done it. I say that the double diplomacy to which the

2133
hon. Member for Honiton (Sir C. Morrison-Bell) referred is the double diplomacy of our Government in trying to preach the Sermon on the Mount with guns and bayonets. We are told in the Resolution that the residents in the Concessions needed safeguarding by the British Government. I am afraid the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution knew precious little about the subject on which they were speaking. The Seconder referred to people who never went out of this country. I can tell him, as far as I am concerned, that I lived for ten years in China, and travelled about the Chinese Empire without any protection from Great Britain or anyone else, and I was never molested by the Chinese, though I was in the interior of China. I would rather risk my life with the Chinese than I would depend on an army that may be a thousand miles away, as it is in the case of the men who are in the interior.
Mr. BANKS: That was before China was a Republic, I think.
Mr. BARKER: It does not matter. That makes no difference whatever. I can give the hon. Member information about men in China to-day, in the remote recesses of China, only I do not like to talk about myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do!"] I have a son now in Honan who has lived 20 years in China, and I would be ashamed, after having received the hospitality of the Chinese, to use my position in this House to send an army to China in present circumstances. With reference to the question of the safety of the residents in Shanghai I wish the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had devoted some of their time to this very important question. I want to quote from the "Manchester Guardian," which is not a Labour paper. On 19th February that newspaper said:
"There are in Shanghai 8,000 armed foreigners, soldiers and volunteers, with some 600 British and 2,300 American bluejackets—^before the arrival of the Shanghai Defence Force of some 20,000 men."
The defence of Shanghai was not a defenceless settlement. It was one of the best protected settlements in the whole of China. In reply to a question to-day, the Foreign Secretary gave me a list of the Foreign Treaty Ports and Settlements in
2134
China and there are no less than 72. Shanghai is the only settlement that has had a Defence Force sent out. Shanghai, according to this statement from the "Manchester Guardian," had a garrison there of over 6,000, armed with all modern weapons, before ever we sent a soldier there. Our case, and that of my Amendment is that it was unnecessary to send this force to Shanghai. I am not going to indulge in petty puerilities like the Mover and Seconder. I am going to get to the subject and to prove to this House that it was entirely unnecessary to send these troops to Shanghai.
First of all, we had this great garrison in Shanghai and then we have, in addition, the British Fleet. The biggest battleships can sail right up to the Bar and the smallest ships can go over the Bar right up to the walls of Shanghai. We have this fleet there, but the hon. Member for Honiton made light of this side of the question and made out that there was no fleet there. If there was no fleet there, that was one of the most damaging charges you could make against the Admiralty of this country.
Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said the landing party was about 600 men. The figures were given in the Debate the other night.
Mr. BARKER: The OFFICIAL REPORT will prove who is right. The hon. Member was so imbued with the idea of casting ridicule on this party that I very much doubt if he knows what be did say, but when he gets the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will know what he has said. He ridiculed the idea that there was a fleet outside Shanghai. There is always a big British Fleet on the China Station. There is always that fleet there outside Shanghai. Shanghai is made up of a comparatively small settlement, as he knows, but by the side of that settlement is one of the greatest native cities in the whole of China. That native city is entirely dominated by the guns of the British Fleet and therefore there was no port in China so safe as Shanghai, or so well protected, before there was a single soldier sent there.
I had this answer given to-day by the Foreign Secretary with reference to the Treaty ports in China and there are 72 of them, and in the whole of North

2135
China there is only one Infantry Regiment of 936 men. I want to know from the Government and from those who are going to follow me in the Debate what necessity there was to send this great army to Shanghai in the face of the fleet that was there and of the armed forces which reside inside the Settlement? As I have said, the native city is dominated by the guns of the British Fleet, and in a few hours it would he possible for that Fleet to destroy the native city without doing any damage whatever to the British Settlement. We have had a guarantee, which was ridiculed and derided, from the representatives of China, that they will not invade the Settlement at Shanghai. [HON MEMBERS: "Of China?"] That representative was Mr. Chen. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not represent China!"] He represents the Nationalist Forces, which are the dominating force in China at the present time, and you cannot ignore him and negotiate with him at the same time. The idea of deriding the representatives of China and at the same time continuing diplomatic relations with them and holding them responsible for the pledges that have been given!
We have heard a great deal about the sacredness of Treaties, but the least said about that the better. The history of those Treaties will not bear repeating in this House, I am not going to dwell on the historical side of the question at all. The Foreign Secretary himself has said that the Treaties are somewhat obsolete and he is not prepared to urge that these Treaties should be adhered to. He himself is making arrangements with Mr Chen and perhaps with Mr. Koo as well—that is the Premiers of Peking, in the north, and of Canton, in the south—making the best possible arrangements he can for the abrogation, amendment and revision of those Treaties. Another point I want to make is that Shanghai is an International Settlement, I want to know why its defence is left entirely to Great Britain? I want an answer to that to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not entirely to Great Britain!"] It is is an International Settlement; I want to make a quotation from the "Observer" of Sunday last. That is not a Bolshevist paper. It said:
"Great dissatisfaction is expressed by Americans on account of the fact that the
2136
American Marines have not been allowed to come ashore and tale up a position in the defensive line now extending round Shanghai. The Marines are cooped up on their troopship and have only once conic ashore in a body."
I should like to know from the Government, is it because the American Government know that those troops are not wanted in Shanghai? Is it because they are wiser than our Government? Is it because they do not want to endanger the lives of the Americans who are in the interior of China? Is it because they do not want to irritate the Chinese and destroy their trading relations? It is a very remarkable thing that if Shanghai is in this perilous position which has been painted to-night, that even the. American troops are still cooped up in their ships and are not allowed to land in order to defend the American citizens in Shanghai. I want to submit very seriously to this Horse that the sending of troops to Shanghai is what the Leader of the Opposition has already said is playing with fire, and that is liable to bring us into complications with the Chinese.
I want to point out that we have British subjects all over China in the remotest recesses of China, and I do not think in any one of the 72 ports about which we have had information to-day there is one port that has not got a British population. I say with all seriousness that to send an army into Shanghai where they may come into collision with the Chinese may produce such racial hatred in China as will endanger the lives of those Britishers in the remote parts of China. That is the kernel of our case, and we have put it forward in this House over aid over again. The Government have never met that side of our case, and I challenge them to deal with that one item in our indictment this evening.
I want to ask this question. I would like to know if the Government think that this is the right way to promote trade with China? It is no use the Foreign Secretary sending out copious effusions to the Chinese as if they came from the Sermon on the Mount and then sending the British Army and Navy to enforce these great and lofty ideals. I submit that, bad as our reputation is in China—I am sorry to say that at the present time our prestige amongst the

2137
Chinese is very low indeed—it will not be improved or increased by the sending of the British troops to Shanghai. From the trading point of view, I think this is the most foolish thing the Government could possibly have done. I have here some figures dealing with the trade of China. I find that in 1923 we exported to China 25 millions, in 1924 it was 28.9 millions and in 1925 it fell to 19.7 millions. I am afraid that we are disliked very badly by the Chinese, and I believe the sending out of troops to Shanghai will only intensify the dislike among the Chinese. Therefore, I think we ought to give a gesture of real good will to the Chinese. I do not know anything so nauseating as this kind of Jingoism, specimens of which we have had from the other side of the House to-night. I think negotiations should be resumed if they have been broken off both with Peking and Canton, and the Government should make an effort to settle this great question by diplomacy and not by force.
Of course the idea of going to war with China is absolutely absurd and unthinkable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I would like to point out, however, that the first stage of war has always been a military expedition, and there was absolutely no need to risk provoking China into war by sending a great military force into the Chinese settlement in Shanghai. I should like to urge that the British troops should be recalled, that negotiations should be resumed with the Chinese, and that a settlement should be arrived at with regard to Shanghai the same as that as has been arrived at with reference to Hankow. The day when we can impose absurd and unjust treaties has gone by and the Chinese demand the same freedom and liberty and the same sovereignty as has been conceded to the Japanese. I should like to ask in all solemnity why are the Chinese not entitled to the same treatment? I think the Government would be far better employed in coming to peaceful terms with China and recalling the troops and resuming negotiations. Let us have a settlement made by diplomats and not by the Army.
Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
2138
I do so with considerable zeal, partly because the constituency which I have the honour to represent has recently given a decision upon this issue, and also because I do not feel that the Government have really faced the fundamental realities in regard to this situation. I want to appreciate, and I do appreciate, the concessions which have been made by the Government. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in saying that they have not met the situation with a full appreciation of the circumstances so far as the Chinese people are concerned. My chief complaint is that the Government have not really tried to understand the Chinese state of mind in the present circumstances.
I listened very carefully to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, and I failed to find in them one trace of any understanding of the position of the Chinese in the situation with which they are faced. I find the same thing generally in the Press. In the "Times" the other day—I think it was on Monday—there was a letter describing why the Government ought to take a firm hand in China; and, when I came to examine the reasons why that ought to be done, I found quotations from British and, I believe, American officials between 60 and 100 years back. I want to say that to approach the Chinese question as we have it to-day by referring to conditions anywhere from 60 to 100 years ago is quite beside the point. The fact is that during the last few years there has been a great change in China. We are not faced to-day with the China of 100 years ago; we are not faced with the China of 20 years ago; we are faced with a new China, an awakened China. We need a policy for that awakened China, and such a policy the present Government do not possess.
There has arisen during the past few years a great educational movement in China. It may be that hon. Members opposite will say that it is an agitation. Nevertheless, it is the same kind of educational movement which we have had in this country, and out of which has come the party to which I have the honour to belong. It is a propaganda whereby the people of China have been made to understand something of their history, and, particularly, something of the events of the last 80 or 90 years. I

2139
want for one moment to try and visualise to the House the facts that the modern Chinese see id regard to their country. They know something about the events which took place from 1839 to 1842; they know something of the events which took place from 1856 to 1858, and something of the events that have taken place on numerous occasions between that time and the present. They also know of quite recent events, which have had a great deal to do with bringing about the present situation in China, namely, the shooting of strikers in Shanghai in May, 1925, the shooting of students in June, 1925, and the shootings at Wahusien in September, 1926. The events which appeal to the mind of the modern, awakened Chinese to-day are such as the following.
He sees, in the first place, the Opium Wars, and the attempts, not only of this country but of other countries, to force opium into his country, and, for that purpose, the securing of treaty ports and other concessions. He understands all about the Opium Wars, and has seen the wringing of concessions and treaty ports from his nation: and he also sees his country coming more and more under the territorial and financial control of foreigners. He sees, too, some of the industries and many of his cities under the control of foreigners. Not only that, but, when he comes face to face with the conditions in such cities as Shanghai, he recognises that they, the Chinese, have no power whatever to remedy those conditions. They have; a, 12-hour day, women working for 6d. a day, and so on. They have no trade unions, and no right to create trade unions. Furthermore, they have no power, as I have said, of improving their conditions, and they have no redress against those conditions. They have no regulations, and no factory inspectors. I want to remind hon. Members that it is in these conditions, and the state of mind which these conditions have produced, that the present situation has arisen.
Now, when it is most necessary that the Chinese nation should be treated sympathetically in the midst of their attempts to gain freedom and to make a unified nation, they are met once again with our military forces, and they, putting two and two together, and remem-
2140
bering their past, think that history is going to be repeated once again. I maintain that the great need of the present moment is for a far more conciliatory attitude than has been shown so far —that we ought to have gone further, and stated quite definitely how far we were prepared to go in the way of concessions. Furthermore, I think it was due to us to give to the Chinese people at any rate an industrial charter, so that they might have some prospect of improving their industrial conditions in the future.
There are just one or two other points of a rather important nature that I should like to mention before I sit down. I think we are entitled to ask, in dealing with this question, what are the motives for the action that has been taken by the Government? Of course in facing a question of this kind, we have to understand, or try to understand, what are the motives expressed in the Press of the country, and what are the motives behind the business and financial interests of the country. I am bound to face such facts as I see, namely, the great satisfaction that is manifested in a, large part of the Press of this country when the Northern Forces in China are victorious, and the Southern Forces a; e defeated; and, furthermore, the fact that we are at the present moment beginning to harness, and have already advanced some steps in the direction of harnessing, the cheap labour of the East to the industrial machinery that we have set up in the West; and behind the minds of business men and financiers, and perhaps I may venture to say also the mind of the Government of this country, there is this big question of the exploitation of the cheap labour of the East.
In China we have 430,000,000 people, in India we have over 300,000,000, and in China, India and Japan together we have 800,000,000 people, or half the total population of the world. I want to say quite frankly that in my view the consequences of this vast problem, the exploitation of the East, are, from the capitalist point of view, of such importance as to lie behind the policy I have described, and also behind the attempt that is being made to impose such policy upon the Government of this country. Already we- have something like 1,000,000 industrial workers in

2141
China. In the cotton industry alone we have something like 750,000 cotton workers in China, India and Japan. When we hear all this talk about the protection of British lives in China, I want to ask, what about the protection of British lives in our own country? During the past few years, as a result of the fact that in Japan the production of cotton goods has increased twelve-fold, that in India it has doubled, and that in China it has made similar advances, the cotton consumption in the factories of Lancashire during the same period has fallen to the extent of between 30 and 40 per cent. The Lancashire workers to-day are suffering as a result of our policy of exploitation in China, and not only our Lancashire cotton workers, but other workers in various parts of the country are suffering as the result of the depleted wages of the Lancashire workers.
Although we speak so much in terms of protecting British lives, when it comes to action, we are concerned about the protection of British profits. Outer real concern is not so much with yellow labour and the fear of the Yellow Peril, as with the white exploiters of yellow labour. What we on these benches demand is that we shall have a greater measure of co-operation between the masses of the people of this country and those of the East, in order that we may be able to help them to develop their trade union movement so as to raise their standard of life, and thus abolish to a large extent the disadvantage that we labour under with the cheap labour of the East. My last word is that in China, to-day we are faced with a great nationalist movement. We are faced with the aspirations of the largest nation in the world, a nation with a great past, which has a wonderful record of civilisation behind it, and which, with the awakening that is taking place and what help the West can give it financially, industrialy, spiritually and intellectually, will again be a great nation. We are up against great spiritual and moral realities, and I trust the Government will take a note of those realities, and remember that they will triumph. They are bound to triumph, and not only will they triumph, they will abide when all the empires of the world have passed away.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As one who voted for the Supplementary Estimate the other day for the sending of troops to Shanghai, and who is prepared to support the Foreign Secretary in the policy of protecting British lives and property after the declaration lie made that that force will not be used for any aggressive purpose, that it will not be used for intervening between any of the rival contestants for supremacy in China, I deprecate very strongly this Motion that has been moved from the other side. I think it is exceedingly unfortunate that it should be done and that it should be framed in a form which seems to attempt to make party capital out of the trouble. It certainly puts in a very awkward position those who supported the Government owing to the confidence they had in the wording of the Foreign Secretary. If we vote against it, it might be interpreted as if we were going back upon the support we gave to the policy of the Foreign Secretary. On the other hand, if we vote for it, it looks to me as if we were invited to support a Motion which is a flagrant attempt to make party capital out of a real trouble. It is very unfortunate at this moment, when we are by no means out of this trouble. I should like anyone on that bench who knows the facts, or anyone who has taken the trouble to follow them carefully, to predict that this thing is at an end. It will be time enough to move votes of thanks and congratulation when the whole situation is clear. It is by no means clear. A debate is inevitable in the country. You cannot avoid it. The hon. Member who has just sat down, who spoke with such lucidity and force—and I congratulate him on the statement of his point of view—was bound, in the course of his election, to fight the issue, and you cannot avoid it in two other elections, but I should have thought it was not the business of those who are supporting the Government in the very delicate task they have undertaken in foreign policy to unnecessarily provoke discussions upon these issues.
10.0 p.m.
Debates in the House of Commons are very much more serious than speeches in the country from the point of view of what happens in China, and if a challenge is thrown out from the other side of the House to hon. Members on this side who

2143
take a different view, they are hound to present their ease. I do not think in the present condition of China that is helpful to the Foreign Office. Whoever speaks for the Government can hardly feel very happy that this is a wise move to undertake at the present moment. See what is happening there. You have got the Northern forces split up among five or six different factions, and it looks at present as if there where a division even in the Southern forces, and there is a very serious conflict, which may decide the future of China, between the moderate forces among the Cantonese and the extremists. That may decide the whole future of the East. If the extremists win, it means that there is a possibility that you may have 400,000,000 added to another 100,000,000 of a Communist Empire. That is something between a third and a fourth of the populations of the world. I should have thought at this moment it was undesirable to promote debates and raise issues which, telegraphed over there, may have a very determining effect one way or the other upon that very issue. Take the speech delivered by the hon. Member. I think lie was bound to put his case. He put it quite fairly and moderately from his point of view, and no doubt there is great force in it, although in my judgment I think the policy of the Foreign Secretary is not in the least incompatible with an improvement in the labour conditions of China. So that when he was putting that case, it was a good case in itself, but it was not a case against the Foreign Secretary's policy. As I understand the Foreign Secretary's policy, it is one of non-interference with China and of allowing China to settle its own industrial affairs. We cannot from here dictate to China and say "You are only paying 1s. 6d. a day, or whatever it is, and you have got to pay 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d." That would be an unwarrantable interference with the affairs of China. You can say: "We will not use our force to make it impossible for the Chinese themselves "—
Mr. T. HENDERSON: You can say our factory laws shall apply.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you do that, it is imposing British laws on China. We certainly could not do that without attempting to govern China from here. That is not the demand of Mr. Eugene Chen. I followed it very closely, and I have been re-reading it. His demand is that he and his men should be allowed to govern China in their own way, without any dictation with regard to industrial laws or wages or anything else from here. Our business is to help China to govern itself. It is because I believe the Foreign Secretary is honestly of that opinion that I support him, but that makes it a very serious blunder, in my judgment, to raise a discussion of this kind by supporters of the Government, who have already a majority in the House of Commons, which is by no means confined to their own Members, in support of the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] I was at another meeting, and I may be at a disadvantage in not having heard the whole of the Debate, hut I am only looking at the Motion on the Paper. Whoever spoke, spoke in support of his own Motion, and therefore that speech was relevant. As one who voted the other day in favour of this force going to China, I say quite frankly, looking at the recent events, I think that even now the Government have been justified, not because of anything which has been done by the Cantonese, but because of the eruption of this bandit general from the North, the very person whom we were all told was our friend—Chang. He is referred to in our own Press as the bandit lord, and I think he has quite justified that name. He has attempted to levy demands of over £1.000.000 upon the merchants there; he has tried to break into our settlement with force, and, from what I saw in the "Daily Telegraph," with revolvers flourished in the face of the men there. When the Durhams turned him back, he sent word to say that it was purely a misunderstanding. [Interruption.] Well if he had succeeded in going there I should like to know what would have happened. I say quite frankly, I think that that incident in itself has been a justification; but the more you say that, the more provocative, the more unwise and, I would say, the more foolish is a Motion of this kind, coming from behind the Government Benches—a Motion which tries to

