Sitting of 3 May 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
PRIVATE BILLS (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Gainsborough Bridge Bill [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

BOLTON AND KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Public Health Act 1875, relating to Bolton and Kingston-upon-Hull," presented by Captain KING; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    NOCTOVISER.
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the invention called noctovision or the fog-piercing ray; whether his inspectors have had an opportunity of testing this invention; and if any representations have been made to his Department suggesting that all ships should be equipped with a noctoviser?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have seen references in the Press to this invention. It has not been tested by the Department, and no representations have been made to the Board of Trade to the effect that ships should be equipped with it.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an invitation has been received by his Department to test this apparatus?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think not. I have inquired if we have had any requests in this direction, and I am informed that we have not.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Cannot the shipowners and the insurance companies be trusted to adopt this invention if it is considered to be advisable?

    LOSS OF S.S. "EASTWAY."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Court of inquiry, held at Cardiff, into the loss of the s.s. "East-way" off Bermuda in October, 1926, in which the Court found that the owner of the vessel had contributed, by blameworthy and culpable conduct, to the loss of the steamer; whether the papers are being sent to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to further action under the Merchant Shipping Act; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
    I know this question was answered yesterday, but can the right hon. Gentleman

    1429
    say when he will be in the position to make a further statement and whether he has examined the papers?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I had better give the hon. and gallant Member the answer I intended to give. My attention has been drawn to the report of the Court in the case of the "Eastway," and the question whether the evidence is such as to justify proposing further proceedings is being considered. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of an answer which I gave on 16th November to the hon. Member for Barrow, describing the checks on overloading British vessels at foreign ports, which are prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Acts.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any further action is going to be taken?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am rather adverse to discussing in advance whether or not any proceedings of a legal nature will be taken. The whole question is being considered by the proper authorities.
    Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the Board of Trade intend making any special recognition of the services of the wireless operator in this case?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    IRISH FREE STATE (LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE).
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, or when, it is the intention of the British Government to give effect to Clause 2 (b) of the annexe to the Treaty with regard to the future administration of the lighthouse service in the Free State; and if he will state the reason for the prolonged delay in transferring it to the latter and the probable date of carrying this out;
    (2) whether the Board of Trade and Trinity House are still, notwithstanding the Treaty, exercising statutory rights over the Free State lighthouses, and defraying the full cost of their maintenance from the general lighthouse fund?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certain questions as to the future administration of these lighthouses are still under consideration by His Majesty's Governments in Great Britain and the Irish Free State. In the meantime, the present system is,
    1430
    by consent of both Governments, continued in being.
    Mr. KELLY: Who is responsible for dealing with the finances and with the conditions of the people engaged in the lighthouses?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The lighthouse authorities.
    Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that Trinity House deals with the lighthouses in the Irish Free State?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I ought to have notice of that question, but my recollection is that Trinity House does not deal with those, but that they are dealt with by the Irish Lights. There are three bodies, Trinity House, the Northern Lights and the Irish Lights, and I think I am right in saying that these lighthouses are dealt with by the Irish Lights authority.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the fact that matters are held up at this moment, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the wages and conditions of the Irish lighthouse keepers?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I have no authority to do so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is under the Irish Government.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COTTON GOODS AND MACHINERY (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the values, respectively, of the cotton manufactured goods and of the cotton textile machinery exported from Great Britain to Russia during the year ending 31st March, 1927?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of cotton goods manufactured in the United Kingdom and exported to, Russia in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1927, was £297,179; and that of textile machinery £1,544,455. Separate particulars are not available for cotton textile machinery.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of extending British trade, and the wisdom of getting more manufactured

    1431
    goods exported rather than textile machinery?

    INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL COMBINATIONS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the rapid development of trusts and industrial and financial combinations whose object is to coerce the consumer into paying higher prices for necessary commodities; and if he is prepared to take legislative action with a view to protecting the interests of the consumer against such trusts and combinations?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the Debate which took place in this House on 22nd March on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division, and to the statement then made on behalf of the Government. For the reasons then given, I do not propose to initiate any legislative action.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received a deputation from the joint committee on the question of shipbuilding materials and equipment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of his Cinematograph Films Bill on the trustification of that industry?
    Sir P. CUNLILFE-LISTER: Yes, I am satisfied that the result of that Bill will be to protect exhibitors in this country against foreign combinations.

    GAS PRICES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent increases in the price of gas and the wide public concern now being shown on account of greatly increased gas bills for the past quarter, he will require gas supply companies to render their accounts monthly instead of quarterly, so that the public may have more frequent opportunities of checking gas consumption and charges?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the exceptional increase of domestic gas bills in some parts of London and to the indignation caused thereby; and will he make inquiries into the desirability of taking power to check the consumption as recorded in the present meters?
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the abnormal consumption of gas as indicated in the accounts rendered to consumers by the Gas Light and Coke Company during the quarter ended 25th March last; and whether he will consider appointing a committee of inquiry into this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will answer these questions together. My attention has been called to complaints as to gas bills rendered in respect of the March quarter. So far as the complaints are based on suggestions that charges have been made for quantities in excess of those actually consumed, it is already possible for any consumer to have his meter tested by an officer of the local authority of the district, in the London area—the London County Council. The consumer is already, therefore, safeguarded in this respect. As regards the suggestion that accounts should be rendered monthly, every consumer has on his meter a continuous record whereby he can check his consumption at any time. To compel the monthly rendering of accounts would involve the extra cost of monthly as opposed to quarterly readings and rendering and collection of accounts, which cost would fall on the consumer, and would involve consumers in paying monthly instead of quarterly. I doubt whether this would be in the interest of consumers or would command their approval. Moreover, under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, the local authorities test the calorific value, purity and pressure of gas supplied; and these tests have been regularly carried out in the London area. These tests showed that during the March quarter all the London gas companies fulfilled their statutory obligations. In view of the facts which I have stated, and the powers given to local authorities by legislation, I do not think that a special inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Board of Trade satisfied itself in regard to this matter, or has it been left entirely to the local authorities who are dealing with their own particular sections?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have satisfied myself that the local authorities in London which are particularly referred to have most thoroughly dealt with this matter; in fact, the London County Council has made all the regular inspections which the Act requires it to make. I do not think it would be right or desirable that I should take out of the hands of the local authorities the duties which Parliament so recently conferred upon them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask two questions? First, whether the right hon. Gentleman is himself a victim; and, secondly, whether under the Act it is permissible for the local authorities to inspect, not merely the quality of the gas but also the pressure? Many of us believe that our heavy gas bills are due to the companies increasing the pressure so that people accustomed to the old pressure do not know that more gas is being consumed by them.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am one of the victims of having to pay more. With regard to the second question put by the right hon. and gallant Member, under the Act of 1920 the local authorities have to examine the calorific quality, purity and pressure of the gas supply. That question was raised previously. I have made a special inquiry with regard to London, and I find that the test has been regularly carried out.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has there been any rise in the pressure?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I understand the right hon. and gallant Member asks have we got more or less gas, but under the Act which was passed in 1920 you do not pay for the amount of stuff that comes through the pipe, but only the calorific value, just as to take a metaphor, you pay for the whisky and not for the water.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where a consumer asks the London County Council
    1434
    inspector to test the meter and it turns out to be correct, the consumer is charged 10s.?
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pressure of gas going through the gas meter depends upon the purity of the gas in the heating apparatus, and when gas is mixed with air you require much less gas than without air? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the gas companies have been passing through pure gas unmixed with air?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can I have an answer to my question? [An HON. MEMBER: "Give him back his 10s.]

    EDIBLE FISH DESTRUCTION.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council has any evidence giving the weight of edible fish disposed of in the year 1926 to fish meal and manure factories from the following ports: Aberdeen, Hull, Fleetwood, and Grimsby?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The figures are: At Aberdeen, 2,556 cwts.; at Hull, 21,807 cwts.; at Fleetwood, 14,777 ewts.; and at Grimsby, 5,187 cwts. These figures represent the following percentages of the total quantity of the fish landed during 1926 at the ports in question: 0·1 per cent., 0·9 per cent., 1·5 per cent., and 0·15 per cent.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the fish destroyed is destroyed during gluts; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Food Council should take some steps to see that edible fish ought not to be destroyed at a time when people are starving for want of food?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no fish manure works that has really destroyed edible fish? They destroy only immature fish and other fish not suitable for the market, which would not pay for the carriage expended upon it is sent to the market?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Food Council are considering this matter. I understand that the fish which finds its way to the manure factories rather than to the consumer is fish which, for the

    1435
    most part, by the time it reached the consumer, would be quite unfit for consumption.

    HERRINGS (DYE TREATMENT).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to recent instances where herrings treated with dye have been sold as kippers; whether he is aware that in one instance boxes of kippers coloured with dyestuffs were supplied to a Colchester retailer at 2s. 4d. per box, and retailed by him at 12s. 10d. per box; and what steps he can take to safeguard the public in this regard?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that it is the practice of some curers to use dyes for improving the appearance of herrings sold as kippers, but there is no power to prevent this practice unless the colouring material used is injurious to health. With regard to the last part of the question, the whole subject of the price of fish is now being investigated by the Food Council.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Am I to understand that the Government are helpless in a case of this kind where deliberate fraud is being practised?
    Mr. GUINNESS: This particular case seems to be very exceptional. The wholesale price quoted is about half the average wholesale price, and the retail price is very much higher than the average. I have sent particulars of this particular case to the Food Council, and they are going to inquire into the matter.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this dye is only a vegetable dye. It is not in any way injurious, and, in fact, improves the appearance of the article.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL COLLEGE (VACCINE DEPARTMENT).
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Secretary of State for War the cost of running the Vaccine Department of the Royal Army Medical College in the last financial year; what would have been the cost if vaccine supplies had been
    1436
    bought from outside sources; and what is the estimated saving, if any, achieved by the present arrangement?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have no figures available later than for the year 1924–25. In that year the gross cost of the Department was shown as £3,608, while the value, at retail prices, of the vaccines produced is estimated at over £14,600. I have no reason to believe that, were later figures available, the saving shown would be materially different. I should add that the Department is maintained, not only for the production of vaccine but for research work and for training officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
    Dr. SHIELS: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the figures show there is a very considerable public advantage by the Army Medical Service making vaccines for themselves, instead of purchasing them from outside sources?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes, Sir; I think the Royal Army Medical Corps does very great public service.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is anticipated that we shall have an up-to-date report on the health of the Army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think a report is published annually.

    KING EDWARD VII SCHOOL, SHEFFIELD (OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state, in regard to the King Edward VII School, Sheffield, the number of boys and the number in the officers' training corps at 30th June or other approximate date in each of the last five years?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The strength of this contingent on 1st April in each of the last five years was:

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    101

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    92

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    72

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    85

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    84

    I understand that the number of boys at the school was approximately 650 in each of these years.

    WAR MEDALS (ENGAGEMENT CLASPS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the advisability of issuing engagement bars to the medals won in the Great War; and whether, if expense is the difficulty, he will issue them to those entitled to them on payment of the cost?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Owing to the cost involved, it has been decided not to issue clasps to the War medals; nor would it be desirable to authorise an issue of clasps confined to those persons who are able and ready to pay for them.

    ARMOURED CARS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in armoured cars in Shanghai were wounded owing to bullets coming through the slits of the cars; and whether he is prepared to adopt a form of loophole and sight, similar to that recently submitted to the War Office, which affords better vision to those within the cars and avoids the danger of bullets coming through the slits?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no information that wounds were received from the cause suggested in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the matter is under consideration.

    IRISH AND WELSH GUARDS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the urgent need for economy and the comparatively recent establishment of the Irish and Welsh Guards, he will consider the disbanding of these two battalions and thus effect an annual saving of not less than £216,000?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

    FIELD MARSHALS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the names of the five field marshals in receipt of half-pay at the rate of £1,692 a year; and whether any of these officers are in receipt of additional remuneration from the State in respect of other employment?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The officers referred to in the first part of the question are:

    His Royal Highness, The Duke of Connaught.

    Lord Methuen.

    Earl Haig.

    Viscount Allenby, and Sir William Robertson.

    As regards the second part, the answer is in the negative except that Lord Methuen receives £200 a year as a "reward for distinguished or meritorious service" in the office of Constable of the Tower of London.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that some of these gallant gentlemen received block grants of many thousands of pounds at the conclusion of the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Those who did receive those grants deserved them very well.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not the fact that a field marshal is always considered to be on the active list, and that, as such, he is liable for military and other public duties at very short notice, generally at his own expense?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Certainly, that is the fact.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the generosity accorded to these high military officers is out of all proportion to the generosity accorded to private soldiers?

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK RESEARCH (EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD GRANT).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a grant has been received by the Scottish Board of Agriculture from the Empire Marketing Board for educational and research work on the production and distribution of milk and milk products or for any other purposes?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The reply is in the affirmative. I shall be glad to furnish the hon. and gallant Member with a statement of the grants made and promised by the Empire Marketing Board for various services affecting Scottish administration.

    RHIFAIL FARM.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the applicants for Rhifail Farm will be settled by Whitsunday next?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement as to the proposed scheme for Rhifail Farm. Objections to the scheme have been lodged on behalf of the proprietor, and these are now receiving my consideration.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As there are only five more weeks to go, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this work will be completed before Whitsunday, which falls in June?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The matter is before me at the present time, and I hope to come to a decision very shortly.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, WATTEN.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation made by the Scottish Land Court that the Board of Agriculture should not enforce against the smallholders at Watten Clause 4 of the conditions of let; and whether he is prepared to accept this suggestion?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have just received the Order and Note by the Scottish Land Court containing the recommendation to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and have not had an opportunity of considering it. But, prima facie, it seems to me that in a case such as this the obligation imposed on the tenants is not an unreasonable one.

    FIRST OFFENDERS ACT.
    Mr. MURNINasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Notice of Motion given for an early day by the hon. Member for Dundee on the administration of the First Offenders Act in Scotland and on the necessity of drawing the attention of the sheriffs to the provisions of the Statute; and whether he proposes to find time for discussion of the Motion?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I see no prospect of special facilities being given for this discussion.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that girls of 16 years of age for a first offence have been sent to prison for taking a small quantity of coal from the pit-head? Cannot he take steps to acquaint the Sheriffs of Scotland with the provisions of the First Offenders Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is not my business. The business of the House is so congested that it is impossible to find time to discuss the Motion. I might recommend to the hon. Member, if there is something he thinks is wrong, to put it to the Secretary for Scotland.

    MALTA (MR. MAHAFFY).
    Sir GERALD STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for which the Crown Agents have been instructed by the War Office to suspend the payment of £200 a year towards the remuneration of Mr. Mahaffy, legal adviser to the Civil Government of Malta; whether complaints have reached the War Office as to the impropriety of a legal adviser receiving remuneration from two sources having at times conflicting interests; whether he will give instructions that the suspension of the payment of £200 a year from War Office Votes to Mr. Mahaffy will be made absolute; and whether he has considered the representations in connection with the drafting by the legal adviser of a military training ordinance, made by the Parliamentary delegation that recently visited Malta, in favour of its disallowance?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply to this question. On the 7th February last, Mr. Mahaffy, legal adviser to the Governor of Malta, resigned his appointment as legal adviser in Malta to the three Service Departments, which, by arrangement with the Governor, he had held up to that date. His resignation was accepted, and the contribution of £200 per annum towards his salary which had been paid to local funds under that arrangement was accordingly discontinued from the 20th February, the date on which his resignation took effect. I know nothing of the complaints and representations referred to in the question.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: In view of the reply, I beg to give notice that on an early date I shall call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

    MINING EXPERIMENTAL STATION, BUXTON.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines when the experimental station at Buxton will be officially opened; and will opportunity be given to persons employed in the mining industry to make an inspection of the buildings?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The 14th June has been provisionally fixed for the official opening. Invitations to the ceremony will be sent to representatives of all branches of the mining industry. When the station has been opened, persons employed in the industry will be very heartily welcome to inspect it, on due notice being given to the director.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the threatened abolition of the Mines Department is likely to have any detrimental effect on such stations as this?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, absolutely none.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the inquiry held into the recent railway accident in Hull?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): This Report has been received, and is now under consideration.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it would be possible to publish it, or to answer a question about it in the House?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, I will communicate with him privately on that matter.

    SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Com-
    1442
    missioners have been consulted on the extension of the electrification schemes of the Southern Railway Company; and if such extension schemes have had their approval?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The approval of schemes for these extensions of railway electrification is not a matter in which the Electricity Commissioners are directly concerned.
    Mr. HANNON: Surely, a very large guarantee has been given under the Trade Facilities Act, and is not the Minister to have any voice in the disposal of the funds so raised?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My information is that there is no Trade Facilities guarantee in this case.
    Mr. HANNON: Surely, there is a very large guarantee, as the Minister must know, in the case of the Southern Railway, for the electrification of the South-Eastern section?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Not with regard to any new electrification scheme; the others are past and done with.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the Minister exercise his influence with this railway to keep work in this country where it is possible to do so?

    ANNIESLAND-DUNTOCHER ROAD.
    Lieut.-Colonel THOMasked the Minister of Transport when the scheme for the construction of the Anniesland-Duntocher boulevard in Scotland was approved by the Ministry of Transport; whether, at the time of the approval of the scheme, the question of the construction of the necessary bridge across the canal at Drumchapel was considered, and if any agreement as to the liabilities in connection with the construction and maintenance of the bridge was concluded; who are the parties interested in the construction and maintenance of the bridge; at what date the construction of the road, apart from the bridge, was completed; what is the cause for the delay in the construction of the bridge; and if he can give any assurance that the bridge will be constructed in the near future?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The scheme was approved in May, 1923, and prior to this, discussions had taken place regarding the construction of the bridge over the canal at Drumchapel, although no agreement

    1443
    had been reached as to the liability for construction and maintenance. The greater part of the road is now constructed and the delay in the construction of the bridge is due to the difficulties which have arisen in the course of the negotiations between the Glasgow Corporation and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, which I cannot describe in detail within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel THOM: Has the delay that has taken place in connection with the consideration of this scheme been experienced in the case of other road schemes throughout the country?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In my recollection never to a similar extent.
    Mr. COUPER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement has been made within the last few days that arrangements have now been concluded with the railway company?
    Colonel ASHLE: I hope the engineer will be able to confirm it. I propose to see him next week.

    ROAD VEHICLES (BOILER ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. SANDEMANasked the Minister of Transport how many cases there were in 1926 of accidents caused by the bursting of boilers on road vehicles propelled by steam; and how this figure compares with those for 1924 and 1925?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No comprehensive figures are compiled by my Department from which the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend could be extracted. I understand, however, that all cases of burst boilers are reported to the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and I am informed by that Department that one accident occurred in 1926, due to the boiler of a road vehicle bursting. One accident also occurred from the same cause in 1924, but none in 1925.

    ROAD FUND GRANTS.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Minister of Transport whether it is a condition of a grant from the Road Fund that only British materials shall be used in the work in connection with which the grant is made?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is a condition of every grant made from the Road Fund to schemes under unemployment programmes that all contracts for or incidental to the work shall be placed in this country, unless the express approval of the Department has been obtained to the contrary. In the case of other classes of road works this condition is not attached to the grants, although every endeavour is made to encourage the use of British materials.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that very little material, whether British or otherwise, will be used now that the Chancellor has pinched the pool?

    MENAI SUSPENSION BRIDGE (TOLLS).
    Captain GARRO-JONES (for Sir R. THOMAS)asked the Minister of Transport if he will state, in reference to tolls from the Menai Suspension Bridge, the total cost of collecting the tolls for the year ending 31st March, 1927; the net amount of tolls received by the Ministry for the last year; the cost of maintaining the bridge for the last year; and the figures showing the revenue accruing to the Ministry from the tolls for the year ending 31st March, 1926, and the year ended 31st March, 1927, respectively?
    Colonel ASHLEY: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement giving the particulars asked for, so far as available, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The accounts of the Menai Bridge Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1927, are not yet complete, and the following figures are in some cases provisional:
    Year ended 31st March, 1927:

    £

    Cost of collecting tolls

    1,168

    Net amount of tolls received, after deducting cost of collection

    11,376

    Cost of maintenance of the bridge (estimated)

    1,425

    Net revenue for the year after deducting cost of supervision and other expenditure (estimated)

    8,975

    For the year ended 31st March, 1926, the accounts showed a deficit of £854. It

    1445
    should be explained that during 1925–26 and previous years the tolls were leased for a rent of £4,559, and that on 31st March, 1926, the lease terminated and the tolls have since been collected by the Department direct.
    The accounts for that year have been included in the Civil Appropriation Accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1926, already published, and the Bridge Accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1927, will be similarly published in due course.
    In view of the age and nature of the structure, the surplus revenue is, with the approval of the Treasury, being retained in a special contingency and renewal fund.

  POST OFFICE.

