Sitting of 23 March 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
VIVISECTION.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to present a petition to this honourable House signed by 15,286 inhabitants of London and other places praying that the practice of vivisection be prohibited by law.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY (NINGPO).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has information about the situation at Ningpo and the occupation of the Ningpo Trinity College belonging to the Church Missionary Society; and whether negotiations are in progress between His Maesty's Government and the Chinese Government, or the governing body concerned, for the return of this property, and also for the return of the Church Missionary Society's hospital at Hangchow?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I am informed by the Church Missionary Society that a telegram received this week reports the threatened confiscation of their property at Hangshow, but that the hospital there is still open. Apart from this I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 14th instant.
    His Majesty's Minister at Peking has been instructed to furnish a report on this matter. He states that a preliminary report was posted on the 12th instant, and as it is being sent by the quickest route, it should reach me in a few days'
    362
    time, when I will endeavour to give the hon. and gallant Member the information he desires.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the second part of my question as to negotiations for the restoration of this property, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving instructions that negotiations be tried to see if this property could not be returned by agreement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt that the Consular officers will do anything they can to secure any return of the property taken, but I think before issuing any instructions I had better wait to receive their report, and see whether, in fact, instructions are required.

    WEI-HAI-WEI.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an offer for the unconditional surrender of Wei-hai-Wei has been made to the Peking Government; and whether a similar offer has been made to the Nationalist Government of China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the reply given to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Forrest) on the 7th instant. The reply to the second part of his question is in the negative.

    CANTON.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the position of the foreign community at Canton; whether any attack has been made on the settlement at Shameen during the present year; whether foreigners are able to move freely in the native city of Canton; and whether any negotiations are taking place with the Nationalist Government as to the future of the foreign settlement at Canton?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In January, as a result of mendacious propaganda based on the events at Hankow, a violent agitation was worked up in Canton, and it was threatened that the concessions there would be occupied by force. Preparations were made to defend the

    363
    British and French concessions against a mob attack, and arrangements were made to evacuate women and children in case of an emergency. The British, United States and French consular representatives warned the Chinese authorities against a repetition at Canton of the tactics employed at Hankow, and the demonstrations passed off without any overt act of hostility.
    I have no precise information regarding the third part of the question, but the situation in Canton has since continued to be outwardly calm, and no cases of molestation have recently come to my notice.
    As regards the fourth part, the proposals communicated to Mr. Chen by Mr. O'Malley in January declared the willingness of His Majesty's Government to discuss and enter into arrangements for the modification of the municipal arrangements of all British concessions, but no negotiations have as yet been initiated with regard to that at Cantos.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Government of Canton had any part in preventing the threatened disorder?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be very sorry to "say exactly how far the authorities connected with the Canton Government or nominally under their control are, or are not, concerned in particular acts of disorder, or in preventing acts of disorder. The position in China is rather anarchical, certainly very disturbed, and one finds very different conditions, and, apparently, different dispositions prevailing among different authorities in different parts.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are disorders always to be blamed on the Canton Government, and when good order is maintained, are they to receive no credit?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a suggestion by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I prefer to adhere to my answer.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Cecil was expressing the policy of the Cabinet when he stated, in a speech
    364
    delivered at Trowbridge, that if the Cantonese Government would bring their dispute before the League of Nations His Majesty's Government would welcome that step; and, if so, whether this offer has been officially conveyed to the Cantonese, Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that what my Noble Friend said was that if the Cantonese themselves were to desire to bring the matter before the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government would desire to raise no meticulous objections, but would be only too glad to get the matter transferred to an atmosphere where a real settlement could be arrived at. This is in complete accord with the last paragraph of the statement of British policy in China addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on 8th February. The text of that paragraph was given to the House on 16th February in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. HARRIS: Has any communication, direct or indirect, been made to the Cantonese Government that the Government are willing to support any such claim?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no communication has been made direct to them.

    LABOUR CONTRACTS, FRANCE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who have gone to France for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date who have been in possession of a labour contract known as a contrat de travail; and whether an official warning is issued to all British subjects travelling to France who are seeking employment that this is essential?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The labour contract is obtained by the prospective employer in France from the French authorities, and is at no time referred to a Department of His Majesty's Government. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is in the affirmative in so far as concerns persons who apply for a passport. In the case of persons already in

    365
    possession of a passport there is no means of ensuring that they are aware of the regulations. With the view, however, of giving the widest possible publicity to the requirements of the French regulations, several notices have been issued to the Press in addition to information given in this House.
    Colonel DAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how long these contracts arc available?
    Sir A CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say without notice, but I am not sure that it is given.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SAAR INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY POLICE.
    Mr. PONSONBY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ho 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: The resolution adopted by the Council on 12th March, 1927, is as follows:
    "The Council takes note of the report of the Governing Commission dated 18th February, 1927, with regard to the freedom of transport and transit on the railways of the Saar Territory.
    The organisation proposed by the Governing Commission will be put into effect within a maximum delay of three months and therefore the troops stationed in the Territory of the Saar will be withdrawn within that period.
    The Railway Commission and the Railway Defence Force will be under the orders of the Governing Commission and will be responsible to the Governing Commission.
    The Railway Defence Force can only take action affecting the population under exceptional circumstances. The strength of 800 which is indicated for this force represents the maximum. Should the Governing Commission think that a reduction of this number is possible, it is entitled to take the necessary measures to that effect without being obliged previously to refer the matter to the Council."
    The report of the Saar Governing Commission of 18th February, which will in due course be published in the official journal of the League of Nations, recommended that there should be placed at its disposal a railway commission and a railway defence force of 800 men for the
    366
    exclusive purpose of safeguarding transit and transport through the Saar territory; further, that in case of necessity it should be able to call in two battalions of French troops from outside the territory.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether these 800 railway defence force troops are paid for by the Saar people or by the French Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, they have to be paid for by the Governments, from whose forces they are drawn.

    WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the States where the national or local laws fail to comply with existing international conventions as to the white slave traffic, as stated in the League of Nations Committee's Report?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. In the Report the authors state categorically that they wish to make it clear that they do not intend to single out any particular country, or to suggest any criticism whatever of its authorities.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not important that these particulars should be known, so that those involved can be pilloried by the public?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my Noble Friend has not read the Report. If he does so, he will find that the Report uses this language:
    "We wish to make it clear that when countries are referred to by name it is not intended to single out any particular country or to Suggest any criticism whatever of its authorities. All nations alike are equally desirous of stamping out this evil, but the circumstances of some countries undoubtedly make the task more difficult than it is for others. The possibility of further action must depend on finding the weak points in existing international machinery, and in trying to strengthen it by effective co-operation."

    COMMISSION ON ARMAMENTS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. LOWTHasked the Secretary of State for War what provision is made in the Army Estimates for the military representatives of this country on the Permanent Advisory Commission on Armaments in connection with the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): Approximately £1,300 is included in Army Estimates in respect of the pay and allowances of the British military representative on the Commission.

    ROTARY CONFERENCE (PASSPORTS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a. rotary conference is taking place at Ostend in the month of June, which will be attended by many delegates, including a large number of influential citizens of the United States of America; and whether he will give them the same facilities, as far as visas are concerned, as those given to the American Legionaries?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I should explain that the position of the persons who are to attend the Rotary Conference differs a good deal from that of the American Legionaries. The treatment to be accorded to the former is under consideration.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Does not my right hon. Friend think it worth while to take any steps to encourage people to come to this country?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That question is framed in rather wide terms.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But, surely, in view of the position of these gentlemen, would it not be advisable to exercise any means possible to bring them here?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question put to me a moment ago, which was whether it was worth while to take any steps to induce anyone to visit this country.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that this visa for American passports is rather a slur upon the Americans, could not the right hon. Gentleman do what is possible to make exceptions such as these in order to assist in developing a mind both in America and here which would do away with this visa altogether?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We should be glad to make large changes if only we could get the same facilities for our
    368
    citizens going to America as it is suggested we should grant to Americans coming here.

    YUGOSLAVIA AND ITALY.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any corfirmation from His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade of the military preparation;; in Yugoslavia of which the Italian Government have complained in their note to His Majesty's Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have received reports from His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade on certain measures taken for increasing the efficiency of the Yugo-Slay Army. They are represented as steps taken in the ordinary course of army reform. The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the speech of the Yugo-Slay Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Skuptchina and his repudiation of any idea of hostilities.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any intention of setting in motion the machinery for convening a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to deal with the Italy-Albania-Yugoslavia crisis?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; my information does not lead me to think that recourse to the League will be necessary.

    ITALY AND ALBANIA (TREATY).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the last concluded Treaty between Italy and Albania has yet been deposited at Geneva; and whether its provisions can now be made known to the House?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the Treaty has been deposited at Geneva, but the monthly lists of Treaties registered at the League of Nations, which are issued by the Secretariat-General, only appear two or three months late and that for February is, I understand, not yet available; but I should be happy to show a copy of the Treaty to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he so desires.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUBMARINES L22 AND H 42.
    Colonel DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received a Report with reference to the occurrence in which Submarine L 22 got into difficulties on a shingle bank off Clarence Pier, Portsmouth; whether Submarine H 42, which went to its assistance, met with a similar mishap; if an inquiry has been held, and, if so, will he state the result of the same?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The Admiralty have received and considered reports of this incident, including that of a Court of Inquiry. Briefly the facts are that the Commanding Officer of "L 22," in attempting a difficult turn, by an error of judgment underestimated the probable effect of the strong ebb tide and the prevailing wind, with the result that his vessel ran aground. Submarine"H48,"summoned to "L 22's" assistance, and set an impossible task of pulling her off, grounded also. Neither vessel was damaged. The Admiralty have taken action appropriate to a case of error of judgment, but do not consider that the facts disclosed require a court martial.

    WARSHIPS (NEW CONSTRUCTION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what period of the year the new construction of warships for this year would have been commenced normally if no invitation had been received from the President of the United States of America to a conference on naval shipbuilding; and at what date in this year will this new construction commence, especially of the three cruisers to be built this year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Normally the orders would be placed in the early autumn. This year we had decided, before the message from President Coolidge arrived, to order the two minesweepers in September and the rest in February.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then this postponement has nothing at all to do with the coming conference, and in that case will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of a further postponement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; as I said in the answer, it had nothing to do with the coming conference, but I am not prepared to consider any further postponement.

    SHORT-SERVICE SEAMEN.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will furnish the number of short-service ordinary seamen entered between the 1st April, 1926, and the 31st January, 1927?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The number of short-service seamen entered between 1st April, 1926, and 31st January, 1927, was 519.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if that is the number the Admiralty expected?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes, I think that is so.

    HAMMOCKS (WATERPROOF COVERS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the introduction of a number of waterproof covers for hammocks for use when ratings are travelling, observing that at present there is no protection against rain or dirt on railway platforms and guards' vans, and that nammocks frequently become wet and dirty whilst ratings are proceeding from one ship to another?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This matter is already receiving consideration.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. And gallant Gentleman say what is the cost of the waterproof covers?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot give that information at the moment.

    CYCLISTS (LEATHER GLOVES).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent permission for naval ratings who cycle and motor cycle to wear brown leather gauntlet gloves, he will grant permission for chief and petty officers to wear brown leather gloves as an article of uniform, and thus place them on an equal footing with sergeants of marines who are junior in rank to them?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer is in the negative
    Sir B. FALLE: Could my hon. and gallant Friend give me any reason?
    Lieut.-colonel HEADLAM: The reason is that chief petty officers and petty officers are at present allowed to wear white woollen gloves and other ratings blue woollen gloves.

    CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
    Major OWEN (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can arrange for one of the two B-class cruisers, which are to be built in His Majesty's dock yards, to be built at Devonport?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The allocation of the two "B" class cruisers of the 1927 New Programme proposed to be built in His Majesty's dockyards is one to Portsmouth and one to Devonport.

    SUNK SUBMARINES.
    18. Major OWEN (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further experiments are being conducted into the methods whereby a sunken submarine may make its position known; and. whether there is any expectation that these experiments may lead to the discovery of a satisfactory device?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: A trial apparatus of a new type is being fitted in a submarine and experiments will shortly be carried out.

    RECRUITS (INVALIDING).
    Major OWEN (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a greater percentage of recruits joining the Royal Navy are now invalided on account of some physical or medical disability within 12 months of their engagement, as compared with before the War; and whether the conditions of service are now more arduous?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The percentage of invalidings in 1925 was 2·85, as compared with 2·51, 2·48 and 2·73 in 1913, 1912 and 1911 respectively. No reliable deductions can be drawn from these figures and there is no evidence to show that the conditions of service are now more arduous.

    MIDLAND COAL, COKE, AND IRON COMPANY.
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders have been placed by the Department with the Midland Coal, Coke, and Iron Company, Limited, of Apedale, Staffordshire, during the 10 years ending the 31st December, 1926, and during 1927; the value of such contracts; and if further orders are contemplated?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reply to the first part of the question is none, so that the second part does not arise. No direct orders to this firm are in contemplation.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILES.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of juveniles who registered for employment obtained employment in 1926; and what percentage of these had good prospects of permanency?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I regret that the information asked for is not available. The only figure I can give is the percentage of vacancies filled to vacancies notified, namely, 82.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman collect information from the juvenile Employment Exchanges?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not certain whether it would be possible, but I know that in any case it would be a matter of some difficulty. I have some figures which do not amount to actual percentages, and all that information I will gladly show to the hon. Member if he wishes.

    INSURED WORKERS (30 CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the findings of the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, he will state the total number of insured workers and the number who have made 30 or more contributions in the preceding two years?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At July, 1926, the estimated number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain, including

    373
    persons insured under special schemes was 11,773,700. An estimate is being prepared of the proportion of those claiming benefit who have paid 30 or more contributions in the preceding two years, but it is not yet available.
    Mr. THOMSON: How soon will the information be available?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not say off-hand. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question later; or, if he chooses, I will try to find out.

    BLANESBURGH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether any estimate has been made by the actuaries or his advisers as to the total saving providing the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee are adopted?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Government Actuary, published as Appendix No. 2 to the Report of Lord Blanesburgh's Committee.

    RELIEF SCHEMES (WOMEN).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of women employed upon unemployment relief schemes undertaken with Government assistance during 1926?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No schemes providing for the direct employment of women were submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee or Ministry of Transport during 1926.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (SHOREDITCH).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Labour what, if any, increase there has been during the last 12 months in the number of cases and in the staff at the Shoreditch Employment Exchange; and whether it is proposed, and, if so, where and when, to erect a permanent building to provide proper accommodation for the staff side as well as the employers and employès using the Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 14th March, 1927, the number of persons registered as unemployed at the Shoreditch Employment Exchange was 5,021, and the staff in post 44. On the corresponding
    374
    date last year the number registered as unemployed was 5,232, and the staff in post 43.
    A permanent building, to provide accommodation for the whole staff, as well as for employers and employés using the Exchange, is in course of construction in Kingsland Road, and already the Men's Department is in occupation of the new premises. It is hoped that the remainder of the building will be completed in the course of a few months. The staffing position at the moment is affected by the disturbance and dislocation caused through building operations.

    FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the victimisation of workers by certain employers of labour who are on the War Office, Admiralty, and India list; and whether he will consider the desirability of strengthening the Fair Wages Clause to deal with such cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received no representations on the point raised in the first part of the question.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter if I send him particulars?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly, I will gladly consider any particulars.
    Mr. SHORT: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has power to deal with this matter under the Fair Wages Clause?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I should have to refer it to the different Departments concerned.

  SCOTLAND.

    SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. COUPARasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the approach of the potato-lifting season, followed by the hay and grain harvest and the fruit-picking season, a period extending from the spring to the autumn, he will instruct the Employment Exchanges in Scotland to draw the attention of unemployed persons, particularly young men and women, to the special opportunities of securing

    375
    healthy employment; and whether special arrangements will be made to notify employers of such seasonal labour of the number of hands available?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir, the Employment Exchanges in Scotland will, as formerly, do what they can to bring employers of seasonal labour into touch with unemployed workpeople who are suitable for this employment.
    Mr. T. HENDERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of making arrangements so that the conditions will be somewhat decent?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think we always consider telling people to whom communications are made the state of the employment which is offered, but we cannot control it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that there is no need for employing young children in this work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting beside me and heard the answer.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is for his benefit that I asked my question.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that out of 17 secondary schools in Glasgow only four are non-fee paying; that the Glasgow Education. Authority are proposing to impose fees in Shawlands Academy, which has been for many years a non-fee-paying school; and if he will regard three non-fee-paying secondary schools in Glasgow as satisfying the conditions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Department have addressed a communication to the Glasgow Education Authority regarding a proposal to charge fees at Shaw-lands Academy, and now await the Authority's reply. Until that has been received and considered, it is not possible for me to express any opinion on the questions involved.

    TILMANSTONE COLLIERIES COMPANY.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Tilmanstone, Kent, Collieries Company have given 14 days' notice to their 900 enployés to terminate their engagement owing to the difficulty the company experience in transporting coal from the pit-head to Dover on reasonable terms; and whether his Department propose to take any steps to try to prevent this stoppage?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware of the circumstances referred to. The company, I understand, are convinced that they cannot make the colliery pay its way, unless they can reduce expenses of transport by means of an aerial ropeway to Dover Harbour. An application for the necessary rights was made to my Department under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and was duly referred to the Railway and Canal Commission Court for decision. The Court, however, have refused the application. and though, I understand, they intimated that they would be prepared to consider the matter again if it were brought before them in a different way, my Department have no power to initiate any action.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a great pity that 900 men should be thrown out of work because the Railway and Canal Commissioners decline to allow the construction of this ropeway? Does not the hon. and gallant Member think a ropeway would materially reduce the costs; and may I ask whether he will not do anything to assist in this matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not criticise the decisions of the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the screens of this mine are over a railway, and will nothing be done to get reduced rates from the railway?
    Colonel LANE FOX: As the hon. Member knows, negotiation has been going on of that point, and I hope very much that we have not heard the last of it. Anyone who reads the judgment will realise that it is possible that further action will be taken
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. May I say that the last thing I wanted to do was to criticise a ruling of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but I was desirous that, if possible, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should do something to mitigate this evil, so that these men should not be thrown out of employment?
    Mr. PALING: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House the main reason. for refusing this application?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. Member had better read the judgment. It is a very long judgment, and many reasons are given, and I do not think it would be wise for me. to single out one. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) that anything we can do to help in this matter we sha. I do, but I have no power.
    Mr. BATEY: Seeing that the Secretary for Mines says he has no power to hold an inquiry into the stoppage of this pit, I want to ask whether the Minister of Labour has any power to hold an inquiry?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not certain that any dispute has arisen that would cause me to consider having a Court of Inquiry. Certainly there is as yet no case where I could exercise that discretion.
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister of Labour consider that there is no dispute when 900 men are given notice? Would not that be a dispute?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member is imagining a dispute in this case.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the real cause of the possible termination of these workmen's contracts the cost of royalties and wayleaves which are charged at present and which the owners cannot pay?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. That reason has not been given by any responsible person, as far as I have heard.

    SHIPS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, in spite of the adverse vote
    378
    of the delegate of the British Government on the governing body of the International Labour Organisation in January last on the question of inscribing the international regulation of hours of labour on board ship, the governing body, by a majority vote, nevertheless resolved provisionally to inscribe this question on the agenda of such a conference, His Majesty's Government will take such steps as are in their power to ensure the success of this conference or, on the other hand, to make clear their reasons for opposing it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is hoped that any necessary regulation of the hours of labour on board ship will be effected by national agreements which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government should precede any attempt to reach international agreement on so large a subject.
    Mr. YOUNG: Has there been any change of policy?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My records of negotiations between the parties show that the policy of His Majesty's Government has been precisely the same for several years past.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PARACHUTES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can state the makers of the parachute now in use in the Royal Air Force, and in which country these parachutes are made; whether any recent tests have been made or demonstrations given for the use of the Salvator parachute invented by Lieutenant Freri, either at Hendon or elsewhere; and, if so, when and with what result?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, the makers are the Irving Air Chute of Great Britain, Limited, of Letchworth, where the parachutes are being made. As regards the remaining parts,, the position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 15th December last.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Salvator parachute has never failed yet, and does he not think the saving of life is of paramount importance?
    Sir S. HOARE: I should not like to express an opinion on the Salvator parachute until we have carried our experiments further than we have done.
    Major-General Sir FREDERICK SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Air whether delivery of the 2,230 parachutes against orders outstanding on 7th August, 1925, was duly completed by December, 1926; whether, in accordance with the arrangements made, one-third of these were manufactured in this country; whether further orders have been placed; if so, whether manufacture will take place in this country; whether British material will be used; and whether,, before any such order was placed, every available British type of parachute was thoroughly tried out?
    Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first and second parts of the question, the number of parachutes due for delivery by December, 1926, was 1,500 and these were all actually delivered in June, 1926, the contract date thus being anticipated by some months. The contract was for 2,261 parachutes in all, as stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich on the 25th November, 1925, and of these 7G1 were to be manufactured in this country and are at present in process of delivery. The answer to the third and fourth parts is in the affirmative. As regards the fifth part, all the material and components other than the silk will be British. As regards the last part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 25th November, 1925, and to my speeches in the House, on 26th February and 24th June,, 1925, explaining the circumstances in which the contract with the Irving Company was placed.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Baronet say whether we are pledged to take a further contract for any further number next year?
    Sir S. HOARE: There is a contract running until December, 1927.

    HOME DEFENCE FORCE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the total bomb-carrying capacity of the 16 bombing squadrons which form part of the Home Defence Air Force?
    Sir S. HOARE: It would not be in the public interest to give tin's information.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the inclusion of a preponderance of bombing squadrons in the Home Defence Air Force, he will state the function of such bombing squadrons in the scheme of home defence?
    Sir S. HOARE: Is would not be in the public interest to give this information.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public are very interested in knowing what the arrangements are to kill others?
    Mr. THURTLE: May we take it as certain that these bombing squadrons are not intended for service in this country?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the doctrine of war is that offence is the best form of defence, and why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that honestly?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the Paper. I do not think it is necessary for me to explain to the House the principles of air warfare, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I think, fully aware of them.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the use of bombing squadrons to bomb the other people first, and why not say so?

    DIVIXE SERVICE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if attendance at divine service is compulsory for all ranks at service air stations?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MAXTON: Are the bombing pilots compelled to attend with other units, or are they exempted?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, it applies to all units, equally.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the doctrine of the Golden Rule is inculcated to the bombing pilots at this divine service?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely that is a very proper question, Mr. Speaker.

    FLYING ACCIDENTS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, in his recent investigation into the cause of flying accidents, he made any inquiry into the rules governing the consumption of alcoholic drink by flying officers, engineer officers, and mechanics during flying hours; and whether he received any complaints of overwork by flying officers?
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Before this question is answered, may I ask whether it does not offend the rule against offensive insinuations?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it necessarily does. It is not a crime to consume alcoholic liquor.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: On that point of Order, may I say that if the hon. Gentleman had been present during the discussion of the Air Estimates, he would have been aware that I made no charge of excessive drinking at all, and had no intention whatever of doing so.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): For the reasons which I gave at some length in the course of the discussion on Air Estimates on the 10th March, I am not prepared to make public the detailed results of my investigation into the causes of flying accidents, though I have informed the House in general terms of my main conclusions. Accordingly, I deprecate inquiries on points of detail such as those contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Since, however, it has been suggested in certain quarters that the consumption of alcohol has had some bearing on recent accidents, the House may like to know that I made very careful inquiries into this aspect of the matter, and satisfied myself completely that the consumption of alcohol amongst Royal Air Force personnel in general and officers in particular, far from being excessive, is very small. I also satisfied myself that there was no evidence to show that consumption of alcohol had caused or indeed contributed to any accidents.
    I may add that there was also no evidence that overwork by flying officers had been the cause of any accidents.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: While agreeing with the Prime Minister that there is no excessive consumption of alcoholic
    382
    drink in the Air Force, may I ask if he is aware that the colleagues or even the commanding officers of flying officers are not likely to make definite charges which might get any of their comrades into trouble; but it is well known that in some few cases—I have some knowledge of this subject—moderate quantities of alcoholic liquor have been consumed immediately before flights, and all scientific opinion holds that this is a contributory cause of accidents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I have a reply to that question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is making rather serious allegations.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Apart from the question altogether of the drinking of alcoholic liquors, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Army Quarterly" has a special article dealing with all the various points, and which seem to indicate very definite reasons for these accidents Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that those cogent reasons are worthy of being answered, and a report being made upon them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That hardly arises. I have not seen that article.

    HALTON (COST).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for Air the, total cost of Halton?
    Sir S. HOARE: The total capital exponditure at the Royal Air Fcrce station at Halton under the capital sub heads of the buliding works Vote, Air Estimates, from 1st April, 1918, to 31st March, 1926, was approximately £2,131,000, but of this nearly a million was expenditure on wartime services and represents largely temporary buildings which have since been either reconditioned or demolished.

    RUSSIA (AIR PILOTS).
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any official information as to the number of new pilots trained during the year 1926 by Soviet Russia; and whether he can give any comparative estimate with regard to other European Powers?
    Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware no official information has been published upon the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

    AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES (MILEAGE COSTS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the average costs per mile flown for British aeroplanes for each of the years since 1921, and the total number of miles flown each year?
    Sir S. HOARE: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the reply, which contains figures in a tabulated form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    On the assumption that the purpose of the hon. Member's question is to ascertain the cost to the State per mile flown resulting from the division of the total amount of the subsidies paid each financial year by the total mileage flown on all British Air Transport Services, the figures are as follow:

    Average cost

    Year.

    Miles flown.

    per mile.

    s.

    d.

    1921–22

    …

    …

    259,000

    …

    5

    10

    1922–23

    …

    …

    778,000

    …

    4

    8

    1923–24

    …

    …

    1,004,000

    …

    2

    6

    1924–25

    …

    …

    890,000

    …

    3

    1½

    1925–26

    …

    …

    865,000

    …

    3

    2

    These costs, however, are misleading as no account is taken in them of the progressive increase in the capacity of the machines employed.
    More comparable figures are furnished by the cost to the State per ton mile in respect of Imperial Airways Limited 's services, which is as follows since that company began to operate: —

    Cost per ton mile.

    …

    …

    …

    s.

    d.

    1924–25

    …

    …

    …

    7

    0

    1925–26

    …

    …

    …

    6

    11½

    1926–27 (estimated)

    …

    …

    …

    5

    5¾

    INDEPENDENT OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to accede to the request from the Independent Omnibus Owners' Association asking him to receive a deputation with reference to the offer of Lord Ashfield to purchase the whole of their omnibuses?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand from statements in the Press that the offer referred to by the hon. Member has been refused. If, however, the Association are still desirous of bringing a deputation and will communicate with the Minister of Transport, the Minister will be prepared to receive it and hear the representations which it is desired to make.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the offer of Lord Ashfield to purchase the whole of the independent omnibuses in London; and, in view of the fact that the fares on these omnibuses are in some cases lower than the fares charged by other forms of passenger transport, what steps he proposes to take to protect the public from an increase in fares?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand, however, from the Press that the offer has been declined. On the general question of fares, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to a question by my Hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), a copy of which I am sending him.

    WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
    Miss BONDFIELDasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has examined the Report of the committee set up to examine the position in relation to the Washington Convention on Hours of Labour with a view of coming to an early conclusion; and, if so, whether he can state the policy of the Government with regard to the ratification of this International Convention?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the Government contemplating calling a conference of the smaller nations, who were not at the Conference of the chief countries held last year, before coining to a final decision on this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    BALLOON JUMPING.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department are experimenting in balloon jumping; whether it is considered to have civil possibilities; and whether he can make any statement as to the present position and probable future progress of this invention?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the other parts, there has not, so far as I am aware, been any suggestion that the practice would do more than afford a novel form of sport, and I doubt whether it would benefit aviation in general.

    BENGAL ORDINANCE (INTERNMENTS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of men interned under the Bengal Ordinance; and the length of time they have been detained?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The latest figures I have, correct up to about March 12th, arc a total of 142 now detained under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, of whom 54 are in gaol, T5 detained in a specified area in villages, and 13 detained in their own homes. Of the total number, approximately one-third were arrested in October, 1924, and the others at different times later.
    Mr. THURTLE: Could the Noble Lord say how many of these internees it is contemplated releasing in the immediate future?
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member had better put a question down as to that.

    ARMY HOSPITAL BEDS (COST).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for War the cost of a hospital bed per day and how it is, approximately, made up?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The estimated daily cost of each occupied bed is 13s. 7d., of which 2s. 6d. is for the patient's maintenance, 7s. 4d. for staff, and 3s. 9d. for standing charges.

    INSPECTORS OF CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase has taken place in the police force during last year; and what is the nature of the additional work devolving on it that necessitates the appointment of an additional inspector of constabulary at a salary of £1,000 a year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The addition to the strength of the Forces under inspection in September, 1925-26, was 590 men. The addition to the number of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, however, was not necessitated by any additions to the strength or the duties of the police forces, but by the growth of the work devolving on His Majesty's inspectors themselves in their capacity as advisers to the Home Office on matters of police discipline and administration.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to accept an excuse like that for this addition to the expenditure of the Home Office; and might I ask him what are the reasons at this particular juncture why the Home Office needs more advice than it needed in the past?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I do ask the House to accept the statement I have made. In answer to the second part, the Home Office has for the last year or two taken a very great interest in the discipline and management of the various police forces. I have had two of His Majesty's inspectors constantly at work, and, in my view, the appointment of a third is essential.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that a retired pensioned officer has been appointed, would not the interests of efficiency have been better served if it had been a younger man?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think not, I think that, for the purposes of inspection of the constabulary of different counties and districts, it is very essential to have a man of great experience. This gentleman has served in the police forces through all the ranks, and has retired from the post of chief constable. He knows the police from A to Z, and I think he will make a most admirable inspector.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to us that there has been any serious lack of discipline in the police force in recent times'?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made no such suggestion.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the appointment due in any way to the provisions in the Police Bill that is now before the House having caused an increase in the duties of the Inspector-General of Constabulary?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I came to my conclusion entirely without reference to that Bill. I thought that there would be ample work, in looking after the interests of the police throughout the country, for a third inspector.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right. hon. Gentleman say what pension this gentleman is receiving, in addition to his salary of £1,000 a year?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
    Sir F. HALL: Has not he earned that pension?

    DISTURBANCE, ST. HELEN'S (WATCH COMMITTE'S INQUIRY).
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the St. Helen's Watch Committee in a recent case arising out of the strike; whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of St. Helen's was entirely ignored during the inquiry; and if the inquiry was in accordance with Home Office Rules and Regulations?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am making inquiry, but until I have received a full report I shall not be in a position to say anything further.
    Mr. SEXTON: Would it surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that there is not the slightest foundation for this suggestion, but that he was at the inquiry when the case was dealt with and that he refused to give evidence? That is the evidence that I have.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir, nothing would surprise me. I have said nothing at all as to the accuracy of the statement made in this question; all that
    388
    I have said is that I have asked for a report, and when I get it I shall be in a position to answer the question.
    Mr. SEXTON: When the right hon. Gentleman has the report, will he also make his own inquiries into the conduct of this Chief Constable during the riot?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I had better get the report—it will be the report of the Watch Committee—first, and then consider the report.
    Mr. HAYES: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already had a report, in which it is disclosed that the Chief Constable was in fact present during the Watch Committee's inquiry?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As to that I personally cannot say. I thought it right, in consequence of this question, to ask for a full report on the whole matter from St. Helen's, and until I get it I cannot say anything further.
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there a right of appeal against the Watch Committee's decision?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.

    WAR RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in regard to the amount of reparation received by this country, in any one year this country has received from Germany and her other foreign debtors the equivalent amount that she has paid to America?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No, Sir. Up to the end of the calendar year 1926, the Exchequer has paid to the United States Government approximately £135½ millions, and has received for German Reparations and for War Debts from the Allies approximately £44 millions.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts due for payment from this country, and expected to be paid to this country, for War debts in the forthcoming financial year?
    Mr. McNEILL: The payment due from this country to the United States

    389
    Government during the next financial year is £33 millions. The receipts from Allied War Debts are estimated at £10,350,000.

    EMPIRE TOBACCO.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of imported tobacco is Empire grown; and what percentage is produced in the Union of South Africa?
    Mr. McNEILL: Of the total imports of tobacco in 1926, about 15 per cent. was consigned from Empire countries, and about ¼ per cent. from the Union of South Africa.

    ANGLO-FRENCH GUARANTEED TURKISH LOAN.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the £72.000 a year that His Majesty's Government is advancing to make up the deficiency on the Anglo-French Guaranteed Turkish Loan of 1855 is being advanced to the Egyptian Government or to whom, and is it treated as a Grant-in-Aid or a loan; and why the French Government is not bearing its share of this deficiency on our joint guarantee to the bondholders?
    Mr. McNEILL: The interest on the Ottoman Loan of 1855 is guaranteed jointly and severally by the British and French Governments. Egypt having defaulted in the payment of the £72,000 per annum due by her since July, 1924, His Majesty's Government have advanced to the agents for the service of the loan the sums necessary to cover the payment of the coupons, of which His Majesty's Government are the guarantors. When the Egyptian Government put an end to their default, these advances will be recovered, and in the meantime the question of the joint liability of France is under discussion with the French Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much longer are we going to continue paying this money, when France owes an equal share with us in the guarantee?
    Mr. McNEILL: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, the liability is
    390
    joint and several, and we are discussing the matter with the French Government at the present moment.
    Sir F. WISE: Have we made any application to the Egyptian Government for a refund?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not say that without notice.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will application be made to the Egyptian Government for this money?
    Mr. McNEILL: I understand that there is a very good prospect of the Egyptian Government making good the default and paying the arrears.

    TRAINING FARMS.
    Viscount SANDON (for Major RUGGLES-BRISE)asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the Returns submitted to the House last month which show that in 1926 the two training farms in East Anglia operated by the Minister of Labour trained for migration to the King's Dominions overseas 115 young men at a cost, exclusive of capital charges, of 50s. and 53s. per head per week, and that the Salvation Army, at its training college at Hadleigh, Essex, trained 923 youths at a cost of 30s. per head per week; whether, having regard to the state of unemployment in this country and the unsatisfied demands there are in the overseas Dominions for such trained men and the fact that the Salvation Army, for financial reasons only, is compelled in the coming year to curtail its activities in this branch of work, he will take the necessary steps to see that this service is utilised to its full capacity?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I doubt if the estimates of cost quoted in the question can safely be compared, as the ages of the trainees and the extent of the training given are different. There are no funds at the disposal of my Department out of which assistance could be given to the Salvation Army farm, but I understand that a contribution towards the cost of training, which will shortly be raised to one-half of 30s., namely, 15s. a week, is made by the Oversea Settlement Department.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Is any portion of these fees paid by the trainees recoverable when they migrate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give an answer off-hand, but I will make inquiries.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Have all these trainees migrated, or will they be migrated?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: For the labour training farms I have given the figures in previous answers. The greater part of those who have been trained have migrated, but they have not all been trained for overseas.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the numbers now being trained as many as at this time last year, or less?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think at the establishments which were open last year there are as many being trained now as before. Arrangements have been made to shorten the course at one of the training establishments, which means that more will pass through in the course of a year.

    BRITISH GUIANA (PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects that the Report of the recent Parliamentary Committee to British Guiana will be published?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I understand that the Report will be presented to me very shortly. It is proposed to lay it on the Table of the House, but following recent precedent I propose not to pub-it before it has had time to reach the Colony.

    UGANDA (COTTON CROP).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total amount of the cotton crop in Uganda in 1925 and 1926?
    Mr. AMERY: The figures for 1925 and 1926 respectively, based on the Excise Duty collected in each year, are 180,823 and 166,581 bales of 400 lbs.

    TRANSJORDANIA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what grant or loan in aid is made by Great Britain to the Government of Transjordania; whether the grant or loan includes one-half the cost of the Frontier Defence Force, of which the other half is paid by Palestine; whether Maan and Akaba are now included in Transjordania and the southern boundary delimited; and whether the Emir Abdulla is held to be ruler of this new territory?
    Mr. AMERY: The sum of £92,000 was provided in the Middle Eastern Services Vote for 1926 as a, contribution to the Trans-Jordan Administration. In addition, the sum of £108,000 was provided in the same Vote as a grant-in-aid of the cost of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force, a similar amount being borne on Palestine Funds. In 1927 the contribution to the Trans-Jordan Administration and the grant-in-aid of the Frontier Force will be reduced. Maan and Akaba, which, although within the territory under British mandate, had for a time been administered by the Hejaz Government, were in 1925 brought under the administration of the Trans-Jordan Government, of which his Highness the Emir Abdullah is the Head. The Southern boundary of Trans-Jordan has not yet been delimited.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these grants-in-aid treated as grants or loans?
    Mr. AMERY: They have hitherto been treated as grants.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that going to continue?
    Mr. AMERY: That will be considered.

    PALESTINE (DISTURBANCES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Jewish fishermen at Kinereth, on the Sea of Galilee, have been attacked recently by the Arab fishermen; that the inhabitants of Dagania came to the rescue, and that Jews were arrested as well as Arabs; and if he will say why and with what result?
    Mr. AMERY: I have no information on the subject, but am asking the High Commissioner to furnish me with a report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he seriously proposes to take the two Scottish Bills on the Order Paper to-day before 8.15? Not only does he propose to take those two Bills, but two Financial Resolutions. May I point out the range of one of the Bills. You are abolishing the Board of Agriculture, which it took two days to establish in Committee upstairs. You are abolishing the Board of Health, which took days in Committee of the whole House. You are also altering the status of the Prison Commissioners and various other things of that kind, completely revolutionising the administration of the Scottish Office. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is seriously proposing to take these two important Bills before 8.15?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): Of course we are entirely in the hands of the House for what legislation we get. I am told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that these Bills can be discussed with greater propriety in the Scottish Grand Committee. We put these Bills down to-day because latterly there has been some difficulty in ascertaining with any great accuracy what interest is likely to be aroused by our programme. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to get these Bills to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Sir PARK GOFF: May I ask you, Sir, whether it would be possible to alter the time for the interruption of Business from 8.15 of the clock to 7.45 of the clock, in order to give more time for Private Members' Motions.
Mr. SPEAKER: The time of 8.15 is fixed by Standing Order and it does not lie with me to make any change. I can only recommend to the hon. Gentleman to table a Motion to that effect for an amendment of the Standing Order and see if he can command the general support of the House.
Sir P. GOFF: I am much obliged. I will table a Motion as you suggest.
Mr. HARRIS: Could not the difficulty be got over by shortening Members speeches?
HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Mr. SPEAKER: I am glad to see that the hon. Member's suggestion finds such general approval. I hope each Member will take it to himself and not rest with approving it in general.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. T. HENDERSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the problem of Unemployment, and move a Resolution.
  PRICE OF FUEL.
  Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the failure of the Government to deal with the Price of Essential Fuel, and move a Resolution.
  STATE OF INDUSTRY.
  Mr. HILTON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the state of Industry, and move a Resolution.
  GOVERNMENT PLEDGES.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the failure of the Government to fulfil its Pledges, and move a Resolution.