2145
make party capital, which congratulates the Government, and which approves of their policy. That might be quite right if you were giving a peerage to somebody at the end for their very successful conduct of affairs. [Interruption.]
An HON. MEMBER: What would he have to pay for it?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What did you get? it you start that business, I shall have something to say. But, at any rate, I say, as one who has voted for the Government, that this is an exceedingly unwise Motion to move in this House, and I think if the Government lend the slightest countenance to it they will be responsible, in my judgment, for dragging into party politics affairs of this kind, that ought to be as national as you can possibly make them. You cannot always get unanimity on these subjects, but, so far as you can, I think it, is the business of the Government to secure the nation, beyond the limits of party, for a great enterprise of this kind. If they give countenance to this sort of thing they will attempt something that will make all these great Imperial and all these great foreign questions tend to become party questions. Therefore, I wish to be against it.
Captain FAIRFAX: The right hen. Gentleman who has just sat down has accused us on this side of the House of adopting an unwise policy, and I do not think I shall be going too far if I say exactly the same thing about some of his speeches. The right hon. Gentleman is a past master at the art of making mischief. We have not to carry our minds back very far to remember the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman during the late national calamity. If we do that, I think we shall not be greatly disturbed by his censure of the Motion which we have put down to-night. I hope that the Government will not be at all disturbed by what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and that they will give their support to this Motion. I do not know who is going to reply from the Front Bench, but I hope that whoever does reply will heartily endorse this Motion. I think it is a good thing that this Motion has been put down because, if as has been said by hon. Members opposite, the electors of Stourbridge were so far deceived as to return the
2146
hon. Member for that Division (Mr. Wellock) on the Chinese policy of the Labour party, then it is high time that that policy should be further exposed in the country. If Debates could be broadcast, I think that this Debate should be broadcast to the country, so that the country might fully understand what the policy of the Labour party is on the Chinese question.
I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of adopting the usual courtesy of the House and of congratulating the hon. Member for Stourbridge on his very sincere, able, and, if I may he allowed to say so, well-expressed speech. But I think he has misrepresented the case. However good his intentions might have been I feel that what he said in regard to the Nationalist aspirations in China is not really relevant to the question of sending a Defence Force to defend our own nationals. It seems to me perfectly immaterial what the aspirations of the Cantonese Government are. The duty of His Majesty's Government is to defend the lives of our citizens if they are in danger, quite irrespective of what policies and what national aspirations the contending Chinese parties may adopt. It has been represented that His Majesty's Government is siding with the anti-Cantonese forces and with the anti-Nationalist forces. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government should be to defend the lives of our citizens when they are in peril, and that it is perfectly immamaterial what the policies of the contending forces are. I think it has been clearly demonstrated, by what we have heard in the Press that the sending of a Defence Force to Shanghai has had a good effect. I do not agree with the Amendment—that the despatch of the force was ostentatious. Nor do I agree with Lord Grey—for whom I have a great respect—in holding that ostentation should have been entirely avoided. It seems to me that, in sending out a force of this kind, a very had effect would have been caused if that force had been smuggled out by stealth, as if the Government were ashamed of sending them out. It may be advisable to do good by stealth at times, but in these circumstances, the sending out of a Defence Force of this kind to protect our people, I think it was very advisable to let it be widely known.

2147
It was a very good thing that our nationals in China should know that the Government was sending out this force for their protection, and I think if the Government had exercised unusual powers of censorship in regard to the news of the sending of this defence force the people at home would have had very grave reasons for suspecting that something curious was going on. I hope we shall have the opportunity to-night of hearing the naval expert of the Labour party, but it seems to me that he is in conflict with the views of the Commander-in-Chief at the China Station if he says that the people on the spot were sufficient to deal with the troubles at Shanghai. Figures which can be substantiated show that the strength of 600, which was the limit of the defence force available before the troops were sent out, was quite insufficient in the view of the Commander-in-Chief of the China Station, Mr. O'Malley, and all cur responsible officials out there. They were all agreed as to the necessity for the despatch of the defence force. If the hon. Member, as a naval expert, cares to set up his opinion against the opinion of those in authority on the spot, who are non-party he is taking a great deal on himself. I propose to support the Motion, and I shall be glad to see hon. Members opposite divide against it, because it will be of very great value to me in my constituency.
Miss BONDFIELD: We have had an explanation of the reasons for the Motion, in the final sentence of the hon. Member, when he stated that it will be very useful to him in his constituency. Some of us feel that this is a question of far greater importance than that. I have had sent to me to-day copies of some letters which have just arrived from China, written by women who are engaged in mission work. I think it would be interesting to the House to get the point of view of these women N, ho are facing the dangers which hat, e been discussed in this House in relation to this question. These women are all in official positions, acting as secretaries of Y.W.C.A. branches in different Farts of China. Writing on the 26th January, one says:
"Whatever one thinks of all this, there can he no doubt that there is new life in China. One gets the impression of an enor-
2148
mous amount of energy. There is thinking and discussion going on among all kinds of people, and it is not something engineered from the outside. It is Chinese people doing their own thinking and striving, and whatever the immediate results, that in itself is advance. Nationalism is a fact in China and will continue to be so. There are minor advantages to be laid to the credit of the new regime. Wuchang streets are cleaner than they ever were before. Here and there improvements are being made. The posters and notices painted on the walls are, generally speaking, quite ornamental. On the whole there is more order in the streets."
In a letter of the 16th February, from Shanghai, the writer says:
"Many important groups are occupied urging the Governments through their representatives at home to conciliatory measures. They base their appeals on the imperative necessity of understanding the deeper purpose of the present nationalistic movements, and urge them not to be misled by the exaggerated reports of incidents unavoidable in periods of great social and national change. They are asking people at home to support the Government's decision to negotiate on outstanding issues, and not to permit inevitable incidents to deflect them from a friendly attitude. They are asking that there shall be avoidance of provocative publicity concerning military measures during the period of negotiation, for, through it all, this is interpreted, as I have said, as threatening Chinese nationalism, and preparing for less liberal approach Courageous, imaginative step may alter the whole situation. Along these lines those who are prepared to take our interpretation of this pregnant time are urged to do their own 'bit' with their own friends and in joining with any other groups, making protests to Governments, and pleading for imagination in finding a way out."
The letter also proceeds to describe the scare headlines. It says:
"Newspapers here are playing on the situation by the use of scare headlines which are calculated to bring about a real war mentality. Especially is this true on posters, which have unqualified statements. Other times the headline is most provocative and the text does not conform to the implications of it."
The letter also says:
"The Joint Committee has sent mild letters to the Editors of all the papers asking that each will do its share to lessening unintelligent scare mentality. This organisation has a membership of seven women's organisations in Shanghai, representing six nationalities, including two Chinese groups. The understanding and solidarity that have been achieved in the past years of working together is such that not willingly would the Joint Committee see the stirring up of unnecessary feeling by ill-considered statements."

2149
I hope the statements made in this House will not reach the Chinese public. The whole tenor of the letters from these women in the mission field is to the effect that if they are to be successful in commending our Christian religion to that great nation they are hindered rather than helped by the use of force, even when it is used for the protection of their own lives. I speak as a woman and I hay that women have got to that stage in thinking of this national problem. Men can no longer protect them by physical force, and in the 20th century it is time we got away from the type of mind that was suitable to the period of the Indian Mutiny. The Chinese nation is awaking; there is no doubt about the way in which the idea of Chinese nationality is sweeping through the country. The Cantonese army has been welcomed in the towns and cities by the mass of the people. Hon. Members opposite sneer when we on these benches speak on these questions. They seem to forget that many of these men serving abroad ore our relations, and we know what they have to go through in these distant countries. An hon. Member opposite spoke about the kind heartedness of the "Tommies." De not we know it? Are they not the sons and brothers of the people whom we represent? If it was left to the ordinary rank and file soldier, there would be no violence in China; there would he no violence used in relation to the Chinese people. It is because of our own personal associations with these other countries, that we are able to speak with a great deal of confidence.
We do not regard China as merely an opportunity for trade exploitation or the Chinese people as somebody who will supply large quantities of cheap labour to invested capital. We regard them as human beings, the children of one Father, who are now trying to reach a stage of development—having emerged from their old civilisation, which has been the admiration of the world—and are waking up to form new associations and to a new life. Great Britain has introduced industrial methods into China. Other countries have also, but Great Britain has always been regarded as the pioneer and I do not see why hon. Mem-
2150
bers opposite should be upset when we say we have taken industrial methods into China. It is a fact that a great deal of the textile machinery in China is exported from Bury. They have started with the most up-to-date mills from this country end America, and yet the conditions of labour in these mills are worse than they were 100 years ago in our country. At the International Labour Conference at Geneva the Indian representative fully recognised, in a way that does not seem to receive the appreciation of hon. Members opposite, that with these Western methods of production there must be Western methods of regulating the conditions of industry. Our Indian friends have adopted these, and are anxious that we should use all the influence we possess through our international affiliations not merely to get Chinese labour organised to the point of effective negotiation but also to do everything we can to assist the growth in China of the regulation of labour in every possible way.
In that respect the Shanghai Committee is not without blame. I am prepared to admit that there are certain firms, Jardine Mathieson for example, that have tried to give a lead in a certain direction, but there has not been that united support from the British residents in Shanghai that would enable them to get a quorum. There was not that support amongst the British residents that would enable them to make the necessary order. When that happens year after year in an attempt to get regulations for child labour, there is every reason to say that the British traders over there had not done what they could to secure the better regulation of labour. That is the gravamen of the whole situation. While nationalism is a primary cause of the great movement, there is the secondary cause of the conditions under which industrialism is being introduced. There is the cause of bad housing conditions consequent on bringing this agricultural people into the towns, consequent upon bringing young women and girls of different ages from the country districts into the manufacturing centres in unregulated positions. All these are contributory causes to the unrest, and to what is described by hon. Members opposite, and I think described wrongly,

2151
as anti-British feeling. It is not anti-British feeling. It is anti-foreign feeling against those nations—unfortunately we are most prominent among them—who appear by their actions to be setting themselves against the development of the nationalisation of China. It is from that point of view that I, together with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), deplore the mischievous Resolution that has been moved. I support most wholeheartedly the Amendment, because I believe that it is in the best interests of peace and of good relationship between the two countries.
Mr. HANBURY: I fear that members of the Labour party are suffering under the damnosa hereditas of an Opposition. They have to oppose His Majesty's Government and its policy of protection of our nationals in China, and I think that the Amendment, which says that the Defence Force was sent out with too much advertisement, is entirely beside the mark. Surely the advertisement that was given to the Shanghai Defence Force was entirely the work of the newspapers and was not in any way organised by the Government. The Government sent out the Force with the greatest expedition and good management conceivable, of which the whole nation must be proud. When we come to advertisement, surely one of the best objects of sending out a Force is to advertise it thoroughly to the Chinese themselves, to point out the objects of the expedition, which are merely those of the defence of life and property and in no sense whatever interference in the private and national affairs of China. We are out, as our Foreign Secretary has very rightly informed the nation, for the protection only of life and property, and to take no part whatever in the domestic affairs of China.
Another point made by the hon. Member opposite was very illuminating. Referring to the Shanghai Defence Force he said, "They are your troops, not our's". That at once brands the Labour party as taking an entirely un-national point of view in regard to this expedition for the protection of our nationals in China. Hon. Members opposite talk about the necessity for diplomacy and not force. If you wish for peace prepare for war! That is a very good saying and, espe-
2152
cially when dealing with Orientals, you want to show that you are fully prepared to protect life and property and your own interests. We know that Shanghai and other treaty ports have been built up by the industry and adventurous spirit of our forefathers who went to the East to trade and to find an outlet for our manufactures. We know that probably nearly 100,000 people in this country are dependent on the outlet of our trade in China. Not only Lancashire but Yorkshire, not only woollens and cottons but other industries are affected. It is not only the manual workers at home or the operatives in the mills whom we are out to protect. We are out to protect the black-coated gentlemen abroad in China who are carrying on office work, although they may not be actual manual workers. One Member on the Opposition side spoke about "the exploitation of the Chinese people" and "the policy of exploitation which has reduced our trade in the last three years." I believe the reduction of our trade in China is far more due to the propaganda of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in Moscow.
I had brought to my notice yesterday certain trade figures translated from a paper published in Russia. This paper was glorying in the reduction of Chinese trade with this country in the last three years. That is a sufficient commentary on the argument about the exploitation of the Chinese people. We know that exploitation is carried on by the Chinese themselves to a far greater extent than by us, and our cotton mills in Shanghai, as has been admitted by the Opposition, are better managed than those run by the Chinese and Japanese. We are out on all sides to improve conditions of labour in China, and it can only be done by our holding on to Shanghai and by increasing our prestige in the East. Therefore, I join with the Mover of the Motion in congratulating the Government on the extremely efficient and prompt way in which they sent out this defence force to Shanghai. If I ventured to criticise the Government in any small detail, it would be, perhaps, in their policy with regard to the settlement in China, and their apparent wish to give up all our rights there as soon as possible. We must examine carefully the results of allowing the Chinese to manage big affairs in China. If we take the case of the port

2153
of Tsingtau which was given up by the Germans after the War, to the Chinese, my latest information is that the port is going back, and that trade is failing under Chinese management. Are these enormous interests in our Treaty ports and in the international settlement to be allowed to suffer by too quick a delivery to Chinese management. I, therefore, appeal to the Government to look carefully and scrupulously into the question of the future management of these great interests. Before sitting down, I should like once more to emphasise, as a trustee for very large interests in China, my gratitude to the Government for the foresight and promptness with which they tackled this very serious menace to the most important interests, not only of people in Shanghai, but of many thousands of people in Great Britain.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have had a most remarkable speech from the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks), and what is still more remarkable is the fact that he has not remained in his place to hear the rest of the Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did remain."] I do not object to the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton (Sir C. Morrison-Bell) attacking my colleagues on these benches, because, after all, that is what he is there for, and, of course, I do not really object to his making references to my own personal position, and I am sorry I was a little heated, but I think it was extraordinarily foolish for the hon. and learned Member for Swindon to make reflections on Mr. Chen. At present Mr. Chen is responsible really for the safety of great numbers of British people, and my authority for saying that is the Foreign Secretary himself. We know the Foreign Secretary's position in this business. He has always known that in dealing with a country like China, where one of the greatest movements in the history of our time is taking place, and probably the greatest event since the French Revolution in the history of the world, nothing really in the end can be accomplished by force. It must be done eventually by understanding. The sailors have a word in their vocabulary known as "shanghaied." A sailor is sometimes knocked on the head and taken to a lodging-house keeper and shipped on board some outgoing ship, and he wakes up to find himself at sea in a ship of
2154
which he has no knowledge. He has been shanghaied. What has happened is that the Foreign Secretary has been shanghaied by the die-hard elements in the Cabinet, who have rushed these troops out in defiance, on this occasion, of the much wiser Foreign Secretary.
I asked a Question to-day about the very important city of Wuhu. It is a very large city, which I remember as the dirtiest city in China—[Laughter]—but it is of considerable importance from the trading point of view. Hon. Members may laugh, but there are 140 foreigners in that city, including 60 British, and it has been subject to rioting and looting, and the whole of the women and children have left. The men are sleeping—our nationals—on board ship at night for the most part, though they are trying to carry on their business. I have great sympathy with these people, who are trying under great difficulties to carry on business in China. They arc miles up the river, and there is no kind of protection for them, really, but in taking refuge on board a man-of-war, except that the Foreign Secretary ended his reply to me to-day by saying that these disturbances have been brought to the notice of Mr. Chen by our representative, who has asked him to telegraph instructions for the protection of British life and property and the suppression of anti-British agitation. This is the Mr. Chen whom the hon. and learned Member for Swindon comes into this House this evening specially to insult and upbraid. The policy of the Government, which is praised by the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and his colleagues, his confederates, is very injurious to the lasting British interests in China, which are commerce and trade, and, in the future years, friendship with a people who, when they have regenerated themselves and put their house in order, will be a great power in the world. In trying to arrange the future affairs of an Empire like ours, we must not look three months ahead, but 30 years ahead, if we can, and in 30 years' time China will be a very great force in the world of whose friendship we may be glad.
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: there are a few remarks I would like to make about some of the speeches to which I have listened. May I begin with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the

2155
Leader of the Liberal party? As I understand, he objected to this Motion because it dragged in party polities, but, surely, if anyone has been guilty of making this a party matter, it is the right hon. Gentleman himself. He makes that speech almost before the echoes of the speech he made at Bradford have died down. The hon. Member who spoke last made the imputation against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) of having come to this House to-night for the sole purpose of abusing Mr. Chen. I listened lo that speech, and, if I may say so, I think it was one of the best speeches made in this House for some time. The impression on my mind was that the leading motive of the speech was not an abuse of Mr. Chen. It was pointing out quite justly that the Socialist party in supporting Mr. Chen were attacking our own country, our own Government, and that they were supporting a man who had no claim in any way to represent the people he was leading.
As I take it, the attitude of His Majesty's Government, which we on this side support, is not in any way hostile to Mr. Chen. We want to be at peace with Mr. Chen, but we are not going to put ourselves under the power of Mr. Chen and put the lives of our countrymen at his mercy and the mercy of those he may not be able to control. I well remember a few days ago, when the movement of troops was first discussed, it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that the danger did not arise from organised troops acting under Mr. Chen's orders, but that there were chances of mobs coming down from his armies and soldiers getting out of his control, and that it was for that purpose that troops were sent to protect our people. The hon. Lady, who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench, made, if I may say so, quite unwarranted assertions against our firms in Shanghai. I have a certain amount of knowledge of the work of those firms, and of the incident to which she referred. She did not mention it, but I gathered the reason there was not a quorum was the absence of a British representative.
Miss BONDFIELD: The British representatives are more than two-thirds of the whole, and could make a quorum.
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I am not in a position to state that my facts are correct, but I was informed by an authority I believe to be correct that the reason there was not a quorum was, in the main, due to the fact that the foreign people on that body did not attend the meeting, and could not be got. Be that as it may, what I believe is uncontested is that not only the big firms but, in the main, all the firms acting under British control in China, have done what has baen done towards the raising of the level of industrial life there, and to come to this House and make a speech, which by its implication, if not definitely said means that those firms in China are in any way responsible for the level of industrial life in China being low, is unworthy of the hon. Member.
Miss BONDFIELD: If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I would like to say that the point which we persistently impress upon this House, and elsewhere, is that our firms are the firms which know what are the conditions here, and are the people who ought to set a good example with those conditions elsewhere.
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I gather that the hon. Lady has so far altered her position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."]to say that she is not accusing our firms, of not taking the lead in China, but is accusing them of not going as far as they might have done. Is that her position?
Miss BONDFIELD: They have not altered the conditions, which are still 12 hours a day, and the employment of young children.
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I am very glad to have tad that statement about a 12-hours day, because it was brought to my notice in this building quite recently,, by people closely connected with the mills in China, who had just come from China, that one of the difficulties which one of the firms had when they made a proposal to shorten the hours was that the workpeople themselves went on strike. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, hut that is an absolute statement of fact, for which I was given full authority. It was given to several hon. Members in my presence,