    DEFERRED TELEGRAMS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether in actual practice there is always someone in charge of the general post offices in towns where there is a population of over 20,000 people; if so, whether he will arrange for telegrams to be accepted at those offices at all hours; and whether he will consider the introduction of a special reduced rate for telegrams and telegraph letters handed in after certain regulated hours?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): There are many towns in which sorting staff remains on duty beyond the normal hours of telegraph business. But the acceptance of telegrams outside those hours would entail arrangements being made for their transmission, reception at intermediate and terminal offices, and delivery at the places of destination, the cost of which would be out of all proportion to the use likely to be made of the facilities. As regards late fee telegrams, I would refer the hon. Member to pages 93 and 94 of the Post Office Guide. I may add that a night telegraph letter service at the rate of 36 words for 1s. is already provided between towns in which the head post offices are open always. The despatch of telegrams by telephone, which can be made at any hour, combined with the use of telephone numbers in the address usually enables telegrams to be transmitted outside the normal hours.
    Colonel DAY: Will the Noble Lord consider introducing some deferred service, so that people can send telegrams at a cheaper rate?
    Viscount WOLMER: I shall be glad to consider any suggestion the hon. Gentleman may have to make.

    TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General whether he was consulted by the advertisement contractors to his Department before they accepted for insertion in the telephone directory an advertisement of a company which is selling goods confiscated from British subjects by the Soviet Government?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if your attention has been drawn to tins question, which contains a very serious accusation against a company whose advertisement has been accepted by a Government publication, accusing them of selling stolen property, and whether that accusation is in order in the form of a question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have not noticed it particularly, but I think it is common knowledge that certain property has been nationalised in the country referred to.
    Viscount WOLMER: Advertisements are usually submitted to the Post Office before publication, but in the case of the Bristol Telephone Directory, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, the advertising contractors explain that they only received the order when the directory was actually in the press, and they failed to observe the normal rule. The only other advertisement of this company in a telephone directory, so far as I am aware, is a small insertion in the London Directory for which authority was given under a misapprehension. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to the matter. The advertisements will be omitted from future issues.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the Noble Lord aware that certain advertisements in official publications on behalf of the liquor trade have been causing a good deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland recently, and will he consider the question of having no advertisements at all in Government documents?
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think there is any analogy at all between advertisements in regard to alcoholic beverages and the advertisements referred to in the question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Post Office does take care to Exclude controversial advertisements.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it is illegal for this company to operate in England, would it not be better to prosecute them?

    MOUNT PLEASANT BUILDING.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the unfinished Post Office new building at Mount Pleasant is unsuited to the present requirements owing to the inadequate accommodation on the ground floor, and that as a consequence a great amount of work has to be transferred to an upper floor at considerable cost; whether he is aware that the completion of the building would enable the work to be more efficiently and economically dealt with; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the main staff exit is so designed as to subject users to dangers from passing vehicular traffic; and whether, in these circumstances, he will endeavour to secure the completion of the remainder of the building at an early date?
    Captain KING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The First Commissioner is aware of the desirability of proceeding with the erection of the second section of the building at Mount Pleasant, and provision has been made in the 1927 Estimates for the work to commence this year. With regard to the main exit, any danger that existed has been removed by an instruction limiting the speed of vans at that point to three miles per hour.

    BROADCASTING (THEATRICAL AND VARIETY ARTISTES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any negotiations have been entered into between the British Broadcasting Corporation and various theatrical and variety interests for the purpose of finding a basis for reasonable
    1448
    working arrangements so that permission can be obtained by the British Broadcasting Corporation from the various theatrical managements to allow star artists already under contract to broadcast?
    Viscount WOLMER: This is a matter primarily within the responsibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I have no information as to details of any such negotiations or discussions.
    Colonel DAY: Have any representations been made at all to the British Broadcasting Corporation, as the Noble Lord has to answer for them in this House?
    Viscount WOLMER: I say I have no knowledge of any representations that have been made to them.

    WOMEN FRANCHISE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has been able to form any estimate as to the number of additional women voters there would be over 25 years of age and under 25 years of age, respectively, on the basis of women being granted the vote on the same terms as those now applying to men?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It is estimated that the number of new women voters in Great Britain over 25 would be about 3,650,000, and under 25 about 1,590,000.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage his supporters from describing this proposed change in the franchise as votes for flappers in future?

    SHANGHAI (BARBED WIRE FENCE).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the interference in trade, the barbed wire fence and guard surrounding the settlement at Shanghai is to be maintained; and whether this is a matter for the decision of the Shanghai Council or for the Commander-in-Chief, or for His Majesty's Government?
    Captain MARGESSON (for Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON): The fences erected for the protection of the international settlement at Shanghai must be maintained as long as the General Officer Commanding considers them necessary. He will, I have no doubt, take into consideration any representations which may be made to him locally and do whatever is possible with due regard to military needs to mitigate whatever inconvenience is caused by these necessary precautions.

    RUMANIA (BESSARABIA).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government expressed an opinion at any time to the Italian Government in favour of the early ratification by Italy of the Treaty recognising the Province of Bessarabia as a part of Rumania?
    Captain MARGESSON: No, Sir.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if a postman or other civil servant compulsorily insured for widows' or orphans' pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act may continue as a voluntary contributor after his discharge to pension at 60 years of age; and what would be the weekly contribution to secure for his wife an old age pension at 65 or a widow's pension in the event of his death?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, contributions at the normal rate of 1s. 6d. a week would be payable and would provide for widows' and orphans' pensions, but as the insured person would be 60 years old at the date of becoming a voluntary contributor, the qualifications for an old age pension could not be satisfied.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, in order to include teachers within its benefits?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 29th March, 1927, to the hon. Member for the Holderness Division.

  HOUSING.

    BRICKS AND BRICKLAYERS.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Health the average output of bricks per working day, the average number of bricklayers at work, and the output of bricks per bricklayer per day?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The output of bricks in Great Britain in 1926 is estimated at about 6,000 millions, which, allowing for Sundays and holidays and the half-day on Saturday, would be about 21½ millions for each full working day. The number of insured bricklayers in the building trade in July, 1926, less those recorded as unemployed, was about 84,000; there are no precise statistics as to the number of bricklayers employed in other trades, which, however, is considerable, and I cannot, therefore, give the output of bricks per head for the total number of bricklayers.

    COUNCIL HOUSES (PURCHASE BY TENANTS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation whereby tenants of council houses who wish to purchase their houses may be enabled to do so?
    Sir K. WOOD: Local authorities already have power under the Housing Act, 1925, to sell houses erected by them, and a number of local authorities have adopted schemes for the sale of houses to tenants and others. It does not appear that further legislation on the point is necessary.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in regard to local authorities that have not got schemes, he can take power to compel them to do so?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a very difficult matter to ask Parliament to do. A large number of local authorities are taking advantage of the powers they already have.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some districts there are hundreds of houses built for

    1451
    selling purposes and that no purchasers can be found; and is he also not aware that, if it were possible to enable people to get these house without having to put down 10 per cent. of the purchase price, thousands of working people might buy them?
    Sir K. WOOD: I cannot answer as to the exact case the hon. Gentleman has in mind. A very large number of local authorities—I think the local authority in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman opposite—have schemes whereby persons puting down £10 and paying amounts of instalments can purchase their own houses.

    CURRENCY NOTE ISSUE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a definite date has been fixed for the transfer of the currency note issue to the Bank of England along the lines suggested by the Cunliffe Committee; and when the necessary legislation will be introduced for this purpose?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative. I am not yet able to indicate a date.

    CIVIL SERVICE (NEW ENTRANTS).
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what number of new entrants will be admitted to the Civil Service under the recently held writing assistant, and the forthcoming women clerical officer, examinations; and whether he will ensure that such women now on the temporary staffs as have proved themselves efficient shall not be displaced by new entrants?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not yet in a position to state the number of new entrants who will be admitted to the Civil Service as a result of these examinations. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on 28th February.
    Sir B. PETO: Will the new entrants in the writing assisting class and the women clerical officers' class be limited to the number necessary to supply the vacances which normally occur in those classes on the permanent side?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What is the purpose of sacking people from the Civil Service and at the same time admitting others?
    Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what connection there is between the result of the examination and the number of places for which he intends to give vacancies?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is not the question my hon. Friend put. I cannot say how the vacancies will be allotted until I know the result of the examinations.

    FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Board of Health in Scotland to allow the use of sulphur dioxide as a preservative for minced butcher meat during the months of June, July, August and September in any year; and whether, having regard to the higher average temperature in England and Wales, he will consider introducing the same Regulations?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the decision of the Scottish Board of Health, but as at present advised, does not propose to modify the Regulations as issued in regard to meat.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say why, when there is a higher temperature in England, it is necessary to have more stringent Regulations in England than in Scotland?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that in Scotland special arrangements have to be made.
    Mr. EVERARD: Will my hon. Friend say why, if the preservatives are allowed in this case, his right hon. Friend is going to prohibit the use of preservatives in cream in England?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not prepared to enter into that question. I do not think that would be fair to England.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a com-

    1453
    munication from the Portsmouth Trades Council on the subject of finding employment for the 600 men discharged from the dockyard; and whether he proposes to take any special steps to absorb these men in industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Instructions have been issued to the appropriate local officers of my Department requesting them to take such action as is practicable to assist the men so discharged to find other suitable employment.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if those efforts have been successful to any extent up to the present time?
    Mr. BETTERTON: What has been done is to ask dockyard authorities for particulars of the cases of these men and we have notified other places where shipbuilding is carried on of the men available. With regard to the actual number of places, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, but if he will put down a question I will endeavour to give him the information.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    WORKS AND BUILDINGS DIRECTORATE.
    Captain GARRO-JONES (for Mr. E. BROWN)asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the policy of his Department for filling wastage vacancies among the established posts in the directorate of works and buildings; and is he prepared to give an assurance that temporary ex-service men serving in the Department will be given preference in filling vacancies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to the questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) on the 6th April. In the scheme of establishment for the junior staff (or lower grades) there referred to as in contemplation, it is proposed that temporary ex-service men serving in the Directorate should be given preference.

    DESIGNERS AND DRAUGHTSMEN.
    Captain GARRO-JONES (for Mr. E. BROWN)asked the Secretary of State
    1454
    for Air whether he is aware that the competition for the establishment of designer and draughtsman in the Ministry was thrown open to competition to non-service men within the Department and to ex-service men not employed in Government service, in contravention of the method laid down in Clause 45 of the Lytton Report for conducting such competitions; and what were the reasons for departing from the method of the Report?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir. The hon. Member has, I think, been misinformed. The claims of the ex-service men under paragraph 45 of the Third Lytton Report were met by giving establishment to over 50 ex-service designers and draughtsmen as a first step without examination and before any competition was held.

    ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING ASSISTANTS.
    Captain GARRO JONES (for Mr. E. BROWN)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether consideration is being given to regrading certain posts of architectural and engineering assistants and draughtsmen in his Department; whether he is aware that the establishment branch of the Air Ministry has refused to consult with the organised body representative of the interests of the ex-service staff involved; and whether he can now give an assurance that in any such regrading consultation will be made with this body before any final decision is come to so as to ensure ex-service men's interests?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The adoption of the title "draughtsman" or "architectural assistant" is a professional and not an ex-service question and any negotiations are appropriately conducted with the professional associations concerned through the medium of the Whitley Council. The Air Ministry is fully aware of the wishes of the staff affected, which have been put forward not only through Whitley channels but also in a special memorial.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
JOHN BUCHAN, esquire, for the University of St. Andrews, University of Glasgow, University of Aberdeen, and University of Edinburgh.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  FELTWELL FUEL ALLOTMENT BILL,
  "to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity known as the Fuel Allotment, in the ancient parishes of Feltwell, St. Mary and Feltwell St. Nicholas, in the county of Norfolk," presented by Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
  THORNTON RUST CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL,
  "to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the charity consisting of the Calvinistic Chapel at Thornton Rust, in the parish of Aysgarth, in the North Riding of the county of York, and of the trust property held in connection with the said chapel," presented by Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [2nd May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Clynes.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. SPENCER: When the House finished last night, I was endeavouring to draw attention to the fact that my friends of the Liberal party had found that in the trade union movement there was a great deal of intimidation and a spirit of intolerance manifested among those who object to Liberal Members being associated with them. They have made that perfectly clear in the documents they have distributed, and it is to that fact that I want to apply myself, namely, that intimidation and intolerance are not confined at the present time to periods of excitement and periods of strife. Intolerance, bigotry, victimisation and coercion are as much rampant among those who are standing or who are supposed to be standing for freedom and liberty of the individual associated with trade unions as among any other people. In the South Wales coalfield, since the stoppage took place, at one pit, not many weeks ago, there was a strike because 80 men who had dared to join the Industrial Union would not join theirs. These men had to be coerced into joining the South Wales Miners' Federation. They did not do it willingly; they would not have done it had they been left perfectly to themselves.
  I noticed in the "Observer" of last Sunday, certain observations—and here I would remind my hon. Friends above the Gangway that this is not a Labour paper but more a Conservative paper—condemning Clause 2 of this Bill, and among other things they said:
  "Any person joins a trade union with open eyes, and any person not approving the policy of the trade union should leave
  1468
  it. His fellows, whether they be right or wrong, ought not to be compelled to put up with his company."
  That misses the point entirely. If a man is dragooned into an association to which he does not want to go, and when he gets into the organisation he is coerced to accept opinions belonging to somebody else, and then, in a moment of national emergency, he fails to approve of the policy which may be dictated by the extreme men, I ask this House and I ask my late friends above the Gangway, is there no redress for any individual in circumstances of that character?
  I hope the House will pardon me if I digress for a moment to make one or two remarks about myself and what transpired not many weeks ago. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the very people who are loudest in their demands for British justice and fair play for every foreigner on God's earth have denied it to one of their own. What is the account? It is almost like fate itself. The telephone bell rings in my office and a colleague of mine goes to the telephone—that colleague is a Member of this House and can verify every word that I say—and receives a call for me. I then went to the telephone, and I was called to a meeting several miles away at a particular pit. At that pit that very day they had had a deputation to see the manager. They wanted to start work. Seventy per cent. of them were already at work. The remaining 30 per cent. of the men wanted to go to work, but the manager said: "You have been away so long, and I am going to choose now who is going to return." To put it in common language, the men had got the wind up, and they sent for me to go, and I went.
  I addressed the men, and of all men the man who moved the resolution in that meeting was a Communist, who afterwards had to apologise in the "Sunday Worker" for his action. That man moved a resolution that I should be requested next day to go with them to see the manager, not to make a new agreement but simply to get for these men the right to return to work again. I told them in the meeting plainly—I am not making any bones about it—that I was expected by them to sacrifice myself. I told them frankly that, disbelieving in the policy of Cook and the Federation, I was quite prepared to sacrifice

  1469
  myself. I went the next day to the colliery, at their request. [Interruption.] Hon. Members might listen to my side of it; they have had a garbled account from many a mouth, and I am telling them the truth for once. I went, and I got for these men, every one of them, the right to return to work. As I came out, the second checkweighman spoke to me, and said, "What are you doing here?" I told him. He said, "Will you come to our pit?" When I went home to my lunch I had a further deputation of three workmen, begging me to go to their pit and get them started at work. That day, I got the men, every one of them, returned to their own jobs at seven pits in the county of Nottingham, and for getting men the right to return to work at their own jobs which they had left I myself am a victimised man for doing a charitable act to my fellow-men.
  What happened? I was sent for to come to London. I know what would have been said if I had not gone. It would have been said that I dared not face it. I only make this remark in passing. I was lying ill in bed and I got up. I would have seen the man who is the dictator of the Miners' Federation in hell before I would have met him, if it had not been for the fact that my absence would have been misconstrued. The time has come when men of that type have to be stood up against by somebody. I went, and they suspended me for doing my duty to my fellow men. After that, they had the council of action in Nottingham and they dragged the men out again. Some of them have never returned to work since, and upon my shoulders they are putting the blame for the last victimisation. The blame should have been put upon the men on the council of action who foolishly came and dragged the men out again. When they came, they called upon my council to deal with me—to deal with me for obeying the orders of the men whom I was paid to serve, the men who were in a majority at work, and who asked me to do it.
  I want to give the House an example of the treatment which one gets from the extreme men in the movement, and of their sense of justice and fair play, and what any of us may expect once they become the dominant factor in the State. I went to that meeting of my own council. Twenty-eight men of the
  1470
  42 had left the council because they had gone to work and those who remained in that council chamber were no more representative of the men who were at work than many in this House would have been representative of them. They passed a resolution, which is on the minutes of the Notts Miners' Federation, suspending me until the council was re-formed, and then they would hear what I had to say. They hang me first and then hear what I have to say afterwards. The secretary who called me to the first meeting sent a letter, which is still extant, stating that I should be exonerated from all blame and that what I had done had only been in the interests of the men themselves. I put it to the chairman, the man who had assumed authority because the chairman was not there, that he should read that letter to the council, and he actually refused to read a letter which was a vindication of what I have done.
  Mr. SUTTON: On a point of Order—[Interruption]. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption]—whether the remarks of the hon. Member have anything to do with the Bill before the House?
  An HON. MEMBER: They show the need for the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with the Clause which refers to the question of intimidation.
  Mr. SPENCER: I am dealing with the Clause which deals with intimidation and victimisation. In passing, let me say that the new movement with which I have become associated was not originated and organised by myself. It was born spontaneously from among the men who had been thrown out of the council chamber. But it is not alone intimidation. Here, among hon. Members above the Gangway, is vile and diabolical misrepresentation of myself. They are going about saying that the owners financed me. There is not an atom of truth in it. From the very first when we organised in Nottinghamshire, money has come in sufficient to pay our way, and we stand now, after three months, with a bank balance of £3,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have had £10,000 from the coalowners."] I am prepared to submit to them all the accounts of every branch that has sent in money to my Associa-

  1471
  tion. The only thing the Nottingham coalowners have given me, to their credit, was done openly so that all the world should know. I begged £10,000 from them in order to pay the old men who would not have had a penny of their pension had not the owners themselves been generous. That was not a bribe, nor was it done in a dark and secret corner. I told them when I asked for it that I wanted all the world to know what I was asking for, so that it should not be said afterwards that I was seeking merely a bribe from them for some service I had rendered. I do not care two straws for it. This House can believe me or not, but I will tell them that my wife and I sat at home and considered this thing. I told her what I thought to be the truth with regard to the economic facts of the industry, and what I thought was my duty to the men in the circumstances. I said, "I expect we shall have to get a fresh job," and we agreed that I should go back to the pit and work at the pit again at some job rather than poison my own mind by perverting the truth. [Interruption.] If ever a man has been victimised by his fellow men, treated evilly and wrongly, without trial, without being able to give his point of view, that man is myself. But I can look them all in the face now or at any time, because I have nothing to hide. In what I have done, I have been actuated by the highest possible motives on behalf of the men I have sought to serve. Therefore, I say that with regard to this particular Clause, it is only right that something should be done to protect these men who are seeking to serve with fidelity and loyalty their fellow men in these difficult times.
  I would like to say a word to my Liberal friends. They have built up their cause upon great fundamental principles. They have a great historic past, not so much because of the men who have been associated with them as on account of the principles upon which they have built their political thesis. But if the tottering hand of dotage or the stealthy hand of deception seeks to steal the mantle of liberty in order to cover the nudity of pretence, I tell them they are going to fail. They will not win a single vote by diverting the fundamental principle of individual liberty. Once they leave that foundation in order to grapple
  1472
  with any pretence or expediency, from that very moment Liberalism has spent its force and power in this country. If they are going to resuscitate themselves and build up their party, it will only be by being faithful to the principles which they have enunciated and have accepted for so many years. Their triumph lies, not along the road of deserting the working men in distress; their triumph lies along the road of helping the working men when they are oppressed and tyrannised by a section that only wants to use them for their own ends, ends which are nefarious to the interests of the men and the State as well.
  I want for a moment to deal with the political side of this question. The political side undoubtedly is an important one. Statements were made in this House yesterday by some hon. Members above the Gangway which, if I may respectfully say, showed that they knew little if anything about what they were talking. A great deal of the trouble we have at present, as far as politics are concerned, has sprung from two main causes. The first, and perhaps the most important, which has not been touched upon in this House, is this: that, when men belonging to the Conservative party or the Liberal party have gone to a trade union meeting, they find that at some of the branches nearly the whole of the time, if not the whole, is taken up, not with a discussion on trade union matters, not with a discussion on questions like compensation, but in discussing the question of Mussolini coming to this country, the question of the Dawes Report, the question of "Hands off Russia" and "Hands off China." I do not object to these men discussing these questions in the proper place. They have a perfect right to do so, but they have no right to use trade union meetings, which are paid for out of trade union funds, for the purpose of propagating any form of politics whatever.
  Yesterday it was said that the Miners' Federation did not send in a political balance sheet because it was not a trade union, but it consisted of separate branches and separate associations. That is not true. It is the Miners' Federation that is the unit. It is the political unit of the whole of the miners' associations of this country. I must confess to the House I was amazed when my attention was drawn to the fact that