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
  Colchester Corporation Bill,
  Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas) Bill,
  Great Western Railway Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Police (Appeals) Bill): Mr. Barr; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rhys Davies.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I can explain very briefly the terms of the Measure. The House will recollect that a Bill in almost precisely similar terms was introduced in this House in 1925 and received its Second Beading on the 17th November of that year. The chief object of the Bill is well known to Scottish Members. It is to assimilate the terms of appointment and conditions of service, and tenure of the sheriff clerks, procurators fiscal and their staffs, to those obtaining in the Civil Service. Owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time and the objection taken to certain features of that Bill, it was impossible to proceed with it. I had, of course, to make it quite clear to the House that unless we could arrive at a general measure of agreement I could not go on with the Bill, nor could it be reintroduced until some measure of agreement was reached. In the interval, there have been a number of interviews and communications, and as a result there has been on the part of those interests mainly concerned in the Bill, a measure of agreement. I do not imply or wish to claim that in every sense and in all circumstances this is an agreed Bill. I have at the same time to make it quite plain to the House that the particular interests concerned in the Measure have accepted the position of the withdrawal of opposition to the Bill, and I desire to recognise that those who have so withdrawn their opposition have done it because they felt that the interests of the general staff in the service and the improved conditions which will arise from the passage of this Measure to the great majority of those in the service, is such as to demand their compliance.
  I am a little surprised to see upon the Order Paper an Amendment against the Second Beading of the Bill which is supported by some of my right hon. Friends
  406
  opposite, but I take note of the fact that the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who was previously in the Treasury, is not supported in his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill by his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want, without any sense or feeling of dictation on my part, to make it perfectly clear to the House and to Scottish Members in particular that, if they have any intention other than hanging their speeches and arguments upon this Amendment for rejection, and that if this is an Amendment really intended for the rejection of the Bill, and that the Bill is not going to be accepted in the same spirit and terms in which those who are mainly interested have accepted it, then, undoubtedly, I shall be obliged to withdraw the Bill, much to the detriment of those who are concerned in this Service.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that a threat?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made it clear that I have not made this statement in any measure as a threat, but I wish hon. Members fully to understand exactly the position. This Bill is substantially the same as the one introduced on the previous occasion; but in view of certain representations which were made to the Government, we felt that it would be desirable in regard to Clause 7 that we should not expressly make a provision which, if in the future there should be any general recasting of the terms of back service, would shut out the possibility of its being applied to these services. In so far as we have been able, we have accepted that, but it must be clearly understood that the decision indicated is no departure from the intention to adhere to the date indicated, which was fixed by the last Government in 1924 as the utmost concession which can be given.
  There are two other features which have been added to the Bill but which do not affect the main issue of which I have spoken. Recent experience has shown that it might be convenient to have the jurisdiction of the sheriff clerk corresponding to some area other than a county, and Clause 1 makes provision to meet that eventuality. Clause 14 is also new in the sense that it makes it possible that anyone who has to occupy an interim position can be appointed without having to receive a commission as

  407
  an honorary sheriff substitute, thereby avoiding some very difficult special arrangements which would have to be made for his remuneration in the event of the death or resignation of the sheriff substitute.
  After these words of explanation, I would again urge that this Bill, having been before the House on a previous occasion, should be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee where, no doubt, details and certain aspects of the Bill may be considered; but I must repeat that this Measure, in so far as regards the settlements and arrangements, which are the main features of it, and which have been accepted by those who are primarily affected, must be treated as being non-controversial. I must also make it plain that the terms which the present Government have found themselves able to accept with regard to these problems are the same terms which were accepted by the previous Government, beyond which neither the last Government nor the present Government have found themselves able to go. In these circumstances, I ask the House to give a Second Beading to the Bill.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to say anything about Part II of the Bill?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: All the provisions of this Bill are exactly as they were in the Bill which was before the House last time, but if there are any particular points which hon. Members desire to raise I will endeavour to answer them at a later stage.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
  "whilst welcoming a scheme for the reorganisation of the offices of sheriff clerk and procurator fiscal in Scotland, this House is unable to agree to the Second Reading of a Measure which, as regards certain sections of the existing staffs, fails to make adequate provision for their superannuation and other rights."
  I desire to move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of other hon. Friends on this side of the House. Quite briefly it should be possible to make clear the reasons which justify a Motion of this kind. The House will
  408
  observe that in the Amendment we on this side of the House welcome the scheme of reorganisation which this Bill proposes, but we draw attention to what we believe to be one of the great faults of the Measure in that it fails to make adequate provision for recognising the back service of certain members of existing staffs, the effect or which must be to expose these men and their dependants in later years to a retiring or other allowance of an utterly inadequate character. Before we come to that part of the Bill, it is necessary to deal with other phases of the controversy which this Measure contains. The Secretary of State has argued that this must be regarded to a large extent as an agreed Measure, and he has suggested that if there is any real controversy beyond a demonstration of feeling on the Second Reading of the Bill, and presumably some discussion upstairs, the whole Measure may be withdrawn. I*think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree that, having regard to the long period this controversy has covered and the undeniable hardships which the proposed settlement involves for certain of these men, we should be failing in our duty if we did not make the facts perfectly plain both on the Second Reading and, I trust, during the Committee stage.
  The facts regarding the agreement are these. This controversy has raged for many years in Scotland,, and during the whole of that time some scheme of reorganisation of these services has been contemplated, but for one reason or another it has been delayed, and it was only a year or two ago, following the reports of the Committee over which Lord Blackburn presided, that something was definitely embodied in the Bill which was presented on a former occasion to this House, and which was? as strongly condemned by members or' the Conservative party as by Members on this side of the House. I am quoting purely a public fact when I say that one of the critics on that occasion was the present Solicitor-General for Scotland. These things are on the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it is of course no injustice to the hon. Gentleman to recall that fact, however painful, this afternoon. Now we come down to the Blackburn Committee of 1921 and their Report of 1922 and the last controversy in this House,, and, as the Secretary of State has recalled

  409
  the Debates which have taken place very largely behind the scenes, of course informal, during recent years. The main purport of them, all along the line, was the consideration of what many of us regard as the principal question— the position of their back service.
  They rightly ask that old age, especially for an occupation which has afforded them no chance whatever of making adequate provision for it, should be unclouded so far as the allowance is concerned. While none of us minimises the difficulties which have attended this controversy, they boil down to this, that in the last resort", faced with the prospect of losing the Measure altogether, the two sections of the staffs have agreed and fallen in with very great reluctance indeed. But we must, this afternoon, recall this fact, that in both cases it was only by a majority that this decision was reached, and in the case of the procurators fiscal, I am told, it was only by a majority of one; and there are still certain of these officials who are most determined in their opposition to this Bill and urge that their case should be made plain to-day. As we come to this phase of the controversy, there are certain other things which we must clear out of the way. As the Secretary of State has indicated, this is a Bill which so far assimilates the condition of these staffs in Scotland to the ordinary Civil Service basis. Hon. Members will observe that there is a Clause which provides that all the whole-time officers under this proposal become civil servants, and there is also a reference to what I have no doubt are the usual Regulations which will be laid down by the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners. That so far is an inroad on the practice which has been followed in Scotland, and is, of course, still followed to a large extent in these legal appointments.
  There is a school of thought which suggests that the spoils should fall to the political victors of the time, and, while it is hardly relevant to this Bill, a very large number of these appointments have gone to the supporters of one or other of the old political parties in the past. No doubt some attention has been paid. at least I hope so, to the particular legal
  410
  qualifications of the gentlemen who have been appointed, and I make no reflection, personally, on them. But many of us, whether we carry all our colleagues with us or not, have always held that it is very desirable to introduce into this system in Scotland the largest measure of complete impartiality you can possibly have and get rid of the elements of patronage and political preferment. Therefore, so far as this point is concerned, I am heartily with the proposal, and that part of the Measure need not detain us. We come, in the next place, to the controversy regarding the existing staffs. Let me make it perfectly plain that, in so far as this scheme provides new and better conditions for the younger men, we are whole-heartedly with it, and as a matter of fact it has been one of our great difficulties during recent times to know that in trying to plead the case of the older men we have been hindering the legitimate ease of the younger men and others who stood to benefit under these proposals. But the younger men have stood in with wonderful loyalty to the older men because they realise that these older officials have a very just case.
  4.0.p.m.
  The whole controversy turns in a measure upon the two Reports of the Blackburn Committee. They provided for a reorganisation of these services and in particular, in the second of these Reports, or at all events in the Report issued in 1922, a specific part of the reference was directed to such increase in the fees as would cover the additional charges that were brought about by this scheme of reorganisation. Right down to the present day that controversy has never been solved, and, in point of fact, there is to-day the widest difference of opinion on essential matters in this part of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman last year, when the other Bill was presented, issued a White Paper, and he has repeated it to-day, giving certain particulars of the charges. Hon. Members will observe that, going back to about the year 1921, there was an excess of expenditure over revenue, but. since these fees were raised round about that time, there has been during the intervening period an excess of revenue over expenditure. In this White Paper we are in.

  411
  formed that during the first year of reorganisation, which presumably would be next year-—whether it be the strict financial year or not need not detain us— there will be certain non-recurrent charges, because of the extent to which back service is recognised in the Bill, but that after that time when you get down to a normal basis and normal current charges, it is hoped that the revenue will just balance the expenditure, on the basis of about £100,000 per annum on each side. In other words, unless I misinterpret the White Paper, I understand that this would be, so to speak, a self-supporting service. That would be the broad effect of the Bill.
  The sheriff clerks and the procurators-fiscal and others are to-day contending that there are elements in this financial White Paper that are well worth consideration. For example, they draw attention to the principle adopted of making entries regarding the Sheriff Court premises themselves, which, as Scottish Members know, are under a separate Act of Parliament. They draw attention, in the second place, to the manner in which the bonus has been treated. They have, thirdly, directed a great deal of argument to the fact that fines reaped or collected in the Sheriff Courts are apparently eliminated in this calculation. But, whatever may be the precise effect of all these arguments, there is not the least doubt that the parties have never arrived at a real agreement, and I am here this afternoon to suggest that until that part of the controversy-is out of the way we are not entitled to. say, even on the basis of regarding this as an effort which is self-supporting, that we are unable to do more for these particular classes of officials who stand to be penalised if the Bill goes through in its present form. The Secretary of State for Scotland takes the perfectly fair point that this matter was before our Government in 1924, and that that was the limit to which, as I admit, high Treasury and other opinion was then prepared to go. But I want also to say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I think he will forgive the remark—that I myself have always fought for another solution, and that there is nothing new in the attitude which I have adopted this afternoon.
  412
  I would suggest to the Government that it might be well worth while to have some kind of round table conference in a last effort to see whether we can arrive at an agreement in this matter. That may be described by the right hon. Gentleman who replies as an unusual request. He may say that this Chancellor of the Exchequer, like others, has said the last word, and that it is idle again to discuss the financial basis of the Bill. But there is sufficient material for controversy at the present time, and I press that request for this reason. Let us suppose that the House adopts the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day, and says that, if we do not take this Bill, we shall get nothing at all. I agree, of course, that that would be a deplorable result, and I dare say that there are very few of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who would be prepared to run such a risk, especially when the officials themselves have said, if by majority only, that the Bill must go on. But if you do pass the Bill in its present form you will have officials in Scotland who have given more than 30, 35 and 40 years' service, who during all that time have hoped that a scheme of reorganisation would be introduced, who have been disappointed over and over again, and who by common consent have never had an adequate salary in nine cases out of ten and have had no chance of making provision for the future, who will retire under the measure of back service or other recognition which this Bill affords on a pension of less than 30s. per week or on some perfectly small and quite hopelessly inadequate lump sum payment.
  I do ask the House to believe that we are not trying to make any party capital out of this matter—there are very few of these men who are members of our party or who are ever likely to be—but I put it to any hon. Member whether that is a state of affairs which should exist if, however late in the day, there is a possibility of arriving at any other kind of financial understanding, such as will, if you like, preserve your Treasury basis, but such as will at any rate safeguard the interests of these men. Let us try, before we come to the Committee stage of this Bill, with Treasury representatives, representatives of the officials, and representatives of the Government, and see if we cannot arrive at an understanding or at an agreement on this point.

  413
  What is the real reason behind this controversy? I know exactly what it is, and the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite know. It has been mentioned in this House on previous occasions. The whole financial opposition to this part of the scheme, or at any rate a very large part of it, rests upon the feeling that if you concede more than that limited amount of back service to these officials in Scotland you will be compelled to re-open the whole of the County Courts settlement in England embodied in the Act of 1925. First of all, the legal systems of the two countries are different, and, in the second place, if I had time this afternoon, I should be able to draw a great deal of distinction between the circumstances affecting County Court officials in England and the circumstances that confront these officers. But even if you can make out a far better case than I believe you can from that point of view, it would not entitle you to perpetrate a manifest injustice upon these men, and that is what we particularly desire to bring out in connection with this Measure. I believe that on that basis we can afford these men far better treatment. It is the only point which I would make for all practical purposes in the course of this Debate. It is what we have embodied in our Amendment, and it is because we on this side believe strongly that you will inflict great hardship on deserving officials and their dependants that we have proposed that Amendment this afternoon.
  Mr. KIDD: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has given the House a broad hint that the object of his Amendment is to ventilate the grievance of these older servants with regard to the recognition of their back service. As I understand him, he accepts the principle and welcomes the system adopted in the Bill, but he is anxious, if possible, even at the eleventh hour, to do something more for these servants. I want quite frankly to say to the right hon. Gentleman— and I speak with some qualifications on this subject—that I entirely agree with him that no public servants have given better service and that in many cases no public servants have been more poorly remunerated. Therefore, if in conjunction with the Secretary of State he can discover any means whereby at this late hour who can improve the conditions of these servants he will have my support.
  414
  On the other hand, I want to make it quite clear that I welcome the Bill. I welcome the system, and I see a likely hood under it of getting a very efficient service in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland. Under these circumstances, I would on no account risk the Bill. I want to be perfectly frank. I have sufficient faith in the Secretary of State that if he can possibly meet us on this point he will do so, and will not take advantage of our frankness and simply assume that he will get his Bill in any case. He does not want his Bill with a grievance and, if he can: avoid the grievance, I am sure he will do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh has indicated that he has some views whereby we might accommodate the position. I shall venture one suggestion. I do not see why the system should make the procurator fiscal of a county confine himself to that position. There may be something to be said for it where the county is a large and important one, but, taking it over the country, you had far better have the duties of a procurator fiscal carried out by a man who at the same time is permitted to have private practice; and, if you choose the private practitioner, you might have some remission of cost in the matter of salary fixed. If you have a private practitioner, no public interest is worse served on that account, and every public interest is better served. If you have a man who performs the duties of that office alone, he lacks the elasticity, or, shall I say, the generosity, of mind which comes from private practice which brings a man into contact with all types. I would ask Labour Members to remember the class of our population who come under the purview of procurators fiscal. They are not the class who are likely to be very helpful clients of private practitioners, and there is therefore no clash of private public interest. They belong to the class who require that the procurator fiscal be a man who is not narrow, who is not hard, but who, if he errs at all, is indulgent. Therefore, in the interests of the accused person, I think it would be desirable if we had many of these appointments part-time appointments. There would then be a restriction of expenditure which perhaps would meet the Treasury point.
  I think it right to say that the procurators fiscal, while anxious in Committee

  415
  or otherwise to devise ways and means whereby what they believe to be the spirit of the Blackburn Report may have more favourable expression, make it quite clear that they do not wish on any account to lose this Bill, and I believe that is still more the feeling of the sheriff clerks of Scotland. There is one point in the Bill, however, to which I would ask the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that is the part dealing with workmen's compensation. At the present time in Scotland no fee is charged for the memorandum in compensation cases. Now the memorandum, instead of being recorded, has simply to be noted. Exemption from fees is to be wiped out under Clause 15 of the Bill. It may be argued, "Oh, yes, but this fee will be paid by the employer." Will it, indeed? Clearly not. Take the mining industry in particular, where you balance up the cost for the industry to discover the balance available for distribution. Obviously any extra burden put on the industry will ultimately rest upon the miners, the workers. If in the past there was no occasion to charge a fee for recording, that is for writing out the memorandum, there is less occasion to charge a fee when you simply initial it or note it.
  I gather from the last speaker that the Treasury arc the villains of the piece. It is enough that they have treated in a very parsimonius fashion the procurators fiscal. There is no reason why we should encourage them still more by sanctioning a fee which will ultimately fall upon the workers. For these reasons I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland in Committee will consider with a fair degree of favour any Amendment which seeks to get rid of this proposal of the Bill. Reverting to the treatment of fiscals and sheriff clerks I would say that I quite understand how anxious the Secretary for Scotland has been to meet all parties in this matter. If he decides, with a united effort on the part of all the Scottish Members, irrespective of party, to bring this Bill a little more into line with what I believe are his own feelings, I think Members on all sides of the House will give him the necessary support.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Secretary of State for Scotland has stated that he is compelled to stand by the Bill as it is. I hope he will withdraw from that position. I did not regard his statement as a threat, because when he finds the whole House, irrespective of party, adopting the attitude which has been adopted by the two last speakers, he will probably make one more endeavour to consider the very important cases which have been presented to him. There is no doubt that this subject is a. very thorny one. There have been reports and commissions about the sheriff clerks of Scotland for many years, and in this House not long ago a Bill was introduced. I believe there was some discussion upon it. My own view is that the present Bill is not a bit better than that which was introduced two or three years ago. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has pointed out that the Bill does in crease the prospects of the younger men in the service. I must frankly confess that, taking the Bill as a whole, it is a. good Bill, and one of the best things in it is that it foreshadows a re-organisation which in the long run will be of enormous benefit to the service in Scotland as a whole. But a man's heart would need to be adamant if it did not melt before the appeal which has been made from all the Members for Scotland on behalf of the older officials who have been so long connected with this service.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh drew attention to the fact that the Sheriff Court fees recently were increased by a very large amount, and he went on to say that there was a good deal of controversy as to the reason for that increase. Rightly or wrongly I maintain that there was a distinct understanding that when these fees were increased the salaries and position of all the officials concerned would be taken into consideration. I may be right or wrong, but that is the general view of all the Sheriff Court officials whom I have come across. There is no doubt at all that the Treasury have accumulated a very large amount of money from that source. It stands to reason that the men to whom promises of "chat kind were justly or unjustly held out should look to the Treasury and the Government now for an implementing of the promises. So

  417
  far as I can make out, the Clause which causes most difficulty in the minds of Members of the House is Clause 7. What is the proposal in that Clause? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh and the last speaker pointed out, there is in many cases a manifest injustice done to the older servants of the Sheriff Courts of Scotland. No respectable or decent business firm of any sort would ever treat old servants who have gone grey in the service in the same way as the Government propose to treat these old men. There is no equitable pension or compensation for them on retirement. They are subject to bureaucratic treatment, and they are entirely dependent for dates and ages to be arbitrarily selected by the Government; that is to say, they will be compelled to retire at a time when they are still fit to do work, and they do not in any way get compensation for the length of service which they have performed in the past.
  Let me take two cases. One is that of an officer of the age of 68. He is very well known, I am sure, to my right hon. Friend and to his colleague on the Front Bench. He is one of the most respected men in the north of Scotland. He has been 50 years in the service of the Court as an official. He has educated his family. His eldest son was killed in the War. He is compelled to retire now, when he cannot possibly have provided against old age. At one time he was, as my right hon. Friend may know, a procurator fiscal in one of the islands off the West Coast of Scotland. He received the appointment on promotion to be Sheriff Clerk of a well known county in the North. That appointment on promotion meant that he got £100 more than he had been getting as Procurator Fiscal in the outer Islands, but when he arrived at Inverness, he was told that there was ft Clause, of which he had never heard, in his agreement as follows:
  "Provided always that in the event of any Regulation being hereafter made requiring that the office of sheriff clerk shall become vacant on the holder attaining the age of 70, this appointment shall be held to be made subject to such conditions, without claim to compensation."
  He is not getting compensation of any kind. He could not out of his salary make any provision for the old age which is now upon him and for the years of retirement which are imminent. Take another
  418
  case. There are two very able men in. one office that I know very well in the North of Scotland. Both of them have seen 27 years' service. Yet they are credited under this Bill with only eight years' service. If they retire at 65 their pension would not be sufficient to pay their insurance premiums or their rent, still less to enable them to remain in retirement in any comfortable position at all. These cases obviously require looking into, and I strongly support the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd). It is quite clear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland must realise that there arc hardships under this Bill, however good the Bill may be. His best and his only duty would be to consider whether, at the eleventh hour, men of the type I have mentioned, who have served the State long and ably, should not be offered some form of equitable compensation or a sufficient pension, or a longer period of back service. The points could be met by a little administrative effort without in any way touching the Bill.
  There is one other point. There are a great many men, the higher officials of the Court, who come under the Bill and are satisfied with the Bill, but I have received more than one protest from them on behalf of the subordinates of the Sheriff Court. They maintain that the same privilege should be granted to these subordinates of contracting out of the provisions of the Bill as are given to sheriff clerks and Fiscals. I do not think I can discuss those points at any greater length, but I would heartily join in the appeal which has been made and made in good faith with every desire to-assist the Secretary for Scotland. We quite realise the position in which he is placed and his anxiety to get the Bill through. He has been practically forced to produce a Bill. This is the Bill, and it fails in two or three most important particulars. I believe that the failures could be remedied, if not in the Bill, then by administrative effort, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a strong and urgent appeal on behalf of those old servants of the State who in their old age have nothing to look forward to but a very miserable pittance

  419
  which no great and decent industrial firm would ever allow any of its older employés to exist upon.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I concur in the statements which have just been made by my right hon. Friend. I cannot understand why it is that when we come to deal with old people who are not going to be very long alive and who may need a little comfort in their declining years, we should be so hard on them. We did the same thing with the old teachers. It is only the rising generation, those who are young and have strength, who have the benefit. All the teaching that we got was that the old bodies who were getting near their end should have a little comfort in their old age. I am not blaming the Scottish Office. This charging of fees to litigants is a monstrous business. Justice ought not to be bought or sold. It reminds one of Oriental places, where each side on going to the Judge brings presents to him, and those with the larger presents think they are most likely to get justice. It is entirely wrong. The Geddes Committee, who were responsible for the alteration of the fees, in the Courts of Scotland until they were doubled and trebled, was wrong. Fancy the Court of Session charging 10s. an hour while counsel is speaking, as if he were a taxicab.
  They seemed to think that the Courts of Justice are like a bacon factory and ought to be made self-supporting. The whole conception is wrong and what is the result? The result is that those classes of the community who want justice done, and who are above the scale of poverty which gives them the right to go to the beneficent Poor Law established by James I, cannot find the money even for the Court dues or the solicitors have to find it for them. When the solicitors feel that they are going to be substantially out of pocket for Court dues—for Courts of Justice, which ought to be open and free to all His Majesty's lieges—then the insurance company, which, in most of these cases, is the real defendant goes to the solicitor for the pursuer or plaintiff and a comparatively small offer is made to the client. I know, because I have acted on both sides and such an offer, however inadequate, is quite tempting if there is also an offer
  420
  to pay the costs and the extra-judicial costs of the plaintiff. But the poor man is not getting justice. That is what happens as a result of these heavy dues, which are a burden and which often result in a position in which justice is not done between the parties. The idea that the Courts ought to be made self-supporting is utterly wrong. It is depriving His Majesty's lieges of free access to His Majesty's Courts and there is nothing more likely to lead to social dissatisfaction and class dissatisfaction than that His Majesty's Courts should not be open to the humblest of His Majesty's subjects at a minimum cost or no cost at all. I do not understand how the false view arose that these fees should be charged. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said, that when these fees were raised the idea was not so much to make the Courts pay their own expenses as to provide these particular clerks with some;-amelioration of their let. They were always badly paid. I come, however, to one provision which is more important even than the question £S. d. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 contains these words:
  "The right of appointing to and removing from the office of procurator fiscal shall be vested in the Lord Advocate."
  The procurator fiscal is, in his own district, just as important in the administration of justice as the Lord Advocate is in Scotland generally. There is no person who holds the lives and characters of his fellow-citizens more in the hollow of his hand than the procurator fiscal. He is in a sense a quasi-judicial person, because it is with him that complaints and informations are lodged, and he has it in his power to make or mar the reputation of every citizen in his locality. One of the features of our judicial system is that our judges are absolutely independent and are not in any way liable to be influenced by the Executive or any member of the Executive: and they can only be removed by a petition of both Houses of Parliament to His Majesty. Nobody would claim for the procurators fiscal an immunity to that extent, but they should have their present immunity. It is quite right that the appointment should be in the hands of the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do you think so?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Quite right. Somebody must do it, and the Lord Advocate is quite the best man to make the appointment. But once the man is appointed, once he is in the saddle and in the execution of his duty, we should remember that he is acting in a semi-judicial fashion—administratively, of course—and he should continue to have the protection which he has at present. ft is possible to visualise a state of affairs where political or other ideas might creep into the heads of those who were discharging these grave and important functions, and there might even be the possibility of such a thing as political pressure. [HON. MEMBERS: "There has been."]
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely that could not happen!
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: We do not want anything of that kind, and therefore I say the present system ought to continue. I am influenced by what the Secretary of State for Scotland has said as to the desire of all parties in this matter, even though the right hon. Gentleman may have been coerced by the Treasury into bringing in this Bill. I say, however, that the way in which this question has been treated, the pressure that has been put upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, is most unfair, and on behalf of all those citizens of Scotland who have had necessity for the services of the sheriff clerks and the other officials who may come within the purview of the Bill, I must protest against the shabby way in which these officials have been treated, and when this Bill reaches Committee there are one or two points which it will be my business to raise.
  Mr. BARR: I cannot speak with the inside knowledge of my hon. and learned Friend who has just eat down, but there are some points which I wish to emphasise,, although they have been, in part, already stated. First, there is the case of the sheriff court clerks and the like who are to be outside the scope of the Bill. I think we shall be obliged to admit that in connection with a Measure of this kind it may not be possible to do quite so much for those men who have only now come under the consideration of the House, as it is
  422
  possible to do in the case of those younger men who in various ways acquire the recognised right to retiring allowances. But I must say I know some of these men who are ruled to be outside the scope of the Measure. They have given important and meritorious service; they have had multifarious duties; many of them have been poorly paid, and it is the duty of the Government, in initiating this scheme, to see that these men are not cast adrift with practically no provision whatever for old age. There is a certain provision here that the Treasury may give something,, by way of compensation, to a man who is obliged to retire on the point of age. He may be given not more than two years' salary. If he does not go out in that way,, if he resolves to continue, the Bill does not make it quite clear whether he will be entitled to anything at all or not. In certain cases he may get a compassionate gratuity, but that would be a very small sum. In such a case there is great hardship. It is quite true, as has been pointed out, that some of these men were obliged, sometimes without their own knowledge, to come in under the condition that they were to have no retiring allowance at all; but that does not alter the fact that the Government in a Bill of this kind ought to make provision for dealing with these men in a worthy way. The very fact that they have been dealt with in such an unworthy way in the past is all the more reason why they should have more favourable consideration in connection with the launching of this scheme.
  The other case to which I wish to refer is the case of men who have given long service but who are still within the scope of the Bill. There are many ways of rectifying the injustice which is done to them. As I understand the scheme, there would be a certain fraction which would determine the amount to be received. It might be a fraction of 17–80ths of the former salary. I think any provision of that kind is quite inadequate and the Government ought to find ways and means of improving it either by giving them a start of a certain number of years, or by allowing men in certain cases to continue beyond the retiring limit, or by a subvention from these fees which are available and from the moneys now in the hands of the Government. It should be possible to deal more worthily with men of this class who are just near the

  423
  borderline, who are within the Bill but who are to receive such scant consideration. Reference has been made to this as an agreed Measure. I know some of the sheriff court clerks who are consenting parties to it and I must say that theirs is a most reluctant consent. They are more inclined to look at their grievances but they think they can get nothing better. That is their idea of the Government. They think this is the best they can possibly get and, judging the Government by that standard, they accept the inevitable and say that if the younger men get anything at all they should not stand in the way of the younger men. Some of these men have said to me that they wished a bold effort could be made to secure more worthy treatment for those who are in the Bill. On the matter of agreement, I dare say all Members of the House have received certain communications. I find, for example, that the Faculty of Procurators of Inverness have passed a unanimous resolution disapproving of the Bill and more particularly of Clause 7, and the probable effect thereof on old officials, and they point out some grievous defects and great injustices in the Measure. I do not think the fact of this being, in a forced kind of way, an agreed Measure should weigh too greatly with us. While I think there arc many good points in the Measure and that it is something to have these men recognised as civil servants, I would not be so sorry as some, if the Secretary of State for Scotland, failing to rectify its defects, were oh liged to carry out his seeming threat and hold over this Measure. I would rather see it held over and have more worthy conditions, than see it pass in its present form.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: The chief argument used when the Secretary for Scotland was made Secretary of State for Scotland was that the right hon. Gentleman would have greater influence, power and standing in the Government to fight for Scottish rights, than he had previously. Previous occupants of the office attempted to justify themselves for the timidity with which they defended Scottish interests among their colleagues on the ground that they had not the status of their colleagues. For the first time we have a Secretary of State for Scotland and he comes here with a proposal which
  424
  nobody defends, which he does not defend himself. He proposes a financial arrangement which would snock and shame a group of Polish Jews. The right hon. Gentleman says this is an agreed Measure. Is it? As a matter of fact, the Procurators Fiscal Association decided, by a bare majority of one, under force majeure, to support the Bill. It-was a case of "You must take this or nothing," and the Procurators Fiscal Association resolution was not to support the Bill, but only not to oppose it. The Sheriff Court Officials Staffs Association had a vote on it, and certainly they had a larger majority, and the Sheriff Clerks Association approved the Bill.
  What is the amount of money at stake here? A bagatelle. Surely, when we are dealing with legal officers who get salaries up to £10,000, and a chance, it is a bagatelle. These people never had a chance. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). Here are old men who have served 30, 40, and even 50 years, with miserably small salaries and no chance of extras, no outside emoluments, coming along in the evening of their days and being told that they may get a gratuity or a pension which would run from 15s. to about 80s. a week. This is being done in a legal system where you have got highly paid officers who draw £7,000 and extras. where, in the higher reaches of the profession, there are any number of plums, and where we have had it suggested by the present Government that the Secretary of State for Scotland is insufficiently paid at £2,000 a year. He is afraid, he is unable, to stand up to his colleagues and tell them that Scottish interests are not going to be treated like this any longer. that his appointment as Secretary of State meant that our interests in future were going to be seriously regarded, and that a decent, honourable class, who have served the country well. are not going to be treated with contempt as this Bill treats a small number of them.
  I do not object to (he Bill as a whole. There are large parts of it which, I think, can be generally agreed to. but what possesses the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General? I venture to say that they would not do this in their private life. There is not one of these three hon. and

  425
  right hon. Gentlemen decorating that Government Bench now who, in his private capacity, would do this by a footman or a clerk. They would not do it with anybody who had ever been in personal relationships with them, and simply because the Secretary of State for Scotland has not the courage to stand up in the Cabinet and say: "Unless you do justice to Scotland, there is my job; get somebody else to do your dirty work," the House this afternoon is being asked to pass this miserable and contemptible Bill. I trust that Members on all sides of the House will go into the Division Lobby against it, and we will give them a hot time in the Scottish Standing Committee. If they can crush this thing through this House with the aid of English Members, they cannot do it with Scotsmen.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: I think it is right that the voice of every part of Scotland should be heard in a case of this kind. I cannot bring forward any new arguments, but there is still the argument of justice that remains, and I am hoping that every Scottish Member will go into the Lobby to emphasise the scorn that every one of them has for a Measure of this kind—not the whole Measure, but the parts of it about which my hon. Friends have been talking. It is not an agreement. Nobody can ever say that anything is an agreement when it must be accepted lest worse befall, and that is really what has happened here. The old arguments remain. We have seen nothing to controvert the letter that was written to the "Glasgow Herald" last year, giving the whole lists of the money drawn from increased fees, and the idea certainly was that that money was to go to the assistance of the procurators fiscal and sheriff clerks, but nothing has been done at all in that way. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has said, not one of those Gentlemen on the Government Bench would do this in his own private capacity, and why should Scottish Law Officers of the Crown deal more stingily with their own brothers in Scotland than they would do even in their own private capacity or than the English Law Officers of the Crown would deal with any of the officials under them? For the life of me, I cannot see why this thing has been done at all. The sum of money required to give ample justice is
  426
  a very small sum indeed. It would not require a great deal and if the Measure is a good Measure, as I believe it is in many parts, why make it a bad Measure for this little thing? I trust that both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate will try even yet to give a little measure of justice to these older servants.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) thought that relief might be found by making this a part-time job, but I can fancy any of our procurators fiscal in our bigger cities and counties making this a part-time job. The result would be delegated duties. They would delegate the duties for which they are appointed, and the work would not be done properly at all. There is no relief that way, and there is no relief required. I am glad that this has been moved out of the range of political rancour to-day, and I am glad to hear every Member, whether Unionist, Labour, or Liberal, raising his voice on behalf of those men who have served our country so well, and who are now to be left, in their old age, at the mercy of whatever little pittance may come to them from this gratuity that seems to be offered. I trust that even now we shall do something, and that the Lord Advocate, when he replies, will indicate that he and his right hon. Friend are willing to do something, to alleviate the real distress into which many of these old servants will fall. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpher-son) has cited a case of which most of us have heard, and that case might be multiplied, possibly could be, but even if it were only that one case, I think it deserves the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor-General, so as to get justice for these valued servants of Scotland. I wanted not to give a silent vote, but to show that Ayrshire at least is along with Ross and Cromarty, Argyllshire, Edinburgh, Dundee, and all the other towns and counties in Scotland in demanding justice for those officials.
  Mr. J. STEWART: I, like the other Members who have spoken, and those, I think, who have not spoken, feel that an injustice is being done to the small number of people who are left out with the provisions of this Bill. When I say "left

  427
  Out with," I mean so far as superannuation is concerned. It would be very good indeed this afternoon, and I think would meet with the approbation of every Scots Member in this House, if the Lord Advocate, in his reply, would indicate some favourable response to the unanimous feeling expressed and, I think, still further the unanimous feeling that has not found expression, for I am bound to believe that, if there were any Members in the House who supported the Secretary of State for Scotland in his action, they would have got up and expressed it, but so far not one has done so or indicated any desire to do so. It may be that they do not like or care to add to the burden of the song that we have heard here this afternoon. The amount that must be involved beyond the amount indicated in the Memorandum cannot be very large to add to that gross sum, and it would be easy for us to find. The country is not so very poor yet; it does not require to make such infinitesimal economies as this must amount to, to give a modicum of justice to the men whose case we are considering.
  I think I am expressing the opinion of all the Glasgow Members when I say that we would rather that justice should be done in this particular matter. In Glasgow, up to some time ago, we gave grants to our people who left our service without having any form of superannuation. We decided some few years ago that we would do away with that unsatisfactory state of affairs and make a superannuation allowance to all of those who were then in our employment. There were something like 22,000 people altogether involved. In this case, I dare say you will not have many more than twice 22 at the outside. We decided to give all the men who were 50 years of age and over half of what they would otherwise have got at the retiring age of 65. They would, instead of getting 40/60ths, get 30/60ths, a half of their pay on the average for the last three years. If the Corporation of Glasgow was able to do that, surely to goodness the Scottish Office is in a position to do something similar. The amount of money that is involved cannot be a very great one, and such action would meet with the approbation of all our citizens, without regard to politics.
  428
  I have not heard a single hon. Member or a single citizen, in private conversation, who has not denounced the idea that underlies this Bill, and I should be very glad indeed, and so would every Scots Member of this House, if the Lord Advocate, when making his reply, would indicate that he will consider this matter more fully when the matter goes upstairs and the Government hear, as I believe they will, from ail sides of the Committee, an expression in favour of a more developed policy than that now before us. I will not repeat the arguments that have been used by all my hon. Friends. There is the admitted fact that the Constable Committee or the Black Committee did indicate that these extra charges were to be used to pay allowances to these men. Let us do it. I would beg the Lord Advocate, on behalf of all Scots feeling, to give way in this matter and allow the thing to be done in a way that will excite the admiration of our people, and not their contempt.
  5.0.p.m.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: I desire, in a very few words, to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make one other attempt with the Treasury to get a little better treatment. for our Scottish folk. The feature of this Debate has been the general and perhaps unanimous expression of opinion in favour of a rather better and more just treatment to be given to these officials of our judicial system. I think that, unless some heed is given to that general expression of opinion, this legislation will get a very bad start, and, without saying another word, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to go to the Treasury and say that the Scottish Members, irrespective of party, have asked him to make an earnest appeal for better treatment for the men who are engaged in the administration of the legal system in Scotland.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: When we hear hon. Members on the other side making these representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we may say that hope is beginning to dawn. I feel strongly the case that has been made out for those old men who have done good service, and I feel that those men who have been engaged in meting out justice, in the way that justice is meted out in the

  429
  sphere of the Courts, will naturally expect to get their share of justice when their time comes. On the former occasion when we had this matter before us, representations were made to me on the score that something better ought to be done before the adjustment is made. Now, however, I have no representations on that score, but rather a statement which I have received from the sheriff clerk of Dundee. He says that the Bill is a result of negotiations which have taken place between the interests concerned and the representatives of the Government, and that, although the former do not secure by any means all they are asking, yet the terms now embodied in the Bill represent an agreed settlement which is approved by the Sheriff Clerks Association, with one dissentient, by the Sheriff Court Officials Association on a vote of 86 to 5"and the Procurators Fiscal Association have decided by a bare majority not to oppose the Bill. He says the great majority of the interests concerned throughout Scotland will benefit substantially by the passing of the Bill, and they are very anxious that nothing should be done to impede its progress. Its effects, he says, are well illustrated by the fact that nine-tenths of the staff of the sheriff clerk's office for Dundee, Forfarshire and Arbroath will benefit substantially by the Bill.
  It has been said that those who have cast a vote in favour of the Bill have been compelled by a sort of force majeure by those who are superior to them in office. I should be sorry to think that Scotsmen have sunk so low as to be capable of doing so, and I would be very sorry to think that any such men would be found in the constituency the representation of which I share. If the bargain in the Bill is something like that of the Polish Jew, we would expect a Dundee man to stand up against it very emphatically, and I would express myself as disappointed in not having had representations on the score of a Polish Jew agreement. The statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) gave a very clear idea of what is likely to happen in regard to the settlement which is made in favour of the younger men. It may be out of proportion to what we would reasonably expect should be given to men of
  430
  advanced years and of substantial service; but I do not want,, on the other hand, to be identified with the possibility of endangering the Bill. 1 did not like the Secretary of State making that announcement at the very outset, but it would be a very great pity, after all these negotiations and the substantial benefits that are to be derived, if the Bill were endangered. In this case, I think half a loaf is better than no bread. But we are going to ask that the representations which have been made to the Front Bench will be favourably considered; that, even at this late stage, some business-like proposition may be fairly considered between all parties, and that if at all possible we will secure some further advantages to those people whom I have mentioned.
  Mr. MAXTON: I rise to associate myself with my colleagues who are opposing this Bill, and I would like to dissociate myself from those who have said that it would be a bad thing for the procurators-fiscal and the sheriff clerks if the Bill were defeated altogether. We have waited six years for this legislation; the men concerned have existed during that period, and I do not think they would be very much worse by a further delay while the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate were endeavouring to frame legislation that would meet the necessities of the case. I want to dissociate myself also from those of my colleagues who have expressed high admiration for the men concerned in this Bill and the work they do. I know any number of more valuable-servants to the community who do just as important work and who have no security even for their weekly wage, let alone for their annual salary or their pension. I have been in the Courts, and I have seen some of these men at work. I have seen their attitude towards some of their less fortunate brethren who came before them to answer to rent eviction summonses or small debt summonses, and I could have wished that there had been a more humane and kindly attitude displayed. Therefore, I do not want to give a lot of praise to people whom I think could carry on their work more efficiently and at the same time in a much more humane way towards people who come within their jurisdiction. But, all these things having been said, I agree that it is grossly unfair that those lower-paid