2157
and I believe it to be perfectly true. However, I will pass from that. The Motion declares that the Government did right in sending troops to China when they did, and congratulates them on the fact that they were sent at the right time. Can anyone doubt it, in view of what has happened in China during the last few days? Look at the alteration in the situation there. The troops may not have been sent soon enough, nobody can say; but what we can definitely say is that they were not sent one week too soon. I wonder whether in those letters which were read from the Opposition Front Bench there was one word to the effect that the writers regretted that the troops had been sent and wished them to be taken away? If there was, it was remarkable that the hon. Lady did not quote it; and if there was not, I think it would have been only right for the hon. Lady to make that statement, and not leave it to come from these benches.
Miss BONDFIELD: If that is put as a question to me, I would reply that the date of the letter was the 16th February, and the effect of it was that no military effort should be made.
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I will not take up more time, but I will only remark that several times in the course of my life it has been my fortune to be in a position in which the lives —anyhow the safety—of British women were dependent on the presence of troops. I should he very sorry if those ladies had had to trust to pious aspirations and to letters.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain King): I only wish to say a few words before the Debate closes. Before dealing with the actual points in the Motion and in the Amendment, I would like to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to making a party question of such an important matter of policy. I would like to point out to the House that this Motion is in the nature of a Vote of Confidence in the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged in his speech that he had already supported the policy of the Government by voting with the Government on the Supplementary Estimate. I do not see that it would be
2158
consistent on his part either to go into the Lobby against the Government on this Motion or to abstain from voting. He has also approved the policy of the Government in sending out the Shanghai Defence Force, therefore, he can only be consistent by continuing his support. When he describes this Motion as turning a matter of serious policy into party politics, I would point out to him and to the House that the turning of the whole China question into party politics first occurred from the Opposition side. [Hon, MEMBERS "No!"] The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just, spoken pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs was not altogether innocent of that himself. But even before the House met and before the question of our China policy was ever discussed in this House, we know that the Socialist party outside the House had already started this question of China as a party question and that they had started this "Hands Off China" campaign and were trying to force on the Government a policy which was opposed to the Government policy and were going behind the Government in treating directly with Mr. Chen in China.
Apart from the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I take this Motion really as a very unusual but very pleasant appreciation of the work which was carried through in sending out this Defence Force. I had the opportunity last week, in introducing the Supplementary Estimate, of giving the House the details of the despatch of the force and I am quite sure that the words which have been said here this evening by Members on this side of the House will be very greatly appreciated not only by the staffs and commands of the Army but also by those officials of the Board of Trade to whose excellent work the despatch of the force was so largely due.
The main criticisms of the policy of the Government which has been brought forward by the Opposition has been that we should have relied entirely on negotiation. They say that there was no necessity whatever for sending this force and that we should have relied on negotiation. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, if he was closely in touch with the Leader of his own party, would realise that the Leader of the Opposition has already paid tribute to

2159
the foreign policy of negotiation as carried out by the Government. In the forefront of that policy has been negotiation—negotiation the whole time. They have been unceasing in persevering in the policy of negotiation. That policy of negotiation has been carried on with both sides and with all parties in China.
Another part of the policy of the Government comes in there, and that is neutrality. We have maintained strict neutrality as between the contending parties in China. We have negotiated with the Nationalists in the South and we have negotiated with the war lords of the North. I think in that matter the record of the Government shows up extremely well from the point of view of neutrality, as compared with that of the Opposition. The Opposition took entirely the part of the Nationalists of the South and they seemed to ignore that the people of the North held their views just as honestly and sincerely as those in the South whom the Opposition are supporting. Throughout His Majesty's Government have shown absolute and strict neutrality.
One other part of their policy has been negotiation, neutrality and the protection of its own nationals. It was the protection of its own nationals side by side with negotiations that determined the Government to send out to Shanghai a defence force. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave certain figures from the "Manchester Guardian,' and he stated that there were between 6,000 and 8,000 armed men in addition to the Marines in Shanghai before we despatched the Shanghai Defence Force. If that is the fact on which the hon. Member is basing his argument, then it is a false basis, because it is not correct to say that there were anything like 6,000 ar 8,000 armed men in Shanghai before the Defence Force was despatched. The hon. Member also asked whether it was true that the British alone were providing troops and Marines for the defence of the national settlement of Shanghai. T can assure him it is not true, because detachments have been specially sent to Shanghai for the protection of their own nationals by France, America, Japan, Italy, Spain, and Holland. Detachments
2160
of the forces of those countries are either already landed at Shanghai or they are in ships specially sent for the purpose. In regard to the defence of Shanghai, we are acting in conjunction with all the other Powers interested in the national settlement.
Another point which has been raised by the hon. Lady opposite (Miss Bond-field) is the one in regard to our aggressive spirit. I would like to say that there is no aggressive spirit in sending troops to protect the lives of our own nationals. I have already pointed out the strictness of our neutrality between the contending parties in China. We have no intention of interfering with the affairs of China except for the defence of our own nationals, and we are determined that they shall receive the full protection to which they are entitled, and that was the reason why a defend c force was sent to China. Many hon. Members will have read of the reception Which the Defence Force received at Shanghai, not only from Britishers and other iioreigners, but also from the Chinese themselves. As has already been stated, wherever he goes the British Tommy is a great favourite and he has already made a favourable impression on the Chinese with whom he has come into contact.
We hope the mission on which he has been sent may be attained sufficiently by his mere presence. We have already seen that no further move has been made by the Southern army towards Shanghai. We have already en that our troops have been useful in turning back armed bodies of men.belonging to one or other of the Chirese Armies. If any armed bodies of men were allowed to enter the International Settlement, there is no doubt fighting would commence, and we should have warfare within Shanghai, with all its dreadful results. I hope that after this Debate the House will pass this Resolution, which is really a Vote of Confidence in the Government, and an appreciation of the work of organsation.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided Ayes, 241; Noes, 116.

Division No. 45.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gates, Percy

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Albery, Irving James

Goff, Sir Park

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

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gower, Sir Robert

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Nuttall, Ellis

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

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Oakley, T.

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

Greene, W, P. Crawford

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Astor, Viscountess

Grotrian, H. Brent

Penny, Frederick George

Atholl, Duchess of

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Atkinson, C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Perring, Sir William George

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hall, vice Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Barnett Major Sir Richard

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

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Hammersley, S. S.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Hanbury, C.

Raine, W.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Ramsden, E.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Harland, A.

Remer, J. R.

Berry, Sir George

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Betterton, Henry B

Hawke, John Anthony

Rice, Sir Frederick

Blundell, F. N.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Ropner, Major L.

Brass, Captain W.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Ruggies Brise, Mafor E. A.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Rye, F. G.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hills, Major John Waller

Salmon, Major I.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hilton, Cecil

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bullock, Captain M.

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Sandon, Lord

Burman, J. B.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Savory, S. S.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

Calne, Gordon Hall

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

Carver, Major W. H.

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

Skelton, A. N.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Smithers, Waldron

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Huntingfield, Lord

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Clayton, G. C.

Jacob, A. E.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Jephcott, A. R.

Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Cope, Major William

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Couper, J. B.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Lamb, J. Q.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

Waddington, R.

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

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Crcckshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

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

Watts, Dr. T.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Loder. J. de V.

Wells, S. R.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

Dixey, A. C.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lumley, L. R.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Ellis, R. G.

McLean, Major A.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

England, Colonel A.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Wise, Sir Fredric

Everard, W. Lindsay

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Withers, John James

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Malone, Major P. B.

Wolmer, Viscount

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Womersley, W. J.

Fermoy, Lord

Margesson, Captain D.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Fielden, E. B.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Finburgh, S.

Merriman, F. B.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Sir Clive Morrison-Bell and Mr. Mitchell Banks.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Ganzoni, Sir John.

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

2162

2163

NOES.

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

Hayes, John Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Sexton, James

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, Walter

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnet, A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Barr, J.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Smillie, Robert

Batey, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Kennedy, T.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Bondfield, Margaret

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

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromfield, William

Lansbury, George

Snell, Harry

Bromley, J.

Lawrence, Susan

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Carmpbell

Buchanan, G.

Lee, F.

Stewart, J (St. Rollox)

Buxton, Rt Hon. Noel

Lindley, F. W.

Sullivan, J.

Cape, Thomas

Lowth, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Lunn, William

Taylor, R. A.

Cluse, W. S.

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

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

Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

Mackinder, W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Compton, Joseph

MacLaren, Andrew

Tinker, John Joseph

Connolly, M.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Townend, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Day, Colonel Harry

Mosley, Oswald

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Dennison, R.

Murnin, H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Duncan, C.

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Dunnico, H.

Oliver, George Harold

Welsh, J. C

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Palin, John Henry

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Gardner, J. P.

Paling, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gibbins, Joseph

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenall, T.

Potts, John S.

Windsor, Walter

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Purcell, A. A.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hardle, George D,

Ritson, J.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

Hayday, Arthur

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

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House approves of the foresight of the Government and congratulates it on its prompt action in taking steps to safeguard the lives of British subjects endangered by the civil war in China,"

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next (22nd March).

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament for naval purposes to men called into
2164
actual service in pursuance of an Order under Section four of the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act. 1859, such sums, not exceeding five pounds a man, as the Admiralty may appoint under any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Naval Reserve Forces."
Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [15TH MARCH].
Resolution reported.
WAYS AND MEANS [15TH MARCH].

  MONEYLENDERS (EXCISE).
  "That on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by a moneylender in Great Britain an Excise Duty of fifteen pounds or, if the licence be taken out not, more than six months before the expiration thereof, of ten pounds."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House Cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I at this stage ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Home Office what is the position of the Home Office in regard to this question.

  2165
  I think some explanation is needed as to why this extra amount should be imposed. The present registration fee, I think, is £1, and it was a great jump to go from £1 to £15. I am not going to go over the position with regard to moneylenders, because that was fully explored when the Bill received a Second Reading. The spokesman for the Bill in that Debate made no reference to pawn brokers at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill did net refer to pawnbrokers, but to moneylenders.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It applies to pawnbrokers as well.
  Mr. WELLS: It only applies to the pawnbroker if he takes out a moneylender's licence.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In any ease, it will have this effect, that you will have people acting as moneylenders and not being registered at all. That will be the effect of this sudden increase of the fee from £1 to £15. You will simply drive people into illegal courses. I do not propose to press this matter, but I have made this protest, and I would like to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has to say.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would like you, Mr. Speaker to inform me, what the position will be if an Amendment be moved in Committee to reduce this amount.
  Mr. SPEAKER: An Amendment can be moved in Committee to reduce the amount, but no Amendment could be introduced in Committee that would increase the amount.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I may say that this Resolution does not affect the position of the pawnbroker. The pawnbroker's licence is £7 10s., and this increases the moneylender's licence to £15. The fact that we are passing this Financial Resolution to-night will not affect the position of the pawnbroker qua pawnbroker one iota.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.].
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eleven o'Clock.

  POPLAR TRAINING SCHOOLS (COAL DELIVERIES).
  POPLAR TRAINING SCHOOLS (COAL DELIVERIES).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (TRADE).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (TRADE).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (TUBERCULOSIS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (TUBERCULOSIS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  SHORTHAND-TYPISTS (EXAMINATION).
  SHORTHAND-TYPISTS (EXAMINATION).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
CHINA.
  BRITISH FORCES.
  BRITISH FORCES.
  BRITISH STEAMERS.
  BRITISH STEAMERS.
  NATIONALIST GOTERNMENT (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).
  NATIONALIST GOTERNMENT (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).
  RUSSIAN WORKMEN.
  RUSSIAN WORKMEN.
  SHANGHAI.
  SHANGHAI.
  KIUKIANG CONCESSION (SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT).
  KIUKIANG CONCESSION (SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT).
  MR. G. E. METCALFE.
  MR. G. E. METCALFE.
  WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.
  WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS.
  PUBLIC SERVICES, SCOTLAND (EXPENDITURE).
  PUBLIC SERVICES, SCOTLAND (EXPENDITURE).
  HOME-GROWN BULBS.
  HOME-GROWN BULBS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL BENEFIT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL BENEFIT).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  EBBW VALE, RHYMNEY AND TREDEGAR.
  EBBW VALE, RHYMNEY AND TREDEGAR.
  RELIEF SCHESIES.
  RELIEF SCHESIES.
  ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS).
  ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS).
  AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION.
  AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION.
  WOMEN FRANCHISE.
  WOMEN FRANCHISE.
  CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC, LONDON.
  CROSS-RIVER TRAFFIC, LONDON.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGEMORE on the Woolsack.
ABERSOCH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FORESTRY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
MONTROSE BURGH AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to move, That the need for drastic economies in the national expenditure and for reduction in taxation, with a view to improving trade and diminishing unemployment, is even more imperative than at the close of 1924; and this House therefore regrets that the promises of retrenchment then held out to the country by His Majesty's Government have not been kept, and deplores the continued growth of extravagance in armaments and in the other spending Departments.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that you will allow me to take as a text for what I have to say upon the importance of economy a sentence which

503
appeared in His Majesty's Speech at the end of 1924. That sentence was as follows:—
"The present heavy burdens of the taxpayer are a hindrance to the revival of enterprise and employment. Economy in every sphere is imperative if we are to regain our industrial and commercial prosperity."
I think there were very few members of your Lordships' House Who were not glad to read and hear that passage in His Majesty's Speech and who did not hope that something might result from it. The result, unfortunately, has been entirely different. The normal Budget, so to speak, of 1923–4 was for £788,000,000, the Civil Services accounting for £300,000,000 and armaments for £105,000,000. The Expenditure in 1926–7 rose from £788,000,000 to £831,000,000, armaments amounted to no less than £116,000,000 instead of £105,000,000, and the Civil Service to £311,000,000, and we find that the Expenditure for the year 1927–8 is likely to be in the region of £824,000,000.
In the debate that took place on the King's Speech I ventured to refer to this matter, and I am glad to recall that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the Leader of the House, realising the importance of the matter, used these words:—
"Of course it is most essential that we should economise and I yield to nobody, certainly not to the noble Earl, in the conviction that the utmost economy that is possible ought to be practised in every part of the Government."
I feel obliged to ask the noble Marquess exactly what he meant when he spoke of economy. Economy is not the same thing as extravagance. Economy does not mean spending more money, but spending less money, and I feel obliged to refer to another sentence in a speech that the noble Marquess made about a fortnight ago in which, referring to another subject, he said:—
"I do not attribute any importance to their reply. Let them talk all the nonsense they please. That does not matter to us. It is a question of deeds, not of words as far as we are concerned."
So it is with us when we ask for economy. It does not satisfy us that we should be rut off year by year with words on the subject of economy. We wish to see some deeds in that direction. The noble
504
Marquess, indeed, reminds me of a character in "Martin Chuzzlewit":—
"He was like the girl in the fairy story, except that if they were not actual diamonds which fell from his lips, they were the very brightest paste, and shone prodigiously. He was a most exemplary man, fuller of virtuous precept than a copybook. Some people likened him to a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there: but these were his enemies; the shadows cast by his brightness."
It is quite obvious to your Lordships who have looked at the Order Paper that it would have been easy enough to get support for the Motion if we had said nothing in regard to armaments, but I think that the question of the reduction of armaments is of the very greatest importance and I believe that a very large reduction of expenditure in that direction is easily possible. I will do the Government the justice to acknowledge that they were not the first Government since the War that has increased expenditure upon armaments. It was a great disappointment to a great many people who wished well to the Labour Government that they failed to materialise the expectations that were held of them in this matter. Here is a quotation from a speech by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at the annual Labour Conference on June 28, 1923. Mr. MacDonald is reported to have said:—
"Unless they and the people they represented were wise enough, not merely to say things, but wise enough to put a Government in power that would devise a policy that would stifle armaments, then the harvest of armaments would be reaped in spite of them, and the bugles of war would blow again."
In the same year Mr. MacDonald moved a Resolution in the House of Commons deploring
"the enormous and growing expenditure on the naval and air forces and on other military preparations which is beginning once more a competition in armaments …"
and, supporting that Resolution, he said:—
"It must be a subject of the most profound regret to all parts of the House, that to-day, in 1923, the expenditure on preparations for the next war has amounted to such colossal figures."
That, of course, was before the Labour Government took office.
Early in the following year they announced the laying down of five more cruisers, and an increased expenditure on armaments was to be found in the

505
Budget of Mr. Snowden. In those days the spacious atmosphere of war finance hung over the Estimates and it was not necessary to estimate quite so closely as nowadays. When Mr. Snowden came to frame his Budget, he found that the actual expenditure on armaments in 1923–4 was £105,000,000, while the Estimate that he prepared for 1924–5 amounted to no less than £115,000,000, an increase of roughly nine and a half millions. I confess that I think the time has come when very little can really be done by cutting here, by snipping there, or by paring something off. We need a new standard with regard to these things and, if necessary, a new policy. Further economies which may not have been possible shortly after the War are quite possible and feasible today, and those economies which may be possible to-day will very likely not be possible a few years from now. The vested interests which grow up in regard to expenditure are generally recognised and make economy more difficult as time goes on.
The question to which I venture to draw your Lordships' attention is the fallacy of comparing the question to-day with that wench it was in the year 1913–14. One ought to compare like with like, and the situation is holly different to-day from what it was when the War broke out. In 1913–14 there was a German Navy and a very large German Army. The German Navy, which, as many people considered, had been specially directed against this country, has now entirely disappeared. Therefore it seems to me quite fallacious to suppose that it is as against the standard of 1913–14 that we ought to compare Expenditure to-day. We ought to go back to when the situation in the world was comparable to the world's situation as it is to-day, when we have no special enemy building against us every year and increasing his Fleet. The story of the increase of armaments goes back to 1896, when the Kaiser sent his telegram of congratulation to President Kruger after the failure of the Jameson Raid. Under cover of the Boer War the German Navy Bill was got through the Reichstag in 1900. The Navy Bill of 1905 amplified the Bill of 1900. Whether these happenings were the cause or the effect, the fact remains
506
that the British expenditure on armaments rose from £52,000,000 in 1898–9 to £70,000,000 in 1905–6, £86,000,000 in 1913–14 and £116,000,000 to-day.
The increase from 1898–9 to 1913–14 was 66 per cent, and as this rise was due to the race in armaments can we not say that our armament Estimates should be no greater than those of 1898–9 plus the increase in prices? The Economist's index number of wholesale prices is 56 per cent. above the figures of 1914. In that case our armament Estimates ought not to exceed £52,000,000 plus 56 per cent., which equals £81,000,000, but last year they amounted to £116,000,000. Therefore your Lordships will see that if that standard were adopted by the Government there is room for considerable saving, of at least £35,000,000, and I will say of new expenditure, on tanks or the Air Force, it should be included in the total expenditure on armaments. The only way of arriving at a comparison of similar figures is to take it from the point of view of the proportion of national income spent on what is called the insurance premium against war. In 1924–5 the amount which we paid in this country was 3 per cent., in 1913 3½ per cent., and from 1870 to 1900 only 2 per cent. At this moment the Dominions spend ½ to ¾ per cent., Germany 1½ per cent. and the United States 1 per cent.
It is impossible for us to think of entering into rivalry with so wealthy a nation as the United States, but I will call attention to what happened in France. In France the 1925 Budget for Army, Navy and Air Force amounted to 5 milliards of francs, which at the average exchange then ruling came to £50,000,000. To-day the figure is 5½ milliards of francs, which at an exchange of 125 francs to the £ equals £44,000,000. Compare that with the £116,000,000 a year spent in this country.
I am afraid it is no use asking the Government if they see their way to publish the Report of Lord Bradbury's Committee on Expenditure and possible means of economy. I have asked for it before without success, but I wish I could persuade the Government to let us have it. There are one or two special directions in which I think some economy might be made. For instance, the staff of the War Office, Admiralty and Air Ministry. In 1918 and 1926 we find