  1473
  not one penny piece is taken out of the political fund of the Miners' Federation to carry on the political work of that huge organisation. I put it to hon. Members above the Gangway that, if they turn to the balance sheets, they will find that to be the case. I was amazed when it was pointed out to me by men who are interested in this particular question that all this work, all these conferences, all the money that goes to run that huge organisation comes out of the trade union levy made on the Miners' Federation. I am certain there is no one on the Benches above the Gangway who can speak with knowledge, or who wants to play fair and who would say that the political side of the Miners' Federation's activities should not contribute to pay its way. I do not think there is anyone who will deny that the activities of the political side should be paid for from the political funds and the very fact that it has not been so paid for has given these men the right to protest against the way in which these things are being done. Who will rise up and deny that?
  Mr. VARLEY: It has paid its share. [HON. MEMBERS: "He knows that quite well!"]
  Mr. SPENCER: I will ask those who have interjected to examine the balance sheets. Before we have done I will bring the balance sheets to this House and prove that for year after year not one penny piece was taken out of the political fund for paying conference expenses, executive expenses and things of that character. Will anyone say—will my late colleague say—that there are no activities in the Miners' Federation of Great Britain of a political character which should be paid for in this way?
  Mr. VARLEY: The hon. Member is addressing a question to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If the hon. Member wants me to reply to his question, I will do so. If his friends on the other side do not want to hear the reply, I shall resume my seat. He asked me would I deny that the Miners' Federation has no political work which ought to be paid for. My answer is that it is paid for. The hon. Member may bring balance sheets up to recent years where a proportion of the general funds was used to pay for clerical work
  1474
  attaching to the political side; but that has been put right some 18 months ago.
  Mr. SPENCER: I know as well as the hon. Member knows, how far the contribution has been made. The hon. Member knows as well as I know from where the expenses of the annual conference—which is three quarters political and one quarter industrial—come. I ask him from where the expenses of perhaps 120 delegates representing various districts are taken? It is not out of the political fund. It is out of the industrial fund. The point I wish to make in that connection is that in a trade union movement where you are demanding that the Conservative and the Liberal should come in, great care should be exercised to see that these men are not called upon to make any contribution whatever towards the upkeep of the political creed of others. Absolute freedom should be given to them so far as that aspect of the question is concerned. If the House will bear with me for a little longer, I should like to give them what I think to be the solution of this question. In the first place, I do not agree with all that is in the Bill. If I may say so to the Government, there is one point with which I do not agree and which they ought to strike out.
  Mr. J. JONES: A bit of sugar for the bird.
  Mr. SPENCER: Whether it is for the birds or not, I am endeavouring to be fair to all, irrespective of what their song may be. There is one thing in the Bill which I do not consider fair. You are asking a man not merely to contract in, but to put his notice in an envelope and put a stamp on it and send it through the post. You certainly ought not to do that. You ought to demand that the men shall sign the papers and that facilities shall be given to the organisation to collect the papers when the men have signed them. That part of the Bill ought to be struck out. I believe in every facility being given for collecting the papers after they have been signed by the men.
  If I may, I should like now to give the House the benefit of my ideas upon this question. I have not for some time believed in the present method at all. It is not recently, but for some time now

  1475
  that I have ceased to believe in it. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were here, because more than a year and a half ago I spoke to him about the same thing, as well as to other hon. Members. So what I am about to say now is not born out of the present Bill at all. This has been my idea with regard to political activities—that, first of all, inside the trade union movement, and inside trade union meetings, politics should be absolutely taboo. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like a Masonic Lodge!"] That only shows the perverted mind of the interruptor. What I suggest is that we should let the trade union become the collecting agency for political funds. But if the trade union became the agent for the collection of the funds, it would collect for the Conservative working man, for the Liberal working man, for the Communist working man and for the Labour working man; and when it got those funds, it would not keep them to foment political discords in its own ranks but would send them direct to some persons appointed by the Labour section, the Communist section, the Liberal section and the Conservative section respectively. Thus, at least you would get perfect equality of treatment. You would rid your trade union movement from any interference with political questions. I should like to remind some of my late friends that the best secretary the Miners' Federation ever had was a Conservative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!" and "Name!"] You know who it was—the right hon. Thomas Ashton was a Conservative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If you are going to have all the elements in the trade union movement working for the common good of those who are inside the union, it is most essential that every man inside the movement should feel that he is welcome there to make his own contribution to help on the cause. He should feel when he comes to trade union meetings that he is there to discuss questions affecting hours, wages, compensation and things which have to do with trade unions; he should not find, when he comes to these meetings, that the only questions agitating the minds of the dominant section in the trade union are things which have absolutely nothing to do with this country or with trade unionists.
  1476
  The sooner you get rid of that the better it is going to be for winning back some of the members to trade unionism and getting that standard of discussion and those numbers which used to characterise the trade unions in the past.
  4.0 p.m.
  May I say this, in conclusion? I feel it in my bones that we can have what theories we like, but this country has to face this salient fact: Other nations are making more rapid strides in trade than we are. You have Czechoslovakia increasing its exports 53 per cent.; you have Italy with about 48 per cent., Germany with about 38 per cent., Belgium with about 48 per cent., France with 15 per cent, and the United States with 10 per cent., and this country's exports have expanded by 2 per cent. We used, in 1913, to do nearly 17 per cent. of the world's trade. We are doing 15 per cent. to-day, and the world's trade has expanded 5 per cent. since that time. We are therefore not keeping pace with the rest of the world, and I say to my fellow trade unionists that the watchword for all should be not "conflict within our ranks," but "co-operation between everyone of us." From directors downwards, we should all be working in union to make industry the instrument which it can become for giving each one of us the standard of life which ought to be the inalienable right of every workingman.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Spencer) in the speech which he has just delivered, and in which he occupied so much time referring to the domestic affairs of his late organisation. [Interruption.] As was to be expected, he has spoken with all the enthusiasm of the new convert. He has found out just now, when the light has penetrated all, the evil associations of his past. [Interruption.] So far as those questions associated with the history of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain are concerned, I will leave him to be dealt with by responsible officials in this House. Neither he himself nor other hon. Members need expect that this issue is going to be burked. There are responsible officials of the Miners' Federation who will be able to show that the things that he has been condemning this afternoon he has been responsible for in his executive capacity. [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: As I did yesterday, may I ask hon. Members not to attempt to debate by means of interjections. The only possible method is to listen and then for other points of view to be expressed.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Having said that, I propose now to turn to the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. If that speech did not clear away many of the ambiguities of this Bill, it certainly demonstrated the extent to which the Bill strikes at the principle of association and at the long-established rights of trade unions. It may safely be said that the history of trade unionism in relation to Parliament has been one of widening recognition and of increasing power and influence under the sanction of the law. It is true that decisions, and very important decisions, have been given from time to time in the Law Courts which have restricted the rights, the powers and the functions of trade unions. It is of the greatest importance to remember that Parliament has always taken a wiser view, and the measures which by previous Governments it has been asked to undertake have all been designed to strengthen and broaden and protect the interests of the trade unions of this country. Therefore, I must say that it has been left to this Government to reverse the process of a hundred years by launching a direct attack upon the principle of working-class combination and common action.
  This Bill, in my judgment, represents an invasion of the established rights and legal powers of trade unions, such as has never been attempted since the repeal of the Combination Laws in the year 1824. But I must point out here that the policy of the Government, and the method by which it is proceeding in this Bill, is the more remarkable having regard to the modern development in organisation both on the side of capital and of labour. What is the position to-day? We have combines, amalgamations, federations and closely organised aggregations. The proposed changes will impose disabilities on trade unions which are destructive of the very elementary right and principle of combination. In seeking to make a general strike illegal, the Government have gone much beyond the necessities of the case. The Government have, in effect, so far as the workers are con-
  1478
  cerned, sought to destroy that unity of purpose so essential for bargaining purposes as is known by every trade union official. Whilst that limitation and restriction is being imposed upon the trade unions, what do we find? Capital may extend its operations to unlimited bounds; but, by restricting all disputes, all legal disputes, within a trade or industry, the Government want the workers to apply the doctrine of splendid isolation in all its perfection. Mass production and large-scale organisations, with the linking up of related and kindred processes into extensive and powerful combinations, cannot justify, I say, pushing the trade unions back into an isolated and separate class or trade union position. Are we not to-day confronted with the trust, with the combine, and has not the Government itself, by its own legislation, encouraged very comprehensive and powerful amalgamations?
  I want now to show the ramifications that some of our trade unions are up against. Take the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They have to negotiate with their employers. What do they find? They find in their combinations that they have to meet shipowners, dock-owners, road transport and coastwise traders, and directors representing dock undertakings, railways who are also dock-owners, coal-owners who are also directors of docks, steel works, and all kinds of metal work. That is not all. We find in many cases that one and the same person is met on a number of undertakings and boards in negotiations and in disputes. Take another case. There is a group composed of the electrical trade, the engineering trade, omnibus undertakings, tramway undertakings, and other forms of transport. There you have electricity supply, transport, and everything associated with the capital side. There is a very thin line drawn. It is very difficult to say where one industry or one trade stops and where the other begins. Let me give another illustration, and these illustrations have been sent to me in order that I may bring them before the House, because such organisations as the Transport and General Workers' Union really cannot understand the position they are going to occupy once this Bill becomes law. Coalowning, shipbuilding, and steel production—that is another group that they have to meet.

  1479
  Here is another: Port-owning and canals, armaments, and, would you believe it, H. P. Sauce, vehicle building, wagons and carriages, shipping interest, and shipbuilding. The Attorney-General yesterday told the House, and we were very much impressed by his statement:
  "We have been careful to protect the right to strike."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; col. 1315, Vol. 205.]
  Yes, but what I want to ask is, what is the position under Clause 1 of an organisation like the Transport and General Workers' Union that has to meet such combinations as those to which I have referred? Let us look at Clause 1. The Attorney-General said, and I have his words here:
  "The sympathetic strike still remains under this Bill perfectly legal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; col. 1321, Vol. 205.]
  Then I turn to Clause 1 of the Bill and I keep in mind the position of an organisation such as the Transport and General Workers' Union. I notice that the Attorney-General dealt with the first Sub-section of Clause 1, but he never referred, so far as I was able to follow him, to the second Sub-section of the Clause, and I want to ask the House to give attention while I read a few of the words:
  "For the purposes of the foregoing provision a trade dispute shall not be deemed to be within a trade or industry unless it is a dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, in that trade or industry."
  So far as the great combination of workers to which I have referred is concerned, this Bill does not make it clear what their position will be. Supposing, for instance, that the sauce workers came out on strike and some of the other great sections went to their assistance. So far as I can read the Bill—and I stand to be corrected by the learned Attorney-General—they would be at once outside the trade or industry, and if they were hauled before the magistrate and the strike, because of its sympathetic character, had had the effect of holding up the community or any large section of the community, in my opinion, it would then be held to be illegal under the words that I have last quoted.
  Let me take another case. Supposing that the railwaymen came out on strike to resist a reduction of wages, and the
  1480
  other transport workers, such as the dockers and all those engaged in shipping transport or, if you like, those who are very closely related to the railway people, namely, the road transport workers, came out. What would be their position? Are we going to be told, as we were yesterday, that the sympathetic strike remains untouched? Are we going to be told, again, that the Government, in the Bill, have reserved the right to strike? Yes, you can reserve the right to strike, but you can hedge it about in other Clauses and have words that govern the working of the right that you have conceded until you have watered away absolutely the whole right and left the position worse than it would have been if there had been the direct challenge and the Government had said: "We deny the right to strike altogether." That is the position so far as the transport workers are concerned. We know now that there are gigantic undertakings owning newspapers, collieries, steel plants, shipping, transport enterprises, and they do not even stop there, for some of them are actually controlling finance and insurance. The House need only consider for a moment the number, the variety, and the extent of industrial processes in modern times, some of them now unified and co-ordinated into huge concerns, in order to appreciate the unreasonableness of the Government's one-sided restrictions.
  Then I want to ask, What about the growth of employers' organisations for the purpose of carrying on their relations, not merely with their own employés direct, but carrying on, through the official representatives of the unions, all the negotiations that have to be carried on in the great transactions that come between their members and the concerns they control? No one can think of the position from this standpoint and look at the Bill and remember that the Bill must render the unions less efficient than they have been in the past for bargaining purposes, without seeing that the Bill makes not only a general strike but, as I have tried to point out, almost every, if not every sympathetic strike liable to be held illegal, whether it has taken place with breach of contract or whether notice has been properly discharged. Then the Bill further cripples the unions, because it seriously restricts and curtails the right of picketing, and, lastly, it strikes a very heavy blow at the unions by the

  1481
  new power, probably brought in from the United States of America, conferred by law, to permit the Attorney-General to intervene in the affairs of these unions through the decisions of the Courts.
  I repeat that the principle of combination, applied so as to be most effective to promote and maintain the economic freedom and the improved conditions of the workers of this country, is to be restricted, and, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is to be no restriction imposed upon the vast concerns and employers' organisations to which I have referred. It is quite true that we were told yesterday that the Government, if we on this side were willing, would—as an afterthought, and after there had been an expression of indignation in the Press and n the speeches delivered by some of their own supporters—be prepared, as a belated concession, so far as the lock-out was concerned, to include it within the provisions of the Bill. I want to say here that this Bill is going to take away from the trade unions, as I will show in a moment, rights which they were certainly conceded in the Act of 1906. I will give one quotation from the Attorney-General, who was in charge when that Bill passed through the House in 1906. During that Debate the then Attorney-General, the late Sir John Lawson Walton, said:
  "The policy of the Bill was founded on the right of the workmen to strike for any reasons which in their judgment they thought to be sufficient."
  I have taken the trouble to get out the findings of a very important Royal Commission. This is most important, in view of the fact that, I think I am right in saying, both the 1871 Act and the 1906 Act were preceded by important Royal Commissions. The Commission which reported in 1906, which was set up in the year in which I entered Parliament, 1903, was presided over by no less a supporter of the other side of the House than the present Lord Dunedin. Here are the terms of reference of that Commission:
  "To inquire into the subject of trade disputes and trade combinations and as to the law affecting them, and to report on the law applicable to the same and the effect of any modifications thereof."
  They summarised their findings, and at the risk of wearying the House, I
  1482
  think it just as well that those who have perhaps never seen this Report should be informed of what came from the majority of that Commission, presided over by a prominent member of the Conservative party:
  "(1) To declare trade unions legal associations."
  That has not been fully put into operation.
  "(2) To declare strikes, from whatever motives or for whatever purpose (including sympathetic or secondary strikes), apart from crime or breach of contract, legal, and to make the Act of 1875 to extend to sympathetic or secondary strikes."
  That is very important, and, in substance, it was incorporated in the Act of 1906, but that, in substance, is being negatived by the present Bill.
  "(3) To declare that to persuade to strike, i.e., to desist from working, apart from procuring breach of contract, is not illegal."
  That, in substance, has been included in the Act of 1906, and it is virtually being negatived by Clause 3 of the present Bill. There are several other similar recommendations that I need not read to the House, because they have not been acted upon as yet, but there is one very important one:
  "(9) To enact to the effect that an agreement or combination of two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be the ground of a civil action, unless the agreement or combination is indictable as a conspiracy, notwithstanding the terms of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875."
  That, in substance, was put into the Act of 1906. If we take these recommendations, those of them which have been put into legislation, so far as I, as a layman, am able to compare them with the Clauses of the present Bill, it seems to me that they justify all that I have said about the attack upon the principle of association and upon the long established rights of the trade unions, and certainly, in my opinion, the Bill goes very much beyond any attempt to prevent a repetition of the national stoppage of last year and all that was associated with the mining dispute.
  The next point to which I want to call attention is the punitive and vindictive nature of the proposed changes. I think there cannot be any shadow of a doubt

  1483
  that the Government are seeking to punish the trade unions. What, may I ask, is the case that the Government themselves have submitted in support of the punitive and vindictive Clauses of the Bill? First, it is designed, so we are informed, to protect the community against a general strike, and, secondly, we are told that the industrial crisis of last year provides all the justification required for the Government's proposals. If we accept that position, then we accept the justification for the punitive and vindictive nature of the Bill. The learned Attorney-General made it clear some months ago where, if he could influence his colleagues, we were going to be taken. Here is a quotation from his speech delivered at Cromer on 7th January, 1927:
  "It is essential that we should have it laid down in the Statute Book, as already pronounced in the Law Courts, that the general strike is a crime against the State, that those who indulge in it are engaged in a seditious conspiracy, and that any organisation which foments it is liable to the uttermost farthing for the losses which it involves."
  An HON. MEMBER: Do you not agree with that?
  Mr. HENDERSON: It certainly was not proved yesterday that there had been a judgment in the Law Courts. I understood that before you could claim to have judgment in your favour, an issue was submitted, evidence was taken, not on one side, but on both sides, and someone equal, or nearly as equal as possible, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was allowed on either side to argue the case. Was that done in this case? I claim that an issue was never submitted, evidence was never taken, and counsel were not engaged to state their ease or defend it. [Interruption.]
  Mr. HENDERSON: The point to which I was going to call attention was in regard to this seditious conspiracy. I shall have been, next June, 44 years in the trade union movement. I have never yet seen this seditious conspiracy. It may suit His Majesty's Ministers to use this talk of seditious conspiracy, as they once used a letter which was a forgery. The last point of this quotation is, that anyone who foments this seditious conspiracy is liable to the uttermost farthing for
  1484
  the loss which it involves. I have no objection to that being applied when there is a seditious conspiracy such as is provided for in this Bill. But, as I repeat, I have never seen it. I have never seen it attempted. All that the last national stoppage was—[Laughter]—I will repeat it—all that the last national stoppage was, was an attempt to show sympathy for the great body of men whose standards of life were already too low. I want to say again, that this Bill is punitive in its character. It is the Government's way of punishing the organised workers for the events of last year. The Government are treating the trade unionists of this country as if they alone were responsible for last year's crisis. I am not going to accept that position. What about the mineowners? Are they dealt with in this Bill? What about the Government themselves? Did not the Government, by their vacillation and uncertainty, encourage the mineowners in their monstrously unfair and unjust attack upon the miners' standard of life, and upon the working conditions in the coalfields of our country? The Government, it seems to me, were responsible, because they handled the Report of their own Royal Commission in such a way as to force the question of wages right into the very forefront of the negotiations. The mineowners were responsible in the crisis by demanding worse working conditions before getting down, as the Report recommended, to the reorganisation of their great industry.
  If the events of last year had to be reviewed in relation to this Bill, then, in my opinion, it ought to be done seriously; it ought to be done permanently, but it also ought to be done fairly and squarely. The Bill, in my opinion, represents a form of punishment inflicted by one party to a dispute against another, because it acts strictly, as I hold, within its legal rights. These obnoxious proposals are being thrust upon the organised workers, and they are thrust upon them because they did what they felt to be their duty in coming sympathetically to the assistance of those whom they thought were working in a dangerous calling for payment that was far too low. On this point, in the speech of the right hon. Member yesterday we noticed a significant and very discreet silence.