  431
  servants of the judicial service in Scotland should be treated in such a grossly unfair fashion as compared with those who occupy the higher and more decorative positions in the Scottish judicial service.
  Everyone knows that there are no harder working officials in the Courts than the sheriff clerks and the Court criers. The sheriff, the decorative person, comes in when some very knotty legal point has to be weighed in the balance, but normally, when it is 10s. and costs, the Court crier can usually manage without the sheriff at all. One has stood with amazement in sheriff Court, watching how the sheriff clerk and the crier between them run the whole show, calling the witnesses, hearing the plaintiff and the defendant, hearing counsel or solicitors on both sides, and giving judgment, and the sheriff never emerges from his easy-chair in his private room. I find in "Whit-taker's Almanack," which I presume is a fairly reliable publication, that the whole of the Scottish Law Courts, from the sheriff Courts up to the Court of Session, are dominated almost entirely by the Scottish Faculty of Advocates, a very close corporation to which admission is secured after passing a very trivial intellectual test, but after surmounting a very high financial barrier. Once you can surmount this financial barrier, and enter the inner circle, you find some three or four hundred men distributing practically among themselves, with the approval of the Lord Advocate, who, of course, is a member of the trade union, some 200 or 300 posts of greater or lesser value, and they have been doing this for many centuries.
  Since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, some six of them sit round a table in Edinburgh and divide among themselves posts ranging in value from £700 or £800 a year to £5,000 a year. The most honourable post of all is that of Lord President of the Court of Session, who gets £5,000 a year. The next on the list is Lord Blackburn, with, I find, £3,600 a year. He was Chairman of the Committee which issued the Report upon which this legislation that we are asked to consider is based. I do not know what the salary of the Lord Advocate is, but I assume it is not on a lower level than those of his professional brethren and
  432
  fellowtrade unionists whom I have quoted, and yet to-day he comes forward with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to ask us to agree to a Measure which neither provides adequate salaries nor decent pensions nor retiring allowances. Yet the men who are being discussed under this Bill are doing the genuine, hard routine work of the Courts. The Courts could not go on without them. The Lord President of the Court of Session could not issue his pontifical judgments. The Sheriff could not sit in his private room, if these men were not there to handle all the preliminary work, and in some cases they carry the whole thing right through to the finish.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) stated, the position solely arises through the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I am not merely applying this to the present holder of the office—seems so absolutely terrorised by the imposing English personality of the Cabinet, that he dare not go into that august body and ask for a small sum of money to pay public servants in Scotland. We have four representatives on the Front Bench —when there is room for them. They are usually pushed off. It is always the Scottish representatives who have to lean against the barrier at the end. There is no place on the Front Bench for them if their English colleagues want to be seated. That is exaetly what takes place in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman will sit behind the others, and will say, "Please Mr. Prime Minister, may I have this small Bill? It will not cost any money. It is an agreed Measure; all the Members from the Clyde say they will not oppose it. Give us two hours on the day of the Derby, or the Lincolnshire, or the opening of the flat season—any day will do for Scottish business, but please let us have this little bit of miserable legislation." That describes it accurately.
  A few months ago the right hon. Gentleman asked us to raise him from Secretary for Scotland to the dignified position of Secretary of State for Scotland, because that would give him more weight in the Cabinet. He would not ask for any increase in salary just now, but said, "Just raise our status and we will get some-

  433
  thing for Scotland in the Cabinet." And this is what he has got! The Lord Advocate must not scowl at me, because, as far as I know, he is not in a position to initiate a prosecution in this matter. Does he not see—do not we all see how very degrading this is to our country, and how it places us all in a most invidious position in this House? There is throughout the length and breadth of Scotland a very considerable demand for Scottish independence, for Scottish Home Rule. It is passive; it is quiet; it does not find an outlet in any rebellious way. It seems to me that the more loyal a nation is inside the Union of the British Commonwealth, the more passive it is, the more law-abiding, the more regularly it pays its taxes, the less consideration it receives in the British Imperial Parliament. I am disgusted at this Bill, and the one which follows it. Five solid years to get this subject brought forward at all, and when it is brought forward, such a miserable, poor thing! Not only do they bring forward this miserable Bill, but if there be any serious objection whatever to the Bill, it will be withdrawn altogether, and we shall get no Bill at all. Where is the tyranny which says we are to get nothing at all in that case? Where is this tremendous power about which we all tremble? It was the same in the last Parliamentary Session. A Bill came on late one night, and the Prime Minister himself started running about behind the Speaker's Chair, making arrangements to shut up the Opposition; otherwise the Bill would be withdrawn altogether. It is positively sickening, and I, for one, am not prepared to lie down under it. I can stand a certain amount of chaff, but sheer blackmail of this description I am prepared to protest against to the strongest possible way, particularly when it is not merely directed against myself, but against the city I represent in this House, and the country of which I am proud to be a citizen, and which, incidentally, I may say, is quite proud to have me as a citizen.
  Not only do they come forward with this miserable Bill in this way to deal with this specific problem of the remuneration of sheriff clerks, procurators
  434
  fiscal, and other Court employés, but they insult us by coming forward, in Part II of the Bill, with "Miscellaneous Provisions," which have absolutely no organic connection with Part I. Imagine this sort of thing in a Bill for the remuneration of sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal:
  "On an application to the sheriff or sheriff substitute under Section five of the Dogs Act, 1906, for consent to the grant of a certificate of exemption from duty in respect of a dog, there shall be chargeable such fee not exceeding one shilling, as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt under the said Section, and the words in Sub-section (2) of the said Section from 'No fee' to the end of the Sub-section are hereby repealed."
  What is the answer to that point? Fancy any body of intelligent citizens — and there are three of the great minds of Scotland sitting on the Front Bench opposite—asking us to pass this Bill dealing with the salaries of sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal, and telling us that if we are to get it, we must also swallow this business about exemption from dog licences under the Dogs Act, 1906. Is it not too ridiculous? I have lived in Scotland for 41 years, and I have never heard of any trouble about this Dogs Act. There is another paragraph in these Miscellaneous Provisions:
  "Paragraph 13 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, in so far as it excludes from application to Scotland paragraph 12 of the said Schedule shall cease to have effect and accordingly in the said paragraph 13 the words from 'and in its application' to the end of the paragraph shall be repealed."
  Imagine any Englishman having to deal with that! The hon. Member opposite told us that the purpose of this was to impose a charge under Workmen's Compensation proceedings that does not at present exist. Is it fair to start tampering with this most important bit of workmen's compensation in Miscellaneous Provisions of this description? In the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, I find it is specifically laid down that no fees are to be charged. Paragraph 12 of the First Schedule says:
  "No Court fee shall be payable by a workman in respect of any proceedings in a Court under this Act."
  Paragraph 13 says: —
  "Paragraphs 3, 4, 6 (b) and 8 of this Schedule shall not apply to Scotland, and

  435
  in its application to Scotland this Schedule shall have effect as if for paragraph 12 the following paragraph were substituted:
  No Court fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any proceedings by or against a workman under this Act in the Court prior to the award, or for recording a memorandum of agreement under this Act."
  Imagine how very wrong it is for the right hon. Gentleman to come before this House and create the impression that this Bill is a matter of minor importance, that it is only of interest to a few Scottish Members; and yet he makes provision in it for upsetting the whole basis of workmen's compensation legislation not merely in Scotland, hut in England as well, because these provisions at once have repercussions in England. The only excuse brought forward is that if we treat these officers of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland in a half-reasonable way, it will upset all the arrangements made for County Court officials in England. And yet there is introduced under the heading "Miscellaneous Provisions," a scheme which is going to upset the whole balance of the Workmen's Compensation Act between England and Scotland.
  There is another Clause which abolishes the necessity to record a memorandum in the special register under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under these Miscellaneous Provisions, one now has merely to deposit a copy of the memorandum in the Sheriff Court. Presumably, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the necessity for recording the memorandum in the books of the Court was regarded as a most important provision, and I want to know very definitely from the Lord Advocate how he proposes to keep a record of all the memoranda under the Workmen's Compensation Act which are deposited at the sheriff courts in the various parts of the country, if no entry is to be made in the records of the court. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read a very able work produced by one of the most eminent members of the legal profession in Glasgow, namely, Dr. David Murray, dealing with the question of sheriff courts' records, in which he describes the report of a Committee which was set up to inquire into the printing of such records. It shows that in a number of sheriff courts there is no proper accommodation in which to keep important
  436
  documents of this kind. It shows that in some cases they have been moth-eaten and destroyed by damp and so on, and yet, under a Miscellaneous Provision, there is to be no record kept in the special register of a memorandum covering compensation for the workman, or, if he has been killed, for his widow and children. Their whole life and education may depend upon that one document. For some reason, so far not disclosed, the right hon. Gentleman seems to think there is no necessity to keep any record of those things. Even in a library a catalogue is necessary to find a particular book, and I should think that a catalogue would also be necessary in the case of important legal documents. I presume some argument can be made out for Clause 17, but frankly I am quite unable to see what it can possibly be. I would like to go back to Clause 16. among the Miscellaneous Provisions. That Clause seems to raise an important constitutional issue. It says:
  "The Court of Session may from time to time by Act of Sederunt prescribe any form of procedure in the sheriff's ordinary or small debt Court or in proceedings for the confirmation of executors. or any other form required in connection with any duty devolving on a sheriff clerk, or the form of any register required to be kept by a sheriff clerk and the particulars to be entered therein, and where any such form as aforesaid is prescribed by any Act of Parliament the Court may, notwithstanding anything in such Act contained, in the exercise of the power hereinbefore conferred. alter or amend any such form or cancel the same and substitute another form there for. The foregoing provisions shall not extend to forms of procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts."
  I want any English Members who happen accidentally to have strayed into the House to pay particular attention to this Clause. "Act of Sederunt" is a very imposing title. It creates the impression of an Act of Parliament—of responsible people representing the nation conferring together, of a First Heading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading. then the proceedings in the House of Lords, the Royal Assent, and all the rest of it: but an Act of Sederunt, if my memory serves me rightly, is merely the act of half-a-dozen of the Judges of the Court of Session sitting round a table and deciding that they are going to do so and so. If the Lord Advocate would nod his head in assent to that description—
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. MAXTON: I shall be delighted to give way to the Lord Advocate if he will elucidate that somewhat cryptic shake of his head the wrong way.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not recognise the hon. Member's description.
  Mr. MAXTON: Am I right in believing that an Act of Sederunt is the un-criticised, unreviewable decision of the Law Lords of Scotland, the Lords of Session, the Judges of the Court of Session? I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman holds the members of his own profession in much higher regard than I hold them, but is not an Act of Sederunt the work of a group of men, with no responsibility to Parliament, sitting down and making rules and regulations to govern judicial procedure in Scotland. That is all right as long as they are making a few minor regulations about the running of their own profession; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks this House to give to these relatively irresponsible persons the right not merely to pass Acts of Sederunt but to prescribe procedure in the Sheriff Court. It says:
  "where any such form as aforesaid is prescribed by any Act of Parliament."
  they may, that is the Court of Session, by Act of Sederunt
  "notwithstanding anything in such Act contained …alter or amend any such form or cancel the same and substitute another form there for."
  Let us try to imagine where we are going. Here are this little bunch, sitting in Edinburgh, with the power to pass Acts which swept out of the road anything said in an Act of Parliament passed by the British Parliament. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has considered all the implications of that. [Interruption.] If it were Scottish Home Rule, as an hon. Member suggests, it would be all right; but it is not. It is syndicalism. The whole judicial system of Scotland is going to be directed and controlled by the workers in the industry. Moscow—crossed with Mussolini! The fact that it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own organisation does not make it any better in the eyes of the House, nor does it improve the position so far as Scotland is concerned.
  438
  I hope I have not tried your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or the patience of the House, in going into this Measure in some detail, and now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is on the Treasury Bench I would suggest, if the Scottish officers in the Government are not strong enough to hold their end up with the British Cabinet, that he, as one not in any way unfriendly to the Scottish nation, might try to strengthen their hands. Would he try to put a little fighting force into them; would he try to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland that he is a Secretary of State, and that he does not need to walk apologetically into the Cabinet, but can stand there in a strong minded, independent way for a strong minded, independent country; and not ask us, the elected representatives of the Scottish people, to pass under threat, under a species of political blackmail, this olla podrida described as a Government Measure. I hope the Secretary of State will behave in common decency to the men who are primarily concerned in this Bill, the under-paid sheriff clerks of Scotland. It is shocking to think that the Sheriffs, the Judges of the Court of Session, have sat for all these years drawing handsome salaries; secured in every way against criticism, against dismissal, against possible poverty; secure in ill-health or in good health—that they have sat there drawing salaries ranging from £800 a year to £5,000 a year and have allowed their hardworking associates to be underpaid, to have practically no security of tenure, to have no provision for their old age. The Bill now brought forward makes a provision for the older people which means absolutely nothing but poor house conditions. That is what is being done by the Scottish Members of the British Government, and the House of Commons is expected to pass the Bill and agree that these men, who have served the country in a way that has been approved by all, should pass in old age to penury and want. The fact that it merely applies to Scotland would not justify any Members of the House in giving assent to any such miserable Measure.
  Sir PATRICK FORD: I do not want to delay the Second Reading of this Bill but I confess to feeling some doubt over Clause 7. I am always rather alarmed

  439
  when I see a Financial Resolution on the Order Paper, because I am not quite sure how it will affect the Bill in Committee. I join entirely with those who have protested against the inadequate provisions made for the older members of the profession associated with the sheriff courts; but if I had an assurance that we could discuss that point in Committee, and have some adjustment made after the Financial Resolution had been passed, I would have no difficulty in agreeing to the Second Reading. Men experienced in the working of the sheriff courts, which are scattered over the country, have written to me time and again to say that the remuneration of these people is none too good, and that this suggestion about superannuation is really verging on a scandal. Certain classes of these men, who are men of experience and skill and trust, are going to be fobbed off with a sum that would bring them, if invested at 5 per cent., £60 a year as a pension. That is how I am. told it will work out. That state of things would not be tolerated in England, and I do not see why we should put up with it in Scotland. If that difficulty could be removed I would have no hesitation in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill; but unless some assurance of that kind is given, loath as I am to lose the rest of the Bill, I feel it would be hardly fair to sacrifice these people on the altar of the emoluments of others.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): Mr. Hardie.
  Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I think that at this stage it might be well to make it perfectly plain—-[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I called on the hon. Member for the Springburn Division (Mr. Hardie) before the right hon. Gentleman rose. I do not know whether the hon. Member will give way.
  Mr. HARDIE: I will not keep the House very long, but I have been waiting to make one point. When a Measure is passed in this House, a definite claim is always made about the sense of justice shown by the House. Where is the sense of justice in this Bill? The Secretary of State for Scotland has made a
  440
  threat to-day that he would withdraw this Bill if further opposition was offered to it, although we have pointed out that there is still a sense of injustice in it. What is the use of passing anything which contains an injustice? Is there any justice in threatening to withdraw the Bill instead of making some effort to remove the injustice? It has been hinted that the public are not interested in the sheriff clerks, but that is not true. I know that the poor people who have to consult these officials find that the sheriff clerks are their best friends, and they get all kinds of guidance and information from them free of charge. Were it not for these officials I do not knew where these poor people would be; therefore, the statement which has been made that these sheriff clerks are not liked is absolutely untrue.
  The next point I want to make is that the Secretary of State for Scotland says that he is not opposing this suggestion, and the excuse he makes is that he cannot get the necessary money out of the Treasury. I am not asking him to do that to meet the claims we are making. I am simply asking the right hon. Gentleman to use some of the grants which have been made for this purpose in past years. Has that money gone back to the Treasury, and is it a case of more money going from Scotland to help to make good the deficit in the present Budget? We are not asking anything from England, but we do want some of our own money back, I hope: the Lord Advocate will say where all that money which was granted for this purpose has gone. There is always a tendency to rush Bills dealing with Scotland, but. I shall always oppose any Bills which are put forward by any Ministers who use threats of this description, because no Minister has any right to use threats in the House of Commons.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I think I may be perfectly clear to the House, and I hope sufficiently clear when I introduce this Bill, and undoubtedly to those who are concerned with this particular Measure, that unless it was accepted in the main as an agreed Measure I would not proceed with the

  441
  Bill. Let me remind the House arising out of the discussion last year that I received a communication from the right hon. Gertleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) just a year ago. I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's letter in the plainest and most explicit terms, and I made it abundantly clear that I could not proceed with this Measure or take any further steps unless there was a large measure of agreement. Here is the; letter which is dated the 10th March, 1926:
  "As there is absolutely no prospect of any further concessions on the main point of controversy, namely, the pension terms for existing officers, I cannot entertain any proposal far further discussion on that aspect of the question, nor do I think. having regard to the previous history of the negotiations, that there is any further kind of concessions which would be open to the officers concerned to press or to the Government to accept. In all these circumstances it is not easy to see that another deputation would serve any useful purpose."
  Following upon that letter the matter was remitted to all the responsible people who were concerned with this problem, and it was quite plain that there could be no dubiety on this subject. In reply I have the assurance that the Procurators Fiscal Association on the 9th October last passed a resolution at a meeting by a majority of one vote to discontinue Parliamentary opposition on certain conditions, which have been the subject of further correspondence. I have another letter dated 21st March intimating that the Committee of the Association have considered the Bill, and stating that
  "in their opinion it implements the various assurances given to us by the Secretary for Scotland. and therefore the decision of the Association to discontinue Parliamentary opposition remains in force."
  The Sheriff Clerks' Association through their Secretary wrote on the 21st February last as follows:
  "On behalf of the Sheriff Clerks' Association I now beg to state that if the Bill is reintroduced, no Amendments will be moved on their behalf."
  Then the Sheriffs Courts Officials' Association through their president wrote on the 17th February as follows:
  "I can therefore give the assurance required that the Bill will be treated in all its stages as an unopposed Measure, and that no Amendments will be moved on behalf of the Sheriff Courts Officials Association."
  442
  The Civil Service Confederation (for Commissary Office Staff) through their secretary wrote:
  "You may take it that no opposition to the new Bill, as presented, will be forthcoming from this Confederation."
  In view of these plain facts, and in view of the fact that I made it clear to the House on the last occasion we discussed this question that I would not reintroduce this Measure unless I received that assurance, I am constrained to say that I am surprised to find, in view of the knowledge which all hon. Members have of the difficulties and intricacies of this controversy proceeding over a period of years from more than one quarter of the House, a desire to get an assurance from me that this matter will be reopened or that it will be reconsidered in Committee. For these reasons, I must make it abundantly plain that that is not the case.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland—
  Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if it is in order for a right hon. Member of this House to move the adjournment of the Debate on his own Motion.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is nothing contrary to order in doing that.
  Mr. GRAHAM: There is now a new Motion before the House, and I think I am in order in speaking again. I will deal with this question very briefly in view of the facts which the Secretary of State for Scotland has submitted. It is perfectly true that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred was addressed to me on the date stated, and that after that time further negotiations took place with the representatives of certain organisations in Scotland. It is also not disputed from this side of the House that the letters sent on their behalf which the Secretary of State for Scotland has read were sent by those organisations, and that they represent a majority in favour of withdrawing opposition to this Bill. All that is perfectly true. I also acknowledge that it is important that the facts should be placed on record, and that on a previous occasion the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it plain that unless there is substantial agreement he would wash his hands of the whole

  443
  proposal, and we should get no Bill at all. We have already indicated that we should consider that a most deplorable result.
  I want to make our position perfectly clear. I have no desire to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman because I want to help him, and so do my colleagues, but up to the present it is a remarkable fact that no hon. Member, who has spoken from any part of the House, has had a good work to say for this Measure, so far as the hardship inflicted upon the older officials is concerned. We have no desire to wreck the Bill, but we do appeal to the Government, even at the eleventh hour, to meet us at a round-table conference to discuss the financial effects of the White Paper, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny is an important matter for which we believe the Government can make provision without any injury to the main structure of the scheme. If there is the slightest chance at the eleventh hour of accomplishing this object I think it is worth while for us to make an effort in that direction rather than allow these men to retire on a pension—in some cases of about 30s. a week—which is quite inadequate. Under these circumstances, I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland should move the adjournment of the Debate. If I may make a suggestion, it is that the right hon. Gentleman should rise in his place, and in order to remove all possible doubt, say, "We will meet you in this matter. Let us come to terms on this question and that will be the end of the matter." I do not want to be put in the position when I go before these men of having to say, "There was one last effort which might be tried, but we did not do our best to make that effort."
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Is it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) is putting to me exactly the same question which he put to me a year ago, when I made it abundantly clear that there was nothing to be gained by having a conference or receiving a deputation. It was in recognition of that fundamental fact that those meetings, to which I have referred, took place with
  444
  those concerned. A year has elapsed and there are no new faces. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh seems to indicate that this is a question, more or less, of money, but it is really a fundamental principle of the whole machinery of the Civil Service and the conditions of the Civil Service, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of those conditions. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is fair to the House or to myself not to make it clear that the fundamental position laid down a year ago, and the circumstances under which these people have accepted that arrangement on behalf of their associations, should not be interfered with Under these conditions, I feel constrained to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends must realise that they cannot have it both ways, and that, if they desire to have this Bill, the only way in which they can have it is by accepting the position of those who have spoken on behalf of these associations.
  Mr. MACPHERSCN: I hesitate to intervene once again in this Debate, but I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend proposes to withdraw the Bill now or not.
  Sir J. GILMOUR indicated assent.
  6.0.p.m.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: He does. From the nod of his head, I understand that he proposes to withdraw this Bill. I have listened to this Debate with very great care, and I think my right hon. Friend will remember the attitude that I took on the Bill. I endorsed the appeal that was made. I said, first of all, that this was a Bill in the nature of a compromise. forced upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and upon the poor officials who are now demanding, at the eleventh hour, a mere semblance of justice in regard to their claim. I mace it plain, speaking as representing my party, that I reinforced the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I understood from his speech—naturally, I had nothing to do with the Amendment that is on the Paper—that, although the Bill was a bad Bill, he was prepared to support it, and that he hoped the appeal which he was making at the eleventh hour to the Secretary of State and his col-

  445
  leagues would be listened to. I have no knowledge at all of the letters which have passed between my two right hon. Friends. They are news to me; I never heard of them before; and in all the letters which I have got dealing with this Bill there has been no mention of any arrangement of any sort or kind. It is just another instance of how difficult it is when the Front Benches on both sides of the House make arrangements of that kind, of which the ordinary back bencher has no knowledge.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I make it plain to my right hon. Friend that there was no arrangement of the character he suggests? There was an interchange of correspondence, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated, but only a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman had had no decision from these associations. That is an entirely new matter for the purposes of this Debate.
  Me. MACPHERSON: I apologise to my two right hon. Friends. I did not quite realise that it was purely a matter of correspondence; I thought, from the nature of the case, that an arrangement had been made between the two Front Benches. In any case, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to remember that this was a Second Beading Debate, and that on such occasions men very often vote against the Second Reading of a Bill who intend to improve it in Committee; and at this stage, after only two hours of discussion, my right hon. Friend now gets up and practically, as he told me just now by nodding his head, withdraws the Bill. I do not think that that is—I was going to say quite fair, but my right hon. Friend will understand the meaning—I do not think it is quite fair to the House or to the officials concerned. I believe, myself, that the reorganisation of the service would be an immense advantage to the rising men in that service, and that in the future it will be a great service under the provisions of this Bill.
  What I stood up to assert—I went no further—was the right of men who had been 50 years in a service to be considered by His Majesty's Government in the same way in which any decent, respectable firm would consider old workmen in their service. I adduced two or three cases of extreme hardship, and they were
  446
  mentioned several times by succeeding speakers; and what I got up to do, and what I do now at the eleventh hour again, is to ask my right hon. Friend, in the interests of these men, in the interests of the service as a whole, to reconsider the position, and to remember that it is not quite fair, either to these men or to the House, to withdraw a Bill on the Second Reading stage before the discussion has been completed. [Interruption.] I did not quite catch the remark of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. [Interruption.] If that be the attitude of the Government, with all its force behind it, it is no use my making any further appeal, but I regret that that should be the attitude of the Government, for my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench knows perfectly well that it is the right of Members above the Gangway, or in any other part of the House, to protest against a Bill, to protest against particular Glauses of the Bill, and to vote against the Bill because of those Clauses, reserving to themselves, however, the right in Committee to try to amend the Bill. I feel sure that that was the attitude of Members in all sections and parties of the House in discussing this Bill, and I am assured by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that in the course of their speeches they said so.
  I, therefore, think that the Government would be well advised, in view of the situation which has arisen, not to withdraw the Bill at this juncture. Let them try the Bill in Committee. Let the House in Committee seriously settle down to attempt to solve the very difficult and abstruse problems that are involved. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he cannot depart from a certain arrangement made in that correspondence, I did not understand from his speech that he meant, nor did I understand from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh that he meant that there would be no opportunity for the Government to administer some of the reforms for which I was pressing. I am perfectly certain that it is within the scope of Government administration to look after the rights of these old men for whom we have been pleading. I do not mean in any way— and I am speaking for many other Members of this House—to interfere with the passage of the Bill as it stands, but I im-

  447
  plore my right hon. Friend, and I am joined in my appeal by a great many Members, at the eleventh hour to try to do something for these old servants of the State. Servants who had been in the employ of private individuals, who had been in the employ of my right hon. Friend himself, would have had in the evening of their days a competence, and not a miserable pittance such as this Bill affords them.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: I would like also to explain my position in regard to this matter. I am surprised at the extreme sensitiveness of the Secretary of State for Scotland in a matter of this kind. What is the use of bringing a Bill here if we are not going to discuss it? I think every one of us made it absolutely clear that we welcomed the greater part of the Bill, but wanted to make it a little better, and because, forsooth, we wanted to make the Bill a little better, the Bill is to be withdrawn altogether, and I expect the whole blame is to be thrown upon those who were trying to make it a little easier for the older men in this profession. I do not think that that is a right attitude to take at all. If we are told that nothing is to be done in Committee, then for the life of me I do not understand why the Bill should go to Committee at all. I trust that any little good that may come to the law officers in Scotland will not be thrown away because of the super-sensitiveness to criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I feel sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the last statement that he made, was trying to place the blame upon the Opposition for the withdrawal of this Bill. It seems to me that it is impossible now for anything else to happen but the withdrawal of the Bill. A Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate has been moved, and we have also had the nod of the head indicating that the Bill is to be withdrawn altogether. I am not sorry. I say that quite frankly, because I think it would be a tragedy for this House to do the same by the men for whom we are fighting as has been done in connection with old teachers. old ex-policemen, and so on. Time and asain we have had Bills introduced into this House for the purpose of remedying grievances that you yourselves have created by passing
  448
  Acts of Parliament which did not take into consideration the services of men who had given years of service in connection with these different services to which I have referred. I am not sorry that the Bill is going to be withdrawn, because Clause 15 is going to create a very serious injustice so far as miners are concerned, and enough injustice has been done to them already,. apart from inserting, in a Bill which seeks to deal with the salaries, emoluments and method of appointment of sheriff clerks, something that is going to create a very great hardship so far as miners are concerned. Clause 16 was very ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and we have had no reply to the definite charge that we are going to allow Acts of Parliament to be interpreted—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, it is net permissible for hon. Members to discuss the merits of the Bill. The only thing that it is in order to discuss is the withdrawing or not withdrawing of the particular Motion under discussion. The merits of the Bill cannot be discussed.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. If the Secretary of State for Scotland gives, as a reason for moving this second Motion, the attitude of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this Bill, am I not right in assuming that they can reply and state that he has no justification for moving that Motion on account of their attitude?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: So long as they confine their remarks to the reasons why the Motion for the Adjournment should not be proceeded with, they would, of course, be in order, but that does not justify a discussion on the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Further on the point of Order. I am not opposing the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate; I am supporting it. Am I not in order in giving reasons why this Motion should be agreed to?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It does not matter whether the hon. Member is in favour of the Motion or not; the same rule would apply as; to what can be discussed.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I accept your ruling, but I would again repeat something that I said when I was in order. I am pleased that the Adjournment of the Debate has been moved, because I believe that the Bill is so wretched in its application to some of those who deserve better treatment.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I resent very much the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for Scotland right from the very beginning. I thought the day was past when a man holding such a responsible position as he holds would take up such an attitude before a body of men like the British House of Commons. To think that he should come down here to-day and tell us deliberately that, unless we were prepared to swallow this Bill holus bolus, no matter what it was, he would withdraw the Bill! What is the House of Commons for if it is not to discuss? Is not that the idea of Parliamentary government, of party government, so that we may improve a Measure if possible? But the right hon. Gentleman comes down and tells us that, unless we do this, or unless we do the next thing, he will withdraw the Bill. It is simply what the Government that the right hon. Gentleman represents to-day have done all along since they came into power. They have used the big club every time. It has become stronger since the Chief Whip arrived, and then, when the Prime Minister came in and sat between the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman became, he thought a man. He said, "I withdraw the Bill." He has got to remember that we are not going to be treated in that fashion by him. That is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) pointed out, why we agreed to his being strengthened in his position and made a Secretary of State. We do not expect treatment of that kind. We told him that greater honours brought greater responsibility and that he would have to learn to behave himself like an intelligent human being and not dictate terms to us, because we are not going to be dictated to either by the Prime Minister or by the Secretary of State. We are going to conduct our affairs as long as we conform to the uses of the House, and we have been doing that,
  450
  The idea is, come let us reason together. Because our reason does not happen to coincide with that of the great high priest of Scotland, he says, "We will not discuss any longer, we will move the Adjournment," and I am astonished that you, Sir. readily accepted it. So much so that we had to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) had the House when you called on the Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: For the moment the Question is not whether I should have accepted the Motion, but whether the Debate should be adjourned.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not care whether it is adjourned or not, and I am satisfied that the men who are most implicated in this Bill do not care either. It is true the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State can produce a letter showing that they are quite agreeable to the Bill, but who is agreeable? The bread and butter of these men is at stake. They are not so free even as engineers or miners. They have no organisation to back them up, and they dare not do anything else. They are tied down by the Lord Advocate and his company who rule (he roost in Edinburgh. I have every respect for the men who are implicated here. I had a good deal of dealings with the men in the sheriff Court. The Court crier and the clerk of the Court often conduct the affairs of the Court without the sheriff being present. I stood in the Kent Court in Glasgow for two years when there were hundreds of cases passing through, and the business was presented by your humble servant to the Court crier and the sheriff clerk, and not to the sheriff at all. He had to go on with something else that was considered more important than rent cases. Those men transacted the whole business and did it correctly and very humanely in a. great many instances. They have been a long time in the service. An arrangement has been made and they have accepted it, but not because the conditions laid before them are the correct conditions that they should get. They know they are not. They have protested time and time against them. I am glad to see Mr. Speaker has arrived. These Court officials that we are discussing have,

  451
  been treated most unfairly by the Government. The Labour Government, when in office, had the idea of trying to deal fairly and squarely with them, and they drafted a Bill, but time did not permit, because the Tories of the country forced a General Election which we term the forgery election. In their desire to get into power they forged a letter.
  The Secretary for Scotland—I wish you, Sir, had been in the Chair at the time— laid down a law that I resent very much, that if we would not accept a certain position, he would do certain things. He would end the whole of constitutionalism as we understand it in the House of Commons. It was stated that we would not be allowed to discuss this Bill, and if we did discuss it he would throw it out, and not allow it to be discussed. Every Bill that comes before the House has a right to stand on its merits and no man, not even the Secretary of State, has the right to bring a Bill in unless he is capable of defending it. It is evident, from the part the right hon. Gentleman has played, that he has not the capability to defend the provisions of the Bill. He now says he is going to withdraw. I hope you, Sir, will tell him he has not the power to withdraw it and that we are going to discuss it whether he wants us to or not. The Bill has got to leave here and go to Committee, and such a Committee—the Scottish Grand Committee. He knows we would tear it from Dan unto Beersheba. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to withdraw the Bill although he is the representative of a very powerful Government, but only in this House, because their power is gradually wearing away, as the bye-elections demonstrate, I have never yet seen on the floor of the House such arrogance as the Secretary for Scotland has displayed in the most blatant fashion. There has never been a man yet in all my experience who has stood up at that Box and threatened the House in the manner he threatened us to-day. He has to learn not to treat us in that fashion. We would not take that treatment from anyone. We expect something different from the Secretary for Scotland. This is part and parcel of the part the Scottish Office play when we go on a deputation. They mete out the same treatment to those who will tolerate it. The right hon. Gentleman received a
  452
  deputation from the Glasgow Corporation on housing, because all the world knows that Glasgow has a terrible housing problem.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is "That the Debate be now adjourned" and the hon. Member must keep to that Question—whether or not the Debate on this subject should be adjourned.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am trying to show that the right hon. Gentleman has no right to put that forward. Personally I am neither for nor against. The deputation was not a Socialist deputation. The right hon Gentleman meted out to the opponents of the Socialist programme on the Glasgow Corporation exactly the same treatment that he is meting out to the House to-day, so much so that a resolution was moved in the Corporation deprecating the treatment they had received. He treated them with contempt. Three months ago I was on a deputation along with the education, authority for Dumbartonshire regarding 700 childrer who had to go to school in the winter without boots. Again the very same thing happened and I had to rise and give him a right telling off for treating the deputation in the same way he had treated the Glasgow Corpoation. I hope the House will rally behind us against the Secretary for Scotland and not let him get his own way on this occasion.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I think it will be only right that I should remind the House that what my right hon. Friend said is not properly described as a threat at all. I know hon. Members opposite are very fond of trying to discover a threat in everything.
  Mr. MACPHER80N rose—
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I think I might be allowed to start and develop a little what I have to say. As our predecessors in office found, so we have found, on consideration of the matter, and lengthy consideration, the difficulty of fitting this system, which is not at present established, into our Civil Service system and it has been clear for a long time, and it has been made absolutely clear, that we cannot go beyond the terms that are contained mainly in Clause 7 of the Bill. That being the situation, it has been made quite clear to the associations of the services con-

  453
  cerned that that is so, and they have accepted it, although I quite agree, very naturally, they would like to have better terms. The difficulty is not the absence of money, but fitting this into the general Civil Service system. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) is fully aware of the difficulty of re-opening the County Courts Bill for England.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: It will be most unfortunate if that is put on record. I said the reply that had always been offered was that it would involve the reopening of the County Courts settlement, but I made it clear that there was in our view a complete reply to that contention.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the very point that was debated again and again. It was debated at the time the right hon. Gentleman himself was in office. After all, we have not too much time for discussing Bills in this House. There is a very large amount of legislation, and we have to leave as much time as possible for the discussion of controversial Measures. If this were a controversial Measure in the true sense of the term, and if it is going to be made one, then, of course, we have not time for it. If, on the other hand, it is recognised that it can be treated in the main as a non-controversial Measure, and that is the desire now of the associations concerned, we would perhaps be able to get it through. That is our position. To say that it is a threat on the part of my right hon. Friend to point out the circumstances of the Government in regard to Clause 7, which is the main Clause, and that that cannot be altered to increase any benefits, is unfair. He is merely pointing out that discussion on that Clause to that effect is really making it controversial, and is making it controversial on the very point on which the Government cannot give way. Surely, it was only fair to the House to point that out.
  It is not quite fair to my right hon. Friend to describe that as a threat. He was merely stating in unambiguous terms the position of the Government in regard to the Bill. That is not an uncommon thing in regard to Bills. The Mover of
  454
  a Bill very often points out that they cannot give way either in the House or in Committee on certain points, but that on other points they will be ready to consider alterations. It does so happen that this is one of the most important points in the Bill. Therefore, it was all the more incumbent upon the Government to make it absolutely clear that they could not give way on that point, and it would have been unfair to the House not to make that point clear. Knowing, as the House knows, the position of the associations representing these various officers and employes concerned, it is a little—I do not want to use any strong language— surprising, to put it mildly, to find a Motion tabled for the rejection of the Bill. That was the Motion we were discussing before we got to the question of the Adjournment. So long as that Motion is there, it is a Motion which will prevent us going to Committee. When it became clear in the course of discussion that this was being treated, not merely as a peg on which to hang protests, but as a peg on which to secure stronger controversial terms, my right hon. Friend had to consider what the position was going to be. There was no need for such a Motion in order to protest and say you dislike the Bill and to discuss it on Second Reading. Therefore, I wish to point out that, what is made quite clear as far as it stands at this moment, that that could be secured by the withdrawal of the Motion.
  HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
  Mr. MAXTON: Is that a threat?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Now we have it perfectly clear what is the attitude of the Opposition. Accordingly, we must persist in this Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Whatever the justification of the Government may be, or whatever justification they may allege to exist, it is perfectly clear to the House now that the Government propose to do a most unusual thing. The Lord Advocate is quite wrong regarding what he says is the effect of an Amendment such as is now on the Paper, during the Second Reading of a Bill. He knows perfectly well that when a Bill is up for Second Reading, an Amendment to the