507
remarkable increases in the staffs, although there is a diminution in the strength of the Army, Navy and our total military forces. To give your Lordships the figures as shortly as possible, whereas in 1914 we only wanted one person at headquarters in order to look after forty men it now takes one man to look after twenty men, and we have the rather surprising result that if they had the same proportion in 1927 as in 1914 the staff would be 7,900 instead of 14,000. There may be reasons for some increase, but for such a large increase it is difficult to imagine any justification.
Then I take the Navy and pay allowances. The per capita cost of numbers borne in 1913–14 was £57·32. The comparable figure in last year's Estimates is £149·51, an increase of 160 per cent. Even after the deduction of the payments for "marriage services," which are items appearing only in the Estimates for 1925–6, the percentage increase in pay is still 131·08. The Anderson Committee, in their Report on Pay, etc., of State Servants, expressed the opinion that—
"All the evidence seems to us to show that the pay of the naval rating was not too low in 1914."
The Committee also reported their conclusion that—
"Officers up to and including appointment to the rank of … Lieut.-Commander in the Navy are at present being paid more than is necessary, or even quite fair to the rest of the community."
Adding 70 per cent. for the decreased purchasing power of money, a reduction of over £5,000,000 could be effected on this Vote alone without reduction of numbers. In these circumstances it is with some astonishment that one reads the complacency with which the First Lord speaks at times of economies.
The Government Return of the size of the Navy, dated March 4 of this year, shows that 14 cruisers are being built by this country against 10 which are being built by the other countries in Europe—France, Italy, Germany and Russia—and at this moment the big ships building and built are 82 in this country compared with only 83 in France, Italy, Russia and Germany put together. We are therefore in a stronger position as regards other European Naval Powers than ever before in our history, and we are entitled to ask whether the Government do not see some hope of a reduction in the burdens of this country in
508
that direction. We are all glad to know that they have accepted the invitation from Washington and I hope that we may see some result from the Conference which is to take place. I am sure we all hope that the noble Viscount who represents this country at Geneva will do all he can to assist the work of disarmament when they meet later in the year. I think one ought also to remember the fact that a great deal of the naval expenditure which does not appear in this year's Estimates is not entirely cut off, but only postponed.
I turn now to the Civil Service. In 1913–14 the figure was £97,000,000. In the 1926–7 Budget it was £300,000,000, but the actual expenditure, owing to Supplementary Estimates, was £311,500,000. There is in the actual figures compared with the Estimates for the year—namely, £300,000,000 and £305,000,000—an apparent saving of £5,000,000, but if we allow 70 per cent. for the difference in the value of money and the difference in War Pensions the £305,000,000 is an actual increase of more than 80 per cent. on 1913–14. I want to know whether we get full value for that enormous increase.
The matter of the apparent decrease has been admirably put by the Parliamentary Correspondent of The Times. On February 26 last he wrote:—
"An examination of the Estimates will provide little comfort for those who were hoping that this year, at last, there might be a substantial reduction in the amount that the taxpayer is called upon to find. On the surface the Estimates appear to show a substantial reduction compared with the figures of the present financial year, but in fact this reduction is largely illusory. The White Paper states that the total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments for next year is £305,374,678, compared with the total net Estimates for 1926–7 of £311,401,909. But to obtain a fair perspective it ought to be explained that the comparison is made, not with the figures included in the Budget, but with that figure and, in addition, all the Supplementary Estimates which have been voted during the year. The only way in which a close comparison can be made with the Estimates issued a year ago is obviously by a contrast of the figures shown in last year's White Paper. In this way all Supplementary Estimates are excluded from the calculation."
It is obvious that if they take the reduction of £5,500,000 it is not comparing like with like, but the total Expenditure of one year with the Estimates of the next year, without the Supplementary Estimates

509
which experience has told us are only too likely to appear.
As a matter of fact, the Civil Service Estimates are very much worse than they were last year, because there were last year a number of non-recurring items; for example, the Wembley guarantee, £275,000; Emergency Services, £433,000; the Duke of York's Tour, £7,000; and various Services in connection with coal which amount to over £7,000,000—a total from these four heads alone of over £8,000,000. Then last year the relief of unemployment took £5,000,000 against a sum of £1,500,000 which appears in this year's Estimates. Therefore there ought to have been a quite automatic saving in this year's Estimates of no less than £12,000,000; to which we ought to add the automatic decrease of War Pensions, which I put down at £2,000,000, and which is generally between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. Further, we remember the famous promise made to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who hoped to reduce by £10,000,000 annually the expenses on this head. If that promise had been kept that saving would have amounted to no less than £30,000,000. Then there is, further, the reduction, which ought to have been allowed for by His Majesty's Government, due to a fall in the index number of prices, amounting to something like 10 per cent., and although we do not expect to find that fully reflected in the Estimates it might have been reflected at any rate to the extent of one-half. These figures alone show that there would have been a very large reduction indeed—enough by itself to make a reduction of 1s. in the Income Tax.
On the other hand, there have been a number of increases. There have been increases in eight offices, amounting to £3,316,000, and I confess that I think there is great room for economy in a number of these various Departments. We have ourselves seen that the Under-Secretary for the Transport Department has resigned because there was not enough work for him to do. There is also the Mines Department, which certainly did not manage to distinguish itself either during the long period of the coal subsidy or during the coal strike last year. Again, there is the Overseas Department, which is said to have been recommended for destruction. These three Departments alone might, I
510
believe, be reduced to the position in which they were before of being sub-Departments of other more important Departments of the State, and in that way considerable economy could be effected.
I think we can fairly say that no class of Government servant should receive more than 70 per cent. above what they were receiving in 1913–14. A number of them, with whom I have a great deal of sympathy, have not received any increase at all, and I think they ought to receive an increase—Judges, for example, and I think Cabinet Ministers, too. There would be a great possibility for economy if the increments were all stopped for a year. They might be made biennial until the reduced standard was reached, and I think that all recruiting for the Civil Service should be entirely suspended for two years, and no more should be taken into that Service. That, with the elimination of unnecessary Departments would, I think, go a very considerable way towards reducing this expense. In 1913–14 there were eight Departments which cost £8,000,000. Those Departments now cost no less than £27,000,000, a rise of £19,000,000, of which the Labour Ministry accounts for an increase of £10,000,000. That is an example of the way in which these increases have been taking place. Those Departments represent the Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade, the Diplomatic and Consular Service, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Ministry of Labour. Once more we may well ask whether we are really getting full value for our money in regard to that very large increase.
I turn naturally to the amount of money which we lose by the various Departments through the departures made from the system of Free Trade. In an answer given in another place, on February 17, it was stated that Preference is costing just over £4,500,000 a year, and, of course, the taxpayers do not get that, but have to make up the money lost by being taxed in some other direction. The subsidy on sugar is going to cost us £4,500,000 during the present year, and there is also a loss by the Preference given to home-grown sugar of £600,000. Altogether, including the increased cost of collection, it is evident that the loss which we incur by

511
the adoption of Protection in various directions amounts to something like £10,000,000.
It is obvious that with anything like the economies which I have adumbrated there are very great possibilities open to the Government, if they see their way to adopt them. A complete abolition of the Tea and Sugar Duties, a large increase of the Sinking Fund, and a very large cut in the Income Tax would all be possible. There are really at the present moment only three sources from which we can get economy; they are the three chief sections into which our public accounts are divided: they are armaments, the Civil Service, and the Service of the Debt. Nothing can be done with regard to the Service of the Debt until we have economy in the other two Services. With economy on armaments and on the Civil Service it would be easy enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a very considerable reduction in the Service of the Debt. Instead of that, we find that the unfortunate tendency is in the opposite direction.
I believe that when the Government took office it was possible to borrow money at the rate of 4½ per cent. Now, when the Treasury wishes to borrow money in London, it has to pay, one quarter per cent. more than it did before. We are all hoping that when the time comes for the conversion of the War Debt large economies may be possible for the people of this country. But so long as this extravagance continues, it is hopeless to think that there will be anything like the saving to the people of this country which, I think, we have a right to expect. It is an unfortunate thing that the economic policy of His Majesty's Government should tend in the wrong direction.
Nobody knows better than His Majesty's Government how general is the demand for economy. It is being asked for from every quarter of this country to-day. Every chamber of commerce and important bodies like the Federation of British Industries lose no opportunity of enforcing upon His Majesty's Government the imperative need for economy. We all desire it. Many, if not most, of your Lordships desire to see economy. The point at issue, I suppose, between those who will support the Amendment of my
512
noble friend Lord Midleton and myself is that they do not see their way to support any reduction upon armaments. I regret the fact, but I would ask them to remember that in war, as in peace, a long purse is of the highest value to a combatant nation, and that during the War it was our strong financial position which went far to help us to achieve victory. With this continued extravagance there is no reserve for the people of this country if unfortunately we found ourselves in a similar position to-day.
I am one of those who are sanguine enough to hope that there will be no more war during the next generation, and that the League of Nations has gone far to eliminate the risk of war altogether. But, whether that be so or no, I am still anxious for economy, and I think, in view of what I have said of the importance of finance in war-time we ought to begin to economise now. Then, if noble Lords opposite wish to keep something in reserve when once we have effected these economies, that is a matter for future controversy. For myself and I think for my noble friends we wish for economy, not only for its own sake, but, also because with economy we can do a great deal more in the direction of social reform for the more unfortunate classes in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the need for drastic economies in the national expenditure and for reduction in taxation, with a view to improving trade and diminishing unemployment, is even more imperative than at the close of 1924; and this House therefore regrets that the promises of retrenchment then held out to the country by His Majesty's Government have not been kept, and deplores the continued growth of extravagence in armaments and in the other spending Departments.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the subject upon which the noble Earl has initiated this debate is a vast one. It could be discussed on many days from many different aspects and many different points of view without being exhausted. Obviously, it is impossible for me to attempt to enter into all these different aspects, but, actually, the Resolution which the noble Earl has moved divides itself into two parts. The first part expresses the view that the need

513
for economy and a reduction in taxation is as imperative as it ever was, and the second part condemns the Government for not having fulfilled their promises in this respect and deplores the continued growth of extravagance in armaments and in the spending Departments.
I do not think there will be anybody in your Lordships' House who will quarrel with the first part of the noble Earl's Resolution. The Government are fully aware, indeed everybody must be fully aware, of the urgent need and desirability of a reduction in taxation, which to all intents and purposes can only be brought about by an equivalent reduction in Expenditure. The Government fully realise that a reduction in taxation would give a greater impetus to industry than anything, that it would do as much as anything to enable our manufacturers and workers to compete on terms of greater equality with the manufacturers and workers of other countries and in that way reduce the number of unemployed. Obviously, therefore, nobody would quarrel with the first part of the noble Earl's Resolution.
That brings me to the second part in which the Government is condemned for not having achieved this very desirable end and is furthermore accused of extravagance. We absolutely repudiate that charge of extravagance, and I shall endeavour to prove in the course of what I am going to say that there is really no foundation for it whatsoever. The noble Earl has quoted a lot of figures to substantiate his arguments. I am not at all certain that figures are at any time altogether convincing. They can be juggled with and made to prove almost anything, and I venture to say that on this occasion, in particular, they require the most careful scrutiny and examination, because circumstances have arisen and events have occurred during the past two years which do to a very great extent modify what would appear to be the very simple story that figures tell and put upon them a very different aspect. Therefore, I shall have to follow the noble Earl into the country which he has traversed and if figures are dull, as I am afraid they certainly are, I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
First of all, I want to compare the Expenditure of the year 1924–5, when the Labour Government was in office,
514
with 1925–6 and 1926–7, when the present Government were in office. In 1924–5 the Expenditure was £795·8 millions; in 1925–6, £826·1 millions; in 1926–7 the estimated Expenditure was £832·4 millions. I admit that the increase would appear to be a considerable one, but various factors affecting this very simple comparison must be taken into consideration before we reach a true appreciation of the position and the facts. In the year 1925–6 the actual Budget Estimate was only £3·7 millions in excess of the Expenditure of the previous year and more than that is accounted for by the increased provision of £5,000,000 for the new Sinking Fund. The subsequent £26·6 millions which had to be spent are due to very many causes, but it is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the most important was the coal subsidy, which amounted to £19,000,000. I do not know whether any of your Lordships would suggest that that money was wasted and badly spent. I do not think they would get very much support throughout the country, and I feel confident that in doing what they did, in spite of what occurred last year, the Government took a very wise course in insisting that the true facts of the situation should be brought to the notice of the public. Besides the coal subvention there were increases to the Road Fund of £2,000,000 and an increase in expenditure on the Defence Forces of £4,500,000, about which I shall naturally have a word or two to say later.
I now pass to the year 1926–7. The original Estimate for this year was £820·6 millions and that is in spite of, firstly, an addition of £10,000,000 to the Sinking Fund and of £19,000,000 due to various automatic increases and expenditure arising from decisions of policy on the part of the Government about which I shall have a word to say. There were for the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pensions schemes, £5,750,000, an automatic increase in the Old Age Pensions of £1,250,000, the new cruiser programme, £3,750,000, beet sugar £1,000,000, and increased grants for education, health and housing of £2,000,000. The amount of £11·7 millions which had to be spent in addition to the original Estimate was due altogether, or almost entirely, to causes over which the Government had no control and mainly, of course, to the coal

515
strike. There were £3,500,000 for emergency services and the importation of coal and £4·3 millions for loans to boards of guardians, while £1,000,000 had to be spent in connection with the disturbances in China.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships, or whether the noble Earl would challenge any of these special charges. There may be some of your Lordships who consider that the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pensions scheme was a luxury, but I want to say emphatically that the Government consider that scheme to be an integral and essential part of their social programme. I do not know if there are any of your Lordships who would quarrel with the £1,000,000 that had to be spent in connection with China, at any rate, I do not think they would be the same, noble Lords as would quarrel with the scheme to which I have just referred. Anyhow, the Government maintain that these charges were absolutely essential for the national welfare and could not be avoided. To say the least, I think the figures that I have quoted do not bear out the charges of continued growth of extravagance, which, after all, is the way in which the noble Earl puts it, in the various Departments.
I want to say a word or two now about the distribution of Expenditure for the current financial year. First of all, there is £364,000,000 for Debt Service, which, as the noble Earl admits, as things stand is absolutely obligatory and cannot be avoided. We then have £128,000,000 for Pensions Services and I do not think that the noble Earl would object to that sum. That is already £492,000,000. Then we have £106,000,000 for Grant Services such as education, housing, health and police. All those Services are absolutely essential and widely beneficial, and I would like to say in that connection that the system governing them is engaging the very careful attention of the Government with a view to securing that no unjustifiable extension of grants shall take place in future. Then there is £70,000,000 for the self-supporting Services, the Road Fund and the Post Office, and I do not think that they would call for any comment. That accounts for £668,000,000 out of £832,000,000, leaving £164,000,000 out of which the Defence Services absorb £101,000,000—that is excluding Pensions.
516
Setting aside the expenditure on defence for a moment, for I shall have something to say on that in a minute or two, that leaves about £63,000,000 which the Executive Government can effectively control. Now I do not intend to enumerate in detail how this sum of £63,000,000 is exactly made up, but I would like to mention one particular item. All the Civil Estimates, including works, buildings and the machinery of Government, before the War cost £12,750,000. In 1921 they cost £31,000,000 and last year they cost £19,000,000. The increase, then, over pre-War is 50 per cent., although prices stand at between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. above pre-War level. I can also add that this expenditure before the War was 6 per cent. of the total Budget and it is less than 2½ per cent. of the total Budget to-day. Therefore I suggest that the idea that there are huge economies to be effected in this branch of expenditure is obviously absurd.
Now I come to the Fighting Services, upon which the noble Earl had a great deal to say. I understood that the noble Earl was going to take the year 1900 for the purposes of comparison. As a matter of fact he mentioned several years. He mentioned 1898 and various other years in between. It is not very material what year we take. He was going to take the year 1898 or 1900 because, in his view, the outlook at that time was very similar to what it is now; that is, in so far as prospects of war are concerned, and consequently he maintained that any additional expenditure, after allowing for the rise in prices, was superfluous and unnecessary. I am not at all certain that I can entirely subscribe to the view that the position in the present year is analogous to what it was in 1900. I should have said that the position now is a great deal more uncertain and much less secure than it was then. However much the present Government, as undoubtedly they do, desire a perpetual world peace, and however hard they are prepared to strive for it, so long as there is no complete understanding between all the nations of the world and so long as the present spirit of unrest, which does obtain, continues, there can obviously be no absolute guarantee that this country will not be dragged or forced, however unwillingly, into a war.