  1485
  Blame—yes, any amount of blame for the workers; not a word for the mineowners. Then, I claim that the Bill is vindictive in its intention, and oppressive in its operations. It imposes disability on the trade unionists in the matter of political contributions under which no critizen has to labour. It treats stoppages of work in industrial disputes as though the workers alone could be guilty. The, history of industrial trouble since 1920 shows that most of the time that has been lost has been lost because of action taken on the initiation of the employers in their respective industries.
  I want to say how gently this Bill deals with the employers, organised and unorganised, and I want to give the House an illustration as to how the employers can work in these matters. The hon. Member for Broxtowe gave the employers a magnificent testimonial, and I noticed that the other side of the House cheered, as they have not cheered for many a day, anyone who has spoken on this side of the House. I am going to weary the House by giving something on the other side. It will be seen whether the character is as good as the one the hon. Member gave. It refers to a dispute in one of our Southern ports. It was a dispute about wages. The men took a ballot. We hear a great deal in these discussions about taking a ballot. They took a ballot, and, by an enormous majority, they decided not to accept the terms which the employers offered. Consequently, the men decided to leave their work. The machinery of the employers—that is, the secret machinery—at once came into operation. I remember, in the Debates of 1906, one of the most important features was the revelations about blacklisting. Well, the machinery of the employers at once got into operation, and I have here the names of 16 firms who at once committed themselves not to employ a single one of these men as long as this dispute lasted. Here is one of the letters dealing with the subject:
  "Yours of the 29th inst. duly to hand, which records another firm to your list, and with such a cordon of employers as you have now secured to co-operate with you in this contest"—
  I like the word "contest"—
  "I feel that if your local firms will only hold together and keep the men out a few weeks, the shipwrights will then have learnt
  1486
  a lesson which will bring them back to your terms."
  Here is another letter:
  "in view of the fact that some of the shipwrights are seeking employment outside the Port, we think it advisable that all the firms"—
  Mark you, they all said they would not employ them—
  "should send formal notification to the local Labour Exchange, to the effect that they are requiring shipwrights at once. The object of this is to prevent the men being sent out of the Port through the ordinary Labour Exchange agency, that is to say, at the Government expense, since the local Exchange will not be able to send men out of the Port at the Government expense, knowing that there is work for them in, the Port. The expense of sending the men away will then fall entirely upon Trade Union funds."
  Here is another letter:
  "Since my last communication to you I have received promises of support"—
  Then follow the names of four firms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give them!"] No, I will not give them. It is not the firm I am trying to get at; it is the system, and it is the system with which the Government in this Bill ought to be concerning themselves.
  "Seeing that some of our men are going North looking for employment, I have also been in communication with the Secretaries of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, asking that the Federated firms will accord us the same support as has been promised by the Southern and East Coast firms, and I enclose for your confidential information a copy of a letter received this morning from the Secretaries, together with a copy of our reply."
  What is this letter?
  "With further reference to your letter of the 6th inst., we have now heard from our Emergency Committee. If you will kindly forward us a list of the names of the men on strike, we will at once circulate these amongst the Federated firms, and request them to support you to the extent of refusing to set on any of the men concerned during the continuance of the strike."
  Here is another letter:
  "I have to thank you for your letter of yesterday's date, informing me that the Emergency Committee of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation has been good enough to request the firms in your Federation to extend their support to us in our shipwrights' strike to the extent of refusing to start men on strike at the port during the time the strike may continue.
  On behalf of the employers I wish to express appreciation of this action of your

  1487
  Committee, and their assurance that if at any time in future they are able to reciprocate your action, they will be only too willing to do so.
  I enclose herewith eight copies of the lists of the shipwrights at present on strike here, and shall be much obliged if you can have further copies run off so as to issue one to each of the principal firms in your Federation.
  The strike here has been in operation about two and a-half weeks, and a few of the men have left the port with the intention of looking for work on the Clyde. It is possible that more may endeavour to do so within the next few days, and we shall therefore be glad if this action can be taken quickly."
  A further letter states:
  "We beg to enclose herewith a further copy of a letter received from the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, from which you will see that they are taking definite action in the matter. We have heard that men are being taken on at Chatham Dockyard, and also that a Dumbarton firm are taking on some boatbuilders.
  With regard to the Chatham Dockyard entry, this matter has our close attention, and we think will clear itself in a satisfactory way to us.
  We have wired the Secretary of the Federated Employers in relation to the Dumbarton firm, and no doubt if they are federated, the entry there will not be a large one if the men are retained at all."
  May I ask the learned Attorney-General how he proposes to deal with this determination to hold up certain members of the community. Is not this a very bad form of intimidation? Is not this something in the nature of a boycott? If we are to have our rights taken away, what is to be done? These secret and subterranean operations can go on, and we do not get to know anything about them probably for years. If that was possible under the 1906 Act, what is going to be possible in future? Does anyone in this House know what is to be possible under the Bill? I proposed to say something with regard to the political levy. I think, however, that opportunities will come, especially on the Committee stage, for dealing with any separate Clause, and I hope then to say what I want to say.
  I do, however, wish to make one final point. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place, because I would have liked to have addressed this point especially to him. The Prime Minister, I understand, has sent a note of apology for his absence. I was not
  1488
  remarking on his absence in any complaining spirit, but was rather regretting that he was not present, because I wanted to make this point. The point is that it is an abuse of power for the Government to propose such a serious reversal of the law without warrant or authority from the people. There is no justification that I can find in any development of trade unionism for the restrictive and oppressive purposes of this Bill. It cannot be maintained that there exists any serious grievance for which the Government proposals would provide an effective remedy. If grievances do exist, if the law requires to be revised, I claim—and I have precedent on my side—that the case should have been the subject of a full and searching investigation. No public inquiry has been held into the operations of the existing law. In this respect the Government is departing from and acting contrary to every precedent. I said before, and I repeat, that the 1871 and 1906 Acts in each case followed but did not precede the Reports of important Royal Commissions. It may safely be said that every major change in trade union law has been made only after exhaustive inquiry and investigation of alleged abuses, or the necessary remedy for any proved disabilities imposed by the Courts of Law on trade unions.
  I make another point in this connection. It cannot be said that this Bill is in response to any national demand. Moreover, we claim that the Government has no mandate from the country. This issue was never before the country at the General Election. I would also remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government is a minority Government, that it is in a minority of something like 1,000,000 of the electorate. If there is no national demand, if there is no mandate to the Government that is proposing to make such a serious reversal of the law as affecting great masses of our producers, it seems to me that the Government are placing themselves in a position that will merit very serious condemnation. Surely it must be an abuse of power to use an accidental majority, which was secured for entirely different purposes, to pass a Measure, the object of which is to destroy the unity, the solidarity and the utility of our great trade unions. I was

  1489
  going to ask the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to punish that great section of people who by their industry, sobriety, patience, endurance and loyalty to the nation in its darkest hour, those men and women who by their skill, intelligence and devotion, have made this land the workshop of the world.
  The right hon. Gentleman may refuse to listen to all appeals. He may use his majority to force this Bill upon the Statute Book. I have been long enough in this House to have seen the same party in power before. I have heard similar appeals made to them when they were using their majority after the South African War for placing on the Statute Book questions that had never been discussed at the previous election. I venture to make the statement that nothing contributed more to that party being swept out of office in 1906 than the fact that they ignored the people, outstayed their mandate, and used their majority in the reckless way that they are attempting to do to-day. As I have seen them once swept away with ignominy, so I will see them swept away again if they follow the course upon which they have started.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): In the course of yesterday and to-day we have had several speeches in opposition to this Bill, and I propose, if the House will allow me, to deal with various questions that have been raised, and in doing so I will try to answer some of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has addressed to me. The first part of the Bill that I will deal with is Clause 1, relating to general strikes. A complaint has been made by the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) that this Bill is said to be a declaratory Bill, declaring the existing law. It is stated that there is no judgment which says that a general strike is an illegal strike. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that no judgment could have been given unless evidence had been taken and counsel had been heard in the case that came before Mr. Justice Astbury. I have looked up that case, and I propose to
  1490
  read a very few lines from the words of the learned Judge. These are the words:
  "The so-called general strike called by the Trade Unions Council is illegal and contrary to law, and those persons inciting or taking part in it are not protected by the Trade Disputes Act of 1906."
  5.0 p.m.
  The learned Attorney-General was perfectly right, surely, in saying that the learned Judge had held that the general strike was illegal; and what Clause 1 of this Bill does is to declare the existing law relating to the general strike, that it is illegal. Even though you differ from the opinion of the Judge, your difference does not make it any less a judgment. Why do the right hon. Gentlemen object? Is it that they say that the general strike was not illegal? Neither of them was very clear on that point. It is true that the late Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) did say yesterday that the Bill was entirely new law, so that I imagine he has now come down on the side that the general strike was not illegal. If that is his view, I confess to preferring the view of the learned Judge and the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). Neither of them has any doubt that the general strike was illegal. But if there is a doubt, as hon. Members seem to think that there is a doubt, surely it is all the more necessary to make it quite clear that a general strike is, in fact, illegal. I can understand those objecting to it who will defend a general strike on merits, but unless they are prepared to say that a general strike ought to be in the armoury of trade unionists, that they ought to be allowed to have a general strike whenever they think fit—[interruption]—they ought to be glad to have the uncertainty, if uncertainty there be, removed. It is to the interests of every member of a trade union that it should be removed. It is to the interest of the followers of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should know that if they take part in a general strike they are taking part in an illegal strike for which they may suffer.
  Mr. J. JONES: What about you in Ulster?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is wise that the State should warn the leaders, for in the past it has been per-

  1491
  haps too much the case that the followers have suffered—[Interruption]—and those who have instigated the strike have got off scot free. [Interruption.] Do the leaders of the Labour party justify the general strike or do they not? That is a question which has never yet been answered. [Interruption.]
  Mr. MONTAGUE: That is not the question.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Was the general strike of May last the first of many, or was it only an exceptional thing which we need not bother about? [HON. MEMBERS: "Talk about the Bill!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting in his speech, appeared to be defending the general strike. At any rate, he said the general strike was a defensive rather than an aggressive action—[Interruption]—that it was taken by millions of men in defence of their standard of living. He said they had seen the miners' wages brought down and feared that their own would follow, and so they joined in, this general strike. That was a defence, an apology, for the general strike. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to his place, I would ask him, Does he say that a general strike is legal? Does he defend a general strike, or does he condemn a general strike? There was no condemnation in his speech.
  Mr. JONES: What about the late War?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any sort of guarantee against the recurrence of a general strike. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General yesterday quoted various Members who had condemned the general strike and some who were still apparently in favour of it. The President of the Scottish Trade Union Council, speaking the other day at Galashiels, said that in similar circumstances he was in favour of another general strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] He has some followers on the benches opposite. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not yesterday condemn the general strike, he was much bolder when he was writing in the
  1492
  "Sunday Chronicle" in October last.
  He said then:
  "The sympathetic strike of May failed to redress any industrial grievance or to right one wrong of any worker in the whole trade union movement."
  He went on to say:
  "No Government, Labour, Conservative or any other, could permit its responsibility to the country as a whole to be torn from its grasp by a section of the community, however large, engaged in conflict with another section, however powerful.
  That, as it seems to me, was a condemnation of the general strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the lock-out!"] Yesterday he was speaking as if with his head turned over his shoulder, with one eye on the extremists outside, afraid to say that he condemned the general strike.
  The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds made a most remarkable speech on Clause 1 of the Bill. In case he should have misled anyone, I propose to remind the House of what he said, and to give what I think to be the reply to it. He said:
  "Under this Bill, as I shall show, it will no longer he within the power of a workman, except at the expense of becoming a criminal, to terminate his contract."
  It would be, he said,
  "a criminal offence for any workman to leave his employment even after giving notice that he wishes to leave it… The position of that man is that of a serf, and his legal position that of statutory servitude."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; cols.1380–1, Vol. 205.]
  That secures the assent of, perhaps, the majority of the hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite. We are quite sure that if it secures their assent in this House it will be repeated on every platform.
  Mr. JONES: What a brain wave.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Clause 1 refers to a strike, and the Bill defines a strike as an act of combination or a concerted act. The act the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to was that of a single workman leaving his employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!" "Humbug!"]
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That is contemptible.
  Sir L. WO RTHINGTON-EVANS: That is what the hon. and learned

  1493
  Gentleman said. I do not for a moment believe that he would attempt to—
  Mr. WESTWOOD: You know he never meant it that way.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I shall be very glad if he will say what he does mean. [Interruption.]
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That is more than you can do.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: To any ordinary man the words are that an individual is to be a serf and have the legal position of statutory servitude, because he cannot leave his employment without being a criminal—that he must continue in employment, and therefore is a serf.
  Mr. PALING: You are a twister.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Bill does not produce that result at all. It deals only with acts done in combination. [Interruption.]
  Mr. BECKETT: May I point out that the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), in the sentence following the one which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, says that the case of the workman leaving his employment is contingent on the other workmen in the same place also giving notice.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not read it to mean that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. PALING: Twister!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Fitz-Roy): Debate in this House is the expression of views of both sides of a question. If the views of both sides cannot be expressed, the Debate will become a farce.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have read it very carefully. I cannot dwell upon it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I give the ex-Solicitor-General this invitation. This Clause will be discussed in Committee. Let him come to this House then and explain what he meant, and if he does not adopt—[Interruption]—the construction that I have put on it, I shall be indeed happy to be corrected. [Interruption.]
  Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] May I ask whether such expressions as "deliberate misrepresenta-
  1494
  tion" and accusations that the right hon. Gentleman is a twister, are Parliamentary?
  Mr. BECKETT: You have done plenty of misrepresentation, Colfox.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If I hear an expression which is unparliamentary, I will deal with it.
  Major COLFOX: Then may I take it, Sir—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think we shall get on any quicker by this discussion.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I repeat that there is nothing in this Bill which affects or limits the right to strike in a trade dispute and there is nothing in this Bill which limits the right to take part in a sympathetic strike unless it is designed to coerce the Government or the community. A strike against the State is illegal, but strikes, including sympathetic strikes, against employers, are not illegal. Right hon. and hon. Members seem to be under an entire misconception with regard to the political levy. They seem to have an unwillingness to face the real facts.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: That is good from you, after what you have just done.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting seemed to think the Bill of 1913 was a compromise which it was impious to lay hands upon, and that no Government had a right to amend the law with regard to the political levy. It is obvious there was no Parliamentary bargain, or if there was a Parliamentary bargain it was not one which the Labour party felt they were bound by, because the right hon. Gentleman himself, in another part of his speech, said they finally submitted to the Act of 1913 although they did not assent to it. Quite clearly he was at liberty to object to it, and he showed that he disagreed with the Act of 1913. It is quite clear, therefore, that we are free to deal with the matter now.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Did the Tory party accept it in 1913?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was not the Government, but whether we accepted it or not at that time as Members of the Opposition we are certainly

  1495
  not precluded 14 years after, if we find it has not worked fairly in practice, from asking the House to amend it. There were two forms of protection intended to be given by the 1913 Act. First of all before a political fund could be set up there was to be a secret ballot, and in that any member of a trade union adopting a political fund was to have the right to dissent. That was considered sufficient. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that after a ballot the majority should prevail, and there should be no right even to dissent.
  Mr. CLYNES indicated assent.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the view of the Labour party. There were ballots in a great number of unions, and although not half of the members of those unions actually voted nearly 600,000—to be accurate, 578,000—voted against the setting up of a political levy, and of those only 110,000 are now exempt by reason of having dissented. Why is there that curious difference in the number? There are two ways of looking at it. I am going to submit my view, and it is that some 600,000 took advantage of the secret ballot, but when it came to signing a form of open dissent from the trade union leaders then there were only 110,000. There is not the slightest doubt and hon. Members know it, that every sort of obstacle has been put in the way—[interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I warn the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool that if he continues to interrupt, I shall have to deal severely with him.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Therefore something like 500,000 men who voted in the secret ballot against the political levy are not relieved but are forced to pay the levy.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That is another lie.
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Another 1,500,000 took no part in the ballot, and I dare say a great many of them did not wish to contribute to the political levy. I did not count them, but I did count the half million who voted
  1496
  against it and who have not now been relieved from the payment of that levy. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting says that the ballot ought to be sufficient, surely the answer is that the ballot took place in many of those unions 14 years ago, and only in nine out of nearly 300 trade unions has there been a second ballot; so that all the men who now join would find themselves pledged, whether they like it or not, to the political levy.
  HON. MEMBERS: No! and interruption.
  Mr. THOMAS: I wish to intervene for the purpose of accuracy. The Secretary of State for War says that all the members who have joined the trade unions since the original ballot on the political levy was taken find themselves compelled to contribute to that fund. I say to him that, if he knows anything of the facts, he must know that is not true, because every member joining to-day has the same right to claim exemption.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If I left hon. Members under the impression that I was ignoring the right to dissent, then I did not express myself very clearly, but let me explain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that the Labour party's policy was that, after a ballot, the majority should rule without power to dissent. I said that would be unfair, because all those who have joined during the last 10 or 12 years, if there was no power to dissent, would be bound by the ballot which took place previously.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is mean and contemptible.
  Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any society or organisation in which the majority rule does not operate?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to digress, but there is a clear case under the Company Law where the conditions are altered on amalgamation, and where there is power for the shareholders to dissent and to be paid out. The question is really extremely simple. I would like to ask if a man ought to be compelled to subscribe against his will. Is the machinery for enabling men to dissent sufficient under the law as it now stands? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] We

  1497
  think it is not, because there are 500,000 men who are now compelled to subscribe. [Interruption]. My next question is whether the new machinery is ample and effective for this purpose. What is this machinery All a man needs to do—
  Mr. MacLAREN: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I wish to remind him that he made an aspersion to the effect that these men were intimidated to pay the levy against their will. I think that in all fairness, the right hon. Gentleman ought to prove that aspersion and that charge. If the right hon. Gentleman has no proof of that, then in honour to himself and his party he ought to withdraw that charge.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not going into the details, because that has already been done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] It was done about two years ago when definite cases were given. There is one I remember well. It was the case of a Durham Lodge, where 28 members dissented and were paraded in front of the lodge at the end of the year, and they were made to march out of the lodge to receive their share of the political levy. Another question is: Does the alteration we are proposing in effect deprive trade unions of the subscriptions of their subscribers? This Bill is said to be an attack upon trade anions to deprive them of subscriptions Which they ought to have. There is absolutely no difficulty placed in the way of anyone who wishes to subscribe. If hon. Members will look at the Schedule they will see that all a man had to do is to sign once and for all and not every year.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Does the Bill itself lay it down that a man shall only do it once, and, if so, which Clause is it that makes that provision? Is the Schedule governed by the Bill or is the Bill governed by the Schedule?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In Clause 4 it is provided that
  "Notice in writing in the form set out in the First Schedule to this Act of his willingness to contribute to that fund and has not withdrawn the notice in manner hereinafter provided,"
  shall be given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"] The form in the Schedule is as follows:
  "I HEREBY give notice that I am willing and agree, to contribute to the Political
  1498
  Fund of the union, and I understand that I shall, in consequence, be liable to contribute to that Fund and shall continue to be so liable unless I deliver at the head office, or some branch office, of the Union a written notice of withdrawal: I also understand that after delivering such a notice of withdrawal I shall still continue to be liable to contribute to the political fund until the next following first day of January."
  So that when the would-be subscriber has signed that form, all he has to do is to continue to subscribe.
  Mr. MACKINDER rose—
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry I cannot give way, because I have a lot of ground to go over. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that this Bill was a deliberate act of class hostility, and the hon. Member who has just sat down said it was intended to destroy the unity of trade unions and was an abuse of power. To what class is this Bill hostile? [HON. MEMBERS: "The working class."] Hon. Members say it is hostile to the working class, but is it? I wonder who suffered most by the General Strike? Was it the capitalist class? it is true the capitalist suffered in his business but at any rate he did not go short of a meal. Can you say that of the working class who, by a general strike are thrown out of work, and tens of thousands of them were thrown out of work by the last general strike and are still out of work. Therefore it is clear that it is the working class that suffers most by a general strike and not the capitalist class. It is the working classes, the poorer classes, whose savings are reduced and the cost of whose living is increased; and yet this Bill, which is intended to protect the working class against a general strike, is said to be a Bill of class hostility. It is precisely the same with the Clauses with regard to intimidation. Who is it that is intimidated? [HON. MEMBERS: "The employing class."] That is just where you are mistaken. They are not in the least intimidated, and, the more you deny rights to minorities in the trade unions, the more it is essential to protect them. [interruption.]
  The right hon. Gentleman went a little further than his Leader on the question of appeal. He said that the duty of the Opposition. when it becomes a Government, no matter in what form this Bill

  1499
  may pass, will be to repeal the Act, I take note that the Labour party renounces all interest in amendment of this Bill. But what is the repeal that they feel obliged to support? When they go to the country they are going to say, "Return us, for we will repeal that Bill, we will remove the protection which it gives to the community—[Interruption]—against being starved into submission by a general strike." If you succeed in making the people treat you seriously, and not as mere boasters, do you think they will not do just as they did in the general strike? They will rise up and vie with each other to protect the Constitution of this country—[Interruption]—and there are some 500,000 of them who, although they voted against a political levy, have not been relieved of the liability to contribute to party funds with which they do not agree. You are going to say to them, "Change your allegiance, vote for the Labour party, in order that we may restore the political contribution—[Interruption]—and make you contribute once more to Socialist party funds." [Interruption.] There is something else that I wish to say. I do not understand the attitude of the Labour party with regard to intimidation. No one could have listened to the moving speech made by the hon. Member for Broxstowe—[Interruption]—without his blood boiling at the jeers and noises with which it was received. It was a courageous speech, and, never mind whether you agree with it or not, it was an honest speech—[Interruption]—and that interruption is the evidence of intimidation. [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to condemn intimidation, he did not seem to condemn the besetting of the workman's home. This Bill does protect the workman's home from being beset.
  On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman said that there is less intimidation in pursuit of working-class objects than by the squirearchy and the landlords of the country. He said, "We know from our electoral experience that there are many thousands of men who are afraid to have it known that they had voted for the Labour candidate." I have shortened what he said, but that is the substance of it. I wonder that he thought it worth while to trot out the old bogey of the intimidation of the
  1500
  squire and the landlord. They are not on their defence at this moment, or I could defend them. The right hon. Gentleman brought it out as a contrast. Let us assume that in some cases and at some time there was some truth in the statement that there was intimidation by the squire and the landlord. The State has provided protection against the continuation of that form of intimidation. The ballot now is secret; intimidation is illegal; anyone who intimidates in connection with an election goes to prison, and in certain cases the election is voided. That form of intimidation has been dealt with; is it wrong now to deal with another form of intimidation—the intimidation, not by the squire, but by the trade union boss, by the local leaders of the trade union? It is they who put obstacles in the way of men when they wish to free themselves from a political levy; it is they who urge proscription on the so-called blacklegs; it is they who organise picketing; it is they who shout down and endeavour to overawe the quiet man. [Interruption.] The quiet man seldom goes to the branch of his lodge, but now he is in revolt, not against the squire, but against trade union tyranny; and this Bill will give him some protection. This Bill will restore to him his freedom and that is why all that jeering which is organised from the top is not going to save you when you get down—[Interruption]—to the country. Only one member of your party has left you in the House of Commons but thousands—[Interruption]—will leave your party when you tell them that you intend to repeal the protection we are ensuring of their freedom.
  Mr. SEXTON: I congratulate the party opposite upon their latest advocate. He has but one saving grace—he has certainly added to the gaiety of nations. While I sat here, closed my eyes, and listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I almost visualised a change in the locality from the political arena to an arena of sawdust, only requiring the crack of the ringmaster's whip to complete the illusion. I have been a Member of this House for a good few years, and it has been my lot—I was nearly saying my misfortune—to listen year after year, particularly for the last eight or nine years, to the periodical presentation of King