  455
  Second Heading drawing attention to points which the Opposition or any Member of the House regards as being unsatisfactory in the Bill, is always in Order, and in nine cases out of 10 that is embodied in the Resolution or Amendment such as this. The action that my hon. Friends have taken is the ordinary and usual action on Second Beading. What is quite unusual, so unusual that I do not remember in all the course of my service in this House to have seen or to have known of a similar thing having been done, is that when the Government are faced with an Amendment of this kind they say, "If you do not withdraw the Amendment, we shall have to withdraw the Bill." That is what it amounts to.
  Some distinction has been drawn between what is a non-controversial or an agreed Bill, and an ordinary controversial Bill. I would not like to be charged with the task of drawing the line between those two classes of Bills, but whether a Bill is regarded as controversial or non-controversial it is perfectly in order for anybody to put down such an Amendment as we have on the Paper. It is not only in order in a-technical sense, but it is a good habit and a good custom of this House that it should be done, and it is the Government's duty to get its Bills through. If the Government always withdrew their Bills when such Amendments were put down on Second Reading, they would do a great service to the country. I wish such a policy were often followed by the present Government in that regard. So far as this particular matter is concerned, we want to know why a special case of exception has been made now.
  There is something more, and we need not hold it back. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows perfectly well that if he gets the Financial Resolution which is down on the Paper in regard to this Bill he is protected in Committee from the discussion which he says is going to take up so much time. He knows that if he gets paragraph B of the Financial Resolution that the time that will be consumed in Committee upstairs on the point to which we have drawn attention in our Amendment will be very small if, as a matter of fact, it exists at all. He also knows that the only time that
  456
  this point can be discussed is now and that it can be repeated when he moves his Financial Resolution. He knows that it cannot be repeated in Committee, and he knows that it cannot be repeated on Report stage of the Bill when it comes before this House. He knows that once he gets his Division on the Second Reading of this Bill and he gets his Financial Resolution in the Committee stage and on Report, he is clear of all trouble. Therefore the whole of his arguments in that respect fall to the ground. People outside who are concerned with this Bill ought to know that. The Associations for whom he speaks, and which have come to a very unwilling agreement, ought to know the circumstances, and if any attempt is to be made, as the Lord Advocate made just now, to put responsibility upon us in that respect, I would advise the Lord Advocate to consider the position in which he stands before he ventures to make such statements outside this House.
  As far as this Bill is concerned in its main purpose it is a non-controversial Bill, that is, the reorganisation of the service in Scotland. There may be Amendments, and there will be Amendments in Committee, and I think the Government would welcome some of them. At any rate, they will recognise that they are perfectly legitimate Amendments that ought to be discussed and settled in Committee. As far as the agreement with the associations are concerned on Clause 7, in so far they are to be in order in Committee—there will not be very much in order, I am afraid—it is to the Committee that the statement.1; ought to be made that have been hinted at here. I would urge upon the Government in the interests of the great service of justice in Scotland the necessity of reorganising the whole of that servies. There has been no Government in office for a good many years that has not recognised that somebody ought to put their hands to the plough and to see that it goes right through the furrow.
  I ask the Government whether it is really worth while to go on with this Motion that the Debate be adjourned. It is not merely a Motion that the Debate be adjourned; I understand the effect of the Motion is that the Bill should be withdrawn. The Government are taking 3 very heavy responsibility upon their

  457
  shoulders in acting in that way. The precedents are all against them. If they wish to withdraw it, well, that is their responsibility; but I would like to see some reorganisation of the Scottish system, and if anybody is responsible for its not being done now, it is the Government and the Government alone. If the Government have come to an arrangement with the associations regarding Clause 7, it is the duty of the Government to explain that arrangement to the Committee or to this House, when we come to the Financial Resolution. They cannot come to this House and say, "Because we have come to an arrangement with an outside authority therefore it anybody questions that arrangement we will withdraw our Bill." That is not business. That is not the way that business should be conducted in this House.
  Even at this late moment, I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to recognise the point that I have raised about the effect of his Financial Resolution, and to let us express our opinion about the position of these old men who are affected. Let the Government go on with the Bill, and do with his Bill what is done with regard to other Bills. Let them trust to their own majority and trust to their own arguments and let the matter stand. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will not persist in the Motion that he has made.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I would not have intervened in this Debate had I not been impressed by the possibility that while we are contending nothing would be done to set right a grievance in Scotland which we all deplore. Every one of us on both sides of the House is convinced that a great injustice has been suffered for many generations by the officers and employés of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland. The matter came before me when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a grievance which all of us recognise and which all Scottish Members are eager to set right.
  In this Debate both sides have been to a certain extent right. I recognise, and everyone will recognise, that the Leader of the Opposition is right when he says that there is an absolute right on the part of the Opposition to debate the main features of a Bill on Second Reading, and that no one was exercising more than his ordinary right in carrying
  458
  on that Debate. I am sure also that we all appreciate the fact that with so much argumentative power which Scotland can produce in its various Members, it was only natural that the Debate upon a question of this kind, upon which we all feel very deeply, should be perhaps a little prolonged. On the other hand, one has to recognise the history of this question. We cannot forget that this question was debated previously on a Bill of a similar character in this House, and that all the arguments which can be asserted against this particular Bill were then stated from both sides of the House.
  In fact, it was due to the mere or less unanimous opinion of the Scottish constituencies that the previous Bill was withdrawn, and I think the Secretary of State, who is anxious to get this Measure passed and little time in which to do it, was naturally disturbed at the chance of losing a Bill which we all desire because of the prolonged character of the discussion. We know the difficulties which have previously prevented this injustice being redressed, and I am quite sure we are all agreed to get to grips with the position and pass the Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition hoped that somebody would plough a straight furrow in this matter. I am quite sure he was expressing himself with great sincerity, and if hon. Members behind him are of the. same view and willing to give the Secretary of State for Scotland the Bill now is there any reason why he should not have it? We are all practical men who desire a solution of this problem, and I put it to both Front Benches that if we can be assured that the House will now divide on the Second Reading that the Secretary of Scotland would be willing to withdraw his Motion. I appeal to my colleagues from Scotland that we should not reveal ourselves as unreasonable and unthinking people by taking a course of conduct which is approved by none of us, but that we should rather settle the matter at once.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like just to answer what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and also by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home). I realise the feeling of many Members on this question, but I want to make it quite clear that the Government must be adamant on the one fundamental

  459
  point in this Bill. If the House is prepared to accept the suggestion that it should proceed at once to a Division then I should be prepared to withdraw the Motion. If that is the understanding I am prepared to do so.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The Secretary of State has made some observations concerning the correspondence which he has had on this subject, and I could see that he laid great stress upon the understanding which has been arrived at. The line the right hon. Gentleman took was to say that as there was this arrangement with the organisations concerned no hon. Member should intervene and create difficulties upon what seemed to be an agreed Measure. I quoted a statement from the Sheriff's clerk in Dundee giving; the actual figures of the division. I want to express my strong dissatisfaction with the method and to repudiate the attitude which the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken up at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon, and since, which is the attitude of a sergeant-major trying to dragoon the forces of Scotland. I protest most vigorously at the idea that we are to be driven into accepting any arrangement with regard to this Bill.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I think we have been treated in a most unfortunate way by the Secretary of State. Since the dove of peace was flown from IIillhead the right hon. Gentleman has taken the position that if he gets a decision of the House now all will be well. He might have got his Division by this time and allowed the Opposition to put their point of view on the contentions matter in the Bill. But it is becoming the practice of the representatives of the Scottish Office in this House to take up this position. We had trouble last Session in connection with the Scottish Prisons Act. Whenever we start a discussion the Secretary of State gets into a pet. begins to cry, and says: "I am not going to play any longer!" I think it is intolerable that the House should be treated in this way. He only became reasonable when one of the Members of his own party showed the position of the Scottish Members in regard to the Measure. Evidently he was afraid that the revolt would spread, and he has taken this position in order to keep us from discussing the matter. I protest against the
  460
  way in which we have been treated by the Secretary of State. The Lord Advocate made it no better for the right hon. Gentleman. He simply showed up the mean tactics that have been employed, an attempt not only to stifle opinion on this side of the House but to stifle the opinion of Tory hon. Members who feel that the Government is acting in a brutal and callous fashion in regard to these older men.
  Mr. MAXTON: I desire to raise a point of Order. Here in the presence of hon. Members in this House we are being asked by the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Home), and the Secretary of State for Scotland assents, to withdraw all opposition to this Measure at this stage.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Sir R. HORNE: To bring the discussion to an end and divide on the Second Reading now. That is the suggestion I make in the interests of the people who are to be benefited under this Bill.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that this is a correct procedure for this House; that hon. Members, myself among them, are to subject themselves to bargains of this description which over-ride their rights of free discussion, and that you, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to approve of these bargains being entered into?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a matter for my approval or disapproval. I simply put the question to the House. If there be a Motion made "Thai the House do adjourn," it is my duty to put it to the House to decide.
  Mr. MAXTON: Have yon not some control over the decencies of the House?
  Mr. MacDONALD: As I understand it, the suggestion is that if the Division on the Second Reading can be taken now the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate will be withdrawn, and after the Bill has been given a Second Reading the House will be able to go on in due time to discuss the Financial Resolution. In that event I do not see why we should not go on to the Division.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If that be agreed and we can divide now, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 107.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES.

  [6.57 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Forrest, W.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Apsley, Lord

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Gates, Percy

  Makins, Brigadler-General E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Atkinson, C.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Manning ham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Balniel, Lord

  Grace, John

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Bethel, A.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Grotrlan, H. Brent

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Biundell, F. N.

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

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Neville, R. J.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hanbury, C.

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harland, A.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harris, Percy A.

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

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

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pilcher, G.

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Radford, E. A.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Raine, W.

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

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)

  Ramsden, E.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Remer, J. R.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cope, Major William

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lamb, J. O.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Duckworth, John

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R

  Skelton, A. N.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

  Edmondsan, Major A. J.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lumley, L. R

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Fermoy, Lord

  MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Finburgh, S.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Templeton, W. P.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Wise, Sir Fredrie

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

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Withers, John James

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Wells, S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir

  Waddington, R.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Harry Barnston.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  NOES.

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan Neath)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smillie, Robert

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Barf, J.

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

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sullivan, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

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

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Davies, Rhys John (Weethoughton)

  Mackinder, W.

  Thorne, W. (west Ham, plaistow)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Duncan, C.

  Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Viant, S. P.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Welsh, J. C.

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Westwood, J

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

  Ritson, J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Wright, W.

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes,

  Question put, and agreed to.

  RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.0.p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman begins will he let us know, with reference to this Bill, whether this is to be a genuine Debate or whether after—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. MAXTON: We want to know the Rules of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member rose to a point of Order, but he did not put a point of Order.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is designed to reorganise the Scottish offices and in particular the Board system, I should like to say I hope,. and I think I have some justification in expressing that hope, that this Bill will be considered to be of an entirely non-party nature and will receive the careful consideration of hon. Members in all parts of the House, looking at it as a Bill designed materially to improve the machinery of administration and to bring into line with modern requirements the administration of Scottish affairs.

  465
  The House, and particularly all hon. Members and right hon. Members from Scotland, is, I think, well aware that in the past the administration in Scotland has been conducted by a system of Boards. It may well have been that at one period in the history of Scotland, and more particularly, perhaps,, that regrettable period when there was no direct Secretary for Scotland, the Board system may have had material advantages. As time has passed and as the ordinary development of the government of our country has progressed, I think it is true to say that those who have been brought into contact with the administration in Scotland, either those responsible for the administration, occupying the position of Secretary for Scotland, or those who are intimately concerned with the work of these Boards, realise that there has been a growing feeling, both inside from the administrative side and outside from the public point of view, that, however good in many respects much of that work has been, this system no longer really serves the purpose.
  This Bill is, therefore, designed in the main to alter what is known as the Board system and to set up in its place a system of Departments, following upon the lines both of the Education Department which we already have in Scotland and of those other great Departments of State which exist here in England such as the Department of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health. Let me say at once that, in making this proposal, there is, of course, not the slightest foundation for any idea that these Departments or their activities or their work are going to be transferred, in any measure more than at present, from Scotland to Whitehall. Let me disabuse the minds of any hon. Members in this House—which I hardly imagine can be necessary—but certainly of anyone outside who may think that in this Measure there lies the germ or seed of some bureaucratic idea of transferring and bringing to London those Departments which are at present closely in touch with the Scottish people and Scottish opinion.
  On the other hand, is it not true to say that the Board system has been found to be less effective in securing responsibility for official action and advice than the system of having one
  466
  responsible civil servant at the head. which is followed in our own Scottish Office at Dover House, and, indeed, in the other great Departments of the State. Everyone must have been struck by some words which fell from the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in the discussion on the last Measure—I am within the recollection of the House in saying that he suggested that there was great advantage in seeing that in any Service of the State, those who held that service had stability of appointment, and, if I am not wrong in thinking so, that there was great advantage in a service which was built up of people appointed on a pure test of their fitness and not from any outside considerations. Many of the appointments which have been made in Scotland have, of course, been excellent. I am not here to decry them or to say Scotland has not been well served, but it is clear that any idea of a system of patronage appointments is, in the broad aspect of it, contrary to the real efficiency of a continuous State service. That was the view of the Royal Commission which investigated this problem and which, I think, reported in 1914. Further, I would like to say that in this great business of administration, the work is apparently sometimes performed by men who bring to it no special knowledge. This is what the Royal Commission said on that point in their Report:
  "The system affords no room for that type of selected and trained permanent administrative official which is represented by the administrative class."
  The arrangement by which boards in Scotland take the place of the Higher Divisions in London offices appears to the Commission to be unsatisfactory, and they
  "recommend that the Scottish Departments be no longer deprived of the advantages which would come from employing officers of the administrative class."
  The Commissioners add:
  "The local sympathy and knowledge which it may be contended is provided by the existing system might, we believe, continue to he secured, partly by the natural tendency of Scottish officials to seek service in Scottish offices and partly by the creation in suitable cases of unpaid advisory boards."
  I should like at this stage to say a word or two upon that aspect of the problem,

  467
  that of Advisory Boards. Under the existing system of boards of administration, we do have in the Board of Health in Edinburgh a number of advisory committees. They are composed of unpaid and outside people skilled in certain interests which come up for discussion before the board. There is nothing in this Measure which would in any way-lessen either the necessity or the opportunity for continuing such boards. If you take the Board of Agriculture as an instance, that Board undoubtedly has had and has to-day an advisory agricultural committee; but, in my judgment, the real advisory and the most useful advisory committee dealing with questions of agriculture are those bodies and those who speak for the bodies which are eminently and intimately concerned with the industries for which they speak. If you take agriculture, is it not true to say that, even though you may have an advisory committee on agricultural affairs convened to assist the Department of Agriculture or the Board of Agriculture, in fact, that body is less capable of speaking with real knowledge upon those problems than the definite representatives sent from the Farm Servants' Union, the Farmers' Union, the Highland Agricultural Society, or from the Chamber of Agriculture? I am not one of those who rule out in any sense, nor does this Bill, the establishment or continuance of such advisory body as that agricultural body, but the real live pressure on questions of importance upon which the Department may have to come to conclusions, is much more likely cogently to be presented to them, and is accessible either to the head of the Department or the Minister concerned. from the direct representatives of any one of those active bodies participating in these matters.
  However suited this system may have been for the conditions which I have already described it has, from the point of view of those of us who have had to work these things, become increasingly apparent that the advantage of having a responsible head of the Department, with officers and sub-officers working under him and giving direct advice to the Minister, is much more likely to lead to decisions and rapid decisions than a system under which questions are debated by
  468
  members of a board round the table, the matters subsequently divided and discussed by committees of that board, and, as sometimes happened no doubt, divisions of opinion arising between members of the board. Let me put it in this way: I would infinitely prefer to see the head of the Ministry of Agriculture in Scotland a really eminent and highly trained civil servant placed there because of his training and knowledge of the Civil Service, operating as the head of that Department, responsible for the work of the Department and in direct communication with the Minister who is responsible as spokesman for that Department in the House. That he will have under him other officers skilled in one or other branch of the industries which concern agricultural affairs in Scotland, and that he will call those officers into consultation, there is no doubt. I am constrained to say that that kind of machine has by experience proved to be the better machine. The Board system is one which has existed in other countries beside our own. It existed in the case of Ireland, and certainly in the North of Ireland, where I went to make inquiries some time ago, it was found that it was infinitely preferable to have a system of Departments. Be that as it may, I submit that there will be material advantage in having a recognised service where the head and those under him in those Departments are recruited from the general Civil Service and are not in any sense subject to any outside or political pressure or appointment.
  There is another point which has weighed with me. In the past one of the difficulties of administration to anyone who occupies my post here in London, subject to the duties of Parliament and kept in London, was at one time the difficulty of close and constant contact. With an office such as we have at Dover House, efficiently staffed as it is with civil servants of a most excellent class, it has in the past not been possible so much as I desired to see an interchange between those who are working at Dover House and those who are working in the Departments in Scotland. The officials at Dover House are assiduous and careful in dealing with the problems which affect our country, but if we find in Scotland eminently satisfactory men trained and brought into close contact with affairs in

  469
  Scotland, would it not be of material advantage to the whole conduct of our affairs that we should have a system of interchange between the services? I can imagine the opportunities which it will hold out to those men who occupy posts in Scotland, that they should feel that there is a stepping-stone from the Department in Scotland to the Head Office in London, and vice versa. From my own point of view and such experience as I have had in that Office, that is a point which I commend to the attention of my colleagues.
  Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 provides for the organisation into a Department of officers serving on or under the corresponding Board, and under the proviso to the sub-clause such officers are ensured against any reduction of emoluments or interference with tenure of office and superannuation privileges. In considering the assimilation arrangements and grading of posts in the Departments, regard will be had to the recommendation of the Royal Commission that where a higher post is decided to be of an administrative character it shall be filled either from Class I examination or by promotion. It is impossible to say at present how soon and to what extent the introduction of the administrative class will be found necessary or expedient, but it is safe to say that the bias will certainly be at the outset in favour of assigning for the administrative posts those officers in the Departments who have shown themselves competent to perform the duties of such posts. I want to make that point quite clear. Such officers have potentially under this Bill prospects of advancement which have not hitherto been open generally to the staff employed by the Board.
  The second Section of the Bill is that relating to the reorganisation of the Register House Department. As my hon. Friends from Scotland will know, there has been considerable discussion as to what was the proper method of reorganising the staff. In 1919 the post of the Deputy Clerk Register fell vacant, and it was then decided that the post should not be filled, but that legislation should be obtained constituting a new office of Registrar-General, the functions of which office were previously discharged by the Deputy Clerk Register, and making separate entities of the Sasines, Records and Deeds Office, over which in
  470
  a greater or less degree the Deputy Clerk Register had jurisdiction. We have very carefully considered the whole of this problem, and the conclusion reached is that, for reasons similar to those which pointed to reorganisation of the other Board, the proposals of 1923 and 1924 should be changed in favour of a system of centralised responsibility. We therefore propose to make one head of the Register Office. To effect the object in view, namely, the close concentration under one head of the responsibility for the administration of the sasines and records and deeds, it is necessary to transfer to such a head the functions not only of the Deputy Clerk Registrar, which included those of the Keeper of the Records, but also those of the Keeper of Sasines and Records and Deeds. The Bill accordingly provides for the appointment of a Keeper of the Register and Records of Scotland, to whom these functions will be transferred. I hope that the centralising of this authority will lead to efficiency and it may well lead to economies and will be generally acceptable to Scotland.
  Thirdly, the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions of a minor or consequential character. With regard to Clause 10, it should be stated, in conjunction with the explanation in the White Paper on the Financial Resolution, that the Clause gives effect to a recommendation made by a Committee some years ago, and endorsed in the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Court of Session, that steps should be taken to remedy the position under which officers in the Extractor's Department appointed personally by the Extractor are without security of tenure and arc ineligible for pension. It is desirable in the interests of the staff to put the small matter right in advance of any general legislation following the Commission's Report. Clause 11 has the effect of eliminating the requirement that the Board of Trustees in the National Galleries should contain three members of elected local authorities. The requirement was inserted by Amendment in the 1906 Bill, but I do not think it can be said that it has served any really useful purpose. The field of selection of membership of this Board, with its highly specialised function, is at the best a small one, and the limitation imposed

  471
  by the requirement may only make the composition of a strong and expert Board more difficult.
  I feel that this Bill is a step in the direction of the reorganisation and the greater efficiency of our work in Scotland, and, if I did not think so, I should not be here to submit it to the House. While there may be criticisms of it, and while I am quite prepared to discuss, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, any points which hon. Members may raise, I think this is a Measure of which it can be truly said that it is entirely non-controversial. It is not a party Measure in any sense. We have endeavoured in the machinery of improvement to safeguard the position of those who have served the State faithfully and well, and I would like to say on this occasion, which is an opportune occasion, that it is not in any sense in detriment of the value of the services which the present occupants of these offices have rendered that I am making this proposition. Rather is it because this machinery makes it possible for them to render the fullest service that this proposal is made. On the other hand, I think it will be found that those who go into the Service, whether they enter as first-class civil servants or as second-class civil servants will have ample opportunity to rise, but so long as we have a general system in the Civil Service in this country where you have examinations and certain qualifications, which give us the first-class civil servants, and second-class civil servants, I am bound to say I think Scotland would be unwise if she refused to take an opportunity such as is held out on this occasion of staffing her departments in Scotland with those who are best fitted from an educational point of view to render service to her. With these words I commend the Bill to the House, and I shall be happy to listen to any criticisms which hon. Members may have to offer.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  The Secretary of State expressed the hope that the discussion on this Measure would be of a non-party character. The right hon. Gentleman did his best to assure the House that the Bill was not
  472
  introduced by him in any party sense. While that may be true, I do not think he can get the Second Reading, or any of the further stages of this Bill without controversy, because it contains a considerable amount of highly controversial matter. Already the Bill is attracting considerable attention in Scotland, and up to now it has no'; been very favourably received by the: Press. I believe, had more time been given for consideration of the Bill before it came up in the House, the Secretary of State would have found a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with its provisions. Not only are some of the important newspapers in Scotland subjecting it to criticism but individual criticisms are being expressed regarding these proposals, and such criticisms, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, are not confined to those who agree with the Labour party. They are making themselves apparent even in the ranks of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters. I read a letter in one of our newspapers the other day from a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, in which the writer said that he wanted to ventilate a grievance against the Government which he found shared by many who, like himself, had worked for and supported the present Administration, the reason for the grievance being the continually and exasperatingly shabby treatment of Scotland by the" powers that be in London —meaning the Government.
  "An ungrateful and short-sighted policy" (the writer vent on to say) "which is doing untold harm to the Unionist cause in Scotland."
  I do not know that Members on these benches would object seriously to the Bill if all it was doing was untold harm to the Unionist cause in Scotland. If we had no other objection to the Bill than that, we would be rather inclined to take a different view from that expressed in my Amendment. The writer went on to state that this Bill provided for the reorganisation of Scottish public offices with a view to economy at Scotland's expense.
  "Why" he asks !"should it always be the case that Scotland is fixed upon for experiments,"
  meaning experiments such as are contained in the proposals just moved by the right hon. Gentleman?

  473
  "It is really very galling"(says the writer further)"to patriotic Scottish Unionists, this continual flouting of Scottish national sentiment."
  I fear the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to make this a non-controversial Measure is not going to be realised, not even inside the ranks of his own party. The principle of the Bill is to transfer the powers of the Scottish Board of Health, the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and the Scottish Prison Commissioners to Departments of Health, Agriculture, and Prisons respectively. The right hon. Gentleman tells us his chief reason for such a proposal is that it is made on the ground of efficiency. I was awaiting the addition to the precious word "efficiency" of the word "economy." because as a general rule when we have proposals of this kind, these two words go hand in hand. The right hon. Gentleman also told us that it was the opinion of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which sat in the years 1912-1914, that such a change as he outlines in this Bill should be made. I also understand that the Civil Service staffs have pressed this change upon successive Governments for a number of years. I think the claim that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommended these proposals can only be made in regard to part of the Bill. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in Clause 3 provision is made for the Fishery Board remaining in existence, notwithstanding the fact that the Royal Commission on Civil Service and the Scottish Departmental Committee on the North Sea Fishing Industry recommended that the time had come when the form of the Fishery Board should be assimilated to that of other public bodies. So that while the right hon. Gentleman makes his proposal come in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, so far as public health, agriculture, and the prison commissioners are concerned, he does not make the same proposals with regard to the Fishery Board and I should like an explanation from him as to why he makes this distinction.
  I should like whoever replies for the Government, to explain why this distinction is made between the Fishery Board and the other bodies. If the proposal is right, if it will lead to efficiencv and if it will be, as some of the
  474
  right hon. Gentleman's supporters seem to think, productive of economy, surely it will be as right in the case of the Fishery Board as in the cases of the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Health, or the Prison Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who were experienced in administration of Government Departments were coming more and more to the view that the provisions made in this Bill represented the right method of procedure. I do not profess to nave had the same experience in administration. I had a much lesser period of time in the Office which my right hon. Friend fills, but I want to say, quite frankly, that like him I found the officials and civil servants at Dover House an excellent body. I never ask to be associated with a more excellent body of men than I found there, and I want to say also that I found the men who constituted our Board of Health, our Board of Agriculture, and our Prison Commissioners in Scotland as excellent a body of men, and in many respects as efficient a body of men, as one could wish to be associated with.
  Frankly, we on these benches arc strongly of the opinion that we have to look for some other reason than the reasons that have been adduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the introduction of such a Measure as that which we are now discussing. We think that the introduction of this Bill is part and parcel of the policy of the present Government. We believe that that policy is to subordinate Scottish administration to Whitehall to a far greater extent than has ever been the case, and to remove from Scotland practically the last vestige of independent Government and nationhood, and to have its centre in London. If that be the policy of His Majesty's Government, I want to say quite frankly to my right hon. Friend, and in quite a friendly spirit, that His Majesty's Government are in for a lively time. Within the past 2$ years we have had a number of indications that this is the policy. Within the period of time since the present Government came into office, we have had removed from Scotland the Scottish Divisional Office of the Ministry of Pensions, notwithstanding that it was admitted by everyone who had any experience of that particular divisional office that it was more efficiently and economically worked than any of the

  475
  other offices under the Ministry of Pensions. Not only have we had our experience so far as the divisional office of the Ministry of Pensions is concerned, but within that period of time the Royal Dockyard at Rosyth, the only dockyard that Scotland has had since the union of these Kingdoms, has been reduced to a "care and maintenance" basis, notwithstanding that it is admitted by every competent naval authority in the country to be the best equipped dockyard in the country and the safest dockyard, not only in this country, but in any part of the world. This dockyard has been closed in order to enable the Government—at least, so we believe—to keep open less efficiently equipped dockyards in England. Now this Bill provides for the removal of the Scottish Board of Health, the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and the Prison Commission.
  Evidently, as I have already said, it is the policy of the Government to remove the last vestige of nationhood as far as Scotland is concerned, but in attempting to carry out a policy of that kind, a Government is bound to cover its intentions and to provide some other reason for carrying out such a policy. We have always been told, when these things were being done, just as we have been told to-night, that they are done in the interests of efficiency and economy. Whenever the occasion suits them, they begin to play with these two blessed words, which have become a sort of cant in the frequency with which they are used, and, like most cant expressions, they are associated with a considerable amount of hypocrisy. If efficiency and economy are the objects that the Government have in view, we in Scotland would like to see a fair distribution of the efforts at economy. We do not see why Scotland should always be fixed upon as the part of the Kingdom in which to try experiments of this kind. Why should these efforts at economy not be more evenly distributed in the other parts of the country? One could almost forgive the Government if their efforts at economy were successful in any degree, but when one compares the actual results with the promises made by the Government when Measures of this kind are being brought forward, one finds that those results are very disappointing indeed. They usually end in an economy
  476
  being effected in one Department in order to make it possible for another Department to waste more money, and when the total bill brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the financial year is examined, it is found that no economy has been effected at all.
  I would very humbly suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that there are other things which enter into a question such as we are discussing to-night than the mere matters of efficiency and economy, that there are other things which enter into the making up of nations and men which are of as vital importance as the two things which the Secretary of State for Scotland is bringing before us and is always trotting out before us in asking us to agree to changes which we believe arc not in the interests of the country to which we belong. These other things that are quite as important are the traditions, the history, and the sentiment of a nation, and the patriotic Scot, whether he is a Labour man or a Unionist, is not going to stand calmly by and see this continual flouting of his national sentiment, either by this Government or by any other Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his speech, tried to draw the difference between a trained civil servant and the type of man whom we have had filling positions on these important Boards in our country, and he pointed out that, in his opinion, the trained civil servant was superior to the type of man. whom we have been accustomed in the past to put on these Boards. At the same time, he had to confess that, while he was making a proposal of this kind, he did not intend to do away with the Advisory Committees. He went en to say that on these Advisory Committees he had found that ho got men of experience, and he instanced the case of Agriculture and named some of the parties he had found on these Advisory Committees, who were men of experience and who had been capable of rendering very valuable service both to him and to his Department.
  I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, that the men whom we have been in the habit of appointing to positions on the Boards that are dealt with in this Bill are men of that very type. They received their appointments because they had had practical experience of the affairs that had to

  477
  be handled by the particular Department to which they were appointed, and in that way we have had many excellent servants giving their time to administering the affairs of Scotland. I hope that, before we have finished with the discussion of this Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland will have a little more doubt than he had in Ins mind on rising to move the Second Reading of the Bill as to the wisdom of introducing this Measure. I hope that, before we are done with the discussion, he may see his way to withdraw this Bill. In the event of his doing that, I can assure him that we will not oppose its withdrawal, but if he goes on with the discussion of it, I fear that he will find that there are a number of us who will give our opposition to all its stages.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I propose to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland a few questions, and may I begin by asking this one, which I think will be of interest to the House? Does he mean to press for the Second Reading of this Bill to-night?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he is not proposing to attempt to get a Second Reading of this Bill to-night. I listened to this Debate with very great interest indeed, and I must say that I have been impressed by the contrast between the two speeches which have been delivered. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was severely practical, if I may say so, and dealt with the Bill with a comprehensiveness and lucidity which I greatly admired. My right hon. Friend the late Secretary for Scotland, the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) was, as usual, very eloquent and very genial, but I think, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, he dealt more with nationhood and nationality than with the problems with which we are more immediately connected. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I quite agree. I yield to nobody in my desire to uphold and maintain the Scottish nationality, and I, as much as anybody, would like to see the young men of Scotland associated with the Scottish Office in every possible way, and, as I understand it, the introduction
  478
  of this Bill will not in any way prevent them from continuing to be associated with that Office. While I am dealing with that particular point, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in the course of his reply, to make it plain to us whether in future the officers of these various Departments will be appointed by open competition and whether the competition will be open to young men of the United Kingdom? He agrees. It will not, therefore, necessarily follow that all the officers in the various Departments now to be formed will be Scotsmen. I have so much confidence, patriotic as I am, in the ability of the young men of Scotland that I feel that if they so desire to become members of these Scottish Departments in open competition, they have still the brains and ability to satisfy their wishes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked me whether there is a limitation of civil servants in Civil Service examinations in Scotland. Of course there is not. These Civil Service examinations are open to the young men of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I presume. My point is that in future these Departments will not be limited to Scotland only for their recruits but will have the whole of the open competition to select from. But I made the observation, and I make it again with justifiable pride, that I hope and believe that most of the competitors will be natives of Scotland and that they will choose their sphere of labour in the Civil Service in a Scottish Department.
  There is another point which I think is worthy of notice. I think the House was full of it in the discussion earlier in the day. Many of us are very sorry that some of our old friends, with whom we had business connections for many years in this House, will no longer be employed in any of these offices. We are anxious to have them looked after. Are we right in assuming that under the appropriate Clause proper provision is made for the officers and servants of the Departments which have either been abolished or amalgamated? if there is an assurance upon that point, it will make our position from the personal point of view very much easier. I never had a great love for the board system. For many years we have been accustomed to boards in Scotland, and when I was

  479
  Chief Secretary for Ireland I also had a great many boards, something like 20 or 30. I never thought them very admirable bodies for efficient and economic work. I am not at all sure that the proposal which is put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland to-night is not a sound one. I believe myself that an efficient head of a Department, with great responsibility, is a much more effective person than the chairman of a board. When you get a board you have all sorts of difficulties and complications; all sorts of different ways of looking at things. At any rate, that has been my experience of dealing with boards, and if you really want to get efficiency and economy you cannot always rely upon it from a board. But there is a very great chance indeed, if you are careful in the selection of the head of a Department, that you will get efficiency in that head, and efficiency and economy right through that Department. What is the proposal with which my right hon. Friend comes forward to-day? desires to abolish all the boards in Scotland except the Fishery Board? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife made rather a point of the fact that the Fishery Board would not be abolished. I do not know personally what the explanation of that is, if it be not the fact that there is a gentleman at the head of this Board who, from my experience, is a very efficient civil servant.
  I understand that some arrangement is being come to in connection with the Fishery Board, that it is to continue in existence but that the Chairman of the Board, instead of having what is called a quinquennial appointment, will now receive the appointment common to heads of Departments in other branches of the Civil Service. I am not at all sure that that is not a good idea, and I have no such criticism to offer in that respect as has my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife. In Scotland we have had the greatest Department in the State administered for many long years, not by a Board but by a Department. Education in Scotland is of
  "A noble age, which penury can ne'er repress."
  There is nothing that touches the hearts and homes of Scotland so much as educa-
  480
  tion. We have taken a very legitimate pride in our education, and if we may have had on many occasions to doubt the desirability of certain actions of the Board as enforced by the so-called code and regulation, there is no doubt that, looking at that Department from a completely unbiased point of view. it has been a Department which has been run with great success throughout the whole of its career. The Department has always been called "My Lords," but during the whole time that I have been associated with public life and deeply interested in Scottish education I have never seen any of these "Lords." They do not exist. It was run very efficiently by one single individual in England and by another individual in Scotland.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is how they diddle Scotland.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: While I think that the hon. Gentleman might quite properly accuse the Government of diddling Scotland in many respects, I do not think he is justified in saying that any Government has diddled Scotland in regard to education. I believe that education has a proud place in our administration. My argument, when I began, was that if we could get Departments as substitutes for the Boards that are now being abolished of the same efficiency as the Board of Education, then I think we are justified in making the change. It has been said, and said in the public Press, that this Bill is the acme of bureaucracy, and, with a great amount of truth, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife said that it was part and parcel of the Government policy. But what are the facts? You have tried certain boards in Scotland. They have done, in many y oases, very good work indeed, but the time has come, in my judgment, when there ought not to be sanctity attached to the name "board," but when you ought to copy all the most efficient methods of administration in other parts of the country and in other countries. The most efficient method of administration has been found to be the department, with an efficient and responsible head directly responsible to the Secretary of State. It is very difficult for the Secretary of State to defend the actions of a board. I must say that I often felt a great deal of pity

  481
  for any Secretary of State for Scotland who had to defend on many occasions the actions of the Board of Agriculture, I have made no secret about that. I have said on the public platform and in this House that I have not been satisfied with the administration of the Board of Agriculture. I do not know what the reason for that may be. There are men upon that Board of great ability, of charm of manner, and with a real genuine anxiety to perform the work with which they are entrusted. But I have always been alarmed against the appointment to public Departments by methods other than by the competitive test. I think the competitive test is the right test. It is a test which is entirely outside the realm of political patronage and influence, and the poor man's son will always get a chance with the richest man's son. Therefore, I am very strongly of the view that the abolition of appointment by patronage is a very wise thing in the Civil Service. If you create a Department of this kind you make it possible under open competition for any Scottish lad to attain the highest rank in that Department which he selects to enter.
  But while I am discussing the Board of Agriculture at this moment, may I just ask one or two questions about it? My colleagues and myself—I see two of them here (laughter.) I do not think any party can congratulate itself upon the number on its benches at the moment, but I am proud to think that two of my colleagues here are Highland men like myself who are deeply interested in this particular Bill which I am discussing at the present moment. I refer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and to the hon. Member for Caithness or Erribol (Sir A. Sinclair). I am going to put one or two questions with regard to the Board of Agriculture to my right hon. Friend. What does he propose to do? Is the new-Department going to be starved for lack of means, or is he going to continue his land settlement scheme? Is he going to have Small Holdings Commissioners? What is he going to do? That is one of the most important things. He knows as well as I do that almost all the Scottish Members, whether they be Members for city constituencies or rural constituencies, are deeply interested in the
  482
  rural problem. We are very anxious to know what proposal my right hon. Friend is going to make in that respect. I do not know whether that has been considered, but I listened very attentively to an answer given the other day, and in one island off the West Coast I understood my right hon. Friend to say that there were still 700 applicants waiting to settle upon the land. I sincerely hope, as the result of the transference of the administration of settlement from the Board to a Department, that there will not be any decrease in settlement upon the land of ex-service men or men who are otherwise competent to take up the position in rural parts of the country. My right hon. Friend said that he hoped this Bill would be non-controversial. I think that in the speech which I have delivered I have tried to take on behalf? of myself and my party a broad-minded view of the position. I think that all Members from Scotland are very anxious indeed to have an efficient Scottish Office. I gathered from the speech just delivered from the front Opposition Bench that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues wish to maintain the status quo. They do not wish any change of any sort or kind.
  Mr. J. BROWN: We are Conservatives.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend from Ayrshire says that they are Conservatives. It used to be said of the Scottish Radical of old days that he was the most Conservative of men, and I am interested to hear that the present view of the Labour party, in their attitude towards Scotland, is that they are true Conservatives.
  It being a Quarter past Fight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
Captain EDEN: I beg to move,
"That this House observes that over a period of widespread depression in trade? the proportion of our trade with the Empire has increased and continues to increase; and is of opinion that, in order to benefit the people of this country by developing our beet and most productive markets, and'

483
in order to assist those Dominions winch so desire it further to increase the British population within their territories, no effort should be spared, in co-operation with the Governments of the Dominions, to initiate new proposals' and to increase the existing facilities for settlement in the Empire overseas."
Hon. Members will observe that the Motion is very widely drawn. I have done that of set purpose, because 1 wanted, in the first place, to allow of as useful a discussion as possible, and also to enable Members of all parties, who have recently been in touch with this problem in the Dominions, to give the House, if they so wish, the benefit of their advice and experience. I have also drawn it wide because I wish carefully to avoid anything which might tend to make this Debate of a partisan nature. I think the whole House will agree that this is far too big a subject for us to derogate and make of it a shuttlecock of party warfare, and I hope anything I say to-night will not have that effect. Perhaps I might add, that one of the most encouraging features, one which makes us hope that we are making real progress in this work, is that in recent years it has become increasingly evident that all parties are united in the endeavour to devote to that work the result of their combined studies. This is, obviously, too vast and intricate a subject into which to enter deeply in the short time at disposal, and as I know many hon. Members want to speak, J shall be as brief as I possibly can. But, large as this subject is, I think that, in the course of this Debate, it might be that Members of all parties in the House could contribute some suggestions, which might. perhaps, make the working of migration smoother, and even a little more rapid. than it is to-day.
It is true, I think, to say that there-is in the minds of many of those who have watched the progress of migration since the War, a sense of disappointment that the figures, when compared with those before the War, are not more encouraging. With the single exception of new Zealand, the comparison is detrimental to the post-War years. It may be because we set our hopes a little too high. It may be because we are inclined to place too much confidence in what the
484
various Dominion Governments and the Home Government can do. It is true, I think, that progress as affected by Governments can only be limited. The powers of the Government of any Dominion or of the home Government in this work are strictly limited. Migration cannot be entirely stemmed, nor can its flow be turned into a torrent. All that Governments can do is, in a measure, to regulate it. I think if we confine ourselves to those limitations to-night, we shall not be raising hopes which are only docmed to disappointment.
There are various influences which, obviously, affect the course of migration. It is only when the "rode of this country is good that the flow of emigration is satisfactory, and we may, therefore, hope, perhaps, that in this year the results will be better than they were in 1926. There is another influence which certainly does affect the flow of migration, and over which we have some control, and that is the percentage of failures. I think all hon. Members who have studied this subject in our overseas Dominions will agree that nothing is more detrimental to the advancement of migration than an anduly high percentage of failures. One failure, perhaps, may have more influence than 10 successes, if it be only for the reason that a failure in itself calls for explanation, and gives rise to public controversy, argument and publicity, whereas the men who are actually successful arc- too busy promoting that success to explain to the world at large how that success has been achieved. So I do think that any time we can devote to-night to try to discover some of the causes which have led to failure and disappointment will be time well spent.
I believe one of those causes is due to the fact that only too often the migrant when he sets out from this country for any one of our Dominions, has not got as full and accurate a knowledge as he should have of the conditions that await him in the Dominions. Of course, at first sight, it would seem to be the duty of the representatives of the Dominions in this country to afford him that knowledge, but I think the difficulty lies even deeper than that. It is not that sometimes, perhaps. the foreground of the picture which is filled in by the Dominion representatives here is not as complete or as accurate as