517
However, in spite of that, I am quite prepared to examine the figures which the noble Earl has quoted and to produce similar figures.
I shall deal with the Army first. The year 1900 was rather a difficult year, because a large sum of money had to be spent as the result of the South African War, but fortunately the Army Estimates of that year were divided so that one could differentiate between actual war expenditure and ordinary expenditure. In 1900 the cost, less special expenditure, was £27,250,000 and if you add 75 per cent. to that—that is the increase in prices—it comes to £47,750,000 or £3,000,000 more than in 1925, £5,000,000 more than in 1926 and £6,000,000 more than the Estimate for 1927. I would add that that is in spite of the enormous increase of the non-effective charges from £3,000,000 to £8,000,000. Furthermore, that is the case without taking into account the increased costliness and complexity of apparatus and matériel. I know the noble Earl said that that should not be taken into account, but I cannot agree with that view. Matériel has to be provided nowadays for which there was absolutely no counterpart in 1900. Again, the strength of the Army in 1900, excluding the strength necessary for the South African War, was 212,000, whereas in 1926 it was 159,000. Well, if the noble Earl argues that there are the same risks, or the same lack of risks, now as in 1900, all I can say is that the numbers of 1926 compare very favourably indeed with those of 1900. I really do not think that, so far as the Army is concerned, the noble Earl's criticisms of extravagance can hold water.
I pass from the Army to the Navy. In 1900 the Navy Estimates amounted to £30,000,000. The amount that was necessary for special war expenditure was very small, about £600,000. If you add to that 75 per cent. that gives you £52,500,000, compared with £58,000,000 this year. I admit that that leaves me with £5,500,000 to account for, but curiously enough almost that exact figure can be attributed to the necessity for providing in the 1927 Estimates for Services for which there was no counterpart in 1900. There is £3,500,000 for the Fleet Air Arm, including the aircraft carriers
518
and everything in connection with it. There is nearly £1,250,000 for marriage allowances to naval ratings and there are various smaller items, but as a matter of fact between the expenditure in 1900 and that of 1927 there is a difference in actual cash of £26,500,000. I have already accounted for £5,500,000 provided for Services for which there was no actual counterpart in 1900. A further sum of £21,500,000 may be explained in this way. The increase in the rates of pay accounts for £12,500,000, the additional cost of victualling and clothing for £2,750,000, the increase in the non-effective Votes for £6,750,000. The figures which I have quoted more than account for the difference in the Estimates of 1900 and 1927, but they still leave out of account the general increase in the cost of all expenditure on stores, except food and clothing, and on all matériel, including contract shipbuilding, machinery and armaments, works and buildings and fuel, an increase due to the alteration in the value of money and to the greater complexity and size of ships, guns and equipments of all kinds. I think that is very striking indeed.
Now, the noble Earl said that the strength of our Fleet at the present moment as compared with what it was before the War in relation to other European nations, was greater now than it was then. I have the figures here comparing the strength of our Fleet with the other principal Powers. That, of course, includes the United States and I do not see why they should be left out of account. Those figures go to show that the very opposite is the truth. In capital ships our proportion has fallen from one-third to one-fourth, a relative decline of 25 per cent. In cruisers it has fallen from 35 to less than 30 per cent., and in destroyers and submarines the relative decline is about 50 per cent. Those are very striking figures indeed and when the noble Earl talks about other European countries he must really try to compare the responsibilities of our Empire with the responsibilities of those other countries. I do not think his comparison was at all a fair one. Then again, I refer to numbers. The strength of the Navy in 1900 was 115,000 and in 1926 it was 103,000. That goes to show that we have reduced the

519
numbers in the Navy and that we have got down practically to rock-bottom as far as that is concerned.
Before I pass on I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that with the addition of the 75 per cent. increase in prices, the total of the Army and Navy Estimates of 1900 comes to almost exactly £100,000,000, which is just about the figure of the present day. The additional expenditure, even after providing for the increased costliness of all arms, is no more than the total of the Air Estimates. I do not think any of your Lordships would class the Air Estimates as an extravagance, and I do not think the noble Earl can argue that the Air Estimates ought to be included for the purposes of comparison. The Air Force cannot take the place of the Army or the Navy. It is supplementary to a very large extent. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to include it with the other two.
I have only a word or two more to say, but I would remind your Lordships before I sit down that the noble Earl in his Resolution emphasises the importance of a reduction in taxation. What is actually the record of the Government as far as this is concerned? As a result of the Budget of 1925–6 reliefs were granted in respect of Income Tax and Super-Tax which were estimated to cost £49,500,000 in a full year. This, I admit, was offset by the imposition of new Taxes in that year and the following year, but the net relief in a full year is still £22,000,000, which I suggest to your Lordships is not to be despised. I further venture to submit that the changes have had a much more important effect than these simple figures would appear to indicate. Almost the whole of the new taxation falls upon what may be described as luxury articles. It does not touch the necessaries of life. These changes have relieved direct taxation without imposing indirect taxes upon the food of the people.
The Government naturally do not suggest that there are no more economies to be made. Economies must be made and will be made. But I suggest that, far from the Government having been extravagant, the facts and figures which I have quoted and enumerated go to prove that, in spite of the utterly abnormal conditions and difficulties which they have had to encounter since they came into
520
office, they have exercised a strict—a commendably strict—supervision over the national finances, a supervision which will naturally be continued and which, unless there are similar disasters such as the coal strike before us, will have the great results for which we are all very much hoping.
THE EARL OF MIDLETONhad given Notice to move as an Amendment to leave out all the words after the words "this House" and add "calls upon His Majesty's Government to adhere to their undertaking to take immediate steps to curtail national and local expenditure and also to reduce the staffs of the Public Departments." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure nobody will quarrel with the spirit in which my noble friend below me has addressed himself to this very difficult question. I could have added another thing to the remarks which he made as to the difficulties with which the Government have had to contend. The greatest difficulty is not the circumstances of the time but the fact that the House of Commons has abandoned its old attitude towards finance. In the old days it was the habit of the taxpayer to force his Member of Parliament to press the Government towards economy. In these days the habit of the electors—whether they are direct taxpayers or not and whether they feel taxation or not we cannot tell—has changed. The whole pressure now is in the direction of expenditure.
I think that probably the greater portion of your Lordships here to-day have served in the House of Commons, many of you for many years. I doubt if any one who has done so will contradict me when I say that thirty or forty years ago the Government was continually under the review of members of the House of Commons for extravagance, and that in these days for one speech which is made in regard to extravagance one hundred speeches are made pressing for further expenditure. That is on one side. On the other side there are a certain number of members who agree with the noble Earl who introduced this Motion and who think we may make economies on armaments. I propose to say a few words as to what economy does seem to me to be practicable in regard to armaments. While it is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that we have not at this

521
moment a great German Army nor even an equivalent German Fleet to deal with, I believe more of your Lordships will be impressed with the words used by the Earl of Plymouth when he said there was still "great unrest." I would add that whereas we had one Belgium which we were committed to defend before the War, we now have four or five Belgiums and a very great uncertainty as to whether those who are committed with ourselves will all be there to carry out their obligations when the time comes.
I wish we were back at the strength of 1900. My noble friend in talking of the Army Estimates talked as if there were only an Army. He forgot the Reserves. We are 214,000 men short of what we were in 1914. Although since I entered the House and the point was made by my noble friend opposite I have not been able to refer to the Estimates for 1900, I will say with confidence that we were at least 100,000 or 150,000 men stronger at that period. Therefore, there is no room in personnel for a reduction. I venture to say, however, that in administration there is infinite scope. From the way my noble friend who has just spoken left the matter, I think I am not unfair in saying that the Government see no prospect of any material reduction of Expenditure. We know that the local expenditure of this country has gone up by 120 per cent. in ten years and it was pointed out on the last occasion when we debated the state of trade in this House that the burdens on trade have gone up to 300 per cent. of what they were before the War. Lord Beauchamp said very truly that, while something can be done by a reduction of Services, we cannot reduce our enormous expenditure on the Debt unless we have a great improvement of trade. Those who know far more about trade than I do tell me that it is quite impossible for us in the present state of the world, with taxation at £15 per head as compared with £7 in France and with an increase of 200 per cent. on our burdens, to expect such a great increase and development of our trade as will really enable the Government to borrow money more cheaply and materially to reduce the Debt charge.
I would like your Lordships to bear with me for a few moments while I mention for the consideration of the Government a few of the branches of
522
Expenditure that really might be cut down during the next twelve months. I propose to leave out of account altogether the enormous Social Services, amounting to something like £150,000,000, many of which have been necessitated by Statutes and which are all questions of policy. Any remarks or any Resolution regarding them in your Lordships' House would have no such direct effect in the next year or two as we desire. I would confine my attention to those offices which have not had a great increase of administrative work to do. On the contrary, some of them have had a great decrease of administrative work but have, as Lord Beauchamp showed, enormously increased the expense of carrying it out. If you must have economy, if you cannot meet your engagements, sound finance consists not merely in cutting down Services but in cutting down expense in carrying out those Services. The extraordinary change in the attitude of the House of Commons is that, whereas there might well be a difference of opinion as to the value or necessity of certain Services, there appears to be also a difference of opinion as to whether you should have these Services carried on by the least staff at a minimum cost. A large number of persons seem to think that the best thing is to have them carried out by the greatest amount of staff at the maximum cost.
My noble friend spoke of the Admiralty. I would ask your Lordships to listen to one figure. There are now 102,000 seamen and marines, while in 1914 there were 151,000—half as many again as we have now. What are the numbers of the Accountant-General's Department? I refer to numbers lather than cost, because I am not going to be dragged into the question of the 70 per cent. The numbers of the Accountant-General's Department are 80 per cent. higher, and the cost is 300 per cent. higher, though there are 50,000 less men to pay and far fewer ships in commission. I say that this is a scandal. It is an indication of what can be done without touching on armaments at all. I am sorry that my noble friend the Under-Secretary for War is not in the House, but I will give your Lordships some information which comes to me from very careful students of the Estimates, who know them far better than I do. With regard to the War

523
Office, it happens that I served in that Department in three capacities for twelve years, and I am going to tell your Lordships in a few sentences of the sort of terrible overcharge that is to be found in the records of the War Department. I take them straight from their own record for 1924–5.
I say nothing about staff, though, as I have pointed out to your Lordships before, it has gone up from 1,300 to 2,000 and the expenditure has risen from £455,000 to £915,000, authough the reduction of men since 1914 is 238,000. There again the Accountant-General's Department is on a much larger scale, but I will take other instances. Let me refer first to warlike stores. The charge for the custody of warlike stores—not for examination or for movement, but for custody alone—is £2,250,000. The value of the stores administered, as compared with the charge for their custody and depreciation, is to be found in the official audit, and it will be seen that custody accounts for 10 s. in the £ of the value of stores issued. My noble friend Lord Inchcape, who has done more than any noble Lord in this House, except possibly Lord Faringdon, to bring down the cost of some of these offices, would, I am sure, agree with me that any commercial firm that did business in that way would soon find itself in the Bankruptcy Court.
Let me take transport as another instance. Two years ago the War Office decided to have a real balance sheet drawn up regarding the cost of transport, and they found that, allowing freely for every possible charge that should be made, there was a loss of £200,000 a year compared with the cost if the work had been done by contract. Lorries of the largest description were used for the most trivial purposes over great distances. A stock case, of which I dare say your Lordships have heard—it was quoted, I believe, before the Parliamentary Committee—was that of a 75 h.p. hospital motor being sent about fifteen miles to get a dozen oranges. I mentioned this to a man who had served in the Transport Corps, and he said that it was not in the least unusual. He told me that when he was in the Transport Corps in Scotland he was sent sixteen miles there and back with a 4½-ton lorry to fetch the cap and coat of an airman who had left them behind. Here is
524
another possiblity of economy from judicious management which could be made without affecting anybody.
As a third instance I will take the cost of hospital beds, which came before the Committee of the House of Commons, though I am told that nothing has been done. One of the best administrators the War Office has ever had—he was mentioned in our last debate on this subject by the noble Viscount opposite—is Sir Charles Harris. He went before the Committee and said that every hospital bed was costing the War Office 16 s. a day, among the items of which 2s. 6d. was the cost of the patient and 7s. 6d. of the staff. Sir Charles Harris showed that it was worth while for any administrator to save £400,000 or £500,000 a year in that way alone. We are to have a debate on the Auxiliary Forces and Territorials tomorrow—we were to have had it last night—and, though I am not going to enter into that question now, I say that this sum alone, a mere administrative saving, would make it unnecessary to dock the Territorials at the very moment when their services are most needed, for there is nobody who stands between them and the Line.
I remember that when I was at the War Office a very good official brought before me another absurdity. We had 250,000 men in South Africa and 100,000 men training at home, and every week every man was paid his 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day by his Captain, and the Captain signed for the money. The Paymaster in South Africa, hundreds of miles off, revised the sheets and each week every one of the sheets for 350,000 men came to the War Office to be audited again. Within forty-eight hours of my taking office I was able to persuade the Treasury to have a test audit, and to save 350,000 sheets being re-examined. I ask your Lordships to remember that in other offices there are similar opportunities of saving. Let us take the Mint. Its staff has gone up by five officials, but the cost has increased from £46,000 to £100,000, or 112 per cent. The Registrar-General, although the population is no larger, has increased his staff from 202 officials to 308, and the cost has increased from £31,000 to £104,000. The Board of Trade has gone up enormously. The legal branch of the Board of Trade has gone up from £8,348

525
to £17,494, and the officials have increased from 2 to 27. The office of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy has increased in cost from £6,500 to £25,000, and the officials have increased from 23 to 90.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: What years are these?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: 1914 and 1926. The Mercantile Marine Branch of the Board of Trade has increased its officials from 808 to 952, and the cost from £156,000 to £354,000. The Clearing Office for Enemy Debts last year, nine years after the War, was still a body of 901 individuals, costing £245,000, and I am informed on good authority that it is almost impossible to find anything for those men to do. Then take the Land Valuation Office. Having completed its valuation of properties in this country, they were found, when I was sitting on a Commission some years ago, to be valuing churchyards in order to find something to do. I do not wish to say anything against the Stationery Office, but there cannot be any reason why it has more than trebled during this period. What I say is that we want an inquiry, not into one Department but into the administration of all. I was once very much struck by an observation made to me. I am always afraid of talking about, military staffs before the noble Viscount, because to him it is like the mystic word "Mesopotamia." He thinks that half an army with a good staff is worth more than a whole army with an indifferent staff. An Army officer came to me once and asked for three men. He gave good reasons for his demand, and I granted the three men, and he said: "Remember that if you give me three more men you will have to give the Finance Department three more men to answer their minutes." That is always the way. I can assure your Lordships that it is of no use reducing one office; you must have regard to all.
I have only one word more to say. I do appeal to this House to remember that we have rather a special record in this matter of Expenditure. In 1916, at the instance of your Lordships, and after a Motion accepted by the Government, a full investigation of the offices was made, with Mr. McKenna, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Chair. I also served on an Inquiry asked for in this
526
House and appointed by Mr. Lloyd George in 1918. I regret to say that that Inquiry was held by three individuals, and after much evidence which came before us, which would have greatly enlightened the debate in this House if I had been allowed to allude to it, I was informed that the findings were private, for the consideration of the Cabinet, and I could not use them. There is this great difficulty in the House of Commons, that it is risky for a member of the House of Commons to come forward and say that this, that or the other great Department is too numerous, or too highly paid. I can recall a case in which one speech made at the expense of one great office cost a man 400 votes and his seat in Parliament. Your Lordships' House is not in that difficulty, and I trust that now, and here, the Government will give consideration to what fell from the noble Earl opposite, and to his suggestion that for two years from now the entries to the Civil Service must stop. I see the noble Viscount is laughing—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I laughed because Lord Banbury was apparently the only noble Lord who approved your statement.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: If the Government stopped the whole of the entries even for one year they would have done a great deal. I would get another Lord Inchcape, if you cannot persuade that noble Lord again to take the burden upon his shoulders, to go into details not of the services to be performed, because that is a matter for Parliament, but of the economies which should be carried out. I ask for that because I honestly believe we cannot possibly continue to laugh at this question or to indulge in platitudes with regard to it. We cannot keep up this Expenditure of £15 per head of taxation for every man in this country without embarrassing trade and putting us back in a most difficult race. I hope therefore that His Majesty's Government will not consider this simply a Motion to be put aside. I move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper only because many of my noble friends are unable to follow the noble Earl opposite in regard to armaments, though we are as anxious as he is to show that our utmost desire is that the Government should show prompt and

527
speedy vindication of the pledges which they have given, both with regard to local and Imperial taxation.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after the words ("this House") and add ("calls upon His Majesty's Government to adhere to their undertaking to take immediate steps to curtail national and local expenditure and also to reduce the staffs of the Public Departments")—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lord, I think the House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for having put this Motion on the Paper, and I trust that the debate will help, as I think it is doing, to a thorough discussion of the various issues. So far as the national Expenditure and the Government's record in that regard are concerned, the noble Earl had an easy task. The fact is that there is an almost inconceivable disparity in the Government's record which cannot be denied. The noble Earl who spoke for them was naturally careful to avoid saying anything about it, but there is an almost inconceivable disparity between the expectations and I scarcely think I am going too far when I say the promises that were made at the last General Election, and what has happened since. As regards that I am bound to say, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, that I found his statements singularly unconvincing and unsatisfactory. He did not make the slightest attempt to prove that, though this Government promised economy, it has achieved economy. It has not achieved economy, and it has no claim whatever to be regarded as a Government of economy.
He was rather sensitive about the word "extravagant." It depends on the way in which you use that word. Surely, he cannot deny that this Government have spent money very freely. Almost immediately after they came into office they began increasing the national Expenditure, and they have gone on doing the same thing ever since. That is a simple statement of fact. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, put down on the Paper this Amendment, which is expressed in strong terms. It expresses his disappointment, and indeed I scarcely think it is going too far to say his indignation, at what has occurred. For the moment, though, I ask permission to leave the
528
question of Expenditure and to devote myself to that part of the noble Earl's Motion which also urges a reduction in taxation with a view to improving trade and diminishing unemployment. The noble Earl said very little about this. As a matter of fact, he never mentioned that part of his Motion at all directly. Why not? It is a very important part of the Motion. The noble Earl did not make the slightest attempt to prove that the higher taxation of these post-War days has caused bad trade and unemployment. Rather he took it for granted, just as the Government take it for granted when they wish to justify their policy of reducing direct taxation. The argument appears to be something like this: Trade is bad; unemployment is rife; taxation is high; therefore, high taxation must be the cause of those evils. There is a great deal more to be said about it than that.
First, let me point out that the supporters of this theory which finds its place in the Motion of the noble Earl devote practically all their attention to the alleged injurious effects of high direct taxation. They hardly ever say anything, and the Government hardly ever say anything, about the effects of indirect taxation. Why not? If this were the occasion it would be easy to show that in so far as there is anything in this theory about the injurious effects of high taxation upon industry—as a matter of fact there is very little in it—looking at our present taxation, some of our present indirect taxes are more injurious to trade than direct taxation.
The controversy ever since this Government came into office and began reducing direct taxation has ranged almost entirely round the effects, or the alleged effects, of direct taxation on trade and unemployment. From this Bench we have put forward the opposing argument—I am not going into it to-day, because I want to get back to Expenditure—we have taken up the position that the alleged evil effects of the present rates of taxation are largely exaggerated. Just let me mention one point. In 1922 the Income Tax was reduced by 1s. in the £ in order to help trade and unemployment. In 1923 it was reduced by a further 6d. in the £. That was a reduction of 1s. 6d. in the £, a reduction of 25 per cent. The standard rate of Income