  1501
  Charles's head by the political Mr. Dicks who are opposed to trade unionism. A new character has appeared upon the scene, and we now have Codlin and Short in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. There are also advocates in another place. I notice, from the reports in the "Morning Post"—and, of course, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the "Morning Post" never lies—that two Members of another place have been making speeches on this subject. Lord Birkenhead made a statement on Saturday to this effect:
  "We have tongues in our heads"—
  with respect to this Bill it would be more correct to say, "We have tongues in our cheeks"—
  "and, if these new opponents of ours imagine that by holding 3,000, or 30,000, meetings, they are going to terrify the Unionist party, they do not know us yet."
  His Lordship is mistaken. We do know him—we know him, not wisely, but too well. We know him as a political Equestrian who galloped into the Lord Chancellorship, not in defence of the King's subjects, like the ancient king's champion, but in defiance of the Realm and of the King himself. There is an old saying, "Put a beggar on horseback and he will ride to the Devil" and, unless his Lordship emulates that historic personage, John Gilpin, he will find himself with the Devil before very long. Lord Londonderry also is reported as having said:
  "False and malicious statements are being made broadcast by the Socialist party in connection with the Bill. We shall be prepared to face them and tell the truth."
  I do not think that what he said will be carried out by Lord Londonderry or anyone else. I have searched in vain for it in the representations of the Attorney-General on this Bill. All the arguments are being based, both by the Attorney-General and by other legal minds in this House, on the statement that this Bill is only to prevent a general strike. I want to say, as a responsible trade union leader, that we do not like strikes, and I give as my reason for that a very important one. Under normal conditions the position of a trade union leader, although somewhat varied perhaps, is a bed of roses as compared with the time of a strike, and therefore it is in our
  1502
  interest not to initiate or encourage strikes, but unfortunately the economic conditions under which we live give us no opportunity but to enter upon this process. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) in reply to a Member on the Liberal Benches made this statement:
  "I have already challenged the hon. and learned Member, and during the Committee stage he will have full opportunity of replying to it. I challenge him now to point out one single Clause in this Bill which makes that illegal when done by 10,000 which is legal when done by 10."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; col. 1371, Vol. 205.]
  I have no hesitation in taking this opportunity of accepting that challenge. Clause I lays down this principle:
  "It is hereby declared that any strike having any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged is an illegal strike."
  Dealing with that portion of the first Clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) attempted to put the case of the transport workers. He put part of it, but only a very small part of it. I am a responsible official of the Transport Workers' Union. Leaving that on one side for the moment, let me ask the Attorney-General what he means by trade or industry. The transport trade in itself is an industry. It comprises railways, ships, road traffic, passenger traffic, docks and harbours. We are told it is an offence to coerce the Government or to intimidate the community, but if the Government enters into disputes, and makes a political question of an industrial question, the blood should be on their own heads. When they come in and interfere, as they did, and make an industrial question like the miners' lock-out a political question, they have only themselves to thank. With regard to intimidating the community, suppose there was a railway strike. Has the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else ever known a railway strike or a mining strike, or a transport strike which did not intimidate the community? In the Transport and General Workers' Union we have sections comprising dock labourers, loading and discharging ships, road transport men, river and canal bargemen, and six or seven different trades within one industry. All these men are subscribing to one

  1503
  union. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an example. Supposing the bargemen had a dispute with a barge-owner within the provisions of this extraordinary Bill—a perfectly legal dispute under the Bill. The Clause says:
  "For the purposes of the foregoing provision a trade dispute shall not be deemed to be within a trade or industry unless it is a dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen in that trade or industry which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment or with the conditions of labour of persons in that trade or industry."
  Supposing blackleg bargemen come alongside a ship. We are compelled by the terms of this Bill to take goods from blacklegs who have put our own men out of a job. More than that, we are denied our legal right because we refuse to work with blacklegs, to the payment of strike benefit to which men in a perfectly legal dispute are entitled.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)indicated dissent.
  Mr. SEXTON: I may be dense, but if the King's English can be interpreted in any other way I do not know anything at all about the King's English. Further than that, Clause 2 legalises the black-leg. A member of a union has joined it with his eyes open, and accepted the rules and conditions that the principle of the union is to act collectively in all matters appertaining to hours, wages, and conditions of labour. The only way to get this is to negotiate with the employers. If the employers refuse to negotiate there is the weapon of the strike. We are told by this Clause that if a man defies his union, if he rats, and breaks away from them, he is to be retained as a member and to receive compensation from the funds which is denied to a man who has entered into a legitimate and legal strike. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that any Act you can place on the Statute Book would compel any ordinary human being to accept such a condition? I am considered one of the mildest-mannered revolutionaries, but even I, under such conditions, would absolutely refuse to obey any Act of Parliament which laid down these conditions. We have heard the minority movement denounced over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman is creating a minority movement
  1504
  inside the trade unions. Further than that, he is protecting the Communist minority. It may interest him if I tell him an incident which has happened. Trade unions, my own included, have taken action. They are suspending a man who had joined a minority movement, and broken the rules of the union. Even to-day that is going on. This Bill fortifies these men. One of the unfortunate effects of the Bill is the lamentable ignorance of even an elementary knowledge of the inside working of a trade union. I will tell you how the Communists are protected by the Bill. You cannot deal with them. What is sauce for the blackleg goose is ditto for the Communist gander. If you cannot expel the man who breaks his contract with the union and defies the laws which he has himself accepted, it follows that you cannot expel the Communist who does the same thing. Yet that is what the right hon. Gentleman expects us to do in this Bill.
  I will not deal with the other Clauses, because they have already been dealt with, except Clause 2.
  6.0 p.m.
  May I take this opportunity of expressing an opinion which I have held ever since this question was mooted. It contains a principle which is a complete travesty, a complete revulsion—I was going to say a complete prostitution—of all Parliamentary procedure and precedents. As I understand legislation and the law, any Bill which is placed upon the Statute Book becomes obligatory upon all His Majesty's subjects, except in cases where provision is made for contracting out or by exemption. But now there is contracting in. That is what it sets up, in principle, if it established and applied generally: Supposing an Act is placed upon the Statute Book with which I do not agree, if it is necessary for me to signify my agreement with that Act by contracting in, then if I do not agree with an Act of Parliament it naturally and logically follows that if I do not contract in under the Act I do not agree with I can defy and ignore that Act altogether. Clause 4 of the Bill reminds me of the professor's logic that "The horse chestnut was a chestnut horse." This Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament—and I say it quite seriously and without any attempt at a threat—will not be obeyed

  1505
  by those for whom it is intended. It is impossible to obey it under the conditions which are laid down. Whether the employers are included or not, it is impossible to deal with the employer in the shape of a lock-out.
  May I take the opportunity of giving an idea of the ramification of the Employers' Associations. Here is a chart, this large blue print, "Vicker's Maxim"—all these organisations, all these interesting surroundings, are managed from the centre, and each is a subsidiary of the centre. Fancy any man in any of these trades daring to assert himself, and daring to say that he is being unjustly treated. The word is passed round to everyone of these places and the centre as well, and the man has got to submit or starve. All they have to do is to shut down one of these departments and transfer the job to some other department. But worse still remains behind Here we have another amalgamation. Here we have Lord Buckley, formerly head of the firm of H. Seymour Berry, radiating from this centre again. Ships, ironstone mines, coal mines, steel works, branch railways, wagon building, cement works, and every conceivable trade you can mention, is managed from that particular centre. We have here the Allied and Associated Newspapers attached—North Wales and South Wales and London and all over the country, all of them feeding the centre and being part of the machinery. As far as lock-outs and employers are concerned, it does not matter a deuce whether employers are included or not.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can explain why it is, that in this great organisation the shares are only worth about 3s now?
  Mr. SEXTON: I suppose the legal profession has got its slice out of that. I think, that on more mature consideration, the Government will see how entirely unworkable an Act of this character will be. There can be no strike, legal or illegal, under the present Bill. As I told you before, we are in the hands of the employers. Attacks have been made on my own union, and the union of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), are carrying out efforts to deal with Communists and suspending those who are not carrying out their
  1506
  instructions. Now the branches are saying: "If this be the treatment we are going to get through trying to cleanse our union, then let the thing go and the worst come to the worst." In my opinion, the real spirit behind this Bill, the real source of all the mischief, is the political atmosphere of the Diehards. They are really responsible for this Bill, both politically and industrially. A good many of them consider that they have safe seats. The atmosphere surrounding them is not industrial. Therefore, they think that their own particular little circle is the whole world, and they form their opinions accordingly. If I may use an historic phrase, which was used at that Box many years ago, they believe that "the flowing tide" is with them. Let them make no mistake. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has doubts about the flowing tide. It is within the recollection of this House that he built unto himself an ark of the Covenant of Peace not very long ago, and we had some hopes that something would come of it. I want to say, quite frankly here to-day—I know opinions may differ on the question—that I sincerely believe that the right hon. Gentleman honestly desires to get peace. I believe that he has built his Ark of the Covenant because he really means well. Unfortunately, he has got a mixed crew. The old original crew was all right. They came up the legitimate gangway. But the crew is now a mixture of Diehard pierhead jumpers and sucking doves, deserters from the trade union movement. My sympathy goes out to him; I feel he is utterly disappointed on the job he has to do. He has got his doves in the trade union movement. They are now being sent out on an exploring expedition to see if there is any likelihood of the subsidence of the political waters. But history will repeat itself. They will come back like others have done, not with news of the subsidence, but as dirty ragtail doves, and because in the non-subsidence of the waters they found nowhere to rest their weary wings or feet. Eventually, the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in the very unfortunate position of being stranded on the top of a, political Ararat marooned, amid the joyous acclamations of the industrial classes of this country,

  1507
  who will be working out their own emancipation.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am sure that the whole House listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, though I am not certain whether we were all able to follow him in his pictorial illustrations of the theme or the maritime metaphores he gave us at the close of his peroration. The hon. Gentleman is a veteran in the trade union movement, a man who is highly esteemed and respected, not merely in this House but in the great union to which he belongs. Men of all classes have held him in the greatest possible respect through a long period of years. I felt that he dealt with a large number of Committee points in the course of his speech rather than with the general principles of the Bill, and I hope be will forgive me if I do not proceed to take these points up, because, in effect, it would resolve itself into a series of speeches on individual Clauses which I do not think, at this stage of the discussion, should be entered into. On one general matter which he raised, I entirely agree with him, and have done so ever since this Bill was published. I think that this Bill ought to deal, not merely with strikes but with lock-outs, and that the employers should be put into exactly the same position as the workman. I am certain that I am not only expressing my own personal views, but I am stating the opinion which is held by 99 per cent. of the party to which I belong since the Bill was published. I understand and appreciate the attitude taken up by hon. Members like the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), who has put the trade union point of view. We must all appreciate the fact that any trade union leader must naturally show hostility to this Bill. It makes modifications in privileges which have been long enjoyed by trade unions, and it proceeds to curb certain powers which they have used now for many years. Therefore, it is perfectly natural that there should be considerable opposition to the Bill from the Benches opposite. But I fail to understand the position in which the Liberal party puts itself to-day. I am sorry to speak at a time when the Liberal Benches are so empty, but, as there are not many opportunities for speaking during a De-
  1508
  bate of this kind, I must say what I have to say on the present occasion. The Liberal party, it must be remembered, on the question of the general strike, which is the main cause of this Bill, took up—
  Mr. W. THORNE: There never has been one.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am addressing myself mainly to the Liberal party now The Liberal party put itself absolutely in line with the Government in connection with the general strike, both in denouncing its inception and in voicing the general view that it was a great error and an attack upon the community. No one expressed that point of view with more accuracy of language than Lord Oxford and Asquith, and I hope the House will forgive me if, for reasons of greater accuracy, I quote the exact words which he used:
  "The general strike attacks some of the root principles of Liberalism: the supremacy of Parliament, the freedom of the Press, the right of the individual man to carry on his own work, the protection of the elementary liberties of the whole community against an organised invasion of a self-established dictatorship. It was, in fact, a war against society."
  That was the view which was uttered at the time by the distinguished statesman who was then the leader of an undivided Liberal party. The right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Liberal party in this House, although his language gave some cause for anxiety to his friends in the course of the strike, declared after it was over, in unequivocal terms, that the country had had to organise itself to defeat the stranglehold of the general strike. That was the expression used by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Of the word "stranglehold" I have a perfect recollection. Taking these two statements, it seems to me to be reasonable to suppose that the party which took that course of action in the General Strike should seek to do everything in its power now to make the possibility of a recurrence of such events entirely remote. One would have supposed that it was reasonable to expect, after all the disasters which the country suffered and the enormous waste of material wealth, that we should have had the complete support of the Liberal party in introducing this Measure. A stranglehold is a very awkward and uncomfortable thing, and I should have imagined

  1509
  the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would have given his adhesion to the principles which this Bill enunciates.
  There was another very distinguished member of the Liberal party who made two notable speeches, which no one who heard them in this House can ever forget. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that of all the influences which finally led to the Trade Union Council of this country seeing the error into which they had plunged, the most potent were the two speeches delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). What did he say in those two speeches? He said that the general strike which we were then in was illegal. He said that the people who had instigated it, who had connived at it and taken part in it had deprived themselves of immunity for their acts which the Trade Disputes Act would otherwise have given them. He said, further, that any man who refused to take part in that strike, and had thus disobeyed the orders of the executive of his trade union, could not be deprived of any trade union benefits, and that his position would be defended by any Court of Law in the kingdom.
  Those were the principles enunciated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Those are the first two Clauses of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not wish to spend time by reading them. I say, those are the first two Clauses of this Bill, and I feel sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree. He may object to the definition which is given of a general strike; he may say that the Clause is badly drafted, but he is tied by his three declarations: that the kind of thing, however you define it, which we had last year was illegal; that the people who took part in that kind of thing or connived at it had no immunity under the ordinary law of the land, and that the man who refused to take part in such a thing could not be deprived of his trade union benefit. Those declarations are precisely what we mean in this Bill, whether it is badly defined in the Bill or not, and, looking at the solemn warning which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the House and the country at the time, looking at the great service which he rendered in mitigating the prolongation of the strike, I say that
  1510
  we are entitled to ask him to support the principles of this Bill on Second Reading, which is all we ask at the present time, and to give the country the aid of his very powerful influence in putting these Clauses into such a shape as will make them agreeable to what he considers to be the proper principles to be applied.
  The right hon. and learned Member went much further, and again I hope the House will forgive me if I refer to the precise language which he used. It may be that there are a number of Liberals who wish to avoid supporting this Bill upon the weak subterfuge—I can call it nothing less—that this is not the proper time to introduce such a Bill. Whatever other Members of the Liberal party may think, the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has deprived himself of that particular kind of escape. He indicated—he more than indicated, he declared it to be his view—that the general strike had arisen not so much out of malevolence as out of a confusion in people's minds. Does not that confusion still exist? I think if the right hon. and learned Member listened to the confused noises in the House last night when reference was made to Mr. Justice Astbury's judgment—a judgment which he strongly supported—it must have been obvious to him that the confusion to-day is just as great as it was last year, and that it is as necessary to make the position plain in order that the ordinary person may understand it. If it was necessary last year for him to announce to the country what the real truth was, that explanation and that clarity are just as necessary to-day as they were then. He explained his point of view then. He said:
  "It would be lamentable if the working classes of this country go on with this business, without understanding that they are taking part in an utterly illegal proceeding."
  If we do not pass this Bill, it is perfectly certain that the working classes of this country will go on without proper understanding, and they will suppose that, in fact, these lamentable proceedings are proceedings which can be justified by the Opposition in Parliament. The lamentable condition of mind of the working classes of this country in this respect was repeated by a

  1511
  distinguished Member who sits opposite and who solemnly asseverated, yesterday, that the general strike was not illegal at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That opinion gets support from hon. Members above the Gangway opposite, so that it makes it all the more necessary for the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, believing what he does, knowing full well that in law and in his opinion it was illegal, and that this Bill seeks to declare nothing more in principle than the very thing which he himself enunciated, should give his support to this Bill and help to pass it into law. I should like to make one more quotation from his speech. He said:
  "When this disturbance is over and when Parliament resumes its normal function, it will he very necessary to appreciate that this general strike is not a strike at all."
  How does Parliament show its appreciation of a point of view? The only way that Parliament can do that is by making a declaration of what the law is, and it is that very declaration, supporting what was laid down by the right hon. and learned Member himself last year, that this Bill seeks to make. There are those, as we all know, who say that the time is not opportune. When would be a better time? Would it be at a time when trade is worse and when the relations between employers and workmen are worse than they are to-day. Would it not then be said that it was only adding fuel to the fire of controversy? On the other hand, if we were to wait for the time when conditions are better, would it not then be said that we were raising an old controversy and hurting the conditions of prosperity which were active and in operation? The fact is, that to people who are timid in taking decisions, it is never the time to take action. If it be said, as it was suggested in the letter of Lord Grey, that this is likely to stir up some enmity of feeling between the people who are engaged on the two sides of industry in this country, I reply that to leave conditions as they are is more likely to keep alive trouble.
  As has been shown by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), which were quoted yesterday, and we know it also from meetings of the Trade Union Congress,
  1512
  where controversy has taken place upon these matters, there are elements, recognised by the trade union leaders as in their midst, which are inimical to the stability of society and are seeking for means not only to ruin the trade union movement, as we know it, but also to ruin the permanent interests of this country. So long as it is believed or allowed to be believed that a general strike is a legal operation, which can be taken by any kind of people who have the means to support and initiate it, the words of Shakespeare will apply:
  "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, Makes ill deeds done."
  In my view, to leave things as they are is, in a measure, to condone the events of last year, and a further temptation to those who desire to see them repeated. I turn to the remark made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition at the moment; that it was not the events of last year which had brought about this legislation indicating that there have been previous Bills suggested by Conservative Members of this House. He said that this was a proof of the fact that this legislation had been intended all along. The right hon. Gentleman is generally very fair, but I think he was doing less than justice on that occasion to the Prime Minister.
  It is perfectly true that Bills have been presented to this House from the back benches of this party, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember what I think is the most dramatic scene in this House since I have been a Member, the occasion when a Bill dealing with the political levy was presented by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). The speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion required great courage. It also showed the deep humanity of the Prime Minister when he rejected an opportunity of passing that Measure and preferred to try and deal with this question in the most peaceful method possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not done it!"] His view prevailed. He asked for a condition of peace, so that the country might have an opportunity of recovering. What was the reply to the Prime Minister's appeal? The hon. Member who has just sat down said that the Prime Minister had been forced to take up this attitude by the back benchers of his own party, but

  1513
  the thing that forced him into this legislation, which he had adopted most reluctantly, was the General Strike.
  Mr. PALING: Have you forgotten the lock-out?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am dealing with the general strike of last year, and hon Members opposite will appreciate my point, which is that it was the general strike that persuaded the Prime Minister, very reluctantly, to bring in legislation of this kind in order that the country might be freed from a menace to its existence and the citizens safeguarded in their common liberties. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman who loads the Opposition at the present time went on to say that this Bill is really an attempt to render trade unions impotent. Other phrases of a much stronger character have been used in the country, but I will take the mild phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman in order to examine the truth of this charge. What are the objects of trade unions? I cannot do better than take them from the definition given of trade unions in the Act of 1913. It says that a trade union means
  "any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects."
  And it proceeds to define what are the "statutory objects." It says the statutory objects are:
  "the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members."
  I want to ask in what respect is any one of these objects menaced by this Bill? There is not one, and so far from this Bill being an attack upon trade unions, so far from it being an attempt to render them impotent, it leaves trade unions with a power which no other organisation throughout the whole civilised world enjoys. [Interruption.] Is it not a fact that the Trade Disputes Act does confer on trade unions the right of complete freedom from any action brought against them, and the officials of a trade union who procure breaches of contract a freedom from liability for these offences. So far as that right is given by the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, it entirely remains to every single trade union in this country. [HON. MEM-
  1514
  BERS: "No!"] The only curb upon them is when they take part in a thing which is known now to be absolutely illegal—namely, a general strike. [Interruption.] There is not a word in this Bill which takes away from any trade union that immunity which it has enjoyed for all these years, unless it does a thing which it has never done before, and which I hope it will never do again—namely, enter into a general strike.
  How can it be said that a Measure which leaves these powers to the trade unions can be any attack upon them, or attributes a desire on the part of the Government to render them impotent? In fact, there is nothing taken away which falls within the ordinary province of trade union operations. Reference has been made to the sympathetic strike, and I hope the House understands by this time that in no case is the sympathetic strike struck at by this Bill, unless it becomes—[An HON. MEMBER "Read the Bill."] That is my interpretation of the Bill, and, if the hon. Member can show me afterwards during the Committee stage that something else is necessary to protect a sympathetic strike, I shall be willing to support it. As I read the Bill, in the shape in which I propose to vote for it, it does nothing to interfere with a sympathetic strike unless it becomes an attack on the community or an attempt to coerce the Government.
  Mr. W. THORNE: "Or a portion."
  Sir R. HORNE: Again there is some argument as to a particular phrase, and if the hon. Member can show me that it is going to interfere with what is a real genuine sympathetic strike, and partakes in no way of the character of a general strike, he will have my support.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not want your support.
  Sir R. HORNE: There might come a day when the hon. Member might want my support. In the meantime my duty as a Member of Parliament representing my constituency is to express my views about this Bill. There are only two points in which trade unions can claim to be seriously affected. They are in connection with the two subjects of intimidation and the political levy. I do not propose to take up any time in arguing these matters, because there are many