485
might be wished, but the fact we have to face is that, to a large extent, the great majority of people of this country have very little knowledge of the conditions of life and work in the Dominions, and unless we can begin by removing that ignorance, then we can hardly expect that the information which, at the last minute, may be given to them, will be put in the truest perspective.
I would suggest to the Government that this education cannot begin too soon, and that the earlier we begin to give our people education as to the life and conditions of our Dominions, the better. I should like to see it begin very extensively in the schools. I think, for instance, it would be a great advantage to the education of this country if more time could be devoted to a study of the rapid progress of New Zealand and the development of Australia, and rather less time, say, to the hunting habits of William Rufus, or the passion for shell-fish of our Norman kings. Equally, I think it would be found an advantage if we could give more time in our schools to studying the exploits of Captain Cook, and rather less to the efforts made by King John to retrieve his baggage from the Wash. I believe in that sphere there is room for much important work, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should convey to the President of the Board of Education our nope that this most important side of successful migration should be more closely studied.
The House may feel I have exaggerated the importance of that, but I do not think I have, because I believe lack of knowledge is one of the main causes of lack of progress in migration. If there were in this country as much knowledge of the conditions in Australia as there is of our home conditions, or of those of France and Belgium, the problem would very largely solve itself. I hope the time will not be far distant when a voyage to Australia or New Zealand will seem no more difficult or troublesome, and even no more adventurous, than a journey from Edinburgh to London. I am certain it is no greater adventure now than was a journey from Edinburgh to London 200 years ago. The improvements going on will gradually result in easier communication between the various parts of the Empire, but knowledge is fax more effective in spanning giant distances than are any
486
mechanical contrivances, however admirable they may be; and any efforts we make to inculcate knowledge of Imperial matters through our schools will be well spent.
Considerable reductions in the fares to cur Dominions have been made recently, largely owing to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor, but I suggest he might go a little further still. Though the fares to Canada are very low, those to New Zealand and Australia are still very formidable. I hesitate to advise any departure from the 50-50 system, and I do not know how far my right hon. Friend considers those fares check the flow of migration to those Dominions; but if they do, it should be worth while taking a more adventurous course and further reducing fares. I would ask also whether he can give us any new information as to the progress in regard to the migration of women to our Dominions. In the Dominions from time to time we have all of us come across complaints—not complaints, perhaps, but questions—as to how it is that the proportion of women coming out to the Dominions is not higher. Though we need to be careful as to the conditions of migration in the case of men, obviously we need to be more careful still in the case of the fair sex, and it would be interesting if my right hon. Friend would give us some idea as to whether there are any schemes or proposals under consideration which would facilitate that migration. I do not mean migration of domestic servants, but the migration of women apart from domestic servants.
It must be admitted that in some of our Dominions there is a sense of suspicion—I will not put it higher than that —as to what exactly are the motives of this country in wishing to push forward schemes of migration. I am quite certain that that feeling does exist in Australia, and I think it is based upon the fear that migration would produce too large a flow of labour into that Continent and, in consequence, a depreciation in the standard of living. That is quite a reasonable fear, but I also think it is an unfounded one, because in this 20th century no one has any other motive than to try to raise the standard of living in every part of the Empire. We have left behind the days

487
of Whig rule, just as we have got empty Whig benches to-night. Since the doctrine of laissez faire was put on one side, I do not think that fear can be justified. I do not think any body or any organisation could work more usefully than hon. Members on the benches opposite to remove this suspicion. If they would follow up the admirable work which they did in Australia recently and the speeches they made they could do more than anybody else to remove the last lingering suspicion which may exist in the minds of the Australian Labour party or any other similar organisations. If they will take up that task as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) has done they can do an untold service. Much of the trouble and much of the suspicion is due to looking at this problem from one side only, from the point of view either of this country or of the Dominions, whereas the only way to get a true perspective is to look upon it as an Imperial problem as a whole. If we shut one eye or the other we get a wrong perspective, and suspicions are aroused.
Recently the Prime Minister of Australia initiated a most interesting Migration and Development Commission. From that we have heard of the work of that Commission it has been most successful, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might be worth while to try to work out something upon the same lines in this country. I think that Commission is a very small one—it is none the worse for that—and devotes its whole time to the study of this problem; and without wishing to show any disrespect to the valuable work of the Oversea Settlement Committee I think that if we could have a similar body here it could do equally valuable work. It could collect information as to people who want to migrate, as to their age and sex and other particulars, and armed with this information—a kind of catalogue as it were— they could visit the Dominions and coordinate their knowledge with the knowledge which the Dominions would be able to give them.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word about training. There are in this country a great many different organisations for training, most of them very good, but not all of them, I believe,
488
following the same methods. There is the training centre at Catterick, and institutions are working under the Ministry of Labour; and so forth. It might be worth while to set up some small Commission to go round to these various bodies to see the work they are doing, and to decide which form of training is the best. Having coordinated that information we could then push on with the training as fast as possible. It may be that it would cost money to do this, but I think it would be well spent. As we have got the credit, it is just as well to make use of it.
It is impossible to divorce this question from the question of trade. The two are Siamese twins and if we try to cut them asunder neither can live. Unless we find markets for the Dominions, they cannot take our population. The Empire Marketing Board, young as it is, is producing most valuable results, not only through research work but through advertisements of various forms and propaganda in our schools and elsewhere, and I hope it will not be starved by my right hon. Friend at the Treasury. I have only one criticism to make about it. I hope the Empire Marketing Board will not copy some of the posters which occasionally confront us. I saw one the other day which depicted a tempestuous sea and a liner doing its utmost to weather them, and at the same time exuberantly invited whoever might see it to visit one of the Dominions—apparently under similar titanic conditions. In my own case, the moment I saw that poster I thought what a brave man I had been ever to leave this island; and those who prepare the illustrated posters designed to persuade us to visit the Dominions might remember that there are some Englishmen who like myself only feel secure from the undulations of the ocean when they are on a 20,000-ton liner in the Suez Canal!
At times we have criticism that this country is over-populated. That is only a half truth. It may be there are more people in these small islands than we can at present comfortably support with any hope of raising the standard of our people as fast as we would wish; but the British Empire as a whole is underpopulated—there is a shortage rather than an excess of the British race in the world as a whole. And so the

489
problem of migration is urgent. Though our Empire may be under-populated, there are many countries that are not, and the economic and geographical pressure to-day is all in favour of expansion. If anything, there is a land famine in the world to-day. Therefore, the world has a right to ask us as an Empire to discharge the responsibility which we have taken upon ourselves in this vast territory which is under our control. I do not know whether the House will accept my apology for this Motion or not, but I chose it because I believe there is no problem to-day which is more urgent, certainly none which will have in its future developments more far-reaching effects upon the future of the world,, and none which if we can solve it will more certainly contribute to the increased happiness of our people and to a richer measure of their prosperity.
Mr. LUMLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
There are so many hon. Members who desire to take part in this Debate that i have undertaken to limit my remarks to 15 minutes. In that time I desire to put forward a plea for a more vigorous direction of our Empire development policy. If I say little of those aspects of this problem which are met with overseas it will be because of the limitation of my time, and I hope other hon. Members will be able to deal with some of those aspects. I approach this problem to-night from the point of view of the needs of our people at home. That their needs are serious can be gathered from a study of our trading returns. I could weary the House by numberless statistics, but I will spare hon. Members, and I will only draw attention to certain views regarding our trade with the Empire. The first one is this: As is stated in the opening sentence of this Motion,
"the proportion of our trade with the Empire has increased and continues to increase."
I will give one or two figures in this connection. The percentage of British exports to the whole of the Empire has risen from 37·1 in 1913 to 40·1 in 1925. I take the year 1925 instead of 1926 because the latter was an abnormal year. The percentage of 40·1 in 1925 is considerably greater than the percentage of our exports taken by Europe, although Europe has a population larger
490
by 30,000,000. I know many hon. Members are interested in Australia and New Zealand, and the same rise in the percentage is visible with regard to the trade of those two countries. The percentage of our exports to those two countries has risen from 86 in 1913 to 11·3 in 1925. I ask the House to compare 11·3 in 1925 with the percentage which was taken in that year by the whole of South America. In that year South America only took 8·8 of our exports. I may point out that the population of South America numbers 67,000,000 as compared with a population of 7,000,000 in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore it is obvious that our Empire markets have become of greater value to us since the War.
The second feature I would ask the House to observe with regard to our Empire trade is the higher proportion of manufactured goods which the Empire takes from us as compared with other countries. I will give one or two examples. Of our exports to the three southern Dominions no less than 92 per cent. consisted of manufactured goods while of our exports to Europe only 60 per cent. were manufactured goods. The third feature I ask the House to observe is that in Australia and New Zealand there is a high standard of living, and a comparatively equitable distribution of wealth. This renders those countries of particular importance to us because of the high quality of the products they require. An examination of their trade returns reveals item after item of highly finished goods in which Australia and New Zealand purchase from us annually more than any other country, and in many instances more than all the other countries put together. I could give sheets of examples but I will only take one or two. Take Axminster carpets. Of the total exports from this country Australia and New Zealand took 61 per cent. Take another very striking example, that of newsprint. Of our total exports those two Dominions took no less than 92 per cent. Take motor cars. Of those below 28 cwts. the percentage was 83 per cent. and above that weight, 52 per cent. I could multiply those cases from steel girders to writing paper, from electric wires to girls' costumes. All those articles and many others require several different

491
processes of manufacture. They employ our skilled workers at higher rates of pay and consequently the markets for these articles are of the greatest importance to us.
These different features about our Empire markets show the increasing importance they are to us. When we remember the fact that large parts of the Empire are young countries, capable of immense development, surely that ought to cause us to pay greater attention to the development of our Empire markets for the sake of our own people at home.
At this point we are confronted by a formidable oligarchy of classical economists to whom the idea of special action with regard to any portion of our trade activities is abhorrent, to whom Australian trade is of no greater significance than the trade of any other country, and whose maxim is:"Let us leave well alone; our trade will find its own level, and will flourish as it has done in the past. "It must be very comfortable to live in such a complacent mood, but, J. would ask, are they justified in a mood of that kind? To me the outlook is far from reassuring. The Economic Section of the League of Nations recently made a survey of world trade, and, in the Memorandum which they have published, they come to this conclusion, that since 1913 both the population of the world and the volume of world trade have increased by 5 per cent.; and the question I would like to ask is, have we taken our share of that 5 per cent. increase? Let the Board of Trade answer. From the Board of Trade Journal we learn that in 1925— again I do not take the year 1926, because the figure would be too discouraging—in 1925 the volume of our trade was only 76 per cent. of what it was in 1913. Those two figures, the one showing the upward curve of world trade, and the other showing the decline of British trade, with its accompanying tale of idle ships, damped-down furnaces, and smokeless chimneys— those two figures side by side are full of menace to our own people. They mean that gone for ever is the day of our facile supremacy, that, instead of being the universal provider, we have to meet formidable competition from every country. Surely it means that, if we are to get employment for our people at home, we
492
have to pursue a much more vigorous policy of Empire development than we are pursuing at present.
Before asking for a more vigorous policy, it is right to remember what has already been done, and it is right to recognise that there are conditions which place a limit on our own action. My hon. and gallant Friend has already referred to the Empire Marketing Board. I would only add to what he said that I hope that that great experiment will receive a full and fair run. It is too early yet, and it may be several years before striking Jesuits can be obtained from it, but it would be a disaster if, because of the absence of those results, that great experiment were brought to a premature end. Then I would ask the House to recognise that I do realise that it is not only what we do here that matters in this question of the development of the Empire. Obviously, there are limitations upon any action which we can take, imposed by conditions overseas. I was one of those who had the good fortune and high privilege of going to Australia last year as a guest of the Australian Government. I came back from that tour, as I believe we all did, with a profound belief in the future of that great Dominion, and convinced that ultimately she will be able to carry a greatly increased population But I also came back with some disappointment that the immediate outlook was not more promising than it is. I have not the time to develop or go into that subject to-night, but I would say that that is no excuse for us at our end postponing action, or not setting our own house in order, for we found in Australia that there was a very large and strong public opinion which realised the necessity for increased population in the Dominion, and we also found, as my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned, that the Commonwealth Government had set up the Development and Migration Commission, and that, at any rate, was a promise that the problem is going to be tackled. Therefore, I would say that we should not rely upon the outlook in Australia never changing. I, for one, hope that it will soon change, and, at any rate, I would ask, are not the prospects for development in Canada surely much brighter?
I come now to the question of our own policy, and I would ask the House this

493
question: How is our present policy conducted? I would ask the House to observe that it is spread over a number of different Departments. There is in one place the Ministry of Labour, responsible for certain training schemes. I understand that some 360 men have already been trained, and that that scheme, so far as it goes, is regarded as a success; but when we remember the extent of our problem, and the fact that in some of our northern cities half of the boys who leave school every year are unable to find permanent employment, and that it is just that age of youth that is required by Australia, as well as by other Dominions to-day, can we say that those two schemes, producing only 360 men, are a real attempt to grapple with that part of the problem? Then there is the Department of Overseas Trade, which maintains, I believe, two, or possibly three, trade Commissioners in Australia. We found in Australia not only a fiscal preference for British goods that is of great value, but also a voluntary preference that is of even greater value. People in Australia seemed to me to be anxious to buy British goods wherever they could; they frequently complained that they were unable to do so. Can we say that the Department of Overseas Trade is giving a sufficient lead to our traders in that market? I would only ask the House to think what would have happened if those two advantages of fiscal and voluntary preference had been laid at the feet of the American Department of Commerce under Mr. Hoover. Would not the whole Dominion have been swamped long ago by American goods?
And then there is the Treasury. I hesitate to speak on financial matters, about which I know very little, but I would ask, is our credit never to be used for the Empire? I would point to Western Australia, where there is, I think, a completely unanimous desire to proceed as swiftly and as strongly as possible in a policy of development of that State; but how long can that State, with its very limited resources, bear the burden of a great scheme like that which they are undertaking in their group settlement area? Is not the time already approaching when they will be unable to continue with that scheme? I would ask, cannot the Treasury have some vision in this matter, and at any rate help that State? Can they not at
494
least consider whether it would not be possible to alter the 50-50 rule under the Empire Settlement Act.
Then there is the Colonial Office. Everyone knows the keenness with which the Secretary of State regards these matters, but he has to boar the burden of a vast and varied dependent Empire, coupled with the responsibility of looking after our Imperial relations. I do not wonder that he finds but little time to impart a vigorous direction to our policy of Empire development. The Oversea Settlement Committee, to which is delegated the supervision of Empire settlement schemes, may do the most necessary and admirable work in haggling over details of various settlement schemes, and they produce an annual report which must give satisfaction at any rate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for we read year after year that of the total amount they are allowed to spend on settlement schemes the sum they do not spend far exceeds the sum they do spend. All these Departments and fractions of Departments are only toying with this great issue, and it is all the more disappointing when we remember the great faith which used to reside, and I believe still resides, in the breast of everyone, at any rate on these benches. I recall the speeches in 1924 of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, models of argument and inspiration to everyone who has a faith in Empire development. I would ask where has that faith gone. Scarcely has there been a passing reference in the last two years from his lips. I do not accuse him of losing his faith. I know that is not the case. What has happened is that it has been blurred by the cares and details of Departmental work, and what is required is that there should be a Minister, or at any rate an individual, quite free from other duties whose job it would be to give directive energy to this great policy, who should recapture the faith before it fades, and who should coordinate the scattered fragments of these Departments and inspire their activities with the energy which at present is lacking.
I must not be thought to believe that this alone will solve the problem. I recognise that there are difficulties all

495
round the problem. If I do not mention them it is because I have already exceeded my time. But if these difficulties are there they are there to be surmounted, and they will not be surmounted unless we are prepared at this end to put a vigorous driving power behind this policy. Therefore I ask, as the first step? that it should be considered whether it would not be possible to place some Minister in charge of all these scattered fragments of Departments and infuse new life into them.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
9.0.p.m.
That is a very hackneyed phrase, but was it ever more literally true than in this case? Our people are bound to perish if we lack the vigour and the vision for a strong Empire development policy. The results which beckon us to action are so bright and so alluring, to those who are prepared to go out, a hard life—do not let us conceal that—but fresh chances in the new world, to those who remain at home fresh markets for the products of their activities, and all the time we are helping to abolish the great dangers which overhang our commonwealth of nations, the danger of over-population on this side and the danger of rich but empty spaces overseas. It is because of the need we feel and the results we foresee that I say to the Government that the pursuit of a more vigorous policy of Empire development will receive the overwhelming assent, I believe, of all parties in the House.
Mr. RILEY: I have no desire to disturb the harmony of this discussion and hinder the most favourable development for an impartial and friendly consideration of this very important problem. I had put an Amendment on the Paper, not for the purpose of opposing the object of the Mover of the Resolution but for the purpose, as we thought, of strengthening the policy of settlement as a solution of the problem at which this Motion is aimed. But in order that there should be no misunderstanding as to our sympathy with the Resolution, we have withdrawn the Amendment. At the same time, I want to express a point of view which may not be perhaps widely expressed. I may possibly be the only one to express it. The Mover of the Resolu-
496
tion said, very correctly, that although no one questions the immense importance in the days in which we are living of securing an extension of our relationship with the Dominions, both with a view to finding suitable dwelling-places for many people in this country who find it difficult to obtain an adequate living here but also for the purpose of inter-Dominion and home trade, there is widespread suspicion that behind this enthusiasm, on the part of perhaps some Members on all sides of the House, to push the question of emigration and Empire settlement there are motives which are not entirely free from self-interest. There can be no doubt that amongst large sections of the working classes of this country there is a feeling that the proposals with regard to emigration and Dominion settlement are mooted with the desire to get rid from this country of people who are regarded as being superfluous. There is that suspicion, and the feeling that they are not considered worth while to be organised for or to be provided for and that, therefore, this is a method of getting rid of unemployed for whom we have no normal use. I am not saying that there is adequate ground for that suspicion, although it is widespread. There is a similar feeling in the Dominions. The suspicion in the Dominions is that what we are concerned about and what our Government are concerned about is to dump there our surplus population.
The Government would be wise and this House would be wise to visualise this problem of emigration and Empire trade not simply upon one line alone, but to regard the question of land settlement in so far as it is concerned with the development of inter-British and Dominion trade as one to be pursued upon parallel lines. In order to get the co-operation and good will of all sections of the community, political and social, in connection with facilities to further the object in view, the Government ought to show the same enthusiasm and the same interest in regard to land settlement in England that they show in regard to overseas settlement. If they were to do that, it would clear away a good deal of the suspicion that what we really want is to get rid of our surplus population. I want to urge the Government to look upon this question in that light. I am very glad to see the Prime Minister in his

497
place. While I would suggest that every encouragement should be given to, and increased facilities provided for those who desire to go from this country to the Dominions, that all essential training should be provided and that they should not be simply dumped down without training, I would like the problem at home to be visualised in the same way.
What are the facts? From 1908 to 1914 we actually settled in England and Wales 14,000 people upon the land. Under the Smallholders Act, 1908, we settled, under the county councils, 14,000 people upon the land in this country. What is more important, we settled those 14,000 people in those six years with practically no expense to the State. The Act of 1908 was a self-supporting Act administered by the county councils. I should certainly be within the mark in saying that, as far as the State was concerned, beyond some small amount for administration, there was no expense whatever. The Land Settlement Act, 1919, was a specialised Act. for ex-service men. Under that Act we have settled 16,000 men upon land in this country, making a total of 30,000 altogether and accounting for a population of 130,000. It will be said, as it has been said often, with great misrepresentation, that our schemes of settlement in this country have been enormously expensive. I suggest to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, that an examination of the costs will reveal an exactly opposite point of view.
We have had it stated by a representative from the Australian Commonwealth at a meeting in this House to-day, that it costs in West Australia £2,600 to settle one ex-soldier. In another State of Australia it costs £1,000 to settle a person. He also stated that under the present proposals—which I say we should encourage by all means and get them put upon the best basis—even in the most favourable circumstances under the scheme visualised in the Motion before the House, it will cost in West Australia £1,800 per settler. The Government would do well to give consideration on two parallel lines to the question of providing for settlement both in the Dominions and at home. They should say to the British working classes, whether agricultural labourers, miners or any other classes suitable for and desirous of making land settlement their
498
careers: "We will give them, under a well organised scheme, a chance either in England or in the Dominions." If that could be done, it would be a wise course. What are the facts in regard to parallel costs? What are the facts given this afternoon by the representative of the Australian Government? In 1908, we settled 14,000 without any cost to the State. Under the 1919 Act, which was expressly for ex-service men, many of whom were not suitable for settlement, and who were dealt with from the point of view of war recompense—
Mr. ELLIS: On a point of Order. We are dealing with the question of migration to the Colonies and Dominions, but the hon. Member is dealing now entirely with England on the argument that he is describing parallel lines of action.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There must be limits within which the hon. Member must keep in describing what is being done in England, for the purpose of his general argument. If the hon. Member keeps within those limits in describing what has been done in this country by way of assisting settlement on the land, he is not out of order, but it is not possible for him to go into detail.
Mr. RILEY: I was going on to suggest that what has been carried out in regard to Empire settlement should be extended to Great Britain, and that we should pursue the policy upon parallel lines. If we do that, we could get the maximum support from all parties in the work of settlement and mutual co-operation between the Dominions and the Mother Country. Under the Act of 1919, the total cost is estimated to be £8,000,000. That £8,000,000 is for ex-service men and spread over six years it works out at £500 per person settled, a much less figure than is the case now in regard to settlement under the Empire scheme. A further reason for urging that these two sides of the same problem should be pursued concurrently is the interesting fact alluded to earlier in the Debate, that whilst we are asking for further facilities for Empire settlement, we have had for the last four or five years 20,000 men in this country who have applied and are waiting for settlement here at home. Therefore, I suggest to the Government and those who are specially

499
interested in the promotion of Empire settlement, that if they desire to get the maximum support for the worthy purpose they have in view, they can best obtain that by showing the same interest in England as they do in the Dominions.
Major ASTOR: In view of the recent warnings against long speeches, I only wish to say a few words on this subject. In spite of the disappointment at the slow development of Empire settlement, I think the discussions in the recent Imperial Conference did much to give us new assurances that we are increasingly able to move populations successfully. The Prime Minister of Australia, speaking on this subject, used the metaphor of a snowball. The way, he said, would be prepared so that in a few years Australia would be able to take a large number of people. He appeared to think that in his country the old prejudices were disappearing. In this country, too, I believe such prejudices have diminished. Surely. nothing could do more to make such prejudices and suspicions evaporate as the establishment of the fact that, schemes for settlement were working out satisfactorily and that the new settlers were being absorbed successfully, from their own point of view and from the point of view of the Dominions themselves. The Oversea Settlement Sub-Committee of the Imperial Conference held the view that progress could only be made by scientific and well-considered schemes, and I have no doubt that this is true. But the question still remains to what extent these schemes will induce would-be settlers from this country.
One hears it said that if there were better facilities for removing families from England to the Dominions, there would be many applicants. That may be so. But one must recognise that the mind of the young man or woman who is out of employment, or who is in uncongenial employment, does not consider as readily as might be the possibility of new opportunities overseas. The problem appears to be largely psychological; consequently, one is inclined to look around for any psychological forces which have not been enlisted in this cause. The only one I can think of is the call of civic patriotism. The House will remember
500
the adoption by cities in this country of towns and villages in the devastated areas in France. I should be very slow to suggest the creation of any new organisation without some very particular purpose, but surely it is conceivable that some of the great cities or groups of cities in Great Britain might see their way, if openings were assured, to accept a measure of responsibility for peopling and keeping in touch with districts overseas—districts which possibly might even bear their name. The scale of such an undertaking, the measure of responsibility, would of course be governed by the zeal and ability with which the municipality took up the idea.
It is scarcely necessary to observe that, quite apart from Imperial sympathies, every ratepayer would have a direct interest in the solution of this problem, related as it is to the problem of unemployment. Under such a scheme, presumably the Dominiors would be responsible for the cost of improvements on the farms, but perhaps something could be done at this end to meet, or help to meet, the temporary cost of new settlers, such as training, which the hon. Member opposite suggested should be done. Whether this assistance be practicable or not, I submit that the general idea of such a scheme might reasonably be expected to offer a considerable inducement, a real encouragement, to those who might be considering going overseas. They would go out in the company of fellow-citizens to a district where they would find at any rate some of their own traditions being carried on, and the feeling of being exiled into the unknown and under the operations of a remote Government Department would to a great extent be overcome. Many towns, I have no doubt, would very soon spring up and form themselves into one locality. I believe a great deal of this would apply also to county associations. They too, I think, would supply an incentive of their own, possibly less strong than that of the cities, but they could at any rate offer many facilities. I know something of the good work done by the Kent Migration Committee. If. as I believe, this is largely a scientific question, I can imagine no better system under which great intimacy of action, a more lively interest between the Dominions and England, could be established and maintained.
Mr. MACKINDER: At the outset I desire to say that I agree with the Mover of the Resolution, when he said that what is needed is more confidence in the Dominions, that any action this House might take, or the people of this country might take, is not with a desire of lowering the standard of life of the people in Canada or Australia. I say with the greatest confidence that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did a lot when they were in Australia to remove that misapprehension There is no doubt the apprehension exists, but it is not well founded, because anyone who has gone into the question of migration knows that it is impossible to dump down even a few thousand migrants, because the money cost would be too great. We had the advantage this afternoon of hearing Mr. Angwin, recently Minister of Land and Immigration in Western Australia, and he stated that even in the States most favourable to immigration it would cost at least £1,800 per family. I am afraid if we arc going to dump down our surplus of one and a quarter millions of unemployed at a cost of £1,800 per family, it is going to cost more money than either Western Australia or the whole of Australia can afford. This I do say, that there is a country which is crying out for people and they are crying out for British people. The thing which struck us most in Western Australia and Australia generally was the intense, shall I say, pride of race which these people possess. [An HON. MEMBER: "What race?"] Pride of race, whether Scotch, Welsh or Irish. We met a lot of Scotsmen and a few Englishmen, too. As I was saying, these people out there are very proud that 08 per cent of the total population of Australia is British.
I feel that unless these places are populated by British people they will be populated by some other people, because the world will not allow a Continent like that to remain almost empty while people are crying out to go there. Therefore I am very strongly of opinion that we cannot solve the unemployment problem in Great Britain by emigration. I am one of those who think it is not fair or right to ask anybody to leave their homeland—because after all, bad as this homeland has been for some of us, it is our homeland and we do not want to leave it if it is possible to get a living
502
here. I would welcome nothing more than the proposition put up by the hon. Member for Dewsbury that we should settle people on the land here. I wish it could be done, but for reasons over which we have no control, it is not being done and the land of England is not being settled. The country which we visited is crying out for people and I am interested in a proposition which I happened to get hold of while I was in Australia. It was put before me as an example of what Australia can do for people with capital, and I shall be pleased to let anybody look at it. It is a proposition put by a co-operative society in Western Australia called Westralian Farmers, Limited, a form of society which has been of great use to the co-operators there and to the co-operators in this country by selling goods collected from their members. It is a district 11 miles north of the railway station and comprises 3,216 acres, with 17 inches of rainfall; 1,748 acres are cleared; it has 19 paddocks and a four-roomed house, five out-buildings, 90 sheep, 14 horses, three cattle, and 18 agricultural implements, and the total price of the whole, including sheep, the house, cattle and the rest, is £2 17s. 6d. per acre. I am inclined to think that there are farmers in this country who, if they had an idea of the opportunity which is awaiting them if they have capital, would avail themselves of the opportunity of going to that land of promise.
We had many experiences while out there. The quaintest experience I had was reading an article in a newspaper at a place called Bundaburg. The leading article in this particular newspaper said that Australia did not want any more hewers of wood or drawers of water —otherwise land workers. It said they had all the land workers they wanted, and what they really wanted was a few Bradfords and Sheffields—a few, not one. When you remember that Bradford can supply one-quarter of the requirements of the whole of this globe and this particular town wants a few, I should imagine that is rather a big proposition. I would not like any words of mine,, either written or spoken, to be taken as inducing people to leave this country to settle in the towns in Australia. I believe there is not only an abundance of people in the towns and cities, but

503
there is a superabundance, but I believe, also, that there are thousands of men in this country who have got a land hunger here. When I am asked what kind of individual I would attract to Australia, I say, in the first place, I would not try to attract the agricultural worker here to go to be an agricultural worker abroad, because I am convinced that the average agricultural labourer in this country is anxious for the opportunity to live in the towns. I am rather of the opinion that if we were to transfer such men to Australia they would take the first opportunity of going to the towns. If I am asked what kind of man should go to Australia, I say the type of man Australia needs is typified in every large manufacturing town and every colliery district of Great Britain.
He is the man who, after working a 43 or 50 or 56 hours, is cultivating, with such intensity and love of the land, a small allotment. He is exploring what can be done by growing things, and if I were given the opportunity of taking a thousand people to Australia I would search the villages, towns and mining districts where men will spend 20 and 30 hours a week on their allotments after performing really heavy manual work— not for the profit they make out of agriculture but for the love and joy of producing some of the necessities of life. I believe if these men were given an opportunity of expressing what they can get out of the land—not out of a 100 square yards, for I suggest to the Secretary of State for the Dominions that such men need the opportunity of expressing their love for the land in 100 acres instead of a 100 square yards—I do think they would be able to prove that while there is the hunger of the countryman to go into the towns, there is, on the other hand, equally the hunger of the town worker to get back to the land.
I would also offer another suggestion: that the men who go out ought to have an opportunity of training. I, along with others, spoke to the ex-soldiers who had come from Catterick Camp and I asked one of them: "What is your opinion of the training you received at Catterick?" I think other members of the delegation will agree that every man who was spoken to was enthusiastic of the training that was given to them there and its value,
504
but there was a proviso. One of them said very regretfully, "Yes, it was a fine training, but it is going to be five years before we can utilise that training." When asked how that was, they said: "Here we are with 125 acres of uncleared bush land." Bush land might suggest plantations four or five feet high, but these were up to 150 feet high and often 30 feet in girth. They said this was bush land, and by the time they had got the 125 acres cleared they were of opinion that the knowledge they had gained at Catterick would very largely have been forgotten.
I would suggest to this House—and I ought to say that the Secretary of State for the Dominions has taken the suggestion very very kindly indeed—that the men and women from the towns who go over there to settle expect they are going to be farmers and, in the words of one of them, they turn out to be "amateur bush-whackers." If they could have just a few acres of land ideated, it would be a great incentive to these people who leave the town expecting to be farmers and do not turn out to be farmers, to have the ground which is provided by the State of Western Australia, and here I would give credit to that State for doing all that is possible to induce the right type of people to go out to Australia.
No doubt other members of the delegation want to have an opportunity of speaking, but there is one point on which I would like to touch, and that is with regard to trade. I do not think we ought to talk entirely about migration, but also about trade. We motored some 5,000 to 6,000 miles, and therefore we had an excellent opportunity of judging the roads of Australia and of trying to judge the type of motor vehicle: that the Australians need. Several times we were laid flat on the road while our wheels were digging a hole deeper and net moving any further. We were struck, particularly in the towns, by the enormous number of foreign motor cars in use. It appeared to me that there was only about one British car in 20. I am told that that figure is not correct. At all events it was very seldom that we saw a British car. I am a firm believer in the motor car of Great Britain, and so I wrote to one of the large motor manufacturers of this country saying that I had been to Australia, that I had had an opportunity of judging the roads there

505
and testing the feeling of the people as to what kind of car they needed—a lower geared car, a car of greater horse power than our foolish tax in this country induces the manufacturer to build; and I suggested that I would be very pleased to come down and meet this firm at my own expense and talk to them about the kind of car that I thought Australia needed.
I tried to give this firm the idea that if they spoke with members of the delegation we might be able to put them on the right track as to the kind of car that Australia wanted. I got a very polite letter in reply. The firm stated what they were doing and hoped to do, and said that under the circumstances no useful purpose would be served by granting such an interview. To my mind that is the very acme of stupidity. I do suggest that, although we did not know very much, at least we have been on the spot and have obtained an idea of what Australia needs. As I said, I received a polite refusal. It was not a curt refusal, but a polite refusal, two pages of politeness; but the fact remains that the British manufacturer did not want to know from someone who had been on the spot what kind of motor car Australia needed. The opinion that I was going to express to that firm was not only an individual opinion, but the collective opinion of almost the whole of the members of the delegation. It was regrettable to us to see the enormous number of motor cars from other countries being used in Australia.
Finally, I would say that if one good thing has been done by the generous invitation of the Australian Government to members of the British delegation, it is that instead of these places being merely names on the maps and people being merely names on paper, they are now places that we have seen and men whom we have got to know and whom we respect. It has strengthened the bond between the Governments over there and the Government here. I hope very sincerely that our Government some day will extend a similar invitation to the people of Australia to come over here and to see what our people can do. We have seen Australia, and a beautiful country it is. I hope that at an early date they will have an opportunity of coming to see our country. Then, with
506
regard to the great controversy that is going on between the Dominions and ourselves as to the tariff walls they are putting up against us, I think that some day, when we get that British Commonwealth of nations cemented, we may be able to get a real Imperial Conference which will sit down and discuss which particular part of the Commonwealth can produce an article in the most economical manner.
I do not want the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian people to be hewers of wood and drawers of water all their lives, but I do say that there is a great granary there which ought to be thoroughly exploited for the benefit of the people at home, and if we can take away the fear of people in those other countries that their wages conditions will be lowered or their standard of life reduced, and if we can see that people are not migrated in a haphazard fashion, but that every person is migrated under good conditions and that a genuine opportunity will be provided for him when he gets there, and that some of the land now locked will be unlocked—if a movement of that description can be supported by such a Resolution as this, the desire expressed by the Mover will be happily fulfilled.
Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: In rising to support the Motion so ably moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden), I wish to say at the outset that in my opinion this subject of migration and of the redistribution of the British peoples among the component parts of the British Commonwealth is one which, seeing that it is of vital concern not only to England but to the overseas Dominions, should be kept as far as possible outside the stormy arena of party politics. From what I have seen in the House this evening, I am certain that the principle at which the Motion aims will be supported by all parties, although I see only one hon. Member of the Liberal party here at the moment. When one stops to view the increase in our population from the days of Elizabeth, when the total was only some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000, to 100 years ago, when it had reached a total of about 15,000,000, and compares it with the very rapid growth which has resulted since then, bringing our population at the

507
present time to about 43,000,000, one cannot contemplate without a certain degree of alarm, if not of dread, a continuation of the normal increase of our population unless we are able to find for them an outlet through migration to the younger lands of our Empire, with their vast opportunities and their untold wealth.
I think that most of us will agree with the French economist of the seventeenth century who said that all wealth originally comes from the land. Certain it is that wealth in its elementary form orginates from this source. It is only by the development of raw materials that our standard of civilisation can be maintained to-day. If this is accepted I think we can have no difficulty in realising the needs of the Overseas Dominions, needs which mean added man-power, coupled with capital, with which to develop their unlimited natural resources. Any scheme into which we may enter with reference to the Overseas Dominions must be worked out very carefully. For instance, we must not regard the Dominions as dumping grounds for our surplus population. It would be manifestly unfair for us to encourage the migration of those who might become a charge upon the rates in those Dominions. On the other hand. we want to see that all the best of our skilled labour is not induced by bright promises held out by the Dominions to leave these shores where they are so greatly in demand. This question involves close attention, but I am convinced that these matters of detail can well be left to the representatives of the Governments concerned and that a working scheme can be attained, to the mutual advantage of all concerned. As the representative of an ' agricultural division I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) in his remark that everything possible should be done to create openings for as many of our people as possible on the land in the home country. But I would remind him that we have a population of 43,000,000, that our acreage is only 38,000,000 and that the available acreage of arable and pasture land and rough pasture land only amounts to some 30,000,000.
Mr. RILEY: May I remind the hon. and gallant Member on that point that
508
we had 4,000,000 acre3 more under cultivation 50 years ago than we have now.
Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: That is a figure of which I am aware, and I am glad to be reminded of it, because it help?, me in making my point. It is true that in the last 5 years our rural population has most regrettably declined and, as I have said, we ought to do everything in our power to encourage settlement on the-land. But even if we got back to four million or five million people on the land, we still have an increasing population, based upon the increase of the last hundred years, to look after, and I cannot but feel, when one compares the density of population in the United Kingdom with the density of population in the Dominions —it is 467 to the square mile in this country, in New Zealand it is only 12, and in Australia and in Canada only two— that we must agree that, from an Empire point of view, we may be over-populated here and under-populated overseas. I have referred to the difficulty in arranging a proper quota for migration out of England and, again, speaking as a Member for an agricultural division, I take this opportunity of voicing a complaint which I have heard from many of my constituents, farmers and others, as to the propaganda and advertisements put forward by transportation companies to secure agricultural workers for migration overseas. With the hon. Member for Dewsbury I feel this is a matter which ought to be closely considered and we ought to be most careful not to denude our agricultural districts of the people who live there at this time. To my mind, the solution can be found, perhaps, in training our surplus townspeople for the development of the undeveloped districts overseas.
We have many examples of successful settlers who have gone abroad within the Empire and have made good upon the land. I do not wish to weary the House with anecdotes, but there are many cases of those who have gone forth from the home land and gained distinction in the Dominions. The story of a Prime Minister of Saskatchewan typifies the spirit of migration within the Empire. He left England as a boy. I think he had an appointment as office boy in some firm in this country, and in the course of a comparatively few years he became

509
Prime Minister of a country which, if developed, could easily supply the home land with all the grain it might require. During one of his visits to the Motherland he met one who had also gone forth but who had returned and who, when asked about his experiences in Canada, replied that he had gone there with enthusiasm, full of belief in what he would be able to achieve but that he had not been fortunate. He said he had gone out believing it to be "a land flowing with milk and honey." So the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan asked him whether, believing Canada to be a land flowing with milk and honey, he had, by any chance, kept bees there; and if he had not kept bees whether he had kept cows. The individual in question admitted that he had not done so, and the Prime Minister replied, "How can you expect to find a land flowing with milk and honey if you have not the iniative and skill to keep bees and cows?" I think that pretty well describes the spirit of success in migration. A senior member of this House remarked to me in conversation not long ago that one of our chief difficulties in regard to migration and also in regard to finance, arose from the fact that we so frequently sent out money overseas for investment without men to look after it, and sent men overseas without any capital behind them. I do not want to go into the question of finance, but I think this remark was right as regards successful migration. There is no doubt it is a great help to the migrant if he has something behind him to help him in his initial endeavours to make good in a new country. It is therefore with the greatest pleasure that I support the Motion.
I should like to allude to the existing machinery for overseas settlement which has been acting smoothly and efficiently heretofore but which, in my opinion, is perhaps insufficient to cope with the ever increasing number of our population. The fault, if fault there be, I should think, lies not with the home authorities, but with perhaps a very natural disinclination on the part of the overseas Governments after the War to add the problem of immigration to their post-War burdens, but I am glad to note that there is every sign that this is changing, if that point of view has not already changed.
510
I am perfectly satisfied with the figures which, I see, are the immigration figures of Canada for 1926, which show that, as some 86,000 Europeans and Americans have been absorbed into the country, while only 48,000 of our own people have gone out, that country, at any rate, should be able to absorb a larger proportion of the English race. I sincerely trust that the Government will lose no opportunity of doing everything in their power to co-operate with the overseas Governments, to enlarge the power of absorbing British people by the Dominions, and to stimulate the pioneer spirit of our people at home to go forth, not only to create new wealth and develop new lands, but to build up a greater Britain overseas, fit for the habitation of the millions of British people yet unborn.
Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: It has been a great pleasure to experience the spirit in which this discussion has been carried on to-night. It is extremely important that, on a subject of this kind, we should be as free as possible from party considerations. We have a very broad simple problem, as regards its statement, in the fact that we have a densely crowded country at home, and a number of Dominions overseas which are very sparsely populated. Something has been said to-night about the difficulty of coordinating these two factors. It is true that we have, in the first place, suspicion at home. We have the suspicion that the authorities here will be glad to encourage emigration with a view to reducing unemployment and the pressure of the large population here, and it is im-po7-tant. I think, that the working people in this country, and especially trade unions and other bodies of that kind, should get a different idea of what the Empire stands for than what is expressed in that conception. Undoubtedly, also, there is some suspicion in our Dominions in regard to the possibility of the dumping of our unemployed on them, and it is very important that this should be removed, because, if it is not removed, it means that the immigrant is unwelcome, has rather a difficult time, and does not act as a recruiter, but sends home word which deters others from going out.
10.0 p.m.
The last speaker, the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault), referred to Canada and to a point