529
Tax was brought down from 6s. to 4s. 6d. in the £, and it has since been brought down to 4s. Has trade improved? Did trade get any better? Not a bit; it got steadily worse. As a matter of economics, too, this theory about direct taxation is opposed to the accepted economic teaching in these matters. I have myself from this box several times challenged the Government to name a single economist of note—"of note," I wish to make that clear—who agrees with their views in this matter. They have never done so. They have never named any such economist. They cannot name any such economist, because there is no such economist.
Similarly, the various arguments which we have put forward combating this theory have never been replied to. Why have they never been replied to? Because there is no reply. And what has happened? In the last few weeks the Colwyn Report has been published after that Committee had been sitting for two years. Does that Report support the Government view in these matters? On the contrary, the Majority Report—I will not say the Minority Report, because that might perhaps be held to be in some sense a Party Report: it is largely signed by Labour Members of the Committee, I think all Labour Members—but the Majority Report, that is, the Report of great non-Party experts, did not support the Government in what they have been saying. That Report goes a long way to justify everything that has been said from this Bench in criticism of the Government's financial policy, and a long way towards condemning everything that has been said from that Bench in justification of that policy. It is no wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he does not accept that Report in its entirety. Of course he does not. If he did it would be to convict himself of unsound finance, and I suppose we cannot expect him to admit that he has been guilty of unsound finance, though, as a matter of fact, he has.
I want next to consider these matters from a different point of view. I want to consider the question of taxation and the whole problem of Expenditure from a point of view which is very germane to the Motion of the noble Earl. It has been arranged that the adjournment of
530
this debate to-day shall be moved in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith and I need scarcely say that I always read with the greatest respect anything which Lord Oxford says on financial matters. I should like, if I may, to refer to a certain argument which the noble Earl advanced the last time he spoke in your Lordships' House on these subjects, because in my view the conclusions to which he came cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. Lord Oxford took the current national Expenditure and added to that the current expenditure on local taxation, and then he put the combined total of the two against the estimated total of the national income of the country. Having done that up-to-date, he then made similar comparisons for the pre-War year, and he arrived at somewhat alarming results as between the two sets of figures.
Let me look at that, and I will bring the figures up-to-date. Here I am going to say something which might appear to be supporting the Government, and I need scarcely say that that is not in accordance with my desires. But I am trying to get at the facts and I take it that any attempt of that sort in your Lordships' House will not be misrepresented. Now for the current year the national Expenditure is £820,000,000 and the expenditure, on rates is probably not less than £170,000,000, it may even be slightly more, partly due—here I am not supporting the Government—to the fact that the Government, in order to relieve themselves from the embarrassments in which they are placed in their national finance, have again and again done things which have had the effect of increasing the rates. However, £820,000,000 of national Expenditure and £170,000,000 or £180,000,000 perhaps of local rates make a total in round figures of £1,000,000,000.
What about the total national income? We have had in the last few weeks a most remarkable book written by Sir Josiah Stamp and Professor Bowley dealing, as your Lordships are probably aware, with that matter and they arrive at the gratifying and somewhat astonishing conclusion that the national income in all may be taken to be as high as £4,200,000,000. They are, I need scarcely say, authorities who are entitled to the greatest respect. I should have thought that that was a figure a little on the high

531
side, and for the purposes of my argument take it at £4,000,000,000. The combined national and local expenditure, amounting to £1,000,000,000 on the computation of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, would be 25 per cent., or one quarter, of the total national income and that was the figure at which the noble Earl arrived.
Let me now take the pre-War year. In 1914 the Estimates were: national Expenditure, £205,000,000; rates, about £70,000,000. Adding the two together we arrive at £275,000,000. The noble Earl put that against the total national income, as he said it was then, of £2,500,000,000 and said: "That amounts to about one-ninth." As a matter of fact, the noble Earl—I always speak with great respect of anything he advances in fiscal matters—was, I think, slightly in error. The national income then was not as high as £2,500,000,000. I have never heard it put higher by any authority of note than £2,300,000,000 and many put it lower. I think £2,250,000,000 is probably quite high enough. Therefore the proportion should have been not one-ninth as the noble Earl said but about one eighth.
Lord Oxford's argument was that whereas we are now taking one-quarter of the total national income for these combined purposes, then we were taking one-ninth of the total national income. The argument put in that way is certainly one to arrest attention, to put it no stronger. But does that really represent the position? Is that really in accordance with facts? I submit that it is not and I think I can prove that it is not. To do that it is necessary to analyse a little—I will be brief on this point—the national Expenditure. The current Expenditure of £820,000,000 includes, as the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, told your Lordships and as we all, unfortunately, know, £364,000,000 for interest and Sinking Fund payments on the National Debt and of that about £330,000,000 goes back again to the taxpayers of this country. It is really a redistribution of the national income and cannot be regarded as Expenditure in the ordinary sense of the term. I do not think that can be disputed.
Again, there is the cost of the Post Office, which also cannot be regarded as expenditure in the ordinary sense of that term, because the Post Office is a self-supporting Service and, indeed, there is
532
a great deal to be said for not putting the gross figures of the Post Office Service through the national accounts at all, for it only tends to complicate matters. It is not expenditure in the ordinary sense, because it is met by receipts, the Department being self-supporting. The Treasury also in their White Paper put the Road Fund in the same category. They say it is a self-supporting Service. How do these two items affect the comparison? They affect it very materially. The Post Office this year costs no less than £52,000,000; the Road Fund costs £19,000,000; so there you get a total of £71,000,000. Let me make the adjustments. You have the combined expenditure on national and local account of £1,000,000,000. From that you have to deduct £330,000,000 for interest and Sinking Fund payments on the National Debt, which is redistributed to the taxpayers of this country, and £71,000,000 the cost of the Post Office and the Road Fund. Those two items of £330,000,000 and £71,000,000 come to £401,000,000, say £400,000,000 in round figures. If you deduct that £400,000,000 from the £1,000,000,000 you are left with a sum of £600,000,000 which, I submit, is really much nearer, if you go into the matter properly, the true national and local Expenditure of this country and £600,000,000 put against the total national income of £4,200,000,000—if you take it as high as that in accordance with the estimates of Sir Josiah Stamp and Professor Bowley—amounts to one-seventh of the national income.
Let me now make the comparisons in the pre-War year. The amount in the Budget of that year, your Lordships will remember, came to £205,000,000 in all. The amount for interest and Sinking Fund payments on National Debt was only £23,000,000—£23,000,000 against the present £364,000,000. The cost of the Post Office then was £25,000,000 against £52,000,000 now. There was no Road Fund at that time. Add together the £23,000,000 for interest and Sinking Fund payments on National Debt and £25,000,000 the cost of the Post Office and You reach a total of £48,000,000. Add the £205,000,000 for national purposes in the pre-War year and the £70,000,000 as expenditure on rates and you get a total of £275,000,000. Deduct this £48,000,000 from the £275,000,00 and you arrive at a total of £227,000,000. That really is the

533
comparable figure of Expenditure and it amounts to about one-tenth of the then national income. Therefore we arrive at this result. If everything is analysed we are at present spending in true national and local Expenditure about one-seventh of the total national income as against about one-tenth in the pre-War year. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very different result from the one at which the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, arrived, It is different from saying we are taking now a quarter and we were then taking a ninth, the true proportions being, I submit, one-seventh and one-tenth. Moreover, in these calculations I am leaving out of account altogether how far a good deal of the, increased Expenditure for various social purposes can properly be regarded as Expenditure in the ordinary sense of the word. Apart from that I think the calculations are in some measure reassuring.
What follows from all this? This follows, and it is very vital in considering all parts of the Motion of the noble Earl. The point is that it is not sufficient to say that Expenditure has increased. We must go further; we must be quite clear as to the way in which the Expenditure has increased, and what the increase is made up of. Similarly, it is not, sufficient to say, as has been said so often in your Lordships' House, that direct taxation has greatly increased, the more so in proportion than indirect taxation. These points want carrying further. We want to look at both sides of the national account together. If we do that it becomes clear that more than one-half of the increased Expenditure since pre-War days is, as I have indicated, due to redistribution of national income. Moreover, of the interest and Sinking Fund on the National Debt, which is internally redistributed in the country, about £300,000,000 goes to the direct taxpayers. It is probably more, but put it at £300,000,000
What does that mean? It means, in other words, that the wealthier classes are, as a whole, getting back again nearly all they pay in Income Tax and Super-Tax. It is true also that the poorer classes are getting more from the national Expenditure than in pre-War days. That is because of War and other Pensions, the increased cost of education, and so forth. Nevertheless, the
534
increased share of the national Expenditure which is going to the poorer classes is much less than the increased share of the national Expenditure which is going to the richer classes. In point of fact, when everything is taken into account and all proper allowances and adjustments are made, it will be found that, although the direct taxpayers are paying a, larger proportion of the national Revenue than before the War, they are getting back so much from the Expenditure side of the account that, looking at the Budget as a whole, they are as a class, broadly speaking, in much the same position in relation to the poor classes as they were in the pre-War year. That fact is a very important one and I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated. It bears very directly, in my view, upon this discussion.
Before I sit down I wish to make some general observations about the problem of national Expenditure in general and the Government's record in relation to it. Let me give just one figure to prove how very vulnerable the Government is in this matter. The noble Earl referred naturally enough—and I expect it will come up again and again in the course of this debate—to the projected saving of £10,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed and virtually promised in 1925. There was to be a saving each year of £10,000,000 in the cost of the Supply Estimates.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He did not say there was to be.
LORD ARNOLD: He came very near it. I said "virtually." The Supply Estimates at that time were £407,000,000. Therefore in 1926 they ought to have come down to £397,000,000 and now they ought to be down to £387,000,000. That is what ought to have happened. Has it happened? Nothing of the sort. The figure this year in the new Estimates now out is £420,000,000. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own showing, on his own confession of what he ought to have done, is £33,000,000 to the bad. Now £33,000,000 is a lot of money and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, would agree with me as to that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think so. I think it is a lot of money.
LORD ARNOLD: I thought he would agree with me about that. It is not often we are in agreement. It means about 6d. off the Income Tax, or on the other hand the Food Duties could have been abolished and also the penny post could have been restored. But of course that cannot be done, because the Estimates are not down, but are up to £420,000,000. The charge I bring against the Government, is that in their first year of office they never properly visualised this problem of national Expenditure, more particularly as they are not, and never have been, willing to make any substantial savings on armaments. Last year, Mr. Churchill went to Leeds and made a speech there in which he foreshadowed great things. There were to be great economies and every Department was to be affected. That is what he said; but is it so? Talk of that kind may be all very well at meetings, but it is really rhetoric and has no real relation to facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found out the difference when he went into things more closely. A few weeks afterwards he went to another place and made a speech of a very different character. He descended from rhetoric and emphasised the very points that the noble Earl has emphasised here to-day. He emphasised the fact that over three-quarters of the national Expenditure is of such a character that it is very difficult to make any substantial reduction in it at all and he also emphasised, when he looked into matters more closely, that one cannot as a matter of fact retrench in every sphere and every Department.
He said that this huge block of Expenditure, which amounts to over £650,000,000 and which consists of the charges for the National Debt, Pensions and so forth, offers very little opportunity for economy. Incidentally, that confirms what has been said from this Bench during the last year or two about the Debt. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, referred to the Debt and to the possibility of savings by conversion schemes. We do not hear so much about them as we used to. The argument is put on these lines: "The National Debt amounts to £7,500,000,000. If we could get the interest down from 5 per cent. to only 4 per cent. we should save £75,000,000 a year." It would be impossible to do anything of the sort. The glib optimists who talk
536
in this way have not looked into the figures. A large proportion of the Debt is so long-dated that it does not come within the ambit of conversion schemes. The Colwyn Committee by its Report blew these optimistic conversion schemes to smithereens and showed that the saving by conversion schemes, if one could get down to 4 per cent., would be only £26,000,000 a year. That of course is substantial, but it is not a lot of money like £75,000,000. Let us have it if we can, but we have not got it yet and there is very little probability of getting it. Moreover, £26,000,000 in relation to a Debt charge of over £350,000,000 leaves the problem largely unsolved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is driven back by the pressure of facts to the figure given to us by the noble Earl—the figure of £160,000,000. That is the figure of national Expenditure which offers the greatest field for retrenchment. That consists mainly of two items—£160,000,000 for the general cost of administration or of the general Civil Service, including grants to health and other schemes, and the balance for cost of armaments, to which I will turn in a moment.
I now come to Lord Midleton. Let us get the facts right. The axe has already been applied to the Civil Service two or three times. If you are to apply the axe again and rigorously there is no real economy in that. In a previous debate I suggested that on this item the utmost saving hoped for was £10,000,000. I was told afterwards by one of the greatest living authorities in the country that I put it too high and that on balance a saving of £5,000,000 was problematical. This should be faced. My noble friend Lord Midleton made great play with regard to points which are rather small in relation to the total perspective of this matter. They were rather isolated cases which he brought up. Even if you did all he suggested—and you could not possibly do it without as a result injuring the efficiency of the Civil Service—your problem would to a large extent remain unsolved.
I hope very much that in the subsequent debate I shall be spared the usual gibe about Labour extravagance. That is not the point. I am trying to see things as they are, and in relation to total Expenditure I say that the problem would

537
be largely unsolved even if we did all that the Earl of Midleton suggested. The most hopeful item in my view for retrenchment is the £100,000,000 which we are spending on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. That is the cost of those three Services apart from Pensions, which are in a different category. Earl Beauchamp twitted the Labour Government—I should like to have his attention on this point if I may, because it is important—about this matter of expenditure on armaments. He said we had increased the expenditure on armaments. That is really not the position. What are the facts? The Labour Government did not come into office until January. Anybody who knows anything about the Treasury and anything about Budgets knows that that is already too late to do anything effective.
The Estimates that year were not really our Estimates. They were Estimates prepared by the previous Conservative Government. Even so, the statement of the noble Earl is not really correct. What did Mr. Philip Snowden do? When the Estimates were presented he made an over-head cut in the cost of the Navy of £3,000,000 and insisted on it. That was a big achievement so late in the day. The noble Earl twitted us, as he has done before and doubtless will do again, with the matter of the five cruisers. I have replied to that before and I say now, as I have said before, that almost any Government would have done the same thing. The five cruisers were laid down largely in order to help unemployment.
The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said that in 1924–5 the Expenditure of the country was £795,000,000 and that that was the Labour Budget. I would point out that that was not really so. We had to take things very much as they came to us. We were only in office eight months and our place was then taken by noble Lords opposite. What happened? They then began bringing in Supplementary Estimates. I think it will be found that the Supplementary Estimates that year came very much more from their Government than from ours. Therefore this total of £795,000,000 is not one which ought to be attributed to the Labour Government. It should have more careful scrutiny.
On the general question of armaments the noble Earl put the point that there
538
is no German Navy now, that the League of Nations has come into existence, that the War has been won. To all that I assent. The Earl of Plymouth gave certain figures in trying to prove that the Government is doing well as compared with pre-War Expenditure apart from the rise of prices. Let me say something about that. For statistical purposes he said the index figure was 75 per cent. additional. That is really a very high figure to take. Even if we take the cost of living figure, which I do not think is strictly applicable to this matter, it is only 72 per cent., but if we take wholesale prices, as Earl Beauchamp pointed out, it is only 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. Therefore, the figures put forward by the noble Earl should be subject to scrutiny at any rate.
He did not deal with the challenge of Lord Beauchamp, which was that whereas we are now spending nearly 3 per cent. of the total national income on armaments we were only spending in the-year before the War just about 3½ per cent. Having regard to the changed position that is a very extraordinary state of things. Take the case of the Navy. We are to spend this year £58,000,000 on the Navy—and that is not really the total cost because there will be Supplementary Estimates, no doubt—as against £48,000,000 in 1913–14. I think £51,000,000 was the actual expenditure in the 1914 year. But what about battleships and the Washington Agreement in connection with which the noble Earl opposite had such success? We have now—I think these figures are right—eighteen battleships as against thirty in the pre-War year, and taking all big ships together, battleships and cruisers, we have twenty-two now against forty in the pre-War year. Look at the difference there, look at the economy there ought to be there, having regard to the cost of these vessels. If you want a concrete proposal I will give you one. In my opinion—and this is the view of a great many people acquainted with these matters—although it would not be easy it would not be impossible, if this country would take the lead, to secure before long the total abolition of battle ships by international agreement. A battleship costs £7,000,000 now against

539
£2,000,000 in the pre-War year. Think what that means from the point of view of economy.
I want to say in my final words something about the Liberal Party and economy. The noble Earl comes here and makes a strong speech. Yes, but what is the position? What are his colleagues doing in another place? Do they support reductions? Why, within the last three weeks an Amendment was moved in another place, an official Amendment. Let me read it. It is very moderate. It is an Amendment urging that in the interests of economy His Majesty's Government should in the Preparatory Commission for the forthcoming Disarmament Conference initiate proposals to secure by international agreement a reduction in the land forces. Surely that is very moderate. But what happened? Only seven Liberals voted for it, four voted against it, and the great majority did not vote at all. I could bring forward instance after instance. Only on Monday it was moved in another place that the personnel of the Navy should be reduced by 100 men. Surely that is very moderate indeed. What did the Liberals do? Half-a-dozen voted for it, one or two voted against and the majority did not vote at all. Therefore I say that the claim of the noble Earl to come forward and take up this position is of doubtful validity, even if I do not put it higher. I question whether in view of what his colleagues are doing in another place he is entitled to put down a Motion in these terms.
The Earl of Oxford suggested in a previous debate rationing of the national Expenditure. That was commented upon by the noble Marquess opposite as being worthy of consideration. But is it worthy of consideration except as regards the Fighting Services? Does he really mean that there should be rationing all round? I think even in the case of the Fighting Services it probably could not be done pro rata, and in default of qualification rationing usually means pro rata. Does he mean that the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour should be rationed? Is that the suggestion? Earl Beauchamp not very long ago suggested that there should be economies in these ways. His Motion speaks of the spending Departments. What are the chief
540
spending Departments, apart from armaments? They are the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. Are we to understand that the noble Earl objects to the expenditure on these Departments? He suggested not very long ago in your Lordships' House that the Ministry of Labour should be done away with and should be put back under the Board of Trade, that the Mines Department should be done away with and put back under the Home Office. Is that really the proposal of the Liberal Party?
What is it in the expenditure of these Departments that he objects to? Take the Ministry of Labour. Does he object to the work of conciliation that it does? Does he object to the trade boards? Does he object to the labour exchanges? What is it he objects to? We are entitled to something specific when we are told that these Departments ought to be done away with. Take the Mines Department. What does he object to in that? He says it is not as efficient as it might be. I agree with that, but it will not be made more efficient by reducing its personnel. We have had explosions lately in the mines. Does the noble Earl want to do away with inspectors or decrease their numbers?
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I said increase them.
LORD ARNOLD: The Earl of Oxford did, but Earl Beauchamp suggested that the Mines Department was doing very little good and should be put back under the Board of Trade which already is not too efficient a Department.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: Under the Home Office.
LORD ARNOLD: I should have said the Home Office. I say that points of this kind need very careful scrutiny. Even if you did these things, there would be no real economy. I think I have said enough to show that the Government's record is open to very grave criticism, and also that the terms of the noble Earl's Motion should be subjected to very close scrutiny.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has said that a few days ago in the House of Commons a Motion to reduce the Navy by 100 men, which he said was a very small number, was not supported by