  1515
  hon. Members who wish to speak. But let me say this, that so far as the Clauses with regard to intimidation are concerned I do not think any reasonable person can disagree with the general proposal of the Bill, which is to prevent such scenes of violence and terrorism as were common throughout the country during last year. We have been using for years now such phrases as "peaceful picketing" and "peaceful persuasion," but the picketing, as every hon. Member opposite is well aware and will acknowledge in a calm and quiet moment, is seldom peaceful, and in many cases the persuasion becomes of the most violent character. I do not propose to read any illustrations of it from the news of last year, but the "Daily Herald" gave accounts of what took place in many districts, and I shall be prepared to quote them in support of my view on the proper occasion. I say now without fear of contradiction that the scenes which took place last year during the course of the mining stoppage were really a complete blow at liberty and a disgrace to any civilised country. That is the kind of thing we desire to wipe out of the body politic, and is anybody going to tell me that the trade unions of this country are going to be weakened and rendered impotent because terrorism is destroyed in this country?
  The other question is that of the political levy. The history of this country politically, in connection with the franchise, has been that the open vote was done away with because it was thought people were intimidated by their neighbours into giving a vote which they would not otherwise have given. The secret ballot became a defence in this respect. The truth is it is realised as fundamental to a free constitution that every man must be at liberty to vote in complete freedom for whatever kind of government he wishes. If that is destroyed nothing is left. I heard an interjection this afternoon about the power of the majority, as if a majority has any sanctity in telling a man how he is to vote. Is it the view of hon. Members opposite that a trade union by a majority can tell one of its members whether he is to vote for one candidate or another? [Interruption.] That would be recognised as an interference with the liberty
  1516
  of the subject, but after you have balloted in secret to set up your political levy you then take upon yourselves the power of saying whether a man is going to subscribe or not.
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Mr. GIBBINS: He can get exemption.
  Sir R. HORNE: That is exactly the kind of interjection I was waiting for, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) stated in 1913 that the trade unions demanded as a right that after a ballot had taken place and the political levy had been voted by a majority then everybody was bound to contribute. Is that the theory of the Labour party today? Let us take the case in which at the present time a member of a trade union can claim exemption from this levy. We propose in place of that provision to say that he shall only be bound to pay it if he declares his wish to do so. I want to know what is the objection, what is the opposition to that? The case put forward is that it is going to hurt the funds of trade unions. It can only hurt the funds of trade unions if fewer people offer to pay than have previously asked for exemption, and if that be so obviously the contribution at the present time is an unwilling one. Is the trade union movement going to go to the country and assert that they demand the right to take unwilling contributions from their members? That is an issue on which I shall be very glad to meet anybody in the country. Time has shown—the events of last year have shown—that the period has arrived when it is necessary, in the interests of the State, that the authority of Parliament should be vindicated and the liberty of the subject reasserted. For my part, on the provisions of this Bill, I am perfectly ready to maintain the case which the Government have made. Of this I have a profound conviction—and I am not ignorant of the working-class people—that the one section of the community who will be more grateful for this legislation than any other is the great mass of the members of trade unions.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I desire to take a small part in this discussion, if only because I represent an industrial

  1517
  constituency and live in an industrial area, and am therefore constantly and closely in contact with the men and women whose livelihood and welfare are most concerned in the provisions of the Bill. I approach it purely from one standpoint and my words will be few because I intend to respond to the request which has been made that speakers should be short as there are many who desire to take part. I address myself to this question from one standpoint only. To me, the supreme need in the world is international peace, and I believe the supreme need of this country is industrial peace, and I have come to the conclusion that we shall never maintain international peace unless we can secure industrial peace. Holding so strong a view I look at any measure which is introduced into this House from the standpoint of how it will affect peace in industry. I try, with as open a mind as I can, to look at this Measure and to see whether or not it will tend in the direction of that peace. It is only because in my view that instead of tending to peace it will tend to strife that my feelings compel me to vote against this Measure.
  I believe there are conditions affecting trade unions and trade union law which might be well and reasonably faced, and I think ought to have been faced in that way. The difficulty is that they have been faced in the wrong way. If peace is to be secured in industry we must have the right atmosphere, and I submit with confidence that the Government could not have produced a worse atmosphere than it has produced by bringing forward this Bill. Other things might have been done to secure whatever good there may be in this Bill. The Government might have approached the moderates of the Labour party. There are moderates in the Labour party. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in his speech said the only persons who had any enjoyment out of the present controversy were the persons belonging to the extreme parties on either side. I do not belong to either of those extremes. I do not find pleasure in this controversy. I am only facing it because I am trying to do my duty to my constituents. What I put before the House is that the Government in a difficult and complicated
  1518
  situation have failed to take the course which they might have taken, and which might possibly have produced some good in the particular direction for which they have expressed a desire. There are men in the Labour party who are moderate-minded, and it is to them I largely look for peace in industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is one of them, and a few days before this Bill was produced he, in an interview, uttered these very significant words:
  "The old policy of antagonism and fighting has failed. It has been disastrous. It holds out no possibilities of getting labour its just reward. Let employers and trade unions try if co-operation will not succeed where strife has failed."
  I regard those as very noble words, coming from a man who holds a great place in what is called the Labour party, and I submit that he and others like him might have been met and consulted on a matter of this kind before such a Bill was produced. I believe results would have followed. I regret that that course was not adopted but there was still another method, if this Government had been guided by a sincere desire to promote peace and not merely to take the partisan view. That other method was to submit the whole matter to an impartial committee. If they had done so I am satisfied no Bill of this character would have been produced. I should like to put a point of view which has not yet been expressed as I expected to hear it expressed from men on the opposite side of the House who are not extreme partisans. I have seen it expressed, most admirably in my view, by the leading morning journal in the district where I live, and I should like to read the words which they use:
  "We are afraid it is impossible unreservedly to endorse the Home Secretary's suggestion that the real fight upon the Trades Disputes Bill is not between the Conservative party and trade unionists but between the revolutionary tail of trade unionism and the nation. It would be a very great mistake indeed to imagine that the Bill as it now stands is obnoxious only to extremists. It is not their opposition alone which Ministers have to encounter—it is the deep-rooted suspicion, mistrust, prejudice and loyalty of innumerable workers who do honestly fear lest the efficiency of their unions should be impaired, who do think that they see in the Bill a bias against trade unionism as such, who do bitterly resent it and who will be by no means easily persuaded of their mistake."

  1519
  Men and women of that description up and down the country will want to know a great deal more about the meaning of this Bill before they assent to it. My own view is that it has been conceived in such a spirit and presented in such a form that it is impossible to remedy it or make it a workable Measure. I have no doubt attempts will be made to do so. My expectation is that those very attempts will only show that it is impossible to alter the framework of the Bill so as to make it of any real service. There is another aspect which I should like to present to the House, and that is the Bill as viewed from the standpoint of Liberals and Liberal trade unionists. A few days ago I had the privilege of meeting the Association of Liberal Trade Unionists in the Midlands. They discussed the Bill from their standpoint. They felt that there were certain modifications which were desirable provided that they could be secured in a way which made for peace and not for strife; but, having gone into the whole matter as fully and carefully as they could, they, as Liberal trade unionists, passed a unanimous resolution urging me to vote against the Bill. Only last Saturday the executive of the National Association of Liberal Trade Unionists met in London, and issued a manifesto in opposition to the Bill. In that manifesto they used significant words which I bring to the attention of the House. If those words had been listened to, I think some benefit might have resulted, and the important thing is that this manifesto does not refer to the things of the present moment, but quotes a letter which they themselves addressed to the Prime Minister before this Bill rceived its First Reading. They say:
  "It seems to us that the avowed object of the Government could be best secured by an agreed settlement. Nor do we think that this would be so difficult of settlement as it at first sight might appear to be. If a special committee were set up on which the trade unions were adequately represented, there would be a spirit of frank discussion and a reasonable chance of reaching agreement which would be impossible in the clash of party warfare."
  The clash of party warfare has come by the introduction of this Bill as a partisan Measure, and the hopes of those who stood for peace, who longed for peace and who worked for peace in industry for many long years are shattered and dissipated by what I regard as the folly of
  1520
  this unhappy Measure. I would it were possible, even now, to appeal to the better sense of the Government and the party opposite to realise that what the country needs is peace, and that the country cannot get peace by this Measure. We have an indicaton of it, plain to everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. What would have happened, if by their action they had secured the moderate section of the Labour party, in some form, to ally with them to bring about some reasonable corcordat?
  7.0 p.m.
  What do we see. We see on the Front Bench right hon. Gentlemen, to many of whom I have always looked with hope and confidence to take their part in bringing about a settled condition of peace in industry in this country. What have the Government done? Instead of drawing them in the direction of a peaceful arrangement, they have thrown them into the arms of the extremists. Hon. Gentlemen must be very blind if they do not see that that is exactly what has happened, to the sorrow and regret of those who desire a peaceful settlement. What has happened? From all of their moderate men—from the ex-Prime Minister and from his deputy—we have had this declaration, a solemn declaration made on behalf of their whole party and from which, therefore, they cannot go back now, that in the whole course of the two years which will intervene between now and the general election, they will occupy their time, their thought, their energy and influence, to create such an agitation in this country that this Bill, if passed into law, shall be afterwards repealed.
  I, for one, look upon such a future as something well-nigh appalling. I do not believe in oscillation in politics, but you will always have it if the extreme diehards rouse the extreme Communists. I want to see the common-sense, hard headed, thoughtful and large-hearted men and women coming forward and taking their part and leading in a policy of peace in industry, which is the only hope for our land. It is because what might have been done has not been done, because an opportunity offered has been thrown away, because all peaceful overtures have been refused, and because war has been declared instead of peace, that I, for one, consider this Bill is not only a political

  1521
  blunder, but a political crime, and intend to oppose it will all the strength of which I am capable.
  Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I understand, though I do not share, the view expressed by the last speaker, that this Bill might have been postponed in the interests of industrial peace. I believe that view is mistaken, but all of us who realise the object with which that view is expressed must, of course, sympathise with anyone who feels it as sincerely as the hon. Member evidently does. But I wonder whether the unanimous view of the Liberal party is wholly influenced by that sheer desire to promote the cause of industrial peace? We observe the Liberal party taking the unanimous line that the Government are to be opposed. I cannot distinguish in practice between the attitude of the last speaker, and those Reds into whose arms he suggests the Government are pushing every moderate man.
  I desire, in the very few remarks I shall address to the House, to make a constructive suggestion for the consideration of the Government, and I only wish to preface that suggestion by a few preliminary remarks on the main features of the Bill. I am one of those who want to see high wages in industry and an improvement in the status of every working man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you not show it!"] I have done my best to show it in such opportunities as I have had. I believe that, looking forward and taking a long view, this Bill is in the interests of those who want to achieve that end. I say that because I believe that the provisions of the Bill are just. It may be that in Committee criticisms and improvements in language may be possible. I have not in my experience in this House ever seen a Bill discussed on Second Reading which was incapable of improvement in Committee. But the opposition to this Bill is the opposition of a party that was pledged, before they had seen a line of it, to oppose it line by line. That type of opposition cannot be based on the conviction that the particular proposals of the Bill, which they had not seen, are unjust.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) that it is desirable to put employers and trade unions of employers for all pur-
  1522
  poses on the same footing as men and trade unions of men and I hope that will be done in Committee, but I cannot help thinking that the opposition to this Bill, in so far as it was not merely an opposition, decided on beforehand for tactical purposes of party, is based on a misconception as to what the provisions really mean and really effect. It is also, I think—and I ask hon. Members opposite to ask themselves this question—based on the presumption that because it comes from the Conservative party it is put forward in the interests of employers and not of the employés. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The answer I have received to my suggestion is in the affirmative, and I ask therefore, for that very reason—because the Opposition says in answer to my question: "Frankly we suspect it because of its source"—that as fair-minded men hon. Members should consider the provisions of the Bill on its merits—[An HON. MEMBER: "And kill it!"]—and consider its provisions before they decide to kill it.
  The question of the general strike position as I see it is this. I believe all the lawyers in this country—and I hope I speak not as a lawyer but as an ordinary man—take the view, which I believe the great majority of the people in this country who are not lawyers take, namely, that if there is a general strike of the kind broadly described in Clause 1 of the Bill, it is not a thing which ought to be permitted. Whether that is by law to-day legal or illegal, seems to me quite a minor question. Lawyers, frankly, are greatly divided about it, and to the lawyers in the House I am going to say nothing except this, that they will find a very interesting discussion on the subject in an article by Mr. Goodheart, the editor of the "Law Quarterly Review," and Lecturer in Law at Cambridge, who takes the view that the general strike, as things are, is not illegal. If that be so, and it may be so—I express no opinion—it is essential that we should by law declare that that kind of strike for the future shall be illegal. Again, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hillhead on the subject of sympathetic strikes. In my view, no sympathetic strike, as such, ought to be illegal, and under this Bill none is made illegal. It is a very proper subject for discussion in Committee, and, to be per-

  1523
  fectly frank, if in Committee it becomes plain that the sympathetic strike for industrial purposes is made by the Bill illegal, let us put in words to make it clear that it shall not be so.
  With these few preliminary remarks, I now come to the constructive proposal which I desire to put forward for the consideration of the Government. I ask the Government to consider it when we put Amendments down on the Paper in detailed form. It is this: We, all of us, of every party and of every shade of opinion, except revolutionaries, regard the necessity for a strike as deplorable, and would like to avoid strikes and lock-outs if we can. We are all agreed that the nation and those engaged in every industry all suffer, and suffer sometimes terribly, through lock-outs or strikes, through enforced stoppages of work. The right to strike, the right to cease work must be preserved, except in the entirely exceptional case in connection with the general strike where we have to deal with it in a very special way, but, broadly speaking, the right to strike must be preserved. My view, and it is a convinced view, is that trade unions have been a great blessing to this country, as a whole—not always, for they have sometimes done much harm, but on the balance they have been a blessing and are right—and we must preserve them. But can we not preserve all the rights for which trade unions exist and for which the right to strike is necessary, without the necessity always of a strike?
  My belief is that a method of conciliation by a reference of the subject-matter of a dispute to an impartial body which shall investigate and make recommendations for a settlement, and publish the true facts about the lockout or the strike, is one which may prevent many strikes. I do not for a moment suggest that we should forbid a strike altogether. All I am suggesting is a method which will bring before the public the real merits of the case, so that public opinion can be brought to bear on the merits, and bring influence to bear on the side that ought to give way. That is a method which ought to be welcomed by all parties, both in politics and industry. The dominant consideration in the minds of most
  1524
  people to-day is, how are we to prevent the damage to the community that follows from great strikes? The Bill makes no provision for that. I suggest most earnestly to the Government that we should consider in Committee whether that is not possible. Take one or two facts about last year. I will quote them from an article in "The Banker" of October last, by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham).
  "The average loss of working time in the 21 years ended 31st December, 1913, was 8,737,000 days, compared with 27,761,000 days in the seven years ended 31st December, 1925."
  That is three times as many on the average, and last year the days lost were 162,784,000.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How many of them were connected with the coal lock-out?
  Sir L. SCOTT: Obviously, almost the whole. What the nation wants is to find an alternative remedy for such disputes which shall be less costly and saner than civil war in industry, and yet will give Labour the protection that Labour must have. I believe that that was partly the object of some of those who were anxious to have a secret ballot imposed by law. That is a method which I do not believe would work. I have said so in public, and I am glad to see that it is not suggested in this Bill. But the system of conciliation that I suggest is one that has actually been tried for 20 years in Canada, under the Act passed in 1907, called the Lemieux Act, and it has succeeded in Canada very remarkably—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]. Why should not we try it here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear support for it from the Opposition Benches. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own benches?"] Our own benches are treating me with the courtesy of not interrupting at all.
  Observe that I am not talking about compulsory arbitration. I do not believe that in this country compulsory arbitration is wanted by either side, and I do not believe that, with our psychology, it would work. Compulsory conciliation, by way of suspense for a short time of the right to strike is a very different proposition. May I ask the

  1525
  indulgence of the House while I make one or two quotations from articles written, some of them, by Members of the party opposite? Take that article from "The Banker," by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, which contains the following:
  "Some critics argue that the masses gain by this strife; but in employing an argument of that kind no knave ever sought so completely to deceive the people. On an analysis of the workers directly involved in disputes who accepted the terms specified in the period from 1910 to 1924, it is seen that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was victory for neither one side nor the other; the result was a compromise."
  He gives the figures, and then goes on:
  "These figures make clear one or two facts of the greatest public importance today: (a) The community as a whole suffers terrible and, possibly, irreparable loss; (b) Neither employers nor workers win, since compromise eventually commands the field; (c) The friction adversely affects large numbers of allied trades; and (d) as we shall see, grave damage is done to all contructive effort to improve the standard of life."
  Let me take another. Do hon. Members opposite agree with these statements?
  "In our case (that is Great Britain), trade unionism, being much older than in America, is more conservative, and its machinery is out of date in comparison with present-day environment and industrial evolution while the Americans have adapted themselves to the ever-changing conditions of industry. Though it may be considered heresy to say it in some quarters, it nevertheless requires to be said. British trade unionism will have to adapt itself to changed conditions. The sooner this phase of the position is recognised the better for all concerned, if we are to keep pace with changing conditions, to avoid industrial upheavals, and to give our country a chance to recover its industrial prestige."
  Do hon. Members opposite agree with that or not? Those are the words written to the "Liverpool Post" by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), who has addressed the House this afternoon, and I entirely agree with what he says, but mark what he does say. He says that trade unionism as a machine in this country is not perfect, and I would ask the Opposition to bear that in mind in considering this Bill upon its merits. Take another:
  "The only consolation one can get from this calamity is the hope that it may teach the country a lesson. Unless something can be done to stop these industrial conflicts the doom of Britain as a commercial nation is certain. They are acts of national suicide. …Compulsory arbitration is not pos-
  1526
  sible until Labour is assured that it can rely on a fair hearing and a just verdict. …Meanwhile, for the protection of the community, some legal machinery ought to be set up for the impartial investigation of the facts of a dispute before it gets to the length of strike or lock-out. Public opinion"—
  That is the point I desire to emphasise—
  "can exert a very powerful influence in the determination of an industrial dispute. At present it is ill-informed on the facts of a dispute. A preliminary investigation into the facts and a report on them by a court of investigation would enable public opinion to form an accurate judgment, and this would usually deter either party from causing a stoppage when the facts were obviously against them."
  That is the proposal that I desire to make in its essence, and the words I quote are the words of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in the "Daily Express" of 16th November last. Let me give another quotation:
  "I would put a further question. While I know the strong opposition to compulsory arbitration, not only on the side of the workers themselves, but of employers as well (and any talk of compulsory arbitration by legislation would simply do harm and not good), I am equally certain that conciliation has not been given a fair chance."
  That is the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Take another. Mr. Arthur Pugh, Chairman of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, writing in the "Express" of 19th November last, said:
  "Another dispute of such magnitude and duration might destroy the possibility of our country recovering its former position as a great trading and industrial nation. Is there no way of avoiding a form of industrial warfare so inimical in its results, not only to those directly involved, but to the community as a whole?"
  He goes on, further down:
  "The adoption of reasonable methods of deciding industrial issues is necessary as much in the interests of the parties directly concerned in the conduct of industry as in those of the nation as a whole."
  I could go on quoting from the writings of Mr. Robert Williams and others, but I will content myself with saying that with all those statements I am in complete sympathy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I really think the question of compulsory arbitration is beyond the scope of this Bill.
  Sir L. SCOTT: I was saying that I do not suggest compulsory arbitration,

  1527
  but suggest that there is as a lacuna in this Bill which ought to be filled immediately and that we should incorporate in this Bill, as a very important contribution towards industrial peace, a system of conciliation on the broad lines of the Lemieux Act in Canada. I submit, subject to your ruling, Sir, that I am in order in asking for the Bill to be supplemented in order to make it a better Bill than it is, good as it already is. There is a very interesting fact about what took place in Canada. The Act in question was a Federal Act. The Privy Council held in 1925 that it was ineffective, ultra vires, as it is called, because it was a Federal Act and the subject ought to have been dealt with by provincial legislation. Consequently, it fell to the ground. What happened? The thing that happened was this, that the Labour party in Canada, the trade unions in Canada, asked for the reintroduction of legislation on identical lines at once in all the Provinces of Canada in order that the gap might at once be filled. My authority for saying that the anxiety was that of the Labour party in Canada is that of a very leading Canadian statesman, who was over here for the Imperial Conference, and who took a large part in the introduction of the original Bill.
  What I suggest is that we should introduce in this Bill that great system of conciliation, in order that the facts may be made known through an impartial tribunal and published, so that the community at large may know the merits of the case, before a strike in essential services shall he proceeded with.
  There are various Committee points which I should like to have made, but in view of the time I will leave them and content myself with saying this in conclusion. Where the proposals of a Bill are just, my experience is that opposition does not continue long after the Bill becomes law. I do not fear the opposition that we have seen to this Bill up to now, because I believe the proposals of the Bill are just, and for that reason I believe that this Bill will not retard. as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) suggested, but will promote, the cause of industrial peace.
  Mr. ROSE: There was a placard posted on the walls of a dancing saloon in the Far West, which read: "Don't shoot the pianist. He is doing his best." I felt like that last night when the Attorney-General was propounding this remarkable Bill. I do not want my hon. Friends on this side to suppose that, because I am opposing this Bill, I propose to hold any brief for a general strike or any candle to the silly devils who promoted it, because I do not. Nor do I say that I am going to put in a plea for mass picketing, because I am not. My objection to this Bill is, perhaps with my usual recalcitrance, almost the same as my opposition to the attitude that my hon. Friends have taken up, that the Bill is based upon a policy of crude suppression, that it is utterly unconstructive, and that it is utterly useless. I do not like the attitude of my own party simply because it seems to be based upon crude denunciations and nothing else, and I realise that the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) put in the only constructive proposal there has been so far.
  Personally, I am not at all afraid to proclaim here what I have been asking and preaching for over 30 years. Ever since I learnt my lesson in the great engineering lock-out, I came to the conclusion that the strike was brutal and stupid, and that it got no whither, at any rate not to any place fit to go to. And when I come to look at the result of the strike, and study the history of the strike from ancient times, I think we may get some important information of what a strike is. I do not know whether anyone here remembers the story of the first strike recorded in history. It took place in a country called Egypt, which, I am given to understand, by the kind permission of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), is still allowed to occupy a place on the map. It was in a brickfield and the strike occurred over straw. It lasted a long time, and was very bitterly contested. All that the brick masters got out of it was 10 plagues and a washout. The other people, the strikers, were awarded with 40 years in the wilderness, wherein they all died except, I believe, two, Joshua and Caleb—organising delegates or something of that sort. They were the only