511
which struck me during the short time I was there, and that is the number of Central European emigrants who go to Canada compared with the number of British, and I think that is a very serious thing indeed. I believe myself to be a good Internationalist, but I would prefer to see Canada peopled by our own race, especially for one reason, and that is because I am suspicious of the fact that these Central Europeans go there, and are welcomed in certain quarters there, because they have a lower standard of life than we have. It seems to me that this is one of the matters which the Canadian Government will require to look into. There have been numerous complaints about emigrants going to Canada and having to put up with a great deal of unemployment. There is considerable unemployment in Canada in the towns during the winter. We must sympathise, of course, with the difficulties of the problem. The great severity of the winter and the amount of seasonal employment there make the problem certainly a difficult one, but it must, I think, be tackled before we can expect Canada to receive as many of our people as certainly she could contain. Belated to that problem is the tremendous drain from Canada into the United States every year, especially of the second generation of immigrants, which keeps Canada from accumulating that population with which we would like to see her.
Australia has been already dealt with. I did not see very much of New Zealand, but I understand that most of the good land there is already taken up, and that there is not much opportunity for new migrants going on Crown lands in New Zealand. Unless they have capital with which to purchase good land, they have not very much chance of success as farmers. In Australia, we have the land difficulty again. In New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, to get land is practically an impossibility for anyone without a considerable amount of capital, and it is only in Queensland and West Australia that a migrant without capital has really any chance of success at all as a small farmer. The problem in Australia and Canada is the same, to some extent, as we have here, and
512
it is a very remarkable thing to find it so. You have in Canada, with its great empty spaces, and also in Australia, tremendous towns, towns with over a million inhabitants. It always struck me as being very strange, if there were all those opportunities and all those wonderful potentialities on the land, if it were all that was said, why it was that so many people, some of them not too happy in their circumstances, not too well off, stayed in these big towns of a million inhabitants, and did not go out to the wilds and take those advantages which are pictured to our people here.
It seems to me that we are up against the difficulty all over the world of making the countryside attractive. There is no doubt that, with the development of modern civilisation, with the multiplication of the means of amusement and pleasure in the towns there is great difficulty in keeping people in the country. There is also the question of making the country attractive from the economic point of view, and? think there is no doubt that in most places the country life, whether it is that of a farmer or a farm worker, has represented the Cinderella of the occupations in which people may indulge. For that reason, towns become populous. and I think their tremendous growth and development are undesirable and are a menace to the success of the country as a whole.
I would like, in closing, to say a word in favour of the training at home. I think that, while we are expecting the Dominions, like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, to look into the conditions of the migrants who go there, we ought to tackle it also at our end, and see that the migrants are in a position to make good in those countries. It is quite ridiculous to send people, as we have done, to West Australia, to these group settlements, which are mainly for dairy farming, and to have some of these unfortunate people not knowing one end of a cow from the other. That is a very awkward situation when you have to milk a cow, and there are many other points like that which make the lot of these people difficult. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) in saying that people who have had a training at Catterick find a pleasure in their work. Everyone finds a pleasure in his work when he feels

513
he knows something about it, and he finds a pleasure in it which these other unfortunate people, who are struggling along with town ideas, never have. I think the development of the Ministry of Labour training colonies in this country would be a very useful and desirable effort.
It is a terrible tragedy that since the War we have spent £380,000,000 in public relief, largely for unemployment, and yet we have nothing at all to show for it. If we spent that kind of money now in some big scheme of this kind, both at home and in the Dominions, it would be a real asset not only to our country bur, to the Empire. I do hope that as a result of this discussion something will be clone to enlarge these Training Centres. We have any number of people who are eager to go to them and, while we do not want to force people out of the country, yet we want to give those who have the old adventurous spirit of our race and who can be happy in the Dominions, every opportunity to go with the best equipment possible.
Mr. HILTON YOUNG: One is used, at other times and in other places, to hear other members of the party opposite speaking of the British Empire as if it were a sort of dodge of the capitalists to undo the proletariat. I only mention that in order to express the appreciation which one feels upon an occasion such as this to hear speeches delivered from those benches with real knowledge and understanding of Imperial problems. I think that nobody has spoken to-night who does not prescribe to our article of belief that the British Empire, under Providence, is the greatest force for good in the modern world, not only from the point of view of the outside world as a keeper of the peace but as the promoter of prosperity at home. Hon. Members opposite have referred to suspicions, which they said they did not share, about the objects of the propaganda for Imperial migration. Let us implore them to join us in clearing those suspicions away and in making this movement a success. If there is anything which calls for criticism in the speeches delivered from the benches
514
opposite, it is the tendency to treat this great question too much as a question affecting only the relief of unemployment in this country. It affects all the members of our great family of nations equally. It must be looked at as a question which has sidelights corning from all around, and not from a single country. It should not be dealt with as a cure for abnormal unemployment. But it is a method for the prevention of unemployment by the creation of fresh supplies of cheap food and raw materials for this country and by the creation of fresh markets for this country. To look upon it too much from the point of view of the relief of unemployment would be perhaps an error. Nevertheless, that applies only to abnormal unemployment, but when you find that in one great member of the family of nations unemployment is becoming practically normal,, then another aspect is presented. We are told by the Blanesburgh Committee that 750,000 is to be the average number of unemployed in this country, clear proof that there is need of a shifting of the white population from this country to other less populated countries. Let us not, in this high matter, be too anxious to count the cost. What is the proportion in regard to this matter? Two little sets of figures will show what the proportion is. The first big work for the proper distribution of our white population is the development scheme in Australia. That is to cost us £6,000,000 out of £34,000,000, under which, in the course of 10 years, we are to get 450,000 persons settled in Australia and great development works carried out as well. £6,000,000! What did unemployment cost us last year? Counting the burden upon the wage earners and the employers and the State, and taking into account the rates as well as the taxes, it cost us £60,000,000. Compare the two sums and see whether more courage is not needed in spending money to save money, spending on emigration rather than on relief.
Take the other big work that is being done for Imperial migration at the moment to Canada. What are we spending? We are lending to enterprising and hard-working families £300 a piece against another £300 lent by the

515
Canadian Government in order to settle 3,000 families producing upon the land; £300 a head for 3,000 families. What is the cost of maintaining an unemployed man in this country? I estimate, if you calculate that unemployment is to be wiped out in ten years, that the present value of the cost of keeping an unemployed man in this country is at least £300. It is probably more like £500. Which is the more beneficial, from the point of view of business, lending £300 to go and produce or giving a man £300 as maintenance in this country for no production at all? If a sense of proportion might grow from those figures, I think it would point towards a more courageous policy in expenditure on this subject, because on the one hand the money spent is spent for the moral welfare of the people involved and, on the other, the unemployment dole is money spent for their moral degradation.
The problem now is much larger than it used to be. You cannot just take the unemployed man and toss him out without equipment or capital and count on his falling upon his feet. It is not as it was 150 or 200 years ago, when you had awaiting your surplus population unoccupied lands with no community upon them. Now there has been great development, and to put a man or a woman in that developed country needs two things— training and capital. These new communities are developed on different lines from our own. They are not like our own industrial communities, but they are agricultural communities, so that to take our folk and send them there you have to provide for conversion of our surplus population from industrial to agricultural. That points to drawing this moral; that where the courage is needed in spending money is in training.
The most profitable way in which you can spend that money at present is in the development of the training institutions for making our surplus population suitable for employment in the great overseas Dominions. Three chief needs will be fulfilled by that policy—an Imperial need in the Dominions as well as in the home country—the home country's need in the special circumstances in which it finds itself after the War—and, last but by no means least,
516
the need for a way out into a life of adventure for our young and active folk.
Miss BONDFIELD: There are one or two points to which I would like to direct the attention of the House in connection with this matter, and more particularly in relation to Canada. I have here figures taken for December, the latest figures figures available of the migration into Canada. The migrants amounted to 5,415, of which 1,275 were British, 1,058 came from the United States and 3,032 from other countries. In relation to the number of newcomers in the nine months from April to December last, the total was 114,035, and of that number 60,818 were adult males and 29,351 wore adult females. You have to put those: figures against the figures which show that Canada has about 300,000 more men than women in her population, whereas we have about 2,000,000 more women than men in our population. I think it is one of the points that cannot be too strongly emphasised, that very special provisions are necessary to assist women to settle overseas.
It is a constant. source of annoyance and irritation to many women who would like to take up a life of adventure and go out to those wide spaces, to be told that the only avenue through which they can go is that of domestic service, and I think the sooner we drop that title the better. The opportunity for household help is, undoubtedly. the great avenue of employment, but I think it ought to be clearly understood, and statistics show, that women who go out very soon marry, and they are very specially the people who are going to make or mar the whole problem of migration. I have been more impressed by that since I had the opportunity of visiting the settlements under the 3.000 family scheme. I am convinced that women on the whole are badly overworked. The settler's wife is, perhaps, the most overworked person. It is quite obvious that we ought to do everything we can to assist the younger women who go out under the family settlement scheme to assist in connection with the multifarious duties that fall to the women in the new lands, and in order that they may be properly equipped to do the work that has to be done, they ought to have far more extended training than at present exists.

517
I welcome most heartily the scheme, which, I hope, the Secretary of State for the Dominions- will be in a position to tell us is really settled for Australia, for starting a residential training scheme for women on broader lines than anything we have at present under the Ministry of Labour. It is going to include, I hope, the keeping of poultry and the growing of vegetables. It is, of course, of vital importance that we should remember that women going to those countries require to learn such things as baking bread, about which many women in this country know nothing. In many ways it is necessary to emphasise that the beginning of the success of the scheme depends in very large degree upon the amount of training provided in this country. I want to quote figures to show how alarming the situation is, and how difficult it is to make Government Departments realise the urgency of this particular problem. Since the training scheme for women started, 36,093 women passed through the classes. Whereas in previous years the numbers were 6,377 and 3,466, for the coming year the grant only provides places for 2,500. The very time we are striving to develop this scheme is chosen to cut down places in the training scheme. ' It is the most lamentable example of economy that I can imagine. I make a special plea that it should be regarded as vital that, side by side with the migration of men, the migration of women shall be made possible, at least in equal numbers, if not in greater numbers. That can only be done—and I say it deliberately, having had a great deal of experience in this matter—by a very large extension of training work in this country.
I wish to mention also the development of special arrangements for taking over large numbers of people for casual work. An advertisement for 14,000 farm workers for Canada is now in the Press. When I was in Canada I made inquiries as to the previous experiment about which we heard so much in this country. The facts were astounding. Between 14,000 and 15,000 people were taken over at short notice for harvest work; a few weeks after the advertisement was out they were over there. About 3,000 of those people came more or less to shipwreck. They were
518
landed in Winnipeg and elsewhere. We heard about their cases, and had personal interviews with a number of them. Many were most tragic cases, because they had been taken out without plan and without anybody thinking what was to happen when the harvest work was over. But while the misfortunes of these 3,000 cases could have been prevented by proper planning and forethought, the astounding fact is that 10,000 of those people who went out on that experiment were absorbed in Canada.
It was suggested to me quite seriously by a prominent statesman in Canada— this sort of thing requires great imagination and much courage to do it on a big scale—that whenever opportunities occur for occasional work for large numbers, we should consider the possibility of guaranteeing a return passage to the people who go out—under certain conditions, of course, under conditions as to doing a certain amount of work or staying a certain period. The idea was that it would encourage people to go out and see the country for themselves, to find out what they would be expected to do; that it would be worth this country's while to guarantee a return passage after, say, two years or three years. That was submitted quite seriously as a means by which another 14,000 might go out, of whom probably 10,000 would settle themselves without any expense whatever for settlement schemes.
There are some irritating points in connection with the present methods which might easily be removed. There is the case of the splendid type of emigrant who pays his own passage. Probably he has saved up for years, has got a little nest-egg and then ventures his all in Canada. There is a record of no less than 700 of these men in Canada at the present time. The difficulty they find themselves in is this: They expect to be able to settle down and send for their wives and families, but find it difficult to send money back to England to keep up the home, to pay for their own lodging in Canada and at the same time save the money required to bring out their wives and families. It is absurd that they should not be able to take advantage of the nomination system for their wives. It is not merely a bad bit of red tape, but it is a foolish restriction from the point of view of both countries. Through the

519
medium of the Women's Advisory Committee we have raised a fund of £7,000 which has been loaned to 360 men to enable them to get their wives out. We have another 360 wives waiting to go out and join their husbands, but have not the funds to enable us to loan them the money. The cheap passage scheme does not apply to the wives of men who paid their own passages out and who are settled in Canada. This sort of irritation could easily be removed, and that would make a tremendous difference.
Another point is in connection with Australia. Here they have an age limit that nobody may go there over 65 years of age. Supposing you have in this country a family desiring to go out to Australia and there is in that family an elderly father or mother. The only choice of that family is to leave the old people in the workhouse with a chance of them going out to Australia later on, but the probability is that they do not see each other any more. Why should family ties be torn asunder in that way, because matters might easily be arranged to avoid that. There are only a few of such cases, but surely an instance like that ought to be provided for.
With regard to the whole question of the speeding up of group settlements a reference has been made to the men who went out to those settlements. They felt competent to run a farm and to raise stock, but it turned out that for over 18 months they had to spend the whole of their time doing navvying work clearing the bush. Surely arrangements could be made for sending out the proper type of men who are more fitted for doing that kind of work. Men who are accustomed to doing that sort of work should be sent out with a guarantee of employment for a period of years. If that policy were adopted then the trained settlers who went out specially to do farming would be able to take up their job immediately they go there. Of course I know that is merely a question of organisation, but I think what I have suggested would be of immense value to the settlement.
Then there is the question of the larger acreage that could be put under cultivation in relation to petty trades. I was immensely impressed when I went to the Rouge River to see those six small
520
factories all belonging to a system of mass production. They had all the different parts to be manufactured grouped in small factories in the countryside as a subsidiary industry to agriculture itself. In this country I suppose we are too old and too traditional to adopt a modern idea like that, but in these new countries with these new schemes where there is a possibility of electrical power and of carrying out the kind of thing I have referred to, is it not possible by foresight and enterprise to prevent the springing up of the hideous-ness of the great industrial towns in this country. Take for example the manufacture of cars. There is no reason why all the parts should be made under one roof, and It is quite possible to make arrangements for small parts to be made by a separate plant in connection with agriculture.
Instead of treating this merely as a land settlement for farmers we should extend that idea and try to find out to what extent it is possible, e.g., in Northern Ontario, to develop mines so that there may be alternative forms of work for the people in those countries to fall back npon I know that all this cannot be done in five minutes or by Debates in this House, but if the suggestion put forward by the Mover and Seconder of this. Motion to form a small development committee to investigate and co-ordinate these matters could be considered then all these larger views might be brought down to actual practical realities. We do require to have a very wide view of the situation in order that these new countries can be successfully developed so as to avoid the horrible problems which the older civilisations present to us. There are other matters on which I ought not to take up time, but which, on occasions like this, would really require to be dealt with if we were exhausting the subject. There is, however, one other point that I should like to mention. I am sure we were all very pleased to sees that the Minister of Labour in Canada has undertaken to introduce an Old Age Pensions Bill for Canada. One of the things that I think would be immensely helpful in connection with the redistribution of population would be if we could have some form of inter-Dominion social legislation of a similar and interchangeable character.

521
That, I am sure, is one of the means by which we can help in getting rid of some of the grievances which now exist. I feel that this subject has only been touched upon to-night; there is so much more that many people would want to say; and I would make an appeal to the Government as to whether they could not give a day for further discussion of this extremely important problem, which offers a solution for many other problems which vex us at the present time, but which, if they are to be dealt with, require to be dealt with with the all-round vision that has been referred to to-night.
With regard to the attitude of Labour on this question of migration—and there is a great deal of misrepresentation— what Labour has protested against and will continue to protest against, is the exploitation of the unfortunate individual who has been brought down to destitution. We know that one of the reasons why we are throwing ourselves into this newer form of migration is because some of the old abuses have disappeared, that there is now some form of Governmental protection against the exploitation of those who go abroad as migrants. We still, however, have the bad old tradition, that has not died out, based on the facts in existence before the Empire Settlement Act was passed at all, and before there was any Government guarantee that the migrant would get fair play in the land of his adoption; and I think it is very important to remember that, in great groups like the British Trade Union Congress and the Canadian Trade Union Congress, the policy is absolutely identical on this question of the necessity of extending the Act to settlement in their own countries. Canada feels just the same about her unemployed in Winnipeg, Toronto or any other big city. They say: "If you are prepared to spend this amount of money to help men with no capital to come out from England to settle in Saskatchewan, why cannot you help men living in Winnipeg or Montreal to settle in Saskatchewan?" In reply it is said: "The Act says you cannot do it except in places where a 50–50 arrangement has been entered into between the Governments." I believe it would clear up a great deal of mistrust and difficulty if it? were made clear that the form of land
522
settlement did not exclude land settlement on the land in your own country. There, also, you will get your training ground extended for the people who will go overseas. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Resolution that has been moved, and particularly urge that we should have a day to explore the subject still further.
The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): One or two previous speakers have referred to the possible disappointment that I and others may have felt at the comparatively small results of the Empire Settlement Act in the first few years of its operation. I will say frankly that I never had any illusions as to the many practical difficulties which stood in the way of the rapid expansion of the policy upon which we have been embarking; nor have I ever imagined—and I agree entirely on this point with what was very well said by the Mover of this Resolution in his admirable speech—that the range of what Government can do on this question is, after all, limited and only a part of a wider problem. What I did always hope was that, in bringing this matter within the sphere of legislation, in bringing it year by year on the Estimates of this House and having it discussed in this House, we should have a steady increase of interest in and knowledge of a subject of paramount importance. From that point of view I, certainly, have not been disappointed. Every successive Debate on this subject has shown a keener interest, a greater knowledge, more valuable practical contributions to the debate and also a greater measure of unanimity. To-night's Debate has to me at any rate been full of encouragement. It has been on a high level and on a practical note throughout, a Debate, not of disputation, but of co-operation in which everyone has contributed his share of knowledge and ideas towards the moulding of a great policy which is entirely above party and which we all feel to be vital to the life of the nation. It is only typical of the spirit of this Debate that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and others withdrew an Amendment which while it embodied a point of view which is widely held on the benches opposite, and I might add on these benches too, and certainly

523
by myself, would have diverted the course of a discussion for which the time has been too brief in any case.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury referred, as did the hon. Lady who has just spoken, to the necessity of clearing up misunderstandings both here and overseas as to what it is we have in mind on both sides of the House. I think we have done a good deal to clear up those misunderstandings. We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not concerned in this policy of Empire development through a better diffusion of our population with trying to rid ourselves of our responsibility towards a single citizen of this country. Our people, whether they are employed or unemployed, have to look to this House in the first instance and we have no right to shift our responsibility for them or to think we can get rid of it by pushing them overseas. On the contrary, the only point of view we can rightly take in this matter is that our responsibility towards them as our fellow citizens is not limited within these shores. If one of them wishes to go overseas it-is our duty to protect him against exploitation by individual interests, to give him every chance of making good on the other side and to reduce the risk of failure to a minimum. That is our responsibility towards the individual.
From the wider point of view, this policy is not one of trying to do something for people because they are unemployed. That is a problem we have to face here at home. But it is, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) pointed out, a policy of employment, of enlarging the opportunities both for the individual who goes out and for the trade of the country, and, therefore, for the individual who remains at home, a policy of strengthening the whole fabric of our national life, helping the development of the British Empire, and, incidentally, helping our fellow citizens, whether they happen to be at any particular moment employed or unemployed, who wish to find better opportunities overseas and who are entitled to our help and to our care. From the point of view of the Dominions, on the other hand, there has been a suspicion that we were only concerned in getting rid of our own people and were indifferent to the
524
economic consequences of what happened on the other side, and, again, that there are people in the Dominions concerned only with the immediate advantage to themselves of getting a surplus of cheaper labour in order to depress the local standard of Living. I think that, again is entirely remote from the point of view that we hold. We do not wish to encourage people to go out who are not going to succeed on the other side. We do not wish them to go out unless they can succeed on a high standard of living, on the standard of living which they have built up there. We want them to go out, not in order to make profit for an individual, but in order to strengthen the great young nations whose strength is ours. From that point of view, we believe that the policy of migration, wisely carried out, and carried out in regard to the circumstances of each particular situation and in constant and close co-operation with the Governments and peoples overseas, can only raise the standard of living as it contributes to the volume of the development and the utilisation of the resources of nature in their territories.
My hon. and gallant Friend who introduced the Motion spoke of the need for more information. Undoubtedly, it is essential for success, in this matter that people should not leave these shores with any misunderstanding as to the conditions on the other side. We want to give them a true picture and a fair picture of the prospects on the other side, to show to them the great opportunities, and also make clear to them the hard work and possibly the hardships which have to be undergone before those opportunities can be fully realised. I would not minimise even the possible discomforts at sea on the way, or any of the possible discomforts at the early stages of pioneer work. In this respect, at the Oversea Settlement Office we are doing a good deal to help in this work. In the last 12 months we have started a monthly periodical called the "Oversea Settler," which is distributed to societies and individuals interested in this subject, and which we are endeavouring, as we get experience, to make fuller and more interesting every month. We have started courses of lectures, in the first instance in the various Army Commands, under the auspices of the War Office, and we hone to extend the system a good deal further. Not only at

525
Wembley, but in the various Empire shopping weeks which are now being held we hope to take a part by having a representative there and taking a stall and setting out the actual facts in connection with settlement in different parts of the Empire.
We certainly hope in this matter to enlist the willing and keen co-operation of the education authorities. We have recently had some very hopeful discussions at a conference of educational associations, and I think something will come from that. In this connection, I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) who suggested that the county associations and the local associations could give an immense amount of help by encouraging the migrant to go where he will find friends from his own countryside, and give him opportunities of getting information which is far more real if it comes from people about whom he knows something. A clear account of what farming life is in Canada means much more to a man in Kent if it comes from someone who originally came from the next village, than if it came from someone who had started from another part of the United Kingdom. That is one point to which the hon. Member referred.
Another point to which he drew attention was the importance of securing a substantial reduction in fares. We are working at that all the time. At the Imperial Conference we secured an agreement with Canada by which the special reduced fare was still further brought down from £3 to £2, and it is now possible for a settler to get to Winnipeg for £4 10s. and to Vancouver for £8. We have also arranged for the assistance given to juveniles proceeding to Western Canada to be increased from 80 to 100 dollars. This is one of the most helpful ways in which settlement can be promoted. In the case of Australia, we have also improved on a not ungenerous scheme of assistance, at any rate in respect of women going to domestic service. Previously they paid £11 towards their fare, now they get a free passage. New Zealand has always taken a leading part in this matter and all boys under 19 years of age and all girls and women under 40 years of age can go to New Zealand free if qualified for assisted passages. Previously single men paid a contribution to their fares,
526
and that has now been reduced from £13 15s. to £11.
These are signs that we are moving steadily, and not the least significant is the free passages for all women up to 40 years of age to New Zealand, because I agree most profoundly with what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bond-field) said about the vital importance of encouraging the migration of women to the Dominions. At present the figure is, roughly speaking, five men to four women, excluding children, and this leaves a deficit in the migration of women which, added to the fact of the excess of men in the Dominions and the excess of women here, shows that there is still a case for doing a good deal more to encourage the migration of women. I agree that one of the points which certainly require to be dealt with is that of the facilities to enable a wife and family to rejoin the husband who has already gone out, whether at his own expense or as an assisted settler. In all these matters we are steadily improving the machinery of co-operation, but I beg to remember that in all these matters we are dealing not with one Government which has complete control of the situation, but with two Governments,' each with its own difficulties and problems and its own administrative machinery.
It is only month by month and year by year as we get working together and into more active and closer touch, with each other, as the representatives of the migration department here visit the various Dominions and the representatives of the migration departments in the Dominions come over here and discuss matters, by discussions at. the Imperial Conferences, gradually getting to understand each other's point of view, getting rid of the various anomalies and irritating restrictions and the misinterpretation of rules, that we shall gradually get the machinery of co-operation working smoothly and in time get one considered scheme in operation. Reference has been made by more than one hon. Member to the success of the 3,000 families scheme. We are closely considering, with the Canadian Government, and with the great railway Companies and the Hudson Bay Company, the possibility of further schemes based broadly on the same principle which will

527
enable that success to be implemented by further successes on the same lines.
There is one subject in this connection to which more than one speaker has drawn attention, that is, the question of training on this side—training not in the sense of attempting to create a skilled agricultural worker but training in the sense, first, of eliminating the man who is going to be a failure in any case and whom it would be folly and a crime to send overseas, and, secondly, training which will give a man, when he lands at the other end with all the novelty of the conditions there, a fair chance. Think of the position of the man who, after several weeks of travelling, lands in a strange place under conditions very different from those at home, being driven out, perhaps, at four or five in the morning to a farm, and being told by the farmer to do some job, which no doubt from the farmer's point of view is quite elementary, but which the man may be perfectly incapable of doing. If only the man had had a few weeks in which to learn that elementary job, he would have been able to tackle it and the farmer would have felt that here was a willing man who knows one or two things and can learn more. All the experience we have had from Catterick and now also from the training establishments started under the Ministry of Labour, as well as from some of the private training establishments, such as the Salvation Army and other organisations, does lead us to believe that we can help enormously the whole business of successful settlement and the elimination of waste by preliminary testing and training over here.
We did enter into this matter very closely at the Imperial Conference and as the result of that we have shortened the time for training from six months to 17 weeks in the case of one of the Ministry of Labour establishments and to ten weeks in the case of another and we hope very soon to be getting information as to what is really the right length of the period for training. We also discussed with the Dominions the question whether, under the Empire Settlement Act, they would be willing to co-operate in the expense of a great enlargement of the scheme for training in this country. That they felt at present unable to do, though all the Dominions concerned were
528
willing to provide equipment as used in their own country and also possibly the services of instructors. I might add— and this bears upon the question of women—that the Government of the Australian Commonwealth has declared its readiness to co-operate with us financially in the scheme for the training of women. I am not yet in a position to be able to say that it is all fixed up, but I hope most sincerely that we shall be able to carry that scheme out and without undue delay. In the financial position of this country, while we are still testing what is the right length of training and while we arc still hoping that the importance of this may be recognised somewhat more fully by the Dominions in co-operation, we have felt it somewhat difficult to embark on an immediate extension of the training scheme. But I entirely agree with the view expressed from every part of the House that this is an essential element not only in the success of the scheme but from the broader social point of view.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) said this evening very truly that it is not our skilled agricultural workers that we wish to send out of this country. They are needed here and they are by no means always the men who make the greatest successes on the other side. The type to whom the hon. Member referred was the keen young man who may work in factories or mines but who has a love of the land in him to such an extent that when he has a chance, even if it is only a hundred square yards, he cultivates that land and spends many hours every week on it—the man who has such a love of the land that it makes him ready to go overseas. That is the man whom not only we must wish to send but who does, as a matter of fact, habitually make a success. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton referred to one Prime Minister of a Canadian Province who started as a clerk in this country and became a successful farmer. There is another Premier of a Canadian Province who started in the same way, not as a man on the land, and became one of the most successful farmers in Canada, now here in London. Both in Canada and Australia I again and again met successful farmers who learnt their farming out there. In one instance the most

529
successful farmer in his district was a man who had been a pastry-cook in the East End of London and had never seen a green field until he was in the train that took him to Liverpool. The experience of Lord Clarendon, when he went to Canada last summer, was that the miners who were working on the land there under the various land settlement schemes were at least as successful as any other class of the community that had gone out.
There is one point to which several hon. Members have drawn attention, and that is the need of improving our machinery at this end to meet the machinery which has been set up by the Australian Government in the shape of the Development and Migration Commission over there. I think that we are meeting it. As far as the administration of actual migration is concerned we are improving our organisation at the overseas settlement office all the time. But we have other functions, other organisations of Government, which are assisting in other parts of that work. The Empire Marketing Board is helping all the time, not only in the greater diffusion of knowledge about the Empire, but in all those problems of research, of marketing, of creating a voluntary preference here. All contribute materially to the success of settlement, and even if we do not find it necessary to set up something precisely equivalent and parallel to the Development and Migration Commission in Australia, wo have got the new and flexible organisation of the Committee of Civil Research here, which, through its various Committees and Sub-committees, is already coping with a great many problems of Imperial interest which bear on this question.
I do believe in what underlies the wording of this Motion and what has underlain many of the speeches to-night, namely, that you cannot take this problem of migration in isolation. From our point of view it has an immense bearing upon the development of our trade. The trade of the Empire, which is certainly not the least important part of Imperial trade, the trade which we do with these Dominions with a small population, can by a successful policy of migration be
530
enormously increased. Nor can you divorce this question from the question of research. Population in any of the great Dominions depends intimately upon research into its resources and the capacities of its soil, and research into the methods of bringing its products to this country. So does our whole trade policy enter into it. The question of voluntary preference at this end, the question of other preferences, all enter into it. All are parts of one great policy which, as has been said, we ought to tackle with courage and conviction.
Resolved,
"That this House observes that over a period of widespread depression in trade the proportion of our trade with the Empire has increased and continues to increase; and is of opinion that, in order to benefit the people of this country by developing our best and mo6t productive markets, and in order to assist those Dominions which so desire it further to increase the British population within their territories, no effort should be spared, in co-operation with the Governments of the Dominions, to initiate new proposals and to increase the existing facilities for settlement in the Empire overseas."

REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

WALES.
  TINPLATE INDUSTRY.
  TINPLATE INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
  MOTOR INDUSTRY.
  MOTOR INDUSTRY.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ILKESTON DIVISION.
  ILKESTON DIVISION.
  EXTENDED BENEFIT (BOROUGH).
  EXTENDED BENEFIT (BOROUGH).
  BRITISH ARMY (HORSES).
  BRITISH ARMY (HORSES).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (BOUNTY).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (BOUNTY).
ROYAL NAVY.
  CRUISERS (EFFECTIVE AGE).
  CRUISERS (EFFECTIVE AGE).
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WRITERS (PROMOTION).
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WRITERS (PROMOTION).
  HASLAR HOSPITAL (BREAKAGES).
  HASLAR HOSPITAL (BREAKAGES).
EDUCATION.
  PROGRAMME, EAST HAM.
  PROGRAMME, EAST HAM.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  SCIENCE MUSEUM (GUIDE LECTURER).
  SCIENCE MUSEUM (GUIDE LECTURER).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  POST OFFICE (LETTER RATE).
  POST OFFICE (LETTER RATE).
  CHINA (FOREIGN MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES).
  CHINA (FOREIGN MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES).
  ARMS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).
  ARMS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).
  BESSARABIA.
  BESSARABIA.
  SAAR TERRITORY (RAILWAY DEFENCE FORCE).
  SAAR TERRITORY (RAILWAY DEFENCE FORCE).
  DOVER HARBOUR (ACCIDENTS).
  DOVER HARBOUR (ACCIDENTS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CRANWELL RAILWAY.
  CRANWELL RAILWAY.
  MARRIED OFFICERS IN IRAQ.
  MARRIED OFFICERS IN IRAQ.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

SITUATION AT SHANGHAI
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give the House any information about the situation at Shanghai.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for having given me notice of his Question. I have a certain amount of information here. A good deal of it was given by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday, but perhaps the best way would be for me to read the whole of it and then your Lordships can see what is new. The Nationalist forces arrived in the suburbs of Shanghai on Monday morning. No serious fighting occurred, the Northern General, Pi Chu-chen, making arrangements to transfer his allegiance to the South. Disorders occurred in the Chinese suburb of Chapei on the north side of the Settlement, where labourers attacked the Chinese police stations and seized the arms in them. A general strike was declared at noon on Monday: this strike is announced not to be anti-foreign, but to be in celebration of the Nationalist victory. All public utility services are involved.
The Municipal Council of the International Settlement declared a state of emergency on Monday; the volunteers and special police were mobilised and foreign naval forces landed for the internal defence of the Settlement. The Royal Marines have been landed at Pootung, the riverside area opposite Shanghai, for the protection of British lives and property there. At the request of the Municipal Council detachments of foreign troops have been sent to protect foreign properties of their respective
686
nationalities on municipal roads outside the cordon line; there are six such British posts and three Japanese.
On Monday afternoon a party of the Punjabi Regiment, when proceeding in motor lorries to their posts on the northern outskirts of the Settlements, were fired on by gunmen; one of the Punjabis was killed and one seriously wounded. Their assailants escaped. The whole of the district involved has since been occupied by Japanese forces. Great confusion existed on the Settlement borders up to yesterday afternoon owing to the fact that the forces operating there were not regular Nationalist troops but local guerillas, including Communist agitators. Indiscriminate firing and burning of houses took place, while the confusion was increased by the fact that no effective arrangements had been made by the Nationalists to take the surrender of the Northern troops.
Regular Nationalist troops eventually arrived at Shanghai North Station, when the Northern troops, in order to avoid being disarmed, endeavoured to force their way into the Settlement. This made it necessary for the British post there to open fire and a few of the Chinese soldiers were killed. Later, about 300 of the Northern troops surrendered to the British posts and some 1,200 to the Japanese; these have all been interned. His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, with the Japanese Consul-General and the Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, were to meet the Nationalist General this morning, when they hoped to persuade him to control the irregular forces and to put a stop to the sniping which has already resulted in nine British casualties. No information has yet been received as to the outcome of this interview.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should be much obliged to your Lordships if I might give a word of explanation as to a slight error into which I fell in my speech yesterday afternoon on National Expenditure. I quoted the Committee of Inquiry from whose Report I recited several passages as having been presided over by Sir

687
John Anderson. That was an error; I should have said Sir Alan Anderson. Sir John Anderson is a great Home Office official and through a misconception on my part I thought it was he who was Chairman of that Committee. As a matter of fact, it was Sir Alan Anderson, Joint Manager of the Orient Line, director of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, director of the Bank of England, Vice-President of the International Chamber of Commerce, a very distinguished man, not more distinguished perhaps than Sir John Anderson, still, in one sense, more independent in his comments upon the Civil Service even than Sir John Anderson could be.