541
the Liberal Party. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that a Motion to reduce the Navy by 100 men is not really a Motion to reduce the Navy by 100 men, but a Motion to reduce it largely, and that the 100 men are put in as a nominal figure. Accordingly, if the Liberal Party had voted for this Motion, they would have voted for a very considerable reduction in expenditure on the Navy. I happen to have read the speech that the noble Lord made in May, 1925, in answer to a speech that I made when I raised this subject. The noble Lord said then, as he says now, that the only proper method of economy was to reduce the naval and military expenditure, and he has again told us that he would like to do away with the whole of the battleships because there is going to be an international agreement. If we put our faith upon an international agreement we shall be putting our faith upon a very weak reed which, if it breaks, will pierce our hands. It is exactly the same as the Treaty that was made with Germany about entering Belgium. When she found that it was to her interest to tear it up, she tore it up, as any international agreement that is made will be torn up when it is to the interest, of any of the parties to tear it up.
The noble Lord does not seem to think that there are too many officials. On that point I should like to say that in years gone by I have sometimes had occasion to look into the Expenditure of some of the smaller foreign nations that have defaulted on their Debts, and I always found that the chief difficulty in obtaining economy was the enormous number of officials in existence. Economy meant the reduction of the number of officials and, naturally, a reduction in pay—I do not mean a reduction in the scale of pay but the total abolition of payments to a number of individuals. So long as we go on increasing the staffs of the various offices, we shall find that Expenditure will increase, because it is perfectly clear that, in order to keep themselves occupied, the officials will find Bills to introduce that will cost money. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, referred to the Expenditure of the last two or three years. I have here the figures that were given in The Times in April, 1926, and I think my figures correspond with
542
those which the noble Earl gave. According to The Times, the Expenditure in 1925–6 was £826,000,000 odd, an increase of £30,322,000 over the previous year. In that year there was a coal subsidy of £19,000,000, but the Expenditure in 1924–5 was in excess by £7,000,000 over that of 1923–4, so that in those two years there was an increase of £37,000,000 or, if you deduct the coal subsidy, an increase of £18,000,000.
The noble Earl asked if any noble Lord in this House would say that the coal subsidy was a mistake. I say so. It was a very great mistake. The only thing that we did was to waste £23,000,000 and to encourage a strike. If we had taken a proper line at the time, had refused to have anything to do with the strike and had said that we should see that law and order were maintained, we should have saved £23,000,000 and should probably have had no strike. In 1925, when I raised this question of the Expenditure of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to reduce Expenditure by £10,000,000 a year. It was not very clear if he said that he was going to reduce it by £10,000,000 in one year or whether there would be a regular reduction of £10,000,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He did not say that he would. He expressed what I might call a pious hope that it might be possible.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am getting on in years and I am afraid that I have never found pious hopes any use at all. I hope that we are not going to have any more pious hopes, but that we are going to have a little action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he piously hoped to reduce Expenditure by £10,000,000 a year. He has done nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, Expenditure has increased ever since. I have here the Estimates for the staff of the Ministry of Health. The total Estimates for that Ministry for this year are £75,277,000. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has left the House, because he alluded to this. If you take the Ministry of Labour you find that their wages and salaries alone come to £3,680,351, and, if you, take the salaries and wages of the Ministry of Health, you will find that they amount

543
to rather more than £1,500,000, so that you actually have more than £5,000,000 spent in salaries and wages in the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. If you go back to 1913–14 and take the Local Government Board, which is the original of the Ministry, of Health, you will find that the total expenditure was £294,000, with salaries and wages accounting for £138,000. In those days neither Old Age Pensions nor Health Insurance were included, but if you add those two Services, which came to £21,000,000, you will find that the expenditure in those years was something like £22,000,000, as against £75,000,000 at present.
I observe with sorrow that this year Old Age Pensions alone cost £32,780,000. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, has left the House, but perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, will remind him of what I am going to say. I had the honour of listening to the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in 1906, when he assured us that the cost of Old Age Pensions would be £6,000,000. It has somewhat increased, as all these things do. When you enter upon a bad course, swift is the road to perdition. Take the Ministry of Labour, which costs £11,653,000, of which £3,800,000 was for salaries and wages. What on earth does it do? It provides trade union men who get into the House of Commons with a soft job and a good salary, and that is one of the results of having all these extravagant Departments. There is always somebody who wants to get in and have a good job. There is always a certain number of people who find that it is wise to make friends with the enemy, and consequently these people are put into jobs, and then something has got to be found for them to do.
The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, pointed out that the House of Commons at the present moment is not an economical House, and he gave an instance of a certain member, who, I suppose—I did not quite catch what he said—had advocated economy, with the result that he lost his seat. There is no doubt that at the present moment economy is the most unpopular thing that any man in the House of Commons, or in any other place, can advocate. What are we going to do? How is it possible that we can continue
544
to exist as a country if we are going continually to spend over £800,000,000 a year? It may be perfectly right to spend so much on Old Age Pensions and other things, but I should like to point out that when I first entered the House of Commons our total national Expenditure was under £100,000,000. I do not remember the exact amount, but I think it was somewhere between £92,000,000 and £93,000,000, and I remember Mr. Gladstone holding up his hands in horror at the idea that there should be, at any time, an expenditure of £100,000,000.
Now, on one item alone, we are spending £75,000,000, and the more officials we have the more difficult it will be for the members of the House of Commons, in whom, after all, the power to reduce expenditure lies, to advocate and carry out economy. They will be content with the pious hope expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago, because they know that if they go to their constituents every single official and everybody connected with an official, will be opposed to them, if they ask for a reduction in Expenditure. I hope that this debate may have some result, but I am very much afraid that it will have nothing of the kind. Unless something is done, however, as I said before, we are on the road to ruin. We cannot spend £800,000,000 a year with a taxation of £15 per head, double what the majority of other countries pay, and expect that we can continue to maintain our trade and business. It is absolutely impossible. I agree with the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, that it is not at all likely that we shall be able to borrow at 4 per cent. within anything like a reasonable time, but if we go on without making any reduction at all it will be very difficult for us to borrow at 5 per cent., or at a higher rate, even if we can borrow at all, or if there be anybody fortunate enough to have anything to lend.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: My Lords, in rising to address you for the first time, I hope I may receive that kindly indulgence which it has ever been your custom to extend to those who find themselves in the position which I now occupy. My reason for venturing to make a few observations to-day is that I desire, as one connected with industry, to emphasise the importance to industry of the Motion which the noble Earl, Lord

545
Beauchamp, has introduced, and also to amplify what other noble Lords have said with regard to this aspect of the matter. In urging upon the Government the necessity for economy, any one engaged in industry at the present time, however inadequate his powers of language way be, has at any rate the satisfaction of feeling that he is not preaching a doctrine which he has not himself practised, for I am certain that all the members of this House who have been intimately concerned with the affairs of industry and commerce during the last few most difficult years, will agree with me when I say that the great bulk of the industries of this country could not have survived the critical periods of depression through which we have passed, had not the sternest measures of economy been practised.
With industry it has not been a question of economy being expedient or advisable, but a question of economy being vital and imperative. In times of prosperity it is easy to become careless in many things, both in the field of industry and in the realm of government. When trade is good, output becomes the first consideration, and the cost of production is apt to take the second place. In times like the present, when the purchasing power of the public is reduced, when every order has to be keenly fought for with our rivals in other countries, it has been necessary for industry to consider every internal economy which it is possible to make—by reducing stocks, by simplifying the processes of manufacture, by ruthlessly cutting out unnecessary statistics and other kinds of clerical work, and by going through the staffs with a fine comb and carefully reviewing the labours and duties of every man and woman engaged in the industry, so that every member of the crew in the industrial boat shall be pulling his or her full weight.
In spite of many good intentions, the same drastic measures of economy have not taken place in the sphere of government as have had to take place in the realm of industry. In fact it would appear, from what the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said, that the word "economy" in the vocabulary of Whitehall has a totally different meaning from what it conveys either in the ordinary dictionary or in the vocabulary of the average mar in the street. My noble
546
friend Lord Arnold has suggested that increased taxation does not necessarily hamper industry, and that a reduction in taxation does not necessarily help industry. I do not pose as a great economist, but it seems obvious that, in the case certainly of people with fixed incomes, if they have to pay more in taxes they must have less to spend on the commodities which industry produces. Many people in this country have at their back the machinery of trade unions which can and does negotiate for them increases in wages when the cost of living goes up; but to a vast section of the people there is no such machinery, and they are very hardly hit when taxation is increased, and they have obviously less to spend on the products which industry makes. But it is not only a question of what the public spend in buying commodities. Industries to expand also need capital, and that capital is furnished by the accumulated savings of the people, and I will venture to remind your Lordships in this connection of a dictum of perhaps the greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer we have ever had, Mr. Gladstone, to the effect that money fructifies more readily in the pockets of the people than it does in the coffers of the State.
I noticed the other day that the noble Viscount, Lord Inchcape, in an article contributed to the Press, called attention to the paternal interest—I am using a very much milder term than the one which the noble Viscount employed—which the Government continues to take in the affairs of industry. I think he said that there were eleven Government Departments which issued Regulations to the shipping industry, only one of which knew anything about shipping. Opinions such as these, coming from one so eminently qualified to speak on behalf of the industry in question, cannot but have a profound, not to say disturbing effect upon public opinion. The Government acquired the habit of controlling industry dining the War, and it has never been able to shake the habit off.
The position of trade and commerce to-day is rather like that of the man who in a time of great, danger submits to the ministrations of a physician, and then, when the crisis is over and convalescence is established, discovers that the physician is still living in his house and

547
has all the appearances of a permanent guest—not a paying guest, but a guest who has to be paid for staying there. If I may press the analogy one degree further, may I say that industry is not at the present time a patient in need of the medicine of Government regulation and legislation. The industries of this country are constitutionally and physically sound, but what they are urgently in need of is plenty of freedom, food, fresh air, and exercise. The most beneficial measure of economy at the present time would be a real and definite curtailment of the operations and personnel of those Departments which are to-day attempting to regulate industry to a degree unheard of before.
I believe I am correct in saying that on the recommendation of the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons, a Co-ordination of Contracts Committee is shortly to be appointed to arrange for the bulk purchase of supplies for a number of Government Departments. This is a move in the right direction. I think the fullest credit should be given to His Majesty's Government for taking this step. Your Lordships will have noticed that there has recently been a marked movement in industry in the direction of "mergers." One of the prime causes which have called these "mergers" into being has been the need for working and administrative economy. One of the economies looked for is the great saving to be made by centralised buying. I. think His Majesty's Government might go further than they have done, and consider the creation of a central Department, rather than a Committee, for the purchase of those materials and supplies which are common to many Departments, and so effect a reduction in the large staffs of technical experts and their clerical assistants. Economies might also, I think, be effected by Government Departments purchasing, as far as possible, the standard articles made by manufacturers, rather than insisting, as is often the case, upon special articles made to Government specifications, which must of necessity be more costly to make. I think that, on the whole, we may congratulate ourselves on having public Departments which are keen buyers, and successful buyers. No programme of centralised buying would be fully effective
548
unless it aimed not only at buying more cheaply, but at reducing the overhead expenses incidental to buying.
In conclusion, may I say this. In times of difficulty there are only two ways in which an organisation, whether it be a Government or an industry, can make ends meet, and those are either by increasing its revenue or reducing its expenditure. To say this may be merely to state a platitude, but, as the Prime Minister said the other day at Cambridge, a platitude is merely a truth that people have forgotten. In the case of industry it is not always possible to adopt the easy expedient of putting up prices, for the consuming public has in its hands the remedy either of buying what it wants elsewhere or even, in many branches of industry, of doing without it. But there is only one Government in office at any one time, and the public cannot pay their taxes elsewhere, or refuse to pay them. Their only remedy comes when they have the opportunity of choosing another Government, and I think noble Lords opposite should be very grateful to the noble Earl who has initiated this debate for giving them this kindly hint as to the most effective means of meriting the continuance of public confidence.
Economy is not a Party matter—it is a national matter. For too long we have been moving in a vicious circle. Industry cannot expand because the purchasing power of the public is reduced; the purchasing power of the public is reduced because of high taxation; taxation is high, among other reasons, because it is necessary to give State aid to so many unemployed; and the number of unemployed is high because industry cannot expand. So we go on round and round in this vicious circle from cause to effect without ever approaching any nearer to that revival of trade which is the true panacea of our national ills. At what point can this vicious circle be broken? I submit that industry has done its share and that the next move lies with the Government. I trust your Lordships' House, by supporting the main Motion which is before us to-day rather than the milder Amendment which the noble Earl opposite has moved, will prove to the public, to the long-suffering taxpayers of this country, that your Lordships' House at any rate is alive

549
to the necessity for national economy on a far more substantial scale than has yet been attempted.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it is always interesting to listen to a first speech and the noble Viscount who has just, addressed us has shown not merely that he bears a name honoured in industry but that he carries with that name a hereditary interest in the subject matter upon which he has spoken. I will not discuss with him some of the points he raised which seem to me a little questionable, as, for instance, whether taxes add to the cost of production. It is only to a small extent if they do so. Rates, I admit, are in a very different position to taxes. But I pass that by and come to the speech with which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, introduced the main Motion. I confess—and I make the confession frankly—that that speech filled me with gloom and this whole debate has filled me with gloom. I am filled with gloom on both sides—over the prospect of the Government in the matter of economy and over the demand and the ideal of the noble Earl. The noble Earl made a speech in which he proposed many points of economy, but they were all founded on arithmetic. It may seem a very attractive case to submit to the country, but there is nothing more fallacious than doing sums when you are working out a policy of economy. You have to look at a great deal besides.
It has been said that with statistics you can prove almost anything and it is certainly true when you are dealing with propositions for financial reform. Bring these things to the test. The question is never, or very rarely, merely whether there has been an addition to Expenditure. I take one case that comes into my mind at once. The noble Earl opposite is at the head of a Department which is incurring a great deal of new expenditure. I think it amounts from the Report that I have just read from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, to about £400,000 a year. That is a considerable sum of money, but does anybody suggest we should do without it? Does the noble Earl wish to out down that expenditure? If he does I can only tell him what would happen. The industries of this country live in a state of competition with the industries
550
of other countries and we maintain our place only by making progress and we only make progress as we bring new knowledge and new methods to bear. But new methods depend progressively upon further science and to-day there is no Department, I think, which is more essential in the public interest than that very Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of which I speak. Without it we should not be able to keep up with the enlargement in ideas and the new methods that are essential in industry and, therefore, although this is a kind of expenditure which is quite new and comes under the flail of the noble Earl who introduced the Motion, it is the kind of expenditure which illustrates that what you have to do is constantly growing and constantly costing more money.
That is not the only case which the noble Earl referred to or which has been referred to in this debate. We were told that the staffs have grown enormously. So they have. And why have they grown? They have grown because there was the hope that with better staffs, with more searching direction, it would be possible to produce more for less money. I think that is true, but I do not believe that we have exhausted the possibilities of civilisation in getting staffs within a compass. They tend to grow a great deal and what the noble Earl has said of the tendency of staffs to extend and multiply themselves is true.
I remember very well that years ago when I was at the War Office it was necessary to effect a considerable reduction in the Estimates. I thought it ought to be effected. I brought up the Generals to the Army Council and was told: "It cannot be done; we have looked into it everywhere; we can get nothing down and we shall want £3,000,000 more." I then saw them one by one and said: "We shall never get the thing done in this way. You do not know whether there are possibilities of reduction, not even all the heads of Departments immediately under you know, but set to work, see your heads of Departments individually, take them into your confidence, do not bully them, do not order them about, reason with them and ask them to co-operate in a common policy; they will do the same with the people

551
under them and you will get down at last to surprising economies; at least that is my strong suspicion.' They were doubtful at first. They went away and came back after an interval and said: "It has turned out exactly so, expenditure and extravagance are going on right deep down at places where we could not get to, the heads are now seeing that is so and those under them are working to effect economies and the money that is wanted to came off will come off."
The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, spoke of the number of the troops being reduced. The number of troops is reduced as compared with the year of which he spoke, but then he said that the staffs have gone up very much. Yes, they have and that is one reason why the number of the troops can be less to-day than it used to be. War, like industry, is a matter of thinking, of planning, of working out things in detail and, therefore, it is necessary to think and to employ skilled thinkers to an extent that was never the case in the old days. That being so, the matter is not disposed of by Lord Midleton's suggestion that the staffs have gone up very much. Of course the staffs have gone up very much. There is an enormous deal more of work that has to be done by the staffs than there was in the old days. The conduct of war depends on that, and if we had not had these staffs and had not had Generals trained in the highest degree in those methods—Generals like Lord French and Lord Haig—we should have been defeated in many of the battles that we had to fight in the late War. As it was our Generals, I think, were trained in the study of military science in a, way which showed them to be equal to those German Generals to whom they were opposed.
What is the moral of that? The moral is that if you are really keen about economy, if you want to bring about these things of which the noble Earl spoke, you cannot do it merely by doing sums, merely by arithmetical methods. What you have to do is to put your soul into the business of inquiry. You have to take people into confidence and work with them in confidence. I have had a good deal to do with the Civil Service. I was Chairman of their organisation for a good many years and I think I am still.
552
I see their work and I see what they are doing just now. There is no body that is advancing more in its ideas and in its methods than the Civil Service. They meet, they read papers on this great question, their leaders come among them and talk to them. There is an intelligent spirit among the members of the Civil Service such as did not exist a few years ago. Why not apply the only method that is effective in getting economy to the Civil Service? Take their chiefs into consultation. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer utter a ukase and say that the Expenditure of the country is to come down by so much, only to be defeated. The far better course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Ministers is to take the Civil Service, or rather its heads, much more closely into confidence and to ask them to take their own subordinates into confidence until there penetrates right through the body of the Civil Service a desire to carry out the common policy of which I spoke.
The noble Earl said: "You increased the number of cruisers and the Labour Government did it too." I will tell him one reason why the Labour Government carried out to a certain extent the policy of the, Government that went before and why the number of cruisers was increased. The noble Earl is a great Free Trader. So am I, though not so extreme a Free Trader as he is. In one thing I am entirely with him and that is that the food of the people should be free. We do not produce in these Islands sufficient food for the people. We have to bring it over the seas. If we ever were in such a state of peril as to the transport of food that the food ran short, we should be at an end as a nation. You could no doubt, by spending enormous sums of money and raising rates and taxes very much, increase the production of food in this country very much under a Protective system. It would be very unpopular and the proof of it is that the Conservative Government do not do it. They have pledged themselves against Duties on food. If there are no Duties on food you must protect the way of getting food into this country. How do you protect it? We had not thought of it during the old days. Even during, the War the Navy was rather slow in taking to the system of escorts and to the use of cruisers for bringing food and merchandise into this

553
country. They learned it and they increased the escort system very much during the latter days of the War, with the result that it remains part of the naval tradition. You want cruisers for the protection of food and raw material. It may be there are too many cruisers or it may be there are too few. I do not know and I am quite certain the noble Earl does not know either.
There is only one way of getting at those things and that is by the closest inquiry. It is the duty of the Government to make that inquiry, and I do not know whether they make it or not. Sometimes I do not think they inquire into those things as minutely as they might. The Government have shown a perfectly sincere desire to improve the old methods by looking into those things more closely than they did in the old days. If that be so, then it is plain that that the arithmetical method of my friend Lord Beauchamp disappears and will not answer the question. That of course is even more conspicuously so when you are dealing with other things. Take Health, take Old Age Pensions. These are things which have added very much to the Expenditure in this country, but does anybody suppose you are going to go back on them? No, you are not, because they are making the people a better, a stronger and a healthier people than they were before. Of course they have to be paid for and are costly, but they are only part of what my noble friend Lord Arnold spoke of as the redistribution of wealth, which is going on, not only in this country but in every other country. Somebody—I think Lord Beauchamp—spoke of the difficulties which Judges and other people were under by the curtailment of their salaries. Judges are only bearing the burden like the rest of the community and, so far as I know, are not asking for any change, and I should be sorry if they did. Landowners, too, are bearing very heavy rates and taxes, but they complain wonderfully little.
What, is happening is that the money taken from these people is being distributed among the people at large so as to make them richer than before, consume more and be better people. That is the policy of to-day, the policy of which you are going to see more. That is what has given rise to the policy of the Labour
554
Party in this country. We used not to put those ideas before us, but they are before us and, being handled temperately, they may avoid movements which are very disagreeable. I have not spoken very critically of the Government. There are directions in which, in connection with this problem of economy, they might well improve their ways, but I am sure they can only be got at by that method of which I spoke—namely, of putting your whole mind into searching into the ways by which economy can be produced in detail and, above all, by taking into counsel and getting the assistance of your staffs, of your Civil Servants and your advisers at every turn. When the community is permeated with the desire to avoid unnecessary extravagance then and not till then, will you be able to avoid that unnecessary extravagance.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I think it was a little unkind of Lord Arnold to tell the noble Earl who introduced this Motion that he really had no business to introduce it—
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: —because he thought his colleagues in another place had not shown that zeal for economy which they ought to have shown. Even if the colleagues of the noble Earl in another place are either negligent or have become castaways in that matter, all the more credit is due to the noble Earl for standing by the old Liberal principle of retrenchment. I certainly do not bring any charge against him on that ground. Indeed, one is glad to find some support for retrenchment in any quarter of the House. I listened to what the noble and learned Viscount said and did not gather he was pressing retrenchment of Expenditure upon the Government. I gathered that he was rather ready to suggest that we did not spend quite enough in certain directions. There is, therefore, no great pressure coming from him or from his friends for the reduction of Expenditure.
I did cordially agree in many ways with one expression that he used and that was when he said that it really was not possible to compare these Expenditures by means of arithmetic. I have heard a great deal of extremely fallacious comparisons during the course of this debate.