  1529
  two who ever came to the milk and honey. The story of the first strike was the story of the last one, and, with unimportant modifications, all the strikes which have intervened between the first and the last and will probably be continued in the next.
  The position that the Government have taken up in this matter is a sort of negation of the Prime Minister's attitude in 1925, when he prayed for peace in our time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends think that any self-respecting Deity is going to confer the blessings of an industrial or any other sort of peace upon a contumacious generation like this, and that merely praying for peace is going to bring it about. I think one of the Apostles said that faith without works is dead. No one doubts the right hon. Gentleman's faith, but I am bound to doubt the efficacy of his works, at least judging from what has happened. The General Strike, upon which nearly all this Debate has hinged so far—
  Mr. W. THORNE: There has never been one.
  Mr. ROSE: I cannot imagine anybody taking the general strike as a basis for legislation. It was a senile decrepit when they wheeled it out of Eccleston Square in a bath-chair. It was dead in 24 hours, and it was nothing but a corpse when they paraded it for the rest of the week, and, to all intents and purposes, it has since been not only dead but damned. When I see a Government passing solemn legislation upon an episode like this in our industrial life, I marvel, and when I hear Members of my own party talking about that miserable fiasco as a dress rehearsal, as a precursor to something better and more conclusive which may happen some other time, I have no words. I cannot express the abounding, abiding joy it would give me to be able to tell some hon. and right hon. Members in this House, irrespective of party, exactly what I think about them. With fortitude and heroic self-abnegation, I resolutely deny myself the enjoyment of this innocent pleasure Not only am I deterred by the exercise of that gracious gift of self-restraint with which Providence has been pleased to endow me so richly, but by some consciousness of the painful inadequacy of
  1530
  my vocabulary. I have been contemplating approaching that historic and noble institution of philological research which is adjacent to His Majesty's Custom House—I refer to the classic academy of St. Billingsgate. I am aware, however, of the very austere limitations imposed upon our Debates, and in the circumstances I cannot say anything to those persons whom I would address except, "Come outside and hear what I will tell you there." But in the House we can only deal with the limited resources at our disposal.
  It does seem to me that this Bill is not going to do anything Why introduce or pass a Measure which is going to do nothing? It is going to operate against something that cannot happen, and I do not know whether the Attorney-General has borne in mind that there are greater dangers than the general strike. In Bloomsbury there are some specimens in glass cases in the mummy department of the British Museum. How does he know there is not some latent malignity left in them? Supposing they were to come out in the middle of the night and float in their mouldy cerements into the Strand terrifying the Duke of Northumberland, and the editor of the "Morning Post"? It would be as sensible to legislate against a contingency of that kind as to legislate against any general strike, because one thing is certain—that the mass of the working men of this country will not have another one. If any hon. or right hon. Members on the other side of the House were to get about, not amongst the officials, but amongst the victims of the last, they would find that all this legislation we are passing now is aimed at a shadow. Besides, would this thing, if you pass it, even supposing you could operate it, which you never will, would it stop the general strike? It would not make it one atom more impossible than it is now, and all the Acts of Parliament you can pass will not make mass-picketing more illegal than it is to-day. You have ample law to-day to suppress any abuses of that kind, and you will have no more authority when you have passed this Bill.
  Then why is this irritating Measure being brought into this House? It is absolutely impossible that it will he for the benefit of the down-trodden trade

  1531
  unionist who suffers from the tyranny of his officials and fellow-members. When I hear expressions of solicitude for the liberty of the British trade unionists, I feel that Parliamentary language is hopelessly inadequate. Just imagine the state of things when you have passed your Bill, supposing you pass it. What are you going to do, then? You cannot operate it. Every trade union I know to-day—and I know something about some of them, at all events; this card in my hand is my fiftieth annual contribution card, so perhaps more than any other Member of this House I can speak with a longer trade union certificate than anybody else. All the time, I have held that it was right and proper for trade unionists to be registered under the law, as most of them are to-day, and that they should conform to the conditions under which their unions were registered. We are all registered now. You are going to alter the law. What becomes of our registration? We have all to alter our rules to fit your law. Do you think we are going to do it? Do you imagine for a moment we shall do anything of the kind? We shall not do anything of the kind.
  Anyhow, the great union, of which I have been a member for nearly 50 years, if my influence and my advice have anything to do with it, the Amalgamated Engineering Union will not alter its laws to suit you or anybody else. It would cost thousands of pounds to alter trade union law. You do not think it is a thing you can push through after a debate and a committee meeting or two. We have to hold preliminary meetings all over the world, and definite suggestions of those meetings have to be focussed at delegate meetings, which sometimes last four, five, and six weeks, and then there are all the trouble and all the labour. I suppose our strict duty as constitutional citizens would be, when you pass this Bill, to say, "Well, we do not like it, but as you have passed it, we will conform to it." That is where you put men whom I typify to-day, men who have always held certain views, particularly with regard to strikes and lock-outs, in the position of becoming rebels of the law, which we ought to respect, but we can-
  1532
  not, because you do not put it into respectable shape. When hon. Members on the other side of the House, Cabinet Ministers, great statesmen as they call them—I do not know why—prate about their solicitude for the liberties of trade unionists, it amazes me. There is one word and a short word, and I hope it is Parliamentary—cant. I am reminded of the popular ballad once written in reference to a gentleman of benign and pacific character in the East End. It goes something like this:
  "And'e'll smash his missus too,
  E'll bash her black and blue,
  I think he does these things without a'knowing it.
  Because he's gentle as a dove
  And his heart is full of love,
  It's the funny little way he has of showing it."
  I suppose right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to dissemble their love, but I cannot see why they want to kick us downstairs. I object to this Bill because it offers no constructive alternative at all. I believe that it is directed against something that is most unlikely to happen. I believe it will be inoperative. I believe that the masses of the trade unionists of the country will disobey it if there is any attempt to operate it. May I, in conclusion, say a word to my Labour friends here? I do hope, above all things, that they will not forget the facts. In the House men of all parties are exhorting each other to face the facts, and they are all resolutely and unanimously turning their backs on them. I do not like the facts any better than any of my hon. Friends. Whether they evade them, or deny them, or hide them, they are facts. Six years ago there were between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 organised workers in this country. At the end of 1924, according to the last official returns that we have, there were a little over 4,000,000, and everybody who knows anything about the working of trade unions knows that there must be considerably fewer than 4,000,000 workers organised to-day.
  Mr. J. JONES: 4,500,000.
  Mr. ROSE: I do not think so. However, suppose that we split the difference and say that there are 4,000,000 now. There are 16,000,000 wage earners and an occupied population of over 20,000,000

  1533
  in this island to-day. One in four of the wage and salary earners is a trade unionist. On what has the influence of trade unionism depended? Obviously not on numbers, but on the fact that it has secured, as employers all know, the best men, the healthiest men and the men of the best character and highest skill, with other industrial virtues in proportion. That is the strength of trade unionism to-day, not its numbers. Besides, numbers do not matter so much as perhaps the loss of moral force that there is. I mean that it has deteriorated. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends will deny that statement. These are facts that we have to face, and facts that the Government probably know better than we know, because they can get statistics that are not published to us. It seems to me that if the Government had gone the other way about this thing, if they had really wanted industrial peace and did not want more industrial strife, they would surely have framed this Measure with a regard to the feelings and the desires, never mind the political power, of these men who, after all, if a minority in the labour world, are at least the core and the strength of it. There is one other matter with which I want to deal, and here I quite disagree with most of my hon. Friends. There seems to be a terrible fear about the political levy, about contracting in being substituted for contracting out. It does not cause me one moment's alarm.
  Mr. J. JONES: Nor me.
  Mr. ROSE: When the Meysey-Thompson Bill was in Committee I was prepared to take it with both hands. It could not have hurt at all. Neither can this Bill. I am going to vote with my hon. Friends upon the Amendments to this Bill. Anyhow, I am not going to "rat" on my opinions. I suppose most of my hon. Friends will acquit me of any inclination in the direction of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer). There is this in it—most of us owe something, though not as much as the hon. Member for Broxtowe, to the political Labour movement, and those of us who try to keep something like a moral equilibrium know that there are things that a man cannot do with impunity and honour at the same time. I do not desire to pursue the hon. Member for Broxtowe,
  1534
  but I want to say to my hon. Friends here that I believe whole-heartedly, as I have preached and practised until my own brethren have hated me and called me traitor, in the doctrine of industrial arbitration. I have preached it in season and out of season, and I preach it to-night. I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool has said. I believe in beginning. I know that to push industrial arbitration on a nation like ours would be an absurdity, but I am sure that if voluntary arbitration were taken up by consent and loyally and honourably followed, in five years it would automatically become compulsory. That is what I believe, and I am quite capable of expressing that opinion here or anywhere else.
  I condemn this Bill because it does not offer any constructive alternative, because its motive is obviously political, and partisan political at that. It does not seem to me to be right either in politics or in morals. If you had left us alone we could have corrected, as we were beginning to correct, many abuses. It is a pitiful thing to me that when sanity was beginning to grow and when the cancer was being cut out, this thing should have been sprung upon us. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who say that this Bill will throw us into the arms of Communism. Here is one who will not be thrown into the arms of Communism, though they can do what they like. We have to do all that we can to oppose the Bill. I hope that we shall oppose it by considered arguments and not by interruptions. When the Government have got the Bill on the Statute Book we shall probably go to them and ask "What are you going to do next?" That is when we shall begin to oppose this Measure.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: We have had a very interesting Debate. I did not hear the whole of the speech of the last speaker, and therefore I cannot deal with the various points that he raised. It has been said that this is an attack on, and will damage, trade unions. I would like to say this to the various leaders of the great trade unions, in this House and outside it, who form the Trade Unions Council: Do you think that any Government, Conservative or Liberal, can do as much harm to the trade union cause

  1535
  as you yourselves have done? In the general strike you practically bankrupted all the trade unions, and you did infinite damage, from which it will take the unions years to recover. You took away a great deal of the public sympathy that supported the unions up to that time. No Government and no Act of Parliament could do as much damage to the unions as was done on that occasion. I do not say that this Bill is entirely due to that, for I think that this Bill was ultimately inevitable, and I will say why. I think that the Liberal party has to some extent not gone into the proper confessional position with regard to the state of the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] If there is any question of preference on this side of the House I think that on the whole we Conservatives would prefer you gentlemen of the Labour party to those of the Liberal party, because most of you, if you are of English or Scottish race, have only to be scratched and one finds a thoroughly good citizen, whereas the Liberals are and have always been more or less anti-national.
  8.0 p.m.
  It is the Liberal party that brought about the present situation. Consider the history of the 1906 Act. Up to 1899 there had been occasional actions for damages against trade unions. There was the Taff Vale decision in 1899. In regard to that decision the Conservative Government of the day thought it was unfair that trade unions should be liable for the torts or wrongs that their agents had committed, because they could not control their agents all over the country. They appointed the Dunedin Commission to investigate the position, but they went out of office before the framing of the Bill that followed upon that inquiry. The Liberal Government of the day brought in a Bill very much on the lines of the Dunedin Report, and then threw it overboard and accepted a Labour Bill, which the Labour party never expected would be accepted, and which the Liberal party never intended to become law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What was intended was this. Another place had kept the Liberal party out of office for over 20 years on the Home Rule issue. I think it was Thackeray who said there are only 25 Whigs in the country at one time and they feel that they ought always to
  1536
  be in office. To parody the words of Byron, "Hell hath no fury like a Whig out of office." They deliberately brought forward the Trade Disputes Bill of 1906 in full and perfect confidence that it would be rejected by the Second Chamber. [Interruption.] That was the intention. There is no doubt about it. It was a trick, a pure political trick. They put in that Bill a provision which will not be found in the jurisprudence of any other civilised country of the world. They put in that extraordinary Clause saying that a trade union, or their officials, might commit legal wrongs without being responsible in any Court of Law. They did great damage to the trade union movement when they gave them those extraordinary powers.
  We can do no greater damage to an institution or an association of men than to give them complete irresponsibility, because immediately thereafter the most irresponsible man is apt to take the helm and proceed to rule the institution. That is exactly what happened The extremist or Communist element saw that trade unions had been given these extraordinary immunities, which had not existed in this country since the Reformation. It was what the old Church used to claim—that it was above the law of the land; we had the Reformation to correct that. With that 1906 Act we got the same principle introduced into industry, and then extremists gradually got more or less into the control of the trade unions and ultimately brought about the general strike of last year.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: They took 20 years over the job.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I will tell you the reason why. Though the unions were given that irresponsible power in 1906, the real reason why it did not carry more dire consequences than it has carried is that the mass of all classes in the community are decent, honest citizens, and even if you give them the power to commit wrongs they will not commit them. That is why not very much advantage of that power has been taken in industrial disputes. Of later years a totally different spirit has crept into the movement. The older trade unions used to have as their first rule that no politics were to be introduced into any discussion at a lodge, and a

  1537
  member who broke that rule was liable to be fined. That was a very sound position to take up, because I cannot imagine anything more likely to lead to a disruption of the real work of a trade union than for the members of the lodge to get into discussions on politics.
  The 1906 Act also gave the power of mass picketing. That is a very bad thing, not alone for industry and the unions but also for the pickets, because it leads to strife with the police; and again and again I have seen a number of young fellows badly damaged as a result of mass picketing—young men who would not have dreamed of being with the crowd had it not been that they were encouraged by the 1906 Act. The Socialist-Communist movement, seeing that the trade unions were being relieved of all responsibility for any wrong they might commit, speedily proceeded to penetrate into their councils and endeavour to get control, and there is no doubt they have acquired a great deal of control in the unions and have begun to extract money from the trade unions' coffers for political purposes. That, however, was stopped by the Osborne Judgement. Again, in 1913, as a result of a bargain over the Ulster question, trade unionists got the 1913 Act. It was an entirely unjust proceeding to take the money of Conservative working men and apply it to other purposes. [Interruption.] It is no use to talk about majority rule. You have no more right to take a man's money for politics with which he does not agree than you have to take a man's money for a religion with which he does not agree.
  Dr. SALTER: You do it now.
  Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to put a question to him? Three or four times he has asserted that the law permits a trade union to commit legal wrongs. I would like him to explain how the law permits wrong doing, that is, a thing which is wrong in law? Is it not a fact that what the law permits is presumed to be right.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No. The Act says that no trade union shall be liable to be sued for any tort committed. It says that there is a wrong, for a tort is a wrong. It is the legal word for wrong. The law presumes a wrong has
  1538
  been done, in fact, the Statute says a wrong has been done, but it says that that wrong shall have no remedy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] I am just looking for the section. [Interruption.] Yes, this is a Liberal handbook.
  Mr. PALING: Fancy using that, after what you said about the Liberal party!
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Well, it has this advantage, that I got it for nothing.
  Mr. MAXTON: And you will find that that is what it is worth.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must point out that there is nothing harmful or immoral in quoting from a Liberal publication.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Here is what the Act says:
  "An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any Court."
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is that the exact Section?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, those are the exact words in the Section. That is a prima facie admission that a tort is alleged to have been committed. The law was made to say, "We do not care whether you have done a wrong or you have not done a wrong, there is not going to be a remedy." By passing legislation like that great harm was done. We gave them the same thing that the Devil gave Faust, the means of destruction and of bringing themselves into disrepute. It is far better that people should suffer for their wrongs than that they should be allowed to commit wrongs with impunity. The decent, law-abiding members of a trade union were deprived of the protection of the law. In former years, when any extreme course was suggested, gentlemen like the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) or the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) could say, "You cannot do that, you will come into conflict with the law." Now such a man has no shelter over his head. His scalp is exposed to the blows of the extremists, without the protection of any legal system. That is the ultimate thing that led to the general strike.

  1539
  The general strike is an old, old story. [Interruption.] In July, 1914, I was going down the Solent and a stockbroker's clerk aboard the ship told me that the general strike was coming on in September, 1914. He was busy selling, or rather his boss was selling, stocks to those who were in the know, with the intention of buying them back after the strike was proclaimed. He said it was all organised from Germany—just as the last general strike was organised from Russia. It was a very despicable thing the way in which the workers generally were rushed into the general strike. There was no consultation with them, they were just marched out, like conscripts, and most of the rank and file felt at the time that the Trade Union Congress had made perfect fools of them. At the time, no one was more frightened of the possible outcome of the general strike than the average trade union leader. He did not know what was going to happen, whether the country was going to be reduced to chaos or not. The leaders seemed to be dominated by the extremists. This Bill will help to rescue them from that position. It will restore to them their authority over their own union.
  The House will remember that I said that the 1906 Act was deliberately framed without any intention that it should pass into law. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said with reference to the 1909 Budget, it was a trap set to catch the large rats, and it was large rats that fell into it. The Second Chamber would have done better to reject the Bill, because then we should not have had the general strike. It was the Nemesis of the 1906 Act which has brought about the downfall of the Liberal party arid had a great deal to do with the creation of the Labour party, because the extreme element were given the power to coerce men into joining the unions and to keep them in, whether they had wanted to join or not. I have sympathy with the hon. Member who said yesterday that trade union subscriptions provide for men of their class to come to Parliament, but I do not think it is right that any body of men should have the right to tax—for that is what it amounts to—something like 4,000,000 of their fellow citizens for political purposes.
  1540
  There is a great deal of money raised in that way. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that we are the wealthy party. There are far wealthier parties than the parties on this side. The trade unions have a right to levy taxation on 4,000,000 of their fellow citizens. What use is it to them? The Labour party is the richest party, and one of the explanations of their enthusiasm for public life is that the Members of the Labour party can go anywhere about the country—I do not care whether they represent a parish council, a borough council or a county council—because the Labour party is generous enough to pay—
  Miss WILKINSON: Has the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire a right, to say in this House something that is absolutely untrue, and which he knows is untrue?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: An hon. Member may say something which other hon. Members think is untrue, but whether the hon. Member himself considers it is untrue I have no means of knowing.
  Miss WILKINSON: There are hon. Members sitting on these benches who have never yet had a penny out of trade union funds.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have no doubt about that.
  Mr. J. JONES: Where do you get your money from? You get it from the brewers.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: There was the case of a member of a co-operative society some time ago who complained that a certain amount of their funds was spent in politics. He consulted me and I advised him to get an injunction against the co-operative society. Afterwards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was consulted and he stated that if the rules were altered in a certain way it would be competent for this co-operative society to subscribe to the Labour party. I advised that it would be best to get the injunction at once, and I got it right away. The members then refused to alter the rules so as to permit subscribing to the Labour party. They defeated the politicians. My point is that if any working man is going to have his money used for

  1541
  political purposes, it should be done with his deliberate consent, and not simply by the vote of any majority.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: How far are you prepared to apply that principle?
  Mr. T. HENDERSON: Does that apply to co-operative societies?
  Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. Member apply the same principles to the shareholders in limited liability companies when the directors adopt a policy with which the shareholders do not agree?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is what I am coming to.
  Mr. J. JONES: What about Younger's Brewery?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Limited liability companies have no right to subscribe in that way, and any one can stop them doing it. It is perfectly well known that in the case of a limited liability company the directors have to act strictly within the charter of the company or they will be liable to be surcharged. A limited liability company has to appoint an auditor whose business it is to see that no money is spent outside the limits of the charter. There is no corresponding provision in trade union law, and that is a matter which ought to be attended to I hope it will be attended to by some future Government if not by the present Conservative Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Federation of British Industries?"] I do not know anything about them.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Surely the hon. and learned Member is aware that the Federation of British Industries has its own Parliamentary Committee definitely dealing with political affairs.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That may be quite true, but that does not permit the directors of a limited liability company to commit a malfeasance as regards their funds, and they have no right to do it. These are all points which require attention. The question of auditing should be looked into more closely because there is a great deal of uneasiness amongst vast masses of trade unionists that they are not getting justice in the matter of audits. I would like to point out that this Bill only deals with the powers of the Executive and that is a
  1542
  very different thing. When it is laid down that a limited liability company or a county council shall not do certain things, you are not then dealing with the rights of ordinary members. Under this Bill the rights of ordinary members of a trade union will be very much improved, and notwithstanding the information which has been given us that there are many hon. Members here who are not interested financially, there are others who are so interested, and my human sympathy is with them just as if I were in the same position myself. I do not expect any man to be a philosopher.
  Mr. J. JONES: You are in a similar position yourself.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown not to interrupt.
  Mr. JONES: I am not making any interruptions. It seems that a mark is being made of me. The hon. Member has charged us with being in the pay of certain people and he himself is in the pay of the brewers of Scotland.
  An HON. MEMBER: Everybody knows it.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is wholly untrue.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Again I must ask the hon. Member for Silver-town not to continue his interruptions.
  Mr. JONES: I am very sorry. I will not do it any more.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: With regard to the first Clause of this Bill, it is no use hon. Members trying to make our flesh creep by saying that all strikes will be stopped, because not even sympathetic strikes will be stopped. These arguments remind me of what happened when an Irishman saw a fight and he asked, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone else join in?"
  Dr. SALTER: Chestnuts.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Nothing could be more foolish when a particular industry is out on strike that anybody else should have a sympathetic strike. The correct form is that which is adopted in the United States, where if some of the workers in an industry go on strike because they think they are being harshly