AIR FORCE CASUALTIES.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL rose to call attention to the frequency of accidents in the Royal Air Force; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should say at once that in raising this Question I have no intention whatever of developing an attack upon the Government and Air Ministry, and still less of saying a single word which shall reflect in the slightest degree upon the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. Respectfully and humbly I venture to associate myself with the words which fell from the Prime Minister the other day, that there is no finer spirit in any Service in the world than in our Air Force. In connection with the subject to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention I think that it would not be out of place to pay a special tribute to that great and gallant man Sir Hugh Trenchard. I have had the honour of his friendship for some years and I know that on this particular subject of accidents there is no one to whom they come with more heartburning and who feels a deeper grief for the loss of anybody associated with that Force.
I do not propose to go into the question of any particular accident, or to say anything which shall arouse a sense of uneasiness beyond what the figures that have already been given have aroused. I think the Secretary of State for Air has said that there were 58 fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force last year. That is obviously an average, of more than one a week, and even up to quite recent times, only last week in fact, there were some
688
more. When I first put this Motion down upon the Order Paper, on March 6, it was suggested to me that it would be well to postpone it in view of the desire of the Prime Minister to make a statement in another place. Of course I acceded to that wish and on March 10 the Prime Minister did make that statement. Had that statement fully covered the ground I should not have retained my Motion upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House, but I do not think that it did. In the intervening time, through letters and other communications which have come to me, I am satisfied that the statement that was made by the Prime Minister has not entirely removed all the sense of uneasiness on this question, and indeed that is hardly surprising.
The Prime Minister said he had devoted several days during the holidays—that is during last summer—to making an investigation and I am sure that everyone must be exceedingly grateful to him for having, in the midst of all his many other arduous labours, done so. But the Prime Minister did not speak in any way as an expert, nor did he claim to speak as an expert, and there are certain questions which I should like to put to the noble Duke who, I understand, will reply for the Government, which were not touched on at all by the Prime Minister. In practically all that fell from the Prime Minister I think that everybody connected with the air can find nothing to disagree. I do not myself propose to traverse the ground that he covered; I think it is unnecessary to say anything more than he said upon the temperament required for the spirit of the air or the dangers and difficulties that necesarily arise from that. All that concerns what he called the personal equation I shall therefore pass by. Nor have I anything to say (I think nothing can be said further than he said) on the question which has aroused considerable public interest—namely, the publication of reports on individual accidents. It seems to me, if I may say so, that the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister were quite conclusive.
It is not upon those questions that I wish to ask for information, but rather on certain technical aspects of these accidents. Most of these accidents occur, as far as can be known, from certain definite causes. Very often the cause

689
cannot be known, but it is, I think, admitted that the stalling of a machine, especially when it is near the ground, is at any rate a very frequent cause of these accidents. I am informed that so long ago as January, 1925, an invention was designed called the Savage-Bramson anti-stall gear, which had for its purpose the giving of unmistakable warning to the pilot when this was about to take place, that this invention was subjected to many tests during the early part of 1925, and that twelve were ordered as long ago as October, 1925. Since that date it has been subjected to further tests. I find among the technical experts who deal with the air that there is criticism of the Air Ministry as having been rather dilatory in testing and possibly applying this device. I do not associate myself with those criticisms; I do not feel that I know enough to do so; but I should like to ask for information about the matter. I am informed that this device is being put into mass production in France. If that is so, I hope the noble Duke will be able to tell us something about it and possibly some of the reasons which may have weighed with the Air Ministry if they have decided not to go in for anything of the kind.
A second point upon which I would like information is the question of a device to prevent the petrol tanks from bursting into flames. That does not of course necessarily prevent accidents, but it would have the effect, if successful, of greatly mitigating the mortality which falls upon the pilot and the machine if the petrol tank crashes, bursts into flame and consumes everything and everybody. I am informed that there has been an invention which complies with the specification of the competition that was instituted to try and arrive at such an invention by the Air Ministry in 1921–2, and I see from The Times of January 19 that the inventor of this is now in communication with foreign Governments.
I further see in the technical Press a long article dealing with this question of anti-crash and anti-fire petrol tanks by a writer who signs himself C. G. G., a caustic but not uninformed writer upon Air matters. He criticises the Air Ministry on the same grounds of having indulged in considerable delay in the question of investigating and possibly applying these inventions. Again I do
690
not associate myself with that criticism, but I ask for information about it. It is obvious that in the case of fighting machines some devices, even if successful, cannot be utilised because they may take off too greatly from performance and it may be that that is so with this invention. But I think it would be well that such information as the noble Duke feels able to give should be given now when there is undoubtedly a sense of uneasiness on this subject.
The third Question I would direct to the noble Duke concerns another aspect of these accidents. I am informed that very often when an accident takes place in the early part of the day the natural desire of the Press to get hold of and publish at the earliest possible moment full information is productive of very great hardship to the relatives of those who suffer injury or death. There have been instances quite recently where the members of the household of a flying officer, who are passing the time in quiet, have been disturbed by a telephone message or, in another case, by a knock at the door and the visit of a reporter. In each case the relative—sometimes the wife, sometimes the father or mother—was asked without any preliminary warning for a photograph of the son or husband for publication, and when the question: "What for?" was asked, the relative was told quite curtly: "Because he was killed this afternoon in an accident." Before, therefore, any possibility has been given to the Air Ministry to communicate with the relatives, this kind of sudden fearful shock was administered to them.
There is something quite ghoulish and horrible about such procedure and I would ask the Air Ministry whether they cannot use their great influence to appeal to the Press to suspend publication of details and of names, and certainly not to go to the relative's house in this way until the Air Ministry has had the opportunity of taking the ordinary and proper means of communicating the facts of the accident to the relatives. I hope that is not too much to ask and I would further venture to appeal to those noble Lords connected with the Press that they should at any rate give instructions to the staffs of the newspapers over which they have control

691
that this procedure should be adopted. There is no question here of suppressing information, but only of delaying it sufficiently long to allow the relatives to have proper warning and to be spared the added pain of a tremendous shock.
The only other point I wish to make is this. Constantly we see in the papers that there has been an accident, with such headings as "Crash in the air." The general public, not so well informed upon air matters as we should like, is apt to confuse what happens sometimes necessarily through military manœuvring in the Air Force with the general question of safety in the air. Anything, therefore, that the Government can say which can show the wide discrepancy that does and must exist between these two forms of aviation will, I submit, be of great help in giving generally a sense of safety in the air with regard to civil aviation. I am not one of those who think civil aviation is in any way inimical to peace. I think civil aviation should be encouraged in every way possible and that it is as reasonable to take exception to a chemical factory in peace time because it can be converted into a factory for making warlike materials in war, as it is to challenge civil aviation because a civil machine can be reconditioned in other circumstances. I hope that the noble Duke, in his reply, may be able to say something which will allay these various causes of uneasiness, and in putting down my Motion I have had no other thought than to give the Government an opportunity of making such a statement amplifying what fell from the Prime Minister and making it in the more tranquil atmosphere of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, since my noble friend gave Notice of his intention to move for Papers the Prime Minister, as he observed, has given at length in another place results of an inquiry carried out by himself personally during the late Parliamentary Recess. Many of your Lordships, no doubt, have read the Prime Minister's speech. It covered in a certain way practically every aspect of the subject of accident and coming as it did with the weight of his authority and disclosing as it did the care and thoroughness of his inquiries, it does not, I think, leave very much more on
692
that side to be said. I feel sure, too, that it has gone a long way towards allaying anxiety, even if it has not altogether allayed anxiety, both in Parliament and in the country.
The Prime Minister devoted much of his speech to the question of the publication of statistics and of the reports of inspectors after accidents. He expressed himself fully convinced, as Lord Gorell told you, that publication would be a great mistake for many reasons. I am very glad that the noble Lord himself agrees with that view. I do not think those arguments can be controverted. It is obviously essential that the Secretary of State should be furnished with every possible item of evidence concerning these accidents. This, in itself, precludes publication of the inspector's report. How can you expect witnesses, many of them very junior officers or airmen, to give evidence reflecting adversely on their seniors if they know the reports are to be made public? It is too much of a strain on human nature and it cannot be expected. Under present conditions these reports are made direct to the Secretary of State by the Inspector of Accidents, who is a civil official and is free to criticise everyone in the Air Force from the highest to the lowest and to examine any witness he considers may be able to throw light on the accident under consideration.
I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in his place. His duty is undoubtedly a difficult one. It would be impossible were his reports, instead of being privileged documents, to be published broadcast. After all, what would be gained by publication? Action on the reports can be taken by the Secretary of State and by no one else. He has a skilled Air Ministry staff to assist him and, if necessary, he can and does obtain outside technical and scientific advice, such as that of the Aeronautical Research Committee. Is there any reasonable hope that outside criticism, based on necessarily incomplete knowledge of all the relevant facts and ignorant of much of our past experience, can be of any real help?
Let us take the statistics again. What is their real value to Parliament or to the public? The Air Ministry alone can take action on them, and it must be assumed that the Air Minister, with the

693
full knowledge of a particular case and of similar cases, is the best judge as to what action should be taken. From some criticisms that have recently appeared in the Press and have even been heard in another place, it might almost be supposed that the Air Ministry keep no proper record or statistics but simply accept the accidents as necessary concomitants of aviation. It might even be supposed that the Air Ministry make no real endeavour to reduce the number of these accidents. It is hardly necessary for me to say that nothing is further from the truth. The Prime Minister has satisfied himself that the fullest statistics have been kept since the War, and are being kept, and that the whole problem is under constant review from every angle. It is surely obvious to any one that the Secretary of State and the Air Council, who must presumably have the good and the efficiency of the Royal Air Force at heart, have the very strongest motives for reducing the number of accidents, if for no other reason—and of course there are multitudes of other reasons—than that the accidents are themselves bound to act as a deterrent to recruiting.
The Prime Minister in his speech dealt at length with the causes of accident. He showed conclusively, I believe, that those due to what he called remediable causes were a very small proportion of the whole and that no particular type of machine and no special station or unit is more prone to accidents than others. This is proved by the statistics of the last six years. It is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless, that aviation does and, so far as one can see, must for many years to come entail accidents. Man has conquered the air to the extent of being able to fly, but he has not overcome the law of gravity nor the liability of human nature to occasional error. Accordingly it is too much to hope that accidents can be entirely eliminated. The real question is whether their number can be successfully reduced—in other words, whether unnecessary and possibly avoidable accidents do take place.
The real criterion in this respect is surely our own experience and that of other nations. As regards our own experience, leaving out the War years when conditions were totally different, there was a constant improvement from 1921
694
to 1925 in the ratio of accidents to hours flown, whether fatal accidents, or accidents involving injury to personnel, or accidents only causing material damage to machines. As we were told yesterday in the debate on National Expenditure, figures are proverbially misleading, but the ratio of accidents to hours flown provides, I think, a reasonable basis of comparison. The actual number of accidents, irrespective of the amount of flying, is not a fair basis of comparison, nor is the actual number of lives lost. The comparison with other countries again, does not suggest that our accident rate is excessive. The information received on this point is confidential and I am not at liberty to state the actual figures, but I can assure your Lordships' House that they most assuredly do not show that our record is worse than that of other countries. In some respects—for instance, in accidents due to mechanical causes and maintenance—our record is a good deal better than that of other countries.
I do not, however, wish your Lordships to suppose for a moment that the Air Ministry is content with the improvement that has taken place or with the fact that the accident rate is no higher than in other countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Continual efforts to decrease the number of accidents are being made in every direction that seems even remotely capable of producing results. The Prime Minister dealt exhaustively with the psychology of pilots and indicated how narrow was the border line between enforcing reasonable precautions on the one hand and, on the other hand, imposing restrictions that would inevitably undermine the pilot's morale and destroy the fine spirit existing to-day. Short of crossing this border line, every precaution is taken. Unnecessarily dangerous flying is forbidden and the prohibition is enforced. Pilots are constantly under supervision, both by se r officers and by the Royal Air Force Medical Service. The Medical Service is fully alive to the necessity of detecting any incipient physical unfitness, strain, or staleness before harm can be done. Also a thorough system of maintenance and inspection of aircraft is carried out, and its effectiveness is proved by the small proportion of accidents that are due to mechanical defects.

695
Training is progressive and not hurried. Its thoroughness is shown by the fact that pilots have, on an average, 100 hours' flying experience before they graduate and are posted to squadrons. Every pupil begins with a spell of dual control on a training aeroplane, under the same instructor in each individual case. No pupil is allowed to undertake his first solo flight until he is considered fully capable of doing so both by his particular instructor and by his Flight Commander. Should there be still any doubt, the Senior Flying Instructor at his school judges as to his capabilities. He is subsequently given a further period of dual instruction, to correct any faults that may have developed, and further instruction still when he is promoted from the training type to the Service type of machine.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to tell your Lordships that abstemious habits, so far as possible, are enforced by regulation and inculcated by example. There is no more cruel libel on the officers of the Royal Air Force as a whole than to accuse them of over-indulgence in alcohol, as I am told has been done in certain quarters. After all, among a body of more than 3,000 officers, human nature being what it is, there is bound to be an individual case of intemperance now and then. But any suggestion that this is a contributory cause of accidents is absolutely without foundation. In not one single case has indulgence in alcohol been proved to have caused or contributed to an accident in all the years covered by these statistics. The average wine bill of pupil officers of the four training schools in 1926 was well under £1 a month. There is not much margin here for intemperance. The average wine bill of squadron officers is little in excess of that figure.
In the matter of design and research, also, efforts are being made towards greater safety. These are necessarily discounted to a great extent by the growing size, and especially the growing power, of aeroplanes and aeroplane engines, but, despite this fact, the steady improvement in the ratio of accidents to hours flown shows that much has been accomplished. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a detailed survey of the whole subject, but I would ask any of your Lordships who is interested in aviation and who has not done so to
696
read the Prime Minister's speech and to remember that it records the impressions of a layman with no experience of flying, no preconceived ideas either one way or the other, with no bias in any direction, and with no axe to grind. If I may say so, after reading that speech, the impression conveyed is that of a man of common sense, of sympathy and understanding, whose sole endeavour was to arrive at the truth. I do not think there can be any doubt, in the minds of reasonable men, that the Prime Minister's verdict was more worthy of acceptance than vague charges, however well meant, which have been made by irresponsible critics from time to time. I am very glad to think that the noble Lord who has raised the matter does not associate himself with those critics, but on the other hand that he supports the Air Ministry, and that he approves, as I understand, of nearly every word spoken by the Prime Minister in his speech.
With regard to the one or two more technical points which he raised, and which he said were not covered by the Prime Minister, I shall endeavour to deal with them now. I am very glad to think that the noble Lord has raised the question of the announcement of fatal accidents in the Press without time being allowed for the next-of-kin of the dead airman to be informed by the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry has had many representations on the subject and your Lordships can readily imagine, as the noble Lord has told you, that unnecessary pain is caused to the wife of an airman who has been killed, if the first intimation which she receives is a visit from a Press representative asking for a photograph for publication. As the noble Lord has told you, such cases have actually arisen, although it is the Air Minister's practice to telegraph to the next-of-kin immediately the news of a fatal accident is received in London.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said on the matter, reinforcing the many complaints that have been made to the Air Ministry on the subject. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Air made an appeal in another place some time since to the Press, to agree to a short delay in the publication of fatal accidents, in order to leave time for the next-of-kin to be officially informed. I earnestly hope, in view of what the noble

697
Lord has said, and considering the strong public feeling on the subject, that it may be possible, in consultation with the Press, to devise a procedure which will save the needless pain and anxiety to the next-of-kin of flying personnel which is too often caused them. I would emphasise that there is no question in this of concealment of accidents. An official communiqué is and will continue to be issued in the case of every fatal accident which occurs in this country. All that is required is a short delay in the publication in the Press, and I do hope that such an arrangement will be possible. Other plans of a more technical nature for dealing with accidents have been and are being considered daily and hourly by the Air Ministry.
Here is one of the points—strengthening the establishment of squadrons. Additions to establishments have been approved which will ensure that each flight has in addition to N.C.O.'s one fitter and one rigger per machine. Previously corporals were also individually responsible for one of the machines in the flight, a fact which gave rise to difficulties if they had—in the absence of their senior N.C.O.—to take over the duties of N.C.O. in charge of fitters or riggers, or even N.C.O. in charge of the flight. An addition has also been approved giving one storekeeper to every flight. This will relieve the Flight Sergeant and Flight Commander of a certain amount of office work and should assist them to carry out their duties of supervision of flying and aircraft maintenance. Aircraft hands (cleaners) are also to be allowed at a rate of two per single-engine machine flights, and one per twin-engine machine. This should relieve the technical trades of some purely manual labour and ensure a higher standard of both technical work and general cleanliness of machines.
The question of increasing the number of Flight Lieutenants and senior flying officers is under review but is a very difficult one and no decision can be reached hurriedly. Our present organisation cannot give us more than we have now, and the question is how to modify it to produce the desired result without either congesting the permanent list or adversely affecting the short service scheme. The subject of cutting down courses for junior officers has been very thoroughly considered and is still being examined, but it is extremely difficult
698
to affect any sensible reduction. Air officers commanding and unit commanders are continually demanding more and better qualified specialist officers—namely, air pilotage, armament, signals, etc. They obviously cannot have it both ways. If specialists are to be provided they must be trained and the necessary training can only be given at courses.
Coming to methods for better control of machines at low speeds, the Savage-Bramson gear has been referred to. This gear imparts a "kick" to the control column when the machine approaches stalling speed. It has been found in air tests to be unsuitable for twin-engine machines (Virginias) but suitable for Bristol Fighters. The Home Army co-operation squadrons are being supplied with one set each for service trials; and fitting has already begun. A slot and aileron device has been tried successfully on the Bristol Fighter. This type is obsolescent, the necessary modification to all machines would take a long time, and it is certain that, by the time it was carried out, their would be a new type of machine to replace the Bristol Fighter. Other types which are in process of modification for test are the Woodcock, Atlas, and Bison. The Harrow and Henley include this device in their design, but they have not yet been adopted as Service types.
With regard to checking needlessly reckless flying, during last year three letters were issued to all commands:—(1) On June 30, 1926, dealing with responsibilities of commanding officers; (2) On November 5, 1926, dealing with the marking of machines so as to assist in the identification of offenders; (3) On November 8, 1926, dealing with the dangers inherent in (a) carelessness, (b) loss of skill, and (c) emulation. Since last summer four pilots have been court-martialled for reckless flying; two were convicted and two acquitted.
Officers have been appointed to the Staff of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Air Officer Commanding Fighting Area to act as travelling examining officers with a view to assisting officers commanding to pick out pilots who require refresher courses. The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief's examining officer is to deal also with the bombing area. A committee is now visiting stations with a view to making

699
concrete suggestions for cutting down the office and paper work of commanding officers.
There were several other points with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships, but the main point, I think, that Lord Gorell raised was that of safety fuel tanks. In 1921 the Air Ministry organised a competition to discover the best form of safety tank for aircraft, offering a substantial prize for successful designs. The competition was held at Farnborough at the end of that year and concluded in February, 1922, the winning design being designed and submitted by the India Rubber Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works Company, Limited. Their design was at the time considered to be the best form of safety tank obtainable, as a safeguard against fire both in a crash and from incendiary ammunition. In the latter respect it was by no means perfect. Nevertheless, in the marking adopted by the judges it obtained 44 per cent. more marks than the second best competitor. The Air Ministry accordingly determined to develop the India Rubber Company's design with the object of removing the imperfections still inherent in it. Further experiments had to be made by the firm to prevent the serious danger of corrosion, which may take place out of sight beneath the self-sealing cover which forms the protection of the tank.
The bulk and weight of safety tanks are greater than the standard tank normally used in the Service. In the India Rubber Company's design the weight was 1.8 lbs. per gallon as compared with 1 lb. per gallon for a normal tank of the same capacity. As the usual capacity of the tanks of a two-seater aircraft is 60 to 100 gallons, the disadvantage of extra weight to the performance of the machine becomes of great importance. The undesirability of corrosion and any other factors which increase the difficulty of maintaining and repairing petrol tanks under active service conditions in the field has also had to be taken into account before the safety tank can be finally adopted. The India Rubber Company have had great difficulties in the development of their design, and in spite of the fact that many experiments and tests were carried out by the Department on their behalf, definite proposals were
700
not received from them until 1925. A development order was placed immediately for twelve tanks for experimental purposes, but it is believed the firm has been in difficulties with subcontractors responsible for the design and construction of certain parts of the tanks. In spite of considerable pressure by the Department it is not anticipated that the twelve tanks will be delivered for another two months. It should be noted that the Department has made every effort to assist and encourage the firm.
Service tests will take place immediately the twelve tanks have been received and, being primarily concerned with their durability, may be expected to last for six months. If these tests are entirely satisfactory it should be possible to decide as to the adoption of the tank within a year from the present date. In the meantime the Department is testing two other designs which have since come forward. The first is an ordinary tank wrapped in a fabric cover. It is unlikely to be adopted as the covering appears capable only of stopping small leaks, and the tank does not appear to be either crash-proof or bullet-proof. The second is a design submitted by Major H. H. Evans, which is also claimed to be proof against incendiary bullets. Tests on both these designs are proceeding. It would be premature to give any indication of their capabilities at the present moment. The Department is making every effort to obtain a tank which will give adequate security both in accidents and enemy action. Criticism of the Department has usually tended to suggest that no attention is being paid to the toll of lives taken by the ignition of the fuel in an aircraft that has crashed to the ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. The difficulty is to produce a tank which, while possessing the qualities necessary for safety, is not less efficient or easy to repair and maintain under Service conditions than those already in use, and does not unreasonably burden the aircraft with additional weight.
In regard to parachutes, which I do not think the noble Lord specially mentioned, I should like to make one point clear. It has been adopted as a general policy that all personnel in the air shall carry parachutes. This policy has already been put into force throughout a large I part of the Force. It will, however, be

701
appreciated that only in certain circumstances can the parachute be instrumental in saving life. In collision, fire in the air or aircraft failure at a certain height it affords the means for personnel to reach the ground safely. On the other hand, in cases of stalling or spinning at low altitudes, there may frequently not be sufficient time for the pilot and other personnel to get out of the machine in time for the parachute to open fully. In 1926, four lives were saved by the use of parachutes, two of those on the occasion of a collision in the air. On the other hand, there have been two occasions recently when the lack of height has prevented the successful use of the parachute.
The Air Ministry does realise the importance of impressing upon the public the difference between civil and military aviation. The Air Minister went very fully into this subject and showed quite clearly how much safer civil aviation must be than military aviation. For example, the civil aviator flies every day the same course in the same direction. He is used to the place, he knows the air currents and the places to land. He has the lie of the land in his mind. Yet the military pilot has to fly day after day over different portions of country in different directions and very often in close formation with a large number of other military aeroplanes. From this alone it will be clear to your Lordships and to the public at large how very much safer civil aviation must be than military aviation.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, like everyone else who has been associated with the Air Ministry I have lived rather under the shadow of this toll of human lives due to accidents, and I am only intervening in order to give my own conclusions on the subject after eight months' experience during which there were a very large number of fatal accidents. I do not propose to go into any sort of detail, but merely to give your Lordships my general impressions and to state what were, in my view, the causes and what were not the causes of those accidents. I will begin with what were not the causes in my view. In the first place there is drink. That charge has been made in several places. Only last night it was referred to in another place. Of all the accidents that occurred during my brief tenure of office not one could be directly
702
or indirectly attributed to drunkenness on the part of the pilot. I am not here to say that the pilot is a paragon of virtue; but he is a highly capable and intelligent man, respectable without being dull, and a person who, for his own sake, has to be temperate. The standard of our pilots from that point of view is at least as high as that of any other set of men in the world: I think I may say without reproach to my own profession at least as high as that of Army officers. I remember inspecting the mess accounts when I was Secretary of State. They were not high, they were a good deal lower than they were in the Army in my day.
The next point to which I wish to refer as not being a cause of accident—in my view again and I am no expert—is the use of old machines. I have it on the very highest authority that, apart from the reliability of engines, some of the older types of machines are quite as safe as anything that is new. There are masses of figures on this subject. They would be misleading, I think, if published and read by the ordinary members of the public. To me they are largely unintelligible, but they do give one the satisfaction that it is not a question of machines where these fatal accidents are concerned.
There is another point which has been raised in the Press and to which I am rather glad to refer, and that is the attempt which has been made to explain accidents in the Air Force on the ground that the senior officers at the Air Ministry were not experienced airmen. Quite obviously whoever wrote that report was writing in ignorance, and misapprehended the question altogether. No senior officer at the Air Ministry but is a trained airman. Men who have joined the Air Force, I will not say late in life, but in advanced middle age, some of them, were plucky enough and patriotic enough to learn to fly. Not one of them but is what may be described as a practical airman. I say I am glad that point was raised, because one frequently sees suggestions about handing over the Air Force to either the Admiralty or the War Office, when the direction of that Force would not be in the hands of experienced airmen: and then I should tremble as to what might happen in the way of fatal accidents.

703
My last point among those which are not the causes of accidents is one to which my noble friend Lord Gorell has referred, and to which the noble Duke has given a very full answer, and that is the omission to use devices which automatically prevent crashes and stalling. Now, there is a point on which it is most necessary to have a very good perspective. We have all heard of these devices, and they are exceedingly interesting and ingenious. If anything could make flying for a military airman safe I suppose some of these devices might. But it is sufficient for me to say here that those devices have been given full attention. I do not yet know of any foreign Air Force which has fully adopted them. And I think it is true to say that science in the matter of safety devices is not keeping pace with the enormous and rapid development in aviation. The machines that are used by our Air Force are prodigious things. Continually new devices are being introduced to make them swifter and more powerful, and the safety devices which might be perfectly applicable to an old type machine do not quite keep up with these developments in speed and power which are necessary to keep our Air Force on an equality in point of efficiency with foreign Air Forces.
Now let me turn to what I believe are the fundamental and main causes of accidents in aviation—military aviation, because civil aviation, after all, is one of the safest propositions that modern man can face, far safer than crossing most of the London streets with one-way traffic. The first cause of accidents is that military aviation is inherently dangerous. I do not believe that, with all the ingenuity in the world and all the effort, you would ever make it safe. After all, it is 90 per cent. of the dangers of warfare in time of peace. And remember, your Air Force is an insurance against war, and these young fellows who come into it know what they are in for, and they have got to be trained to concert pitch, and live at concert pitch. A bad military airman is a gift to a skilful airman. If our airmen are not trained so that they are at least as skilful in the air as anybody who is likely to be opposed to them I would go so far as to say that it is hardly worth while sending them up. One of the most deplorable features of the end of the late
704
War was the impossibility of giving sufficient training to those gallant youths who volunteered. There has been a good deal of criticism of that. In my view it was inevitable in the circumstances.
But our men must be trained in the most dangerous evolutions, otherwise they would suffer themselves, as well as the country. They have got to be trained to fly together in close formation. Do you think that all this magnificent drill that you see at Hendon—machines going forward like Grenadiers—is accomplished without intense training and considerable risk to those trained, not to mention considerable anxiety to those who train them? But if an airman is not trained like that to fly in company in close formation, he is very liable to be butchered when flying by himself and caught by the enemy. And it is in his own interests that he has to go through these tremendous risks in time of peace. The Air Force asks of the young men who go in for it a great deal, and it cannot give them too much in the way of reward.
The other point that I think is really important in this connection is the psychology of the airman himself. I had a certain experience of them when I was Secretary of State and if we are the product of our experiences many of the pilots who flew me had had experiences which were almost fabulous. One young fellow who flew me in Iraq had brought down eleven German aeroplanes during the War. He must have gone through eleven quarters of an hour which very few of us experience. And I am told—and I know it from personal observation; one cannot live with these lads for any length of time without noticing it—that some of them are very highly strung. They are extraordinarily intelligent. They have courage of the most remarkable kind, and in a way the more highly strung they are the better pilots they are in war, the better they are for this particularly dangerous sort of work. Those are their qualities—courage, skill, quick decision; and, like most people, they are rather apt to suffer from the vices of their qualities. A great many of them are reckless, there is no question about that. They are rather like young thoroughbred horses, most difficult to handle; they are a constant source of anxiety to those in charge of them; but no one denies that they are one of the glories of the race.

705
It is to my mind a proof of the virility of our race to-day that we can find every year such large numbers of young men ready to take on the work of military airmen.
Those are the causes of these accidents. And now I would like, in conclusion, to turn to the question of publicity and how it affects the general situation. I know you cannot avoid publicity, but I think that the demand for the publication of official inquiries into Air Force accidents is misplaced. My noble friend Lord Gorell has given some of the reasons why such publication would be undesirable; I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to another reason and it is this: We have to consider the men who train these pilots. If every official inquiry that takes place is afterwards to be published you would have their names mentioned, and you would have a lot of ill-informed criticism of them in the Press, based on half or incomplete information. These men who train our pilots, the Air officers commanding Air stations and the training staffs have not only to have high professional qualities, but they also must have some of the qualities of a physician. They are dealing with these highly strung young fellows and they have to watch their health and their state of mind, for if either be at all defective at any given moment that may make all the difference between a successful air evolution and a fatal crash. It is in the interests of those men that I think we should be very chary about giving publicity to reports.
Finally, let me say that at the back of all our minds there is one feeling. What is going to be the effect of these accidents on recruiting for the Air Force, which is the first line of defence against the first attack that will be launched on these Islands if there should ever be another war? What is the effect on recruiting? As far as the lads themselves are concerned I do not think it makes the least difference. The Prime Minister said so in another place the other day and I entirely agree with him. But one has also to consider the parents and that is where the Press can help. I remember receiving one of the finest letters I ever got in my life from a parent to whom I had written a letter of condolence on the loss of his son in one of the air accidents. It was a particularly
706
tragic accident and the son himself was somewhat to blame for it, or so it would appear. Six people were involved, five were killed and one was injured for life. That parent certainly made me feel very proud of the fact that I was an Englishman and a countryman of his. In my view he put the thing right. He said that he was quite prepared to sacrifice his son provided the accident was completely unavoidable and his great regret was, so far as he could gather, that his son had been to blame and that other lives had been involved. But where we have magnificent people like that, where we have this magnificent material for pilots in the country, surely it is the duty of the people and the Press to give them every encouragement that is possible.
I wish to lay stress on what my noble friend Lord Gorell said and to which the noble Duke referred in his reply. I wish to add my appeal to theirs in regard to the Press and the reports of air accidents. Only on Saturday last, in the evening newspapers, there were staring lines announcing a crash at a certain aerodrome. No names were mentioned and a vague and horrible disquiet was left in the minds of all the parents and all the relatives of the men employed at that aerodrome. No further news was given, there was no chance of softening the blow, no possibility of giving details. Many, perhaps hundreds of people were disquieted through this inconsiderate action of simply publishing in broad outline an accident somewhere, another air crash. I am sure a good deal of suffering could be avoided if the Press were more considerate in this matter. I should like to thank the noble Duke for his very full statement. He went into a great many technical details which I do not understand but which appear to be satisfactory. As a layman who takes a deep interest in the Air Force I should like to say that perhaps the most satisfactory part of his statement was the fact that the ratio of accidents to miles flown is steadily decreasing. My information is all that way and I am quite certain that so far as the Air Ministry is concerned, in their own interests and those of humanity and the country at large they will see to it that accidents are reduced to a minimum.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it is not my intention to trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence for more than a few minutes. I feel we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, for having raised this matter in a very temperate and moderate manner and having given an opportunity to the Government of amplifying, if I may use that expression, the speech that was made by the Prime Minister a few days ago. It is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that there is a certain amount of uneasiness all over the country in regard to the accidents, which perhaps obtain a larger notice in the Press than do accidents in other walks of life. As one who has been connected with the Air Ministry, I feel that the wonder is not at the number of accidents but at their fewness. I should like to pay this tribute to the organisation of the Air Ministry who are responsible for the working of the Air Force throughout the country. I feel that it is due to their energy, foresight and knowledge that the Air Force finds itself in the successful position in which it is at the present moment. The noble Lord who has just spoken and who, if I may be allowed to say so, has made a very interesting speech, referred to the fact that all those in high position at the Air Ministry are practical airmen, and I feel sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that accidents are reduced to the very minimum.
The noble Lord to whom I have just referred spoke of the devices which have been brought forward from time to time for the purpose of minimising accidents and the noble Lord who introduced this Motion gave as a reason for introducing it that the Prime Minister had not fully touched on this subject. I think the noble Duke has given us all the information that it is possible to receive and we are grateful to him for what he has told us. Your Lordships are allowed a certain amount of latitude in discussions here and I should like to take the opportunity of saying something with which I feel sure your Lordships will agree. I think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Secretary of State for Air for his pioneer flight a short time ago. I am sure that the flight which he made,
708
accompanied by his wife, is one which has done more good to aviation, both civil and military aviation, than almost any other action at this time could have done, and I feel that we owe him a debt of gratitude for going out to India in the way in which he did some few weeks ago. It has shown everyone how feasible and possible are these flights. I am sure we all hope that a great many of those who can take these flights for shorter distances will follow the example which he has set.
Noble Lords have spoken of the question of the Press and publicity. This certainly is a very difficult matter and I feel that the only step which we can take—or the Air Minister perhaps could do it better than we can do it in this House—is to approach the editors of all newspapers. We know well the persistence and the ubiquity of the Press and we know that the Press reporter has to earn his livelihood like everyone else. These importunities, which appear to us to be heartless actions on their part, are really part of their everyday work. But I feel that if editors would take this matter up and enjoin on all their representatives to act slowly in this matter—because it is one in which in most cases no good can be done to those concerned—I feel we shall have taken all the steps it is possible to take. I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in expressing to the noble Duke our gratitude for the very full statement which he has made.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I think after what has been said it only remains for me to thank the noble Duke for having given us very full and detailed information. As I imagine that there are no Papers that he would wish to lay before the House, I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
LORD DANESFORThad given Notice to call attention to recent publications issued by the Communist Party in Great Britain with reference to affairs in China, and to ask His Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in relation thereto; and to move for

709
Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in bringing forward this Motion is to call attention to the campaign of malignant falsehood which has been carried on for some time past with regard to affairs in China by the Communist Party in this country. That campaign is part and parcel of a far larger conspiracy which is conducted throughout the world by the Soviet Government of Russia with a view to injuring and—if they dare to hope so—bringing down the British Empire as part of the world revolution which they advocate. That conspiracy has been inspired, financed and engineered by the Soviet Government of Russia. No opportunity is lost by them of compassing their object.
There was one remarkable illustration of it when, last year, the Soviet Government, with the assistance of the Communist Party in this country, carried on a nefarious agitation for the purpose of supporting the General Strike and making it effective and for the purpose of inducing the miners to prolong the coal strike. There was another and even more significant illustration seen in the Soviet intrigues which, with deadly ingenuity, they have been carrying on for many years past against us in China. Time does not suffice to-day to give even the barest outline of the long-drawn-out manœuvres by which the Soviet Government have sought to convert the anti-foreign movement in China into a Bolshevist revolutionary scheme for the extermination of British commerce, trade and influence in China. Suffice it to say that, as in the matter of the coal strike these efforts were made not in the interest of the miners—their interests were wholly disregarded—so in this agitation in China the interests of China are entirely set aside, the real objective being the downfall of our country.
But the Soviet Government were not content with carrying on this agitation in China alone. The Communist Party in this country, under the instructions of Moscow, are engaged and for months past have been engaged in a ceaseless orgy of calumny with the object, and sole object, of inflicting injury on this country and, if they can, of driving the British out of China. The general purport of
710
the facts to which I am going to refer more in detail in a moment may be summarised thus. What they say is this: The British in China are the oppressors of the Chinese; the British Government are determined to perpetuate that oppression, and the real object of sending troops to China is not to protect British lives—of that, of course, there is no hint—but to make war in China and reduce the Chinese to perpetual slavery in their own selfish interests. Those are the charges made, and I propose to show, firstly, that this campaign has been cunningly and malignantly organised, and, secondly, that it has been persistently and skilfully carried out.
I will deal first with the organisation of the campaign. The real genesis of this particular phase of Communist agitation is disclosed in a report, which I have here, of the Fourth Congress of the Young Communist League of Great Britain which was held in Sheffield on December 18, 19 and 20, 1926. The document is published at the headquarters of the Young Communist League of Great Britain at 38, Great Ormond Street. It is a very well-got-up pamphlet. I will take one or two extracts from this pamphlet. For instance, on pages 25 and 26 they say:—
"The Nationalist revolution in China is dealing terrible blows to British Imperialism…."
—that of course is what they desire—
"This Congress [the Young Communists League Congress] decides to carry on a special campaign in support of the glorious revolution in China and against the British Imperialist attempt at intervention."
That is followed up by very careful and minute instructions as to the methods of the campaign. Then, on page 32, they say:—
"This Congress greets the revolutionary youth of China and its leaders, the Young Communist League of China, in their determined struggle against world imperialism…. We [the Young Communist League of Great Britain] pledge ourselves to continue to fight against the British governing class and to do our utmost to assist the Chinese people to achieve victory."
They end with this rhetorical outburst:—
"Demand the immediate formation of 'Hands-Off-China' Committees throughout the country and compel the British Government to withdraw all armed forces from Chinese territory."