555
There have been statements of what the world is now, of what the world was in 1914, and even of what it was in the 'nineties, for the noble Earl took us so far back in history. Really the world has so changed in so many respects that any standard of comparison that you choose to try to establish merely upon the basis of figures may be theoretically interesting but is certainly of very little value in the practical conduct of affairs to-day.
I should like, for one moment—and I will not keep the House long as it is so late—to deal with the general conditions under which this Government or any Government must conduct its affairs at the present day, because those conditions must govern, insensibly if you like, their general policy. First of all, we are still labouring—I am not talking now of the big Debt—in many ways under the results of the War. Take the case of housing. We all know the history of housing, the shortage of houses owing to their not having been built during the War, and possibly before the War in consequence of the Land Taxes and so on. We all know the enormous shortage that had to be made up in a few years after the War. It was impossible to leave that to private enterprise. The State had to step in. Some of the schemes were good and some, in this House at any rate, were thought to be rather indifferent. But what is clear is that a great deal of expenditure now in our Budget Estimates is the result of the action taken in those years and that will be the case for many years to come. That is one of the weights we are carrying which is just as much the result of the War as what I may call the general Expenditure of the War. That, of course, is applicable to such things as are now coming to an end, the training of ex-Service men and things of that kind.
On another point there has been great comparison between the state of unrest—or the state of rest if you like—now and the state twenty-five to thirty years ago. Our position as an Empire has become less defensible in one sense than it has been in the past. That is to say, we bring more into this country in food and raw materials. We have more use for our Navy to protect us. We have got even more vulnerable points than twenty years ago. The Empire is different, it has grown. Iraq and Palestine and other
556
places of that kind have extended rather than diminished the Empire and possibly, short of international agreement, have made more demands upon our system of defence. But there is a thing which will perhaps apply to this Government and to the Governments that may succeed it for the next ten or twelve years, and that is that I think in some ways we are at the peak of Expenditure.
Take the whole question of Imperial Defence. The Dominions are beginning to take a larger share in defence. We still bear the great brunt of the burden, but as years go on probably there will be a reduction and the Dominions will take more of that charge on their shoulders. Take, again, questions like the Loans and guarantees for the Colonies: for instance, the overseas settlement schemes and the guarantees of big Loans to East Africa. We are spending the money, but in the years to come I hope we shall have some fruition from that money. There will be more people in Australia to buy our goods and consequently to give employment to our people here. There will be greater development of Colonies like East Africa and consequently an increase in trade and a diminution in unemployment. We have not yet reaped the benefit of it. We are still bearing the brunt of that expenditure.
There is another matter of which the Noble Viscount spoke, and I myself have great sympathy with what he said. Take the new class of grants, such as those for the development of the scientific side of agriculture and for research in agriculture. That is a class of expenditure from which we cannot reap results at once, but from which I hope we shall reap great results in future. He was quite right, if I may say so, in attributing to this Government a great desire and a great activity also in developing the scientific side of industry. By the establishment of the Committee of Civil Research we have notified to the world that that is one of the great objects which this Government are pursuing. But all that must mean expenditure in the present, even though we shall reap great results, I trust, in the future.
Again, take what are called the Social Services, which are rather absurdly grouped under the head of Civil Service Expenditure, giving people the totally

557
wrong idea that the expenditure is merely on the salaries of an enormous number of civil servants, which, as I think, is a very unfortunate result of that grouping. They have been very little criticised during the course of this debate. All such matters as expenditure on health, education and employment, and so on, have been very little criticised. Here, surely, in the years to come, if they are to be of any value at all, we are going to reap a rich harvest in an increase in health, in education, in intelligence and in application to industry. Otherwise these sums may be said to be wasted and thrown away. But the burden is falling on us to-day and I suppose that people in the future are going to reap the results. No doubt there is some risk that too large a charge may be placed upon the taxpayers of this country. The noble Viscount told us, I think, that there was a growing principle in Europe to use taxation for the purposes of the redistribution of wealth. That may have a very dangerous reaction on industry, because it is obvious that if that goes rather far the strain on the creative side of national production may be so great as to break it down under the weight of taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, nods his head.
LORD ARNOLD: Shakes his head.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Shakes his head. I accept the correction, but even he, I think, admits that rates, on which he lays most stress, are a direct charge on industry. If they are going to be applied in that way—and we are asked to reduce local taxation as well as national taxation in the noble Earl's Motion—there is great danger that there we may suffer. This is a general consideration which must apply and mast be in the minds of those who are trying to consider whether we are spending too large a share of our national income to-day or not. I think I need say very little about the Social Services, or about the expenditure for Debt, or about the Post Office and other productive Departments of that kind, because really we have heard very little criticism of them at all. But I should like to say one word about one great economy that is being effected by the Government. They have undoubtedly increased the Sinking Fund, and the product of that Sinking Fund in reducing
558
Debt and in meeting our maturing charges must be of the very greatest value.
LORD ARNOLD: May I ask by now ouch the noble Viscount suggests they have increased the Sinking Fund?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was put up to £60,000,000.
LORD ARNOLD: That is only temporary.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord must not be in too much of a hurry. The Government are only just at the beginning of their career.
LORD ARNOLD: You said they had done so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: £10,000,000 on £50,000,000 is a good sum.
LORD ARNOLD: But it is only temporary.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord will wait he will see whether it is temporary. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the Report of the Colwyn Committee. That Report urges the Government to raise the Sinking Fund to £75,000,000 or even £100,000,000. With good management there is no height to which the Government might not rise. The noble Lord is a little premature. He took, I thought, rather a melancholy view of the amount that we were going to save by these conversions. He reduced it—and I think he will agree that he put it at the very lowest point—to about £26,000,000 a year, which seemed, in my humble idea, rather substantial.
LORD ARNOLD: That is the Colwyn Committee's figure.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is rather a substantial amount.
LORD ARNOLD: I said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought he took rather a despondent view of so substantial a sum, but I am glad to hear that he thinks a saving of £26,000,000 really considerable. Let me call your Lordships' attention to a few figures which show how important it is that a sacrifice of this kind should be made by the taxpayers of this country, a sacrifice which goes to swell the apparent huge bulk of national

559
Expenditure. In 1927–8 maturing liabilities are £300,000,000; in 1928–9, they amount to £470,000,000; in 1929–30, £540,000,000; and in 1930–31, £134,000,000. In view of the enormous importance of keeping up our credit and being able to carry through these conversions, I think that the Government, criticised as it is on so many grounds, has shown a considerable amount of courage in taking from the taxpayer so large an amount as £60,000,000 for the purpose of reaping in the future, as we hope, a very substantial help from their schemes.
My noble friend Lord Plymouth has gone fully into a number of points connected with the Expenditure of the years 1925–6 and 1926–7, but I should like to observe that I do not think that it was a fair criticism that was made by Lord Arnold—though he did not pursue the point—when he said that this Government had never taken a view looking to the future of what their schemes of Expenditure were going to be.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. What I said was that they did not do so in their first year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord limited it to the first year, but if they did not do so in the first year they certainly did so in the second and third years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always stated in his Budget speeches that he was budgeting for the future and looking ahead several years, and accordingly I think that this criticism falls to the ground. I want to make one or two observations upon those years. We must always remember, in estimating the action of the Government, that these automatic rises in Expenditure are very largely due to previous decisions of policy. I will take one instance. There is a rise in the Old Age Pensions of this year. What is the cause of it? It is due to the fact that seventy years ago the population was largely expanding. The Government cannot be held responsible for that, and we have got to the peak of the huge expansion of population in the Victorian days. That is one difficulty. Then again you have the great increase in the pensions of teachers, police and so on, and the resettlement of those pensions was due to the recommendation of independent Committees
560
which were set up and whose views were adopted by the Government. These, of course, are always rising and have not yet reached the peak. In this regard I think that full credit must be given for any reductions that can be made by the Government.
I do want to bear testimony, because it comes under my personal knowledge, to the tremendous efforts made in 1925–6 to reduce Expenditure as a set off to the large automatic increases. I happened to sit on the particular Committee that went through all the Government Departments' expenditure, and accordingly I know how closely and with what care the comb was applied to every branch of expenditure in those Departments and how large a sum was saved by the Government as a set-off to the increases. Everybody must admit that during the years 1925–6 and 1926–7 the schemes of the Government and their whole financial operations were terribly upset by the coal dispute, by the payment of £19,000,000 in one year and of £4,000,000 in another, by a long strike bringing with it all kinds of contributions to local authorities, and so on, by the Government, which have heavily swollen the Expenditure. There has not been very much criticism of the Government on that score.
I should like to say a word, however, regarding the Army, Navy and Air Force expenditure, because that has really borne the brunt of the attack delivered against the Government very vigorously by the noble Earl opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, also brought some criticism to bear, speaking from his great knowledge of the administrative side. I can only answer those points rather generally. As regards Army expenditure, I think that the record of the last two years in reductions has been a very remarkable one, because since 1923 there has been a reduction of no less than £10,000,000 in Army expenditure, which I think everybody will agree is really a very severe reduction. Again, looking at the growth of the Army expenditure between 1914 and 1927, non-effective charges have grown from just under £4,000,000 in 1914 to just under £8,000,000 in 1927. If you look at the effective provision per head in the Army, you will see that has risen from £130 in 1914 to £222 to-day.

561
That, of course, is accounted for partly by the increases of pay and by the rise of prices in comparison with those of 1914. There has been, of course, a great reduction in the number of men, but Lord Midleton rather suggested that the reduction had been only in men. On the contrary, there has been throughout the Army a very extensive administrative reduction as well, and when you consider the tremendous changes going on in the Army, the mechanisation of the Army, the introduction of new methods, of tanks and so on, it becomes obvious that a change-over from one system to another must always bring expenditure. You have only to take the case of the Cavalry and the tanks. You have to carry on both at the same time. It has not yet been settled, and will have to be settled by long experiment, Whether you can do without the Cavalry or not. The matter is still in suspense, and while that is going on you are bound to have a rather high expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, also made some references to particular eases. I have not been able to deal with the case of the oranges, because I have not had time to look it up, but there is no question that there is a great deal to be said in reply to him in the matter of hospitals. You have to keep a hospital bed ready for any soldier who is entitled to it, and you may have all sorts of infectious diseases at various times, so that you cannot crowd all these people in the same ward. You have to make ready for a variety of diseases and also for the seasonal arrivals of men passing out and going to and from this country, which makes it absolutely essential to have at any one time a larger number of beds than are occupied at that time. Let me say one word about his attack on the number of people looking after stores. The noble Earl is no longer in the House, but I should like to say that I do not think he realises the tremendous change that has taken place since those twelve years when he was in the War Office. There are now, for example, a large number of very complicated stores connected with wireless and other matters of that kind, which need a man of considerable technical attainments to look after them. Really you can draw no comparison between the Army now and the Army twenty years ago. I am told also, as regards the suggestion
562
that there were a large number of officials who had nothing to do, and who were trying to wind up these War Debts, that although the easier cases have been dealt with the more difficult ones remain. I am told that they are extremely complicated, and require close investigation, and so far from many of these men being unemployed, I think that many of your Lordships might be very sorry to be employed so severely as they are.
May I say that I think the Army is under a Minister who is very well versed in money matters and who is determined not to waste a penny. Let me run over the number of Committees which have examined into the Army in the last few years. There is first of all the Geddes Committee, of which Lord Inchcape was a member, and anybody who knows Lord Inchcape—I was able to persuade him to go out to India—knows what a terror he is when he gets into a public Department for the purpose of examination. Then there were the Churchill Committee, the Weir Committee, the Weir-Mond and the Colwyn Committees, and of course the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. These Committees have gone into this business again and again, and effect has been given to nearly all their recommendations. I doubt very much if my noble friend Lord Midleton, with all his knowledge of the War Office, were to form a sixth Committee and go into this business again, he would find many scrapings left. I think he would have to come and say that he thought the previous five Committees had pretty well done their work and had swept up any excesses there might be.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships about the Navy, but I should like to call your attention to this fact, that here, again, a number of subjects have to be dealt with by the Navy, quite apart from general staff, which they had not to deal with before. Some are rather minor matters, but sail they are full of detail. The labour questions, for instance, cannot be swept aside nowadays, but must be dealt with not only with sympathy but with a minuteness which these questions did not receive before the War. Then take—because one can only give instances of these things—naval stores. In 1914 they comprised 33,000 different items, but in 1925 they comprised 76,000

563
items, or more than double. There are departments dealing with guns, ammunition, torpedoes and mines, and there is also additional work owing to the Fleet becoming oil-burning instead of coal-burning. Therefore, before figures are compared and deductions drawn, surely it is necessary to consider what new sections of departments have been formed, and must have been formed to deal with the tremendous scientific extension, which is the result of the application of science to the Fighting Services during the War and of investigations after the War.
Look, too, at what a battleship costs—£6,000,000 or £7,000,000 now as compared with about £2,000,000 before the War. And so on through the cruisers and destroyers. I will only give one comparative figure. In 1906 we had 119 cruisers costing £53,000,000. In 1913 we had 110 costing £54,000,000. That went down to 47, and yet the cost in 1927 was £40,000,000, or very nearly the same cost for double the number before the War. It was the same through the whole range of expenditure, due to causes with which we are very familiar. I think it is very unfair to compare the Navy and Army expenditure with the expenditure on armaments before the War, because the Air Force has come in. It has, as it were, butted in between those more ancient Departments, and no one can say yet whether it will be possible in any degree to diminish expenditure on the Army or the Navy, even although reductions may have been made in Iraq and other places because the Air Force has to some extent taken the place of the Army in those countries. Surely, it is rather remarkable that we have been able to develop so large an Air Force as we now have for only about £15,500,000. I may remind your Lordships that the Government have effected considerable economy on the Air Force, because the great scheme for the development of the Air Force was started in 1923 and was to be completed in 1928–9. That has been considerably slowed down by the Government.
Therefore, although you may of course effect small deductions in many parts of our Defence Forces, I doubt very much, considering the close investigations that have gone on throughout those Forces in the last three years, whether you really
564
can make any substantial reduction, unless indeed you can get an international agreement. Your Lordships know perfectly well with what energy the present Government have thrown themselves into that task, what was done at Washington, how readily they have accepted the invitation of the United States to another Conference, and what efforts are being made by Lord Cecil and His Majesty's Government at Geneva with regard to a further limitation of armaments. I will only make this observation, if I may, that we must not, perhaps, expect too much from that, because, unfortunately, Russia, which is outside the League of Nations, is developing its forces very considerably. As we were told by the Secretary of State for War the other day, Russia has a standing Army of 650,000 men, or a million or so including the Militia and Volunteers, and 8,000,000 in the Reserve, and at the same time is developing on a larger scale than any other country her production of poison gas.
I cannot go through the different ways in which the Government have definitely reduced expenses in some of the Departments, but may I remind your Lordships of what has been done with regard to pay. Much has been said about this. Your Lordships remember the reduction in officers' pay, and the fact that the three Services have now been put on the new scale of pay, which cannot however mature for some years because we cannot break existing contracts. When that materialises, it will make a reduction of £2,200,000 a year in the Army Estimates alone. Let me take also the case of Pensions. There has been made a reduction in the expenses of administration from 15 d. in the £ of money expended to 7d. in the £, so that out of every pound voted for Pensions only 7d. is deducted for administration. One of the results of that is the usual result, that my right hon, friend the Minister of Pensions tells me he has been persistently abused because in the administration, not in the Pensions, he has tried to effect a reduction. That is the usual reward, I suppose, that all Governments get for virtue in this particular respect.
As regards possible future reductions in Expenditure—apart, I mean, from great changes of policy—I do not say that administrative reductions cannot be

565
made in certain respects, but to make any great reduction, a substantial splash as it were in the way of reduction—£20,000,000 or £30,000,000, or something like that—you can only do it by having a sort of general agreement through the whole of the Civil Service, by which all your employees, all your Post Office officials, policemen, teachers and so on, including, of course, members of the Government, would accept a reduction, which would have to be voluntarily arranged. I do not think there is the slightest chance of any such voluntary arrangement being made and I know quite well what would be the fate of any Government which tried to make a reduction of that kind. Its existence would be short, painful, and very disagreeable indeed.
I think there are only three directions in which a reduction of Expenditure may be hoped for. The first I have mentioned, and that is by the constant improvement of our credit and the conversion of large Debts as they fall in into a lower denomination. The second is that we might—and I hope we may—be able through international agreement to have a general reduction or limitation of armaments, always, of course, bearing in mind the special conditions of this country. The third opportunity one can see is that we might, by a large trade development, be able to bear more easily the heavy burdens which are upon us to-day. We might hope that 1d. in the pound of Income Tax would produce more than the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 that it does now, that the unemployed would be absorbed, and that all the charges falling on the poor rate, the cost of unemployment, and other matters, might be reduced. But, in order to obtain that fortunate state of things, we must have peace at home and peace abroad, and I think this House will bear this testimony to the Government, that at least they are doing their best year after year to secure peace abroad and—what seems to be much more difficult in many respects—to ensure industrial peace at home. I understand that the debate is to be continued next week, but I cannot think that any charge of extravagance has been made out this evening.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Oxford and Asquith, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday next.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned till Tuesday next.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till Tuesday next.

LAW OF LIBEL AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Order of Wednesday the 2nd instant, referring the Law of Libel Amendment Bill to a Select Committee, be discharged, and that it is desirable that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name respecting the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.