711
I might perhaps at this point remind your Lordships of a fact that you doubtless have not forgotten, and that is that on February 10 of this year the Labour Party in the House of Commons, include-all the leaders—the whole of the Labour Party, with one conspicuous exception—supported a Motion for the withdrawal of our troops from China, which is exactly the object that this Communist League, under instructions from Moscow, have been urging with every variety of calumny and scoundrelism for adoption by this country. I am glad to see that some of the most prominent leaders of the Labour Party are here to-day, and I am sure that they will rejoice to take this opportunity of repudiating the action of the Labour Party in the House of Commons and of saying that they in this House, at any rate, have no sympathy with that astounding and discreditable demand for the withdrawal of the troops that were sent to China to protect British lives. I hope that at a later stage this evening we shall have that repudiation.
I have indicated to your Lordships how this scheme was organised. Let me now, if I may, show you how faithfully this organised campaign has been carried out in this country by the Communists. My quotations are all from Communist papers published in this country. Take the Young Comrade of December last, which is described as "a paper for all working class children." Your Lordships are aware that these people not merely distil their poison for adults but have a special department that is devoted to corrupting children, and this is one of their activities. This paper, like the last document that I quoted, is published at the headquarters of the Young Communist League of Great Britain at 38, Great Ormond Street. I quote from page 1:—
"The cruel capitalist Government which at present rules this country is now plotting and planning to launch a war on China. They want to capture this country with its great natural wealth and to make the people slaves, making profits for themselves. British warships, troops and bombing machines are being sent out—"
I ask your Lordships to mark the purpose for which they are sent out, according to this document—
"to murder harmless men and women and children."
712
This theme is carried on by the Weekly Young Worker of January 29, 1927. This is described as "a newspaper for all young workers" and is also published at the headquarters of the Communist League. I find the following on page 1:—
"The Tory Government is determined to wage war on China."
Then comes the following invocation:—
"Stop the Blood Bath…. Demand the withdrawal of all troops."
I turn to the Sunday Worker of February 20, 1927. This is a Communist penny Sunday paper for adults, published in London. In this number is published what I can only call an atrocious and malignant libel upon our Indian troops, for they say this:—
"Indian troops threaten mutiny and are being sent back to Hong-kong from Shanghai."
We know that this is a pure and malignant fabrication, but that matters nothing to them if it will forward their purpose. Let me quote two or three words from the Worker's Life of February 25, 1927, which is another Communist paper, chiefly for the consumption of adults. I find on page 1:—
"British Troops Shield Murderers…. Where the Union Jack and the militarist standards fly in China, labour is suppressed and its leaders murdered…. Withdraw the troops…. No support of Baldwin."
In the Young Comrade for March of this year—I am giving these quotations as shortly as I can, but this is to indicate that the campaign is carried on up to the present date—I find these headings:—
"British bosses aid murderers…Scores of English warships and thousands of British soldiers are now at Shanghai. What for? To maintain the child slavery. Stop the war on Chinese children."
These appeals, as your Lordships will see, are made to every class in the community, to adults, children and workers, but now we come to something that I venture to think is even more serious. The next appeal is made to soldiers on their way to China to protect the lives of British subjects in China. I find in the Weekly Young Worker of February 5 of this year the following passage:—
"Communists have been distributing leaflets to the dockers and soldiers trying to stop the war…. Particularly round the Albert and Victoria Docks, where troops were to leave next morning, enthusiastic Young Communist Leaguers were active in

713
chalking up slogans calling on the dockers to refuse to work on ships carrying troops or ammunition and urging the soldiers not to be made the tools for crushing down the Chinese Labour movement."
This is perilously like incitement to mutiny. They boast of it, and it is not an empty boast. I have here a copy of a leaflet which, according to my information, was one of a bundle of similar leaflets discovered on board a troop-ship about to sail for China. It is addressed to the "Workers in Uniform on the way to China," and attention was prominently called to this pamphlet in the National Citizen, the organ of the National Citizens' Union, in March of this year.
Here is their appeal to the "Workers in Uniform":—
"Workers in the Army and Navy, refuse to murder and crush the Chinese workers and peasants for the benefit of the exploiters—"
"Exploiters" is, of course, their name for the British—
"The Communist Party of Great Britain appeals to you to stop the murder of the workers. Stop the War. It is murder. Refuse to be used by your exploiters against your own class."
To put a document like that, with its statements against the Government and people of this country and the suggestion that we are slave-drivers and so on, telling the young soldiers who are going to protect British lives in China that they must refuse to be used against their own class, the Chinese workers and peasants—to put such a document into the hands of young soldiers is as criminal and as scoundrelly an act as I think any British subject could be capable of.
But that is not all. I have here another leaflet of a somewhat similar character. This one is intended for children, and was sent out from Great Ormond Street, the headquarters of the Communist League, in February of this year, addressed to "Every Young Comrade in the League" and headed "Help to stop the War." It contains the usual stuff, and finishes up in this way:—
"And now the Baldwin Boss Government has sent out working class soldiers and sailors to shoot down Chinese workers and peasants…. The British working-class soldiers must help Chinese workers to beat the British bosses."
There is a certain similarity about the composition and contents of these
714
mutinous and rascally pamphlets which, apart from all other evidence, would show a common origin, and unquestionably all this poisonous stuff comes from the brains of some traitors in this country, bribed, or forced it may be, to it by the Soviet Government of Russia. I can produce any amount more of material of this sort, which is launched out upon the British public. There are many leaflets besides these pamphlets which have been sown broadcast, and the last publication to which I need refer to-day is an elaborate pamphlet of some 24 pages, recently published by the Communist Party of Great Britain.
It is headed "The War on China" and "How British Imperialists stole the concessions, paid for civil wars, sweated Chinese workers, massacred thousands, and why the troops and warships were sent to Shanghai." The colour of the pamphlet is appropriate to the contents. That pamphlet devotes many pages to a scandalously inaccurate historical survey of British doings in China. A more complete perversion of the history of British action in China it is impossible to conceive. It is impossible for me to attempt here and now to refute those lies in detail. It is sufficient to say that in this pamphlet there is not one single suggestion showing what is the undoubted fact with regard to our actions in China—namely, that trade, commerce, factories, workshops, dockyards, railways, schools, colleges, and even the postal services, have been established in China largely by British enterprise and capital, to the great advantage of China, and leading to the employment of hundreds of thousands of Chinese. I only propose to quote one short passage from this pamphlet—namely, on page 13, as to the reasons they give for sending out troops to China. They say this:—
"The Shanghai expedition is the advance guard of a much larger force intended to break for ever the claim of China to complete independence of foreign control."
They then quote the same calumnies from the other Communist papers here.
Some people may say: "Why do you give publicity to this garbage? Why do you advertise it? No one will believe it." My answer is two-fold. It is well, I think, that the quiet, right-minded people of this country should know what is going on in our midst, and should take the

715
necessary steps to counter that propaganda; but more than that, this is a poison that reaches many quarters where no antidote is supplied, and uncontradicted lies must, I fear, in time penetrate people's minds. It is for us to supply the antidote. You might as well tell me that you advertise a criminal when you put him in the dock and convict him.
To finish my remarks, and I thank your Lordships for the kind hearing you have given me, what then can be done to expose these falsehoods and make the truth known? Apart from Government action I think that much can be done. I have given some indication of the poison, and where it can be got. May I give a short advertisement as to where the antidote may be obtained? Those members of this House, and those of the community elsewhere, who desire to know where effective and complete detailed answers can be got, would do well to go to the Conservative Central Offices in Palace Chambers, where a large number of really valuable pamphlets on the Chinese question have already been issued. There is yet another thing to be done, apart from Government help. To my mind there is no more valuable method of exposing falsehood, and making known the truth, than by open air meetings addressed by people who know the subject. Some of those anti-lie meetings have already been organised in Hyde Park, and I have seen myself the speakers talking on China and other matters for the purpose of opposing Communist literature and lies, at enormous gatherings. They were well listened to and largely drew away the crowds around some of the Socialists at other platforms. I have no doubt whatever that such meetings and such speeches are most valuable, because they reach the minds of many people who never read a paper and probably never go to any indoor meetings. I hope that the system of open-air meetings will be organised on a large scale both in London and throughout the country so that the minds of our people I may not be contaminated by the sort of stuff that I have ventured to bring before the House.
Now I ask, and this is my last question: What can or ought the Government to do in this state of affairs? There is one thing the Government can do and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Desborough,
716
who I understand will reply for the Government, can nail these lies to the counter. Also I think by speech on every possible occasion, both in and out of this House, they can make known the real facts of the case, answer their enemies in the gate and prevent the contamination of the minds of the public which might otherwise take place. There is yet another thing. I believe, and indeed I am confident, that whenever it is possible the Government will prosecute these offenders. I am aware that there are a great many cases in which that cannot be done. You cannot prosecute for a mere lie, there must be something contrary to the law—something illegal, or something of the nature of sedition. Nothing struck me more in reading through this mass of literature from which I have quoted than the extraordinary ingenuity with which they have for the most part kept themselves outside the Criminal Law. One could imagine that they had been advised on the subject. At any rate, in so far as they have brought themselves within the Criminal Law, and I believe in some cases they have done so, I trust and believe the Government will prosecute the offenders.
There is a further thing which the Government can do. We had a debate in this House not long since on the question of ending diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government and of bringing the Trade Agreement to an end. We had a remarkable speech from the Government Benches, in which the Leader of the House declared that there was already ample ground for breaking off diplomatic relations, if the Government chose to do so. He said that their patience was not unlimited and that they would have to consider what action should be taken at an early date. May I express the hope that when they come to consider that question of breaking off these relations—and they must consider it at an early date, unless the Note which was sent by Sir Austen Chamberlain is to be a dead letter—they will take into account all the recent activities, some of which I have referred to, of the Communist Party in this country acting under Soviet inspiration. I trust that they will remember that behind these Communist activities here there stands the sinister figure of the Soviet of Russia.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to reply briefly to the very eloquent speech which has just been delivered by my noble friend behind me and I should like to compliment him on his industry and on the service he has been to the Home Office in bringing many of these publications before their notice, for which they are grateful to him. This question affects the Foreign Office and the Home Office. I think I should best deal with the matter if I very briefly show the attitude of the British Government all through. It will show how unfounded those accusations have been which have been published notwithstanding the possibility of acquiring the true facts of the case with very little trouble to themselves.
In the first place, when the Chinese position became acute, the Government addressed a general statement regarding British policy in China to the nations representing the Washington Treaty, parties other than China. That was as long ago as December 18 last year. It put the position of this country perfectly plainly. It called upon the other Powers who were parties to the Washington Treaty to combine with the Government in trying to come to some arrangement with China on very liberal lines. Unfortunately it was found impossible to proceed. It is very difficult to get eleven different nations to agree to one course of policy and there the matter remains. That is the first plain indication that the British Government was not going to try to enslave children or do any of the very dreadful things which Lord Danesfort has shown by his industry that they are accused of. That document, I may say, was published in all the papers.
The British Government then took more active steps on their own behalf and on January 27 this year they addressed specific proposals to both Peking and Hankow, with the object of making an arrangement of the various questions outstanding both with Peking and Hankow. That declaration of policy and these offers were productive of some result, for at Hankow an arrangement was come to. The terms are still open for Mr. Chen, to whom this was addressed, to make an arrangement of a similar kind at Shanghai and we only hope it may have a result. At present the whole of China is in such a state of
718
disintegration that I suppose the hands of Mr. Chen are very fully occupied. The Government still hope that some arrangement on the liberal lines they proposed then may be come to. Sir Miles Lampson finished up the communication of our proposals by saying:
"So liberal and generous a step cannot in the view of the Government be regarded as otherwise than an earnest of the fair and conciliatory spirit with which they are animated."
That was the second communication which was open to the world to read. Then there was another attempt made. A communication was sent to the League of Nations, in which those very proposals were embodied, and a very explicit statement of the whole of British policy up to that time was put down in black and white. Anybody who wanted to publish pamphlets on the question of China had only to study these documents to know what was the official attitude of the British Government at that time. Those statements, therefore, which my noble friend has very copiously supplied, are absolutely contrary to the known facts of the case.
I will now deal for a moment with certain suggestions which my noble friend has made. They are four in number and I shall attempt to give a reply to them. First of all, he suggests that a definite contradiction should be made, in a reply in the House, of the blazing untruths which he has detailed in these various publications. As far as I am concerned and in so far as I represent the Government for the moment, I can certainly give an absolute contradiction to all these statements—and there were some very much worse which have been brought to my attention—and I can say that they are untrue and known to be untrue. They are absolutely contrary to the statements and policy of the Government in the last six months. He suggests, too, that every opportunity should be taken by public speaking and otherwise to expose the falsehood of these statements. There have been several debates and speeches made by members of the Government all over the country for some time past. I have no doubt that practice will be continued. There have been very full statements made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There have been debates in Parliament, and I

719
have no doubt that, should the occasion be sufficiently important, these statements will be repeated and these calumnies and lies will be again refuted.
My noble friend also suggests that wherever possible the offenders should be prosecuted, but at the same time he said that you cannot prosecute merely for telling lies. The Home Office have gone very carefully info all the cases which have been so kindly submitted by my noble friend and into several other cases, but, as he said himself, the published statements which you can trace home to their authors are drawn up with such skill that, in the opinion of the Law Officers, a prosecution would not have been successful. My noble friend will, I am sure, agree with me that much more harm than good would be done by instituting a futile prosecution.
But I have come across one of these leaflets which, it is believed at the Home Office, is a direct incitement to mutiny. These secret documents are either typed or printed in some private place, and distributed privately. Although the authorities have a pretty good idea from where this particular leaflet emanates, they have not sufficient evidence to warrant bringing an action. But I can assure my noble friend that, should they be able to trace any document of this kind to its real authors and bring it home to them, they will not hesitate to prosecute these men, who have attempted to incite the soldiers of the King in uniform to be untrue to their colours, as they most directly do in this leaflet.
The fourth matter which my noble friend raised was that the question of breaking off relations with the Soviet Government should be considered. That subject has already been very fully and amply discussed in Parliament in connection with the Note issued by the Foreign Secretary with regard to the action of the Soviet Government in encouraging Communism in this country. The position now is that the warning has been given, and no further warning will be required; but it is not considered at the moment that it would serve any useful purpose, either in the direction of diminishing these Communistic attacks in this country or of securing better relations, which we hope for, with the
720
Soviet Government, to break off trade relations, and still less absolute relations, with the Soviet Government. I have dealt with the points raised as briefly and succinctly as I could, and I hope I have answered my noble friend. I can only again congratulate him on his industry, and say that he has certainly performed a useful work in bringing this matter before your Lordships.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I only wish to say one or two words in answer to the noble Lord. I think he is quite right in saying that the general subject was discussed quite lately in this House, and we had a long debate upon it. The Government stated their view, and, as I understand, the noble Lord (Lord Danesfort) did not challenge that view, and I think the statement was very much to the satisfaction of members in all parts of the House. Nor do I think it is necessary, with great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, to go into what he calls the question of public speaking and offering definite contradiction. You will always find that in matters of controversy. There are, however, two points to which I should like to refer. We, of course, entirely agree—every good citizen would agree—that if grounds are found sufficient to justify criminal prosecution on matters of this kind, it is for the Home Office and those by whom they are advised to institute such criminal proceedings. I think it is a further satisfaction that these matters, as far as I can understand from what the noble Lord has said, have been under the consideration of his advisers at the Home Office, who so far have not found any adequate reason for instituting a prosecution. I have no doubt that when the time comes the Home Office, even without the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, will take such steps as it is their duty to take, and institute such proceedings.
On the previous occasion when this subject was before us I pointed out the view, which was stated from Russia, that they wanted to take merciless measures because the greatest opponents of Communism and Bolshevism were the Labour Party in this country. I do not want to emphasise that; I gave the quotation on the former occasion. But the underlying suggestion that members of the Labour Party can have any possible

721
sympathy with actions which are liable to criminal prosecution has constantly been denied. It is hardly necessary in your Lordships' House to say that they are denied absolutely again this evening.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, for the very clear and satisfactory statement which he made in answer to my Motion. The assurances he gave me are entirely satisfactory. I only wish to add one word in answer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor. I invited him and the other leaders of the Labour Party on that Bench to do what I should have thought they would be only too delighted to do at the earliest opportunity, to repudiate the infamous demand made by their colleagues in another place that we should withdraw our troops from China and allow British subjects to be murdered there, which would have been the undoubted effect of such a withdrawal. I fully anticipated that the noble Lord either would have repudiated that action, taken by his colleagues in another place, or would have given some reason for supporting them. He did neither, and I can only suppose that he, in common with the leaders of the Party in another place, still approves of the Communist lie, circulated in all these documents to which I have referred, that we were not sending our troops to protect British lives in China but to make war on China. I can hardly believe that noble Lords opposite accept as correct the document put forward by the Communists, but, unfortunately, their action in this matter has been entirely in accordance with the advice given in those Communist documents, under instructions from Moscow. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, this Bill is for the purpose of effecting changes in the Royal Title and the Title of Parliament so as to make them accord with the constitutional
722
changes which have actually taken place. The Imperial Conference of last year reviewed the whole field of inter-Imperial relations and in this connection recommended that a slight change should be made in the form of the Royal Title at present in use in order that it might correspond exactly with the situation of affairs arising out of the Constitution of the Irish Free State. The Royal Title has been twice within the last fifty years altered to suit changed conditions and constitutional developments. The existing Title was, as noble Lords will recall, established under the Royal Titles Act, 1901, as follows:—
"George V. by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
As there are now constitutional entities in Ireland of which one has been granted Dominion status while the other continues to be represented in the same Parliament at Great Britain, the use of the expression "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in His Majesty's Title can no longer be regarded as appropriate.
The Title of His Majesty the King is, as was pointed out in the Report which Lord Balfour presented to the Conference, of special importance and concern to all parts of His Majesty's Dominions and the question of making an alteration to the Title was accordingly referred to the Conference for consideration. It had, of course, been previously ascertained that it would be in accordance with His Majesty's wishes that any recommendation for a change should be submitted to him, if such a recommendation was the result of discussion at the Conference. The Title to which His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Imperial Conference, has given his approval is:—
"George V. by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
This will involve a minimum of change in the King's Title as at present by law established, and it should be carefully noticed that it is a descriptive Title upon geographical lines of the territories of which His Majesty is King. It does not

723
define and it does not purport to define the various political units composing the Empire. In accordance with the precedent established by the Act for the Union of Great Britain with Ireland and the Royal Titles Acts of 1876 and 1901, the new Title is not set out in the Bill itself but is left to His Majesty to determine by Royal Proclamation. So much for the Royal Title.
The Government have decided at the same time to make provision for a change in the title of Parliament, which was enacted by the Act for the Union of Great Britain with Ireland under the style of "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." For the reasons which I have already given the use of the expression "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is no longer appropriate. The Irish Free State is not represented in the same Parliament as Great Britain while Northern Ireland, in addition to being represented in this Parliament, is subject in many matters to its legislative authority and has remained in all respects an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Government are advised by their appropriate advisers in such matters that it would be in accordance with the constitutional position that Parliament should henceforth be known as the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That description has the advantage of corresponding with the facts. The Bill does not in any way, of course, affect the constitution of Parliament but merely alters its name to bring it into correspondence with the facts. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, it is not without a pang that Southern Irish loyalists note the passage of the loved and time-honoured designation of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." For two and a half centuries after all French possessions had passed from this country our Kings continued to style themselves Kings of France. It was not until the Kingdom of France had ceased to exist owing to the French Revolution that the Title was dropped. Nowadays we are more swift to recognise the inexorable logic of facts
724
and, therefore, little more than five years after the Irish Revolution, we find the change proposed to Parliament which has just been explained to us by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. When such great changes are being made in the relations of the two countries I think it might be well for a moment to dwell on those links which still remain to unite them.
First of all, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland still exists. It never has been repealed. In some ways I am sorry that it was not, because I think it would have been much more fortunate if the new state of affairs in Ireland had been inaugurated under the old Constitution of "King, Lords and Commons of Ireland" with safeguards for the closer connection which Ulster wishes to retain with this country. But that was not done and, consequently, so far as the Act of Union has not been altered by subsequent legislation, it is on the Statute Book and it is still the law of the land. I suppose it is owing to that that we may still congratulate ourselves on having the Royal Standard as before, with the harp of Ireland quartered with the devices of the sister kingdoms, the leopards of England and the lion of Scotland. It is because of that that Irishmen may still claim the Union Jack as the flag of Ireland with the Cross of St. Patrick superimposed on those of St. George and St. Andrew.
There is another matter which affects very closely your Lordships' House to which I should like to call attention for a minute, and that is that the claim of Irish Peers to 28 seats in your Lordships' House in return for the hereditary seats in the Irish House of Lords, which they surrendered on the passing of the Act of Union, still remains on the Statute Book as a right. It is true that since the Irish Revolution no elections for Representative Peers have taken place, although two vacancies have occurred. I am told that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that as the machinery to effect those elections no longer exists, owing to the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it is impossible that in future any Representative Peers should be created and that the only right which still exists, the only privilege

725
which they can claim is that of being allowed to present their claim to vote at the election of Representative Peers for the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor—at those elections which are never to take place—the Lord Chancellor notifying your Lordships' House that the claim has been established to his satisfaction and the House directing the Lord Chancellor to acquaint the Clerk of the Crown of Ireland of the fact.
I confess that I think this is a very dangerous precedent. It is an attempt to do by a side wind what ought to be done, if it is done at all, by legislation. I should like to call the attention of my noble friend to the possibilities of what may be done by a Labour Government. We are always being told that there is a danger under the Parliament Act of your Lordships' House being done away with should a Labour Government come into power. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to have recourse to a Bill if, on account of the lack of machinery, it is possible to prevent people exercising their rights. All they would have to do is to do away with the official whose duty it is to issue Writs to your Lordships at the opening of a new Parliament and as there would be no machinery it would be impossible to call your Lordships together. The House of Lords would be done away with and single-chamber government would be established.
I am glad to say that that view as to the rights of Irish Peers is not held by all legal authorities. On the contrary, lawyers occupying very high positions are of opinion that the rights of individuals cannot fail for want of machinery to enforce them, and curiously enough it appears that His Majesty's Government held the same view only about two years ago. In the case of the Scottish Representative Peers there was a clause in the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill of 1924 by which the office of Deputy Clerk Register was done away with and it was specially provided that someone else should take his place at the election of Scottish Representative Peers. In addition to this we have to consider the claims of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland have representation in the Imperial Parliament and I have still to learn that they will be satisfied with representation in the Lower
726
House and will not insist upon representation in your Lordships' House or in whatever Chamber eventually takes its place should your Lordships' House be reformed.
I wish to express my great gratification that His Majesty emphasises the fact that he is King of Ireland. Thus we may consider that the title of the Irish Free State is more or less a sub-title to that of King of Ireland. It was a name which never attracted me very much. It had too much of a Republican sound about it to please me. Still less was I attracted by the terms which were in the Irish Constitution that the people of Southern Ireland owed fidelity to His Majesty as head of the British Commonwealth. I confess that it provoked a small, sad smile when I considered the use by Ireland of such a Cromwellian term. Cromwell's is not a name to conjure with and if there is one malediction stronger than another which you can hurl at your neighbour in Ireland it is the curse of Cromwell.
There are two questions which I should like to put to my noble friend. The first one was asked in the House of Commons and I think no reply was given to it. It is with regard to the Great Seal of Ireland. In the course of the debates in another place it was mentioned that not only was there a Great Seal of the United Kingdom but also a Great Seal of Scotland and a Great Seal of Ireland. The Great Seal of Ireland was destroyed by the Irish Republicans in 1921, but after the midnight Treaty when—I was going to say the Parliament was called together, but that would be wrong, because the Senate which was in existence at the time was not summoned—the House of Commons was summoned to decide what was to be the future Constitution of Ireland it had to be done under the Great Seal. A Great Seal had to be manufactured for that purpose.
In ordinary circumstances that Great Seal would be in the custody of the last Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir John Ross, but I think there was something in the Act of 1920 which transferred some of his duties, including that of the custody of the Great Seal, to the Lord-Lieutenant. In that case it would be in the custody of my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent. Perhaps he may be able to say something on the

727
subject later. I have been told, but I do not know with what truth, that it is now in this country in the custody of the Deputy-Keeper of the Records. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to give me some information on this point. I think that from an historical point of view it is desirable that its whereabouts should be known.
My second question is with regard to the Title which His Majesty is to assume. It is to be, we hear, King of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas. I should like to have a clearer definition of the word "British," whether it means pertaining to Britain or pertaining to the British Empire. I can hardly think it has the latter meaning. We all know that the various self-governing Dominions were given equal status at the last Imperial Conference. I have nothing to say on that point. We are all agreed as to that. But it does not mean that their Dominions extend beyond their own borders. For instance, Canada could not be the Dominion of Australia or New Zealand the Dominion of South Africa. If, unfortunately, any of these great self-governing Dominions wished to secede from the Empire—which we trust there is no chance of their doing—we cannot imagine Canada asking to take the West India islands as her portion of the Dominions, or South Africa asking for Mauritius. Therefore I take it the British Dominions signify the Dominions belonging to what was known as the United Kingdom.
Southern Ireland has surrendered her right to that great heritage and has become the youngest and smallest of the Dominions of the Crown. That is not the case with Northern Ireland, which is still as proud of her connection with this country as she ever was. It seems to me therefore that the correct definition should be "of the British and North Irish Dominions beyond the Seas." It would be possible, of course, to move an Amendment to that effect in Committee, but there would be little chance of it being accepted, as the Title of the King was fully accepted by the Imperial Conference and has also obtained the approval of His Majesty the King. But I think for the sake of clear definition it would be very useful to know whether my interpretation
728
of the words "British Dominions" is correct or if another interpretation may be put upon it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in the first place I should like to relieve the mind of my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne of the doubt and anxiety which seems to have taken hold of it. He says that no further Irish Peers have been elected since the Treaty Act. That is quite true, but then he goes on to suggest that they have not been elected because it has suited His Majesty's Government to omit to summon them, not to take steps which might have been taken to bring them here.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I did not say because it suited the Government, but that the Government had been advised that that was the proper course to take.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No doubt they have been advised. My noble friend went on to say: suppose a Labour Government came in, suppose a Labour Government applied this process to all your Lordships and did not summon you, what then? Revolution! Now it was a Labour Government that had to consider this question of the Irish Peers, and it fell to me, as Lord Chancellor in the Labour Government, to deal with the question. I dealt with it in the way in which I hope every Lord Chancellor will always deal with every question. I dealt with it according to law. I looked into what the law was and I found the provisions of the Act of Union made an insuperable bar to the summoning of Irish Peers unless an Act was passed setting up again the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland which had been abolished, or something equivalent. That was not done, and the Irish Peers have not been summoned; nor do I see any reason why they should be summoned. If the noble Lord has the courage to bring in a Bill to set up the office of Lord Chancellor in Southern Ireland, then we shall hear from Southern Ireland what they think of this intermeddling with their own prerogatives. Until that has been done I am afraid that there is not the smallest legal power to summon Irish Peers. As for the suggestion that a Labour Government might adapt the precedent to the point of not summoning Peers here,

729
I would point out to my noble friend that every Peer who has a title to sit in this House has a right at Common Law to his Writ, and he can enforce that right by the proper legal process. It is not a matter as to which there is any discretion, and accordingly even the Labour Government would be reduced to inviting your Lordships' assent to a Statute if they desired to take away the right to summon you.
Passing by the noble Lord's other points, to which the noble Earl opposite will no doubt reply, I come to the Bill itself, and I have only a word or two to say about it. Obviously the Bill is right and necessary. In Clause 1 there is a provision that it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Proclamation—
"to make such alteration in the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown as to His Majesty may seem fit."
It may be thought that this should have been done in the Act of Parliament itself, instead of leaving it to be done by the Prerogative. I think it would have been wrong to do it by Act of Parliament. After all, this is a matter that affects all the Dominions and, unless you have the assent of the various Dominion Parliaments to this legislation, you could not properly pass an Act of the Imperial Parliament making the change. What was much more appropriate was to put it within the power of the Prerogative to modify the Title under which the Sovereign reigned, and the exercise of that Prerogative is the exercise of a Prerogative which no doubt His Majesty would exercise only under the advice of His Imperial Ministers and possibly, even since the Conference, after consultation with and ascertaining the views of the Ministers of the Dominions. I do not know if that is necessary, but at any rate the point that I wish to make is that I think Clause 1 is right in putting the matter within the Prerogative of the Crown instead of putting it into the Statute itself. Subject to that observation, which is in favour of the Bill as it stands, I think the measure is a necessary one and I have no further comment to make upon it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord who spoke first has dealt in an interesting manner with various matters of history. He recalled to your Lordships the fact that it was
730
some 250 years before a very obvious inaccuracy was removed from the King's Title in relation to France. The noble Lord was so dispassionate in his reference to this subject that I was not sure whether he approved the somewhat imaginative description of the King of that day as the King of France, which he most obviously was not, or whether he regretted it, or was neutral in the matter; but I am sure that in modern circumstances it cannot have been desired that we should be so far behind the times as for 250 years to continue parties to what was by universal admission a misdescription of the present position of the Crown and of the present constitution of Parliament.
The noble and learned Viscount who preceded me has explained very clearly the technical circumstances—though, indeed, there were more fundamental ones, depending upon the actual change made in the Parliamentary representation of Ireland—which involved, not indeed, to our great pleasure, the present generation of Irish Representative Peers, but their successors, in a loss of the functions that they have greatly valued and very efficiently discharged for so long No one who values the traditions of history and the continuity of the past can fail to share the regrets that have been so well expressed by the noble Lord, but some of his apprehensions were, I think, of a more alarmist, and unnecessarily alarmist, character. We need not really apprehend, both for the reason that the noble and learned Viscount has given and for another reason, that any similar and more general bereavement need be feared by those members of your Lordships' House who hold English Peerages. Indeed, though my opinion of the possible action which the Labour Party might take is not uniformly optimistic, I do not anticipate that they would resort to a device in the matter of this House which would quite obviously, among other objections, disable them entirely from carrying any legislation at all. That is not a step which I think that they are in the least likely to take.
The noble Lord has asked me a question about the Great Seal, and I must certainly give him that information. There has been a separate Great Seal for Ireland from very early times, and

731
so far back as an Irish Statute in the reign of Henry VI, separate reference is made to it. Until June 27, 1921, this Seal was in the custody of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was then, as has been pointed out, transferred to the custody of the Lord-Lieutenant by an Order in Council under the Government of Ireland Act. The Seal continued to be kept in the Crown and Hanover Office in the Four Courts in Dublin until, on account of certain exhibitions of high-spirited combativeness among the countrymen of the noble Lord, that building was unfortunately destroyed, and it was assumed for some time that the Great Seal had completely perished with it. There is some reason for supposing that the object of one of the sections of the noble Lord's countrymen in occupying the Four Courts was to prevent the use of the Great Seal for the Writs issued in connection with the Elections to the Parliament of Southern Ireland. If that was so, they shared the delusion of an English King upon a well-known historic occasion. The sequel was not without interest. An Order in Council of May 25, 1922, authorised a substitute Seal, and this was used for sealing the Writs for the Election.
The Lord-Lieutenant continued to be the custodian of the Great Seal until December 6, 1922, when it became obsolete in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act of that year. At a later date, after the creation of the Irish Free State, the original Great Seal was discovered intact beneath the ruins, and I have every reason to suppose that it is now in the possession of the Free State Government. I suppose on the whole, though I have not given deep attention to the proprietary considerations involved in this matter, if anybody is to be the custodian of it they might as well keep it as anybody else, unless the noble Lord has any preference, and he did not indicate one.
The only other point that the noble Lord put forward was the suggestion that we should call the Dominions hereafter the "British and Northern Irish Dominions." I do not think this would be a very happy experiment in nomenclature. I suppose that the noble Lord must be thinking of the Dominions as appendages of the United Kingdom of
732
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, otherwise there would be no possible justification for a name so singular, and indeed so surprising. The words are, of course, used in the sense not that they are appendages of Great Britain but are communities, broadly, of British subjects, owing allegiance to the common Crown. We must not be too pedantic in a consideration of this kind. Men of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland—Southern and Northern Ireland alike—all played a part in the development of the Dominions, and the term British in this connection has the same meaning as the term British in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which defines a British subject as "any person born within His Majesty's Dominions." I hope that these answers, if they have not entirely discharged the regrets of the noble Lord, will at least have met that part of his curiosity which is to be dealt with by an answer.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Earl did not tell us what happened to the Seal which was specially made in substitution of the one which was supposed to have been destroyed.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That Seal, as the noble Lord will have appreciated, had a very brief period of usefulness, and applying the same logical process that I have indicated to the noble Lord, we have placed that Seal with the Mint, which seems to have been entitled to its custody.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which will, I hope, be accepted by all sections of the House as removing what is at the present time a considerable difficulty. The object is to empower the Welsh Church Commissioners to transfer to a representative body certain burial grounds which the local authorities decline to accept. The matter was brought to the attention of the Home Secretary, and he brought it to the attention of the

733
Cabinet, that there were in Wales a large number of burial grounds which the local authorities declined to take over. The burial grounds are of no great value, and the local authorities, with some unanimity, refused to assume the liability and expense of maintaining them. To deal with the matter, which arose out of the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, there was an informal discussion and a circular was issued. It was also submitted to the representatives of the council of Evangelical Churches in Wales, which represent all the members of nonconformist denominations, and they unanimously agreed that it was a fair and unbiased statement of the position as defined by the Welsh Church Act, 1914.
Subsequently to that the Home Secretary, to make the matter still more clear, asked the various local authorities whether they would be willing to accept the responsibility of looking after these churchyards. The results, however, were disappointing. Five hundred and forty-six local authorities refused to take over the burial grounds at all, or have anything whatever to do with them, 128 agreed to take them over, and about 200 more sent in no reply. When they do reply it is expected, as they say in another place, that the answer will be in the negative. Therefore the Home Secretary is faced with this dilemma, that although he has power under Section 4 of the Act of 1919 to force them to take over these old churchyards, it would be rather absurd to try to coerce more than 600 local authorities to take over burial grounds which they have declined to have Therefore his only course was to introduce a Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give the measure a Second Reading. As regards the future, the Commission are informed that the Representative Body of the Welsh Church would be prepared to arrange for the maintenance of these burial grounds. This Bill is introduced and designed for the purpose of giving the Representative Body of the Welsh Church power to take care of these old Welsh churchyards. They have got the money to do it, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will be willing to give a Second Reading to this very useful, and, I believe, on most sides absolutely agreed, Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I state very briefly my grounds for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I need hardly remind the House that throughout my Parliamentary career I was associated with the Nonconformists of Wales in their struggle for the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I think that most of your Lordships will be aware that one of the most acute grievances in connection with the past controversy in Wales related to unhappy incidents in connection with burial grounds, and therefore the introduction of a Bill of this kind, which provides for the transfer of over five hundred of these burial grounds to the Representative Body, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the proposal in the Bill must raise an issue of direct importance to the people of Wales. May I, very briefly, make my own position clear? I had for some time the honour of being a Welsh Commissioner, and I therefore fully recognise the responsibility and difficulty of the task imposed upon them in connection with the administration of the Welsh Church Act; but I will go a step further, and say that, so far as I can trace the procedure of the Welsh Church Commissioners, they have done everything possible to inform these local authorities of their position under the Welsh Church Act, and to provide every reasonable facility for them to accept the transfer.
My point, however, is this. I do not blame in any way the Welsh Church Commission. The responsibility for this Bill, as Lord Desborough has already stated, is the responsibility of the Government. What I wish to submit is that, in bringing forward a Bill of this kind, the Government could hardly have fully realised what lies behind the fact that, as we thought, a permanent settlement of all points in dispute had been reached by the passing of the Welsh Church Act. When the Government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to introduce special legislation to deal with this particular difficulty in Wales, the wise and right plan would have been to have endeavoured to consult both

735
parties to the dispute in the past in order, if it were possible, to reach some measure of agreement in regard to the provisions of the Bill.
I recognise, of course, the seriousness of the present situation. Here you have more than 500 local authorities who are unwilling to accept the transfer of the burial grounds under the provisions of the principal Act. I regret that they have been unable to accept the transfer of these burial grounds, but I say that the issue involved in this Bill—namely, the transfer from the local authorities to the Representative Body of so many of these churchyards—does affect the balance, so to speak, of the agreement reached by passing the Welsh Church Act. The issue, therefore, affects not only the local authorities but the community, the people of Wales as a whole. I feel very strongly the desirability of doing everything which may be possible to avoid any further friction in regard to this ancient quarrel, which for so many years divided and embittered the life of Wales. Speaking from my own experience, I may say that the results of the agreement reached over the passing of the Welsh Church Act have already far surpassed the most sanguine expectations and I look upon that solution of an old and embittered difficulty as one of the most hopeful facts and factors in the present religious situation in Wales.
I am afraid that the passing of this Bill in its present form through both Houses of Parliament may create some revival of that friction which we so much deplored in our past experience. It is because of that that I believe, in the highest interests of Wales, it is most necessary that, before any proposals of this kind, which have not yet been examined or considered by those whom I represent particularly here to-day—I was surprised when I saw the notice of the introduction of the Bill last week upon the Order Paper, as I had heard nothing about it—are submitted to Parliament, everything possible should be done by further consultation and conference to reach practical agreement upon the main provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords, I have listened with some sorrow to the speech of my noble friend opposite. When the Church in Wales was disestablished and disendowed many people, both in this House and in the country, took different views of what would happen, but there is no doubt that in Wales, where the Churchmen of Wales were in a minority of the religious people in Wales, the result of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church has been to bring Churchmen and Nonconformists in Wales more closely together, and has done as much for the good of the country as any Act which has been passed by Parliament in recent times. The action that is now being taken by the Government is a necessary corollary to that Act. The one thing that was not definitely dealt with was the graveyards. My noble friend says he does not know the feeling of his friends, but we do know the feeling in Wales when over 500 parishes in Wales have absolutely rejected the idea of taking over the graveyards. That is the best answer to my noble friend. I believe that this Bill may raise a certain amount of political feeling amongst a small section of my countrymen, but the vast majority of people of all political Parties in Wales will welcome it as a fair and sensible solution of the one small outstanding question that was not finally settled by the Disestablishment Act. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I think the only chance of friction in the future regarding this Bill would be if it were to go out to the people of Wales that this is any other sort of Bill than a Bill introduced by the Government to get out of a tangle. If it was thought that the Church or the Church people in Wales had in any way instigated this Bill there might be a chance of friction, but they have not instigated the Bill at all. It is a Bill designed entirely by His Majesty's Government solely to get out of a tangle. The tangle was foreseen in Wales before the passing of the Act. If there was one thing more than another about the Disestablishment Act which was abhorrent to large numbers of Nonconformists, who were very much in favour of disestablishment, it was the alienation of the old burial grounds from the

737
churches in Wales. However, those burial grounds were transferred under the Act to the local authorities. Those local authorities find now, as a large number of people knew before, that the maintenance of the boundary walls, etc., of old burial grounds is a liability and they do not wish to take on that liability.
We see from the figures given that those who have declined to take on the liability amount to 85 per cent. of those who were asked; so that I think we can fairly say that 85 per cent. of the local authorities have wished to see those churchyards handed back to the Church. If that is the case this is really a Bill to relieve the local authorities of a liability. I do not know for which local authorities the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, was speaking when he moved the rejection of the Bill, but I do know that in what I have said and in what my noble friend Lord Kylsant has said we speak the considered views of the members of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, who approve of this Bill, and who, though they see that the sacrifices which we have incurred in Wales owing to the Act, and which have not been slight, will be increased, are willing to increase them in keeping up these old churchyards. We feel also that we are expressing the view not only of the governing authorities of the Church in Wales, but of the majority of the people in Wales.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the explanation of this Bill given by my noble friend Lord Desborough. I have always taken the greatest interest in this question of the disposal of the ancient churchyards in Wales. For I would remind your Lordships that the Bill deals only with the ancient churchyards, that is to say, the churchyards that belonged to the Church before 1662. All the modern churchyards, those given to the Church since 1662, passed to the Church under the original Act. When, in 1919, the amending Bill was before your Lordships' House I moved an Amendment—I believe I am right in saying it was the only Amendment moved on that occasion—which would have left the ancient churchyards in the hands of the Church. Your Lordships accepted my Amendment, but, when it went down to another place, it was there refused, and I did not press the
738
question further. I felt, however, that it was a great pity that that question was not finally settled then, and I used these words at that time:—
"I cannot think of anything that is more likely to cause friction in the future. It would always be a matter of soreness with the members of the Church and it would always rankle."
The Churchmen in Wales have accepted the Act. They have said, "Let bygones be bygones," and they are doing their very best for their Church under the Act. This question of the ancient churchyards was the one question left over and it still aggravates the whole situation. There is still a sore running, and the wound is not able to heal because of that sore. I welcome this Bill, and I hope it will be a final settlement. The local authorities have in numbers of cases, as Lord Desborough pointed out, refused to take over these ancient churchyards on the death of the incumbent, who has a life interest in the churchyard under the original Act. They naturally refuse to do so, because it would mean levying a rate for maintenance, and in numbers of cases these ancient churchyards are full. No more burials can take place in them, and they would only be a burden on the ratepayer. Surely the right body to receive the ancient churchyards is the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, who have already expressed an opinion that they are ready to accept them. I believe I can speak on behalf of the whole Church in Wales when I say I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not know whether I might make an appeal to my noble friend opposite (Lord Clwyd), because I did not explain to him sufficiently that a great many steps had already been taken to consult the feelings and wishes of the Party which he has so ably and so long represented both in this House and in another place. But I can assure him that every step has been taken to consult not only the political representatives of Wales, who, of course, represent vast numbers of Nonconformists, but also the representatives of the various Nonconformist bodies there. There are also six hundred reasons in favour of the Bill expressed by local authorities who will not take these burial grounds over. Will not the existence of several hundred beautiful, neglected old churchyards in

739
Wales do infinitely more to exasperate the feeling which is now getting smoothed over than any grievance which may be felt arising from this Bill, but which I cannot see to be justified by its proposals?
On Question, Amendment disagreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PRO VISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Novar, I have been asked to put to the noble Duke a question as to whether his proposed new clause to limit the amount of relief has been considered since the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House promised to give this matter some consideration, and to see whether this or some other safeguard might be introduced into the Bill.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The Government have most carefully considered the possibility of working in this Amendment in some form or other and they regret very much that they cannot see their way to accept it in the form in which it is moved, as it would be quite impossible from the administrative point of view.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I ask whether that answer applies to the next Amendment [information as to financial resources of applicants for relief]?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: It applies to that also. I shall not go into the arguments used in the Committee stage, unless the noble Duke desires it, but the answer does apply to both Amendments.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I must say that the action of the Government is most disappointing. On the Committee stage I think the Leader of the House
740
must have been strongly impressed by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Novar and of other noble Lords from Scotland in urging these Amendments. He was very conciliatory, and gave us great hope that the Government would at this stage—not take the Amendments then proposed but re-draft them, and put down a Government Amendment. I have no doubt that my noble friend has done his best, and I regret that he has not succeeded, because I think it would have done a good deal to allay the bad feeling raised over the procedure proposed in the Bill.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, I join the noble Duke in regretting very much that neither of these Amendments can be accepted by the Government and that there is no other Amendment that can be suggested in their place. As we are now under the law of England in Scotland in this matter till 1928 we wanted to try to safeguard ourselves in some way or other from the kind of thing which happened in Poplar and Chester-le-Street. The natural safeguards in Scotland are perhaps stronger than they might have been if this had not been thrashed out. But where are they going to get the money? That is what I should like to ask. They certainly will not get it from the banks, and after the experience we have had in this matter I do not think they will get more from the Government. Therefore there are two safeguards left, although they do not appear in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should not like my noble friends to have any feelings of soreness in respect of these Amendments. It is perfectly true that the Government by the mouth of my noble friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Sutherland) and my own mouth, promised to do all we could to have these things carefully considered before the Report stage. I hope your Lordships will give me credit for having kept my word. I have had three interviews with the Scottish Office in respect of these Amendments since the sitting of the Committee. I did not conceal from your Lordships that in regard to one Amendment I had personally a great deal of sympathy with it, yet I was unable to satisfy the Scottish Office that the machinery which was provided or could be provided for the carrying out

741
of these projects was feasible and, therefore, it was impossible for us to proceed any further. I should be very sorry indeed if your Lordships thought, or if my two noble friends thought, I had not been as good as my word.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: We are quite sure of that.
THE LORD SPEAKER: I understand that neither of these two Amendments is moved.
On Question, Amendments made in Committee reported.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

    PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
    SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
    CROWN LANDS (No. 2) BILL.
    Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

CHIPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 22nd of February last and the 15th instant discharged, and Bill committed.

SOUTHGATE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1927.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Southgate and District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES BILL.
House to be in Committee on Wednesday next.
WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday March 31.