  1543
  or unjustly treated the others stay on their jobs and finance them, and that is a far wiser thing. The other point, about not compelling employers to employ only union men, I think is only fair, because taxpayers may or may not be members of a union, and it would be very unfair to pass Regulations to compel men to join unions. No one should be entitled to use public money to facilitate the carrying on of any particular institution. Among other objections, it has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that this Bill will lead trade unions into a great deal of litigation. I do not think that that is a reliable statement at all. It will lead many trade unions to be more careful in what they do, so as to avoid litigation, and, if it is going to have that effect, it simply means that they will have to be more watchful than they have been, so that the wrongs of the past will not be repeated. I maintain that the whole result of this Bill will be to strengthen the trade union movement, largely because it will keep it concentrated on the particular task for which trade unions are formed, namely, to improve working conditions and conditions as regards hours of labour. It will keep them from rushing out and spending their money on useless and idle strikes. After all, by far the best thing for a union is so to apply its money that it is in a strong financial position, when, instead of having a strike, it can go to the tyrannical or oppressive employer and say, "Look at the funds we have got; do you not think we are ready for it?" If, however, they waste their money in general strikes or in taking part in other people's quarrels, it weakens their position, so that they have no strength to conduct negotiations for the benefit of their members. I say that this Bill is going to assist the trade unions. It will have the desired effect of protecting them against a number of officials and so-called leaders who have extreme ideas; for an executive is not the institution itself, any more than a Government is the country or a county council is a county.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Or a horse is a cow!
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Or perhaps I might say a donkey! I am perfectly certain that all rational men in the trade
  1544
  union movement are in favour of this Bill as a right and final deliverance, notwithstanding what the leaders may say. [Interruption.] I have had letters from members of trade unions supporting this Bill, and I have even had letters from one or two Communists saying that they have been refused exemption from payment of the political levy. This Bill, although it does not go all the length that it should—because I think the workers should be put on the same footing as all the rest of the community—does at least restore some of the liberties which were taken from the working man in the Act of 1906; and it will protect the country from savage attacks on it such as that of last year, and will restore the moral status of the workers, who will at least be within the protection of the Constitution, as they have not been since the year 1906.
  Mr. SHORT: The speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) are usually entertaining, if not convincing, but on this occasion I cannot congratulate him on being either. I desire, at the outset of my remarks, to make some reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), although he is not now in his place: I think that no man has had a more pernicious influence on the course of political and industrial events than the right hon. Gentleman. His speech to-night, like his previous utterances, has been of a most retrogressive character, and we find him, as usual, supporting every reactionary policy associated with the record of His Majesty's Government. He made some reference to the lock-out, and expressed his agreement and sympathy with the demand that has been made in some quarters for its incorporation in the provisions of this Bill. We have been told by the Attorney-General that this is not the method by which to deal with the lock-out, and that to include it would be of little value; but I must confess that the alternative proposal of the Attorney-General failed to convince me. I cannot bring myself to believe, and I doubt whether anyone on these benches can, that, even if the alternative were accepted, the present Government, or any Government constituted like it, would be likely to put into operation such a provision as the taking over of the works belonging to employers.

  1545
  The right hon. Gentleman made reference also to the general strike, and he was prepared to accept the interpretation of the law given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), reinforced, as he said it was, by the judgment of Mr. Justice Astbury. If that be the proper interpretation of the law, then the law as it stands is, I presume, quite ample and sufficient to deal with anything in the nature of a general strike that might occur, although the provisions of this Bill, in my judgment, are more likely to make a general strike in the future possible and probable than to prevent it. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that what we wanted was clarity. I listened to the long explanatory statement of the Attorney-General, reinforced by the speech of the Secretary of State for War, and I have yet to learn what is really meant, or what will be the final ramifications and the possible interpretations placed upon incidents that might be governed by Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead talked about the objects of trade unions and read out what constituted, under the law, the objects of trade unions. It is of little use having objects if we have not the legal means or the power to enforce those objects, though the objects in themselves are legal; and it is clear that this Bill, if placed upon the Statute Book in its present form, will limit, harass and handicap trade unions in every possible direction. I think the opinion, valued though it may be, of the right hon. Gentleman will count for little when some of the rank and file, and, it may well be, some of our trade union officials, are taken before the Court arising out of incidents which might occur and which might be covered by the provisions of the Bill. I turn now to deal with the speech of the Secretary of State for War. He differed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) because of a statement he made in connection with intimidation, but he did not accurately convey my right hon. Friend's statement. What he said was that there were thousands of supporters of the Labour party who were afraid to let anyone know they supported us because they were afraid of victimisation, and it is true. Through-
  1546
  out the constituency I represent there is this fear all the time, and there are men to-day who are victimised because of their political opinions.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the political levy. It is not a question whether it is right or wrong, but it is a question of the reversal of the law as it stands. I listened with some interest for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us in precise language the evidence upon which he and his Government justify a reversal of the law as laid down in the Act of 1913. He knew he was going to make his speech. But all he could do was to quote from his memory, and a very doubtful piece of evidence it was, judging from the comments that were made by men who knew on this side of the House of Commons. There is no doubt the introduction of this Bill is going to make our national life a regular cockpit of contention and conflict. I recall a speech delivered yesterday by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan), in which he questioned the psychological effect of the introduction of the Bill. There may be come very grave doubts as to the definition and meaning given to words and phrases used in the Bill, but there can be little doubt as to the ultimate effect upon the mind of the organised workers and the great masses of the working class. He seemed to think we must base the effect upon some hypothetical incidents of the future, as to what the Cabinet is likely to do in the way of legislation. We shall do nothing of the kind. People will draw their conclusions respecting this partisan legislation, this demonstration of class hostility from the record of the Government in the past. I have spoken to many intelligent men and women. They have not received the very best education. They have had an elementary board school education, but they can read with reflection, and they question the right of the Government to the title of Government. They look upon the Government as the representatives and the servants of a class. Never was it more demonstrated than during the tragic dispute of last year. Their economic position respecting wages, hours, etc., is due to their trade union effort, to their power of collective organisation and collective bargaining. They know they have been divorced from

  1547
  the land. They know they have no ownership of land or control of tools. You may say this Bill only deals with a general strike. You may tell them that is all wrong, that it is a false definition and a false meaning to give, but they believe that what you want to do, just as you have divorced them from the ownership of land and the means of production, is to own them body and soul. You want to make it impossible to withdraw their labour power, the only power they have to sell, the only asset associated with their economic and industrial life. We have no faith in what you will do in future so far as progress is concerned. The Prime Minister's intentions might have been good when he started, but he has lost his way in the undergrowth and jungle of conflict of ideas, of financial intrigue, of antagonism to the working class and working class interests, within his own party. This Bill is one more demonstration of the reactionary policy that the Government has hitherto followed.
  It is suggested that Clause 1 deals only with the general strike, and the Attorney-General dismissed it almost in a phrase. He told us in a few words what he considered to be an illegal strike, but he did not explain a single word. He did not attempt to give a legal definition. He did not suggest one example of what might arise in our industrial life. He never attempted to explain what was a trade or industry. He never stated what was the community or a substantial portion of the community. He never told us at what point the Government would be coerced or would consider that they were coerced, but he said this in another part of his speech which I will quote:
  "It has been said that when a workman is invited to join a strike he will not know whether it is legal or illegal, and therefore that it is putting him in an unfair position. There is this amount of truth in the criticism, that so long as some strikes are legal and some are illegal it necessarily follows that when any particular strike is proposed one has to consider on what side of the line it falls."
  Lower down he went on to explain:
  "Although it is not very easy, perhaps, to define in legal language what a general strike is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May; col. 1323, Vol. 205.]
  I doubt whether he has defined in legal language what a general strike is
  1548
  under the provisions of Clause 1. He made it perfectly clear who was going to decide. He made it clear that he had armed himself with a provision whereby he could prejudice—I use the word advisedly—the position of the workers. When a strike takes place and he does not know on which side of the border it falls, he can go to the Courts for an injunction. It is a very useful provision. The case will not be decided as to legality or otherwise until later, but he will get his injunction. I have no doubt, speaking with all the weight of his office and all the authority of the Crown behind him, the Judges will hesitate—I do not depreciate their impartiality—but they will rightly hesitate to give him his injunction when a man of his standing representing the Crown comes along and says:
  "I fear there is some likelihood of coercion of the Government or intimidation of the community or a substantial part of the community."
  It is a very useful weapon to have. I do not know whether it is not more useful than Clause 1, if it could stand upon its own. It is a wonderful instrument to hamper, to handicap, to harass, to prevent, to limit, not merely the right to strike but the possibility of a strike being successful. Reference was made, I think by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), to an example given in a little pamphlet written by a very able and distinguished solicitor who stated the case of a sympathetic strike and who seemed to think that that would be quite all right. All the railways could be stopped, all the trains held up and the community intimidated and no one would be coerced. I recall the industrial dispute of, I think 1919 or 1920, and one distinguished statesman, who usually sits on my left, said it was something in the nature of an anarchic conspiracy. An anarchic conspiracy will not, I presume, be the coercion of the Government or the intimidation of the public?
  Every dispute in the mining industry has been designated by the Press that influences politicians and even Governments in these days as an act to coerce the Government into purchasing and nationalising the mines. [An HON. MEMBER: "And there will be lock-outs still!"] It is useless to try to dismiss the matter by saying, "We only propose

  1549
  to deal with the general strike." If that be so, make the position quite clear. You should say what you mean and say it in precise language which will leave no doubt in the minds of learned Judges. The learned Judges, so far as I understand them, will not consider the intentions of Parliament. It will be useless for learned counsel to say: "This is what Parliament intended to do." It is what the learned Judge says. It is his interpretation of the Act that stands. I pass from that to say a few words about intimidation. We had one of the greatest disputes last year, and although it may have engendered bitterness and hatred it was largely free from anything in the nature of violence. There was no great measure of intimidation, and either the Common Law or the Emergency Regulations were found quite capable of dealing with the situation. The provisions of this Bill go beyond all that. If there were a case for the reform of trade union law—and this creates a revolution in its legal status—this Bill goes beyond the dictates of reason or what national safety would warrant. Trade unions and trade unionists in these days do not resort, as is suggested, to this form of violent intimidation. But under this Bill if a man walking down the street passes another with a shrug of the shoulder and gives him an apprehension of fear, of boycott, of hatred, of ridicule and contempt, he would be taken before the magistrates. It seems to me, if I may say so with due deference and respect, contrary to all sense of justice and common sense. It is a reflection upon the law and a reflection upon the profession that these words should be included. I have more regard and respect for the common sense of my fellow men. I believe that we shall be much safer if we rely upon their judgment and their common sense, their civic sense, their desire to serve the community and to observe the amenities of the community, than if we resort to this very doubtful legal phraseology. This Bill takes us back to the attitude of mind of 1824—the attitude of mind of oppression, of fear. I think it was Lord Jeffrey who said some time about the year 1825:
  "A single master was at liberty to turn off the whole of his workmen at once—100 or 1,000 in number—if they would not accept of the wages he chose to offer. But it was made an offence for the whole of the workmen to leave that master at once if
  1550
  he refused to give the wages they chose to require."
  Further, it is stated by the historian that
  "During the whole epoch of repression whilst thousands of young men suffered for the crime of combination, there is absolutely no case on record in which an employer was punished for the same offence."
  Under this Bill, in the case of every man who strikes, his act is doubtful. It is useless to try to dismiss it by merely saying that this Bill deals with the general strike while, on the other hand, employers can lock-out. We should have belief, we should have faith, in any suggestion of handling the lock-out if you had handled the lock-out by the coalowners. You let that go by. There was no coercion of the Government and no intimidation of the community, though thousands of people were starving and driven from one place to another. Though all that took place, you did not think, until you had introduced this Bill, until many of your own supporters and your own journalistic friends called attention to the absence of any reference to the lock-out of suggesting that you might take over the mines and work them for the benefit of the community. I cannot conceive of any strike or any magnitude which is likely to be successful, especially in the essential services, which might not reasonably call for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, and in saying that I would have him believe that I cast no reflection upon his judgment or his legal advice.
  As to the suggestion about the political boycott, if we are able to boycott members of our own organisation who do not claim exemption, shall we not be capable of boycotting them if they refuse to sign the form. Was there any greater absurdity? I do not claim to know a great deal about the law—I will frankly admit that I am but a learner—but my word! I should hesitate to include items of this character in a Bill for which I was responsible. This Bill revolutionises without just cause; it destroys the immunity which we obtained and enjoyed under the Act of 1906 in many respects; it gives new power to the right hon. Gentleman; it revolutionises our legal status. It is not an honest or upright attempt to remedy grievances and redress wrongs which might naturally and

  1551
  rightly arise out of the law itself or its administration, but it is an act calculated—I will use one of the words of Clause 1—to do injury to the working class, to restrict their power and usefulness, and to restrict their opportunity of improving their standard of life. It is an act of class hostility. It is a demonstration that there is a war of some kind going on between the classes. This spirit which we find permeating the provisions of this Bill will permeate our domestic life. In every dispute it will find its way into the homes of those involved, whether they remain at work or not. It will do nothing to uplift or improve the collective life of the nation, but it will do everything to lower and destroy it.
  Captain FRASER: The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) had declared that, in his opinion, the strike which took place last May was illegal. "Then," said the hon. Member, "if that be so, why do we need this Bill?" He has forgotten that there is a difference of opinion about that matter, and that the hon. and learned Member who advises the Labour party is one of those who thinks that the general strike which took place last May was perfectly legal. In these circumstances, and with that difference of opinion, there is surely every argument in favour of declaring the law at the present time. The hon. Member argued, and this was perhaps his principal argument, based still upon the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, that the objects of trade unions might well have been left to them unimpaired, but that they were to have taken away from them the powers which they required to carry out and make those objects successful. If one of the powers which they require to make their objects successful is the form of intimidation which is to be prevented by this Bill, it would be as well that the hon. Member should say so. I doubt if there is any hon. Member who would say that it is necessary in order to carry out the legitimate objects of trade unions that people should be intimidated, either physically or mentally. I doubt if there
  1552
  is anyone who would say that it is necessary to leave it open to pickets to attend in such numbers as they may please and to cause such fear as they conceivably can, without actually injuring people physically, in order to carry out their objects and make a strike effective.
  9.0 p.m.
  The principal matter to which I desire to call attention is one which I do not think has been referred to from quite the angle from which I am going to approach it. There seems to be a very distinct and definite difference of opinion as to whether or not a sympathetic strike is ruled out by this Bill. I want to examine precisely what Clause I conveys to me, and what I believe to be its import. Undoubtedly, in my view, as at present drafted it will prevent sympathetic strikes of a certain kind. It will prevent a sympathetic strike which is large enough to coerce the Government or to intimidate the community. Any sympathetic strike of the kind to which we have become accustomed will be as large as that. Anything in the nature of the triple alliance effort of some years ago or anything of the nature of the general strike of last year would be large enough to intimidate the community, or a substantial portion of it, and such a strike, whether it had a political object or not, would, in my opinion, come under the ban. I am not one of those who think that the Government or any Conservative speaker defending this Bill should apologise for their position. It is perfectly justifiable, and precisely what we set out to do. My reason for saying that is that a sympathetic strike of such a widespread character that it intimidates any substantial portion of the community has been shown by experience to be detrimental not merely to the community as a whole but to the men whom the strike was supposed to serve. I do not believe that there can be shown to have been any sympathetic strike in recent years in which the benefits sought to be secured by the original strikers were more rapidly secured or secured in larger amounts on account of sympathetic action. Who can show that the railwaymen have by sympathetic action ever helped the coal miners? I deny that in any efforts made to hold up the community and to bring indirect pressure to bear upon the coal-owners real good has been done to the coal miners. On the contrary, to take

  1553
  as an example what happened last May, the effect of the railwaymen's example was not to help the miners but to render the consumers in this country less able to return rapidly to a state of full consumption, which was to render industry in this country less capable of that quick recovery which would have meant a quicker recovery in the mines themselves. I believe it to be a fact that any sympathetic strike of the dimensions which would come under the ban of this Bill would, in effect, be aimed at the community and would be an intimidation of the community, and in these circumstances it is perfectly proper to try to deal with it in a form which will prevent any such occurrence.
  There are many critics of the Bill who say, "We agree that the general strike should be prevented, but this Clause goes very much further." But there is not one of them who has suggested a Clause which will prevent a general strike and would not go so far. It would be exceedingly difficult to find any other words or any other method with which to achieve the object which the Government have declared they desired to achieve, and which the leaders of all parties have agreed should be achieved, without going as far as Clause 1. May I take an illustration from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson)? He harrowed the House with the details of the transactions of certain employers, whose names he did not mention, who had made it exceedingly difficult, apparently, for a small number of men—shipwrights—in some seaport town to find employment. One must gather that secret correspondence had passed between employers in this industry throughout the land urging that none of these men should be given employment. The question whether these employers were acting properly or wisely is not relevant to the present discussion; but I want to emphasise this point, that the remedy which lay in the hands of these men many years ago is not taken away by this Bill.
  The remedy these men had many years ago they still have, and nothing in this Bill takes away the men's power to deal with such situations. Because there is trouble in one place and a certain small number of shipwrights are being badly treated in the eyes of their union, there was nothing whatever at the time, and
  1554
  there is nothing at the present time, to prevent a sympathetic strike. There is nothing in this Bill which will prevent a sympathetic strike in all the places where such men are employed within that particular industry. There was the remedy. This matter was previously brought up in this House, and it illustrates the kind of sympathetic strike which would be permitted if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. The kind of sympathetic strike which is not permitted is a strike which is of such a character that it cannot be regarded merely as a dispute within the industry concerned, but which becomes a threat to the nation of the nature of the strike from which we suffered last year.
  During the last week or two, there has been much campaigning on both sides of the House throughout the country, but for my part I have entirely failed to find among the rank and file I have met anything approaching the apparent or affected irritation, or the unity, which is evidenced in this House. I do not believe that the average trade unionist regards this Bill as an infringement of his liberties. It is an infringement of liberty, and there is no point in denying that. But whose liberty? Not the liberties of the men, but of the people who have misled them in the past, and who last year brought them into such a position that they were only extricated with the utmost difficulty. There is an interesting parallel between the attitude of hon. Members above the Gangway in this campaign and other campaigns which have preceded it. Before the trouble in China came to a head, and before the general strike of last year was effected, the leaders of the Labour party took the view that in the one case the action of the Government was right, that is in the case of China, and in the other case that the general strike was wrong.
  Before this particular controversy became acute, we find responsible Labour leaders, one ofter another, affirming that a general strike would not take place again. In all these three case, before the actual time came for unity to arrive, the trade union leaders were taking one definite view, the view in the case of the general strike that it was wrong, in the case of China that the Government were right, and previous to this controversy that a general strike should be prevented from recurring. In each of these three cases you can follow precisely the same

  1555
  thing happening—a resemblance of unity is brought about by some mysterious means outside this House, and we are told that the whole Labour party is united. It is after the event, strangely enough, that the leaders begin to remark the position they occupied before. They did it after the general strike. They have ceased now to talk about the iniquity of sending troops to China, and I predict that when this Bill becomes law, after they have talked as much as they have about it, that the more reasonable and more responsible leaders of labour will find that they are the people who will benefit by this Measure, and if and when they come to office they more than any others will need to rely upon the safeguards which this Bill affords.
  Mr. AMMON: I think it is time, in reply to the numerous claims which have been made from the other side of the House with regard to the obiter dicta of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that the general strike was illegal, that someone pointed to the fact that all the important law journals disagree entirely and absolutely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and say that no such case as he made out can be substantiated. They take the view which the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has expressed in this House. It may also be observed that if a general strike is already illegal there is no need to bring in this Bill; it can be dealt with under the law as it exists at present. If that be so, let the House be quite clear that all the misrepresentation and fear of a general strike are, after all, simply a smoke-screen behind which the Government are hiding in order to attack trade unions all along the line. If it was only the general strike, why bring in the political levy and all the other things mentioned in this Bill? Not one of them has any connection with a general strike, and it is undoubted that the intention and purpose of this Bill is to attack trade unionism. It is not often that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). In his speech yesterday, in his desire to observe the courtesies and amenities of this House, referring to the Attorney-General, he said,
  "We may pardon a good deal of the endeavour of the right hon. and learned
  1556
  Gentleman to state his case for the Government clearly; he has not had his head in the job to-day, because his heart is not in the job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; col. 1343, Vol. 205.]
  I disagree with that entirely. I believe there is no Member on the other side of the House whose heart and head are more in this job than the Attorney-General. No one has been more vicious and vindictive in his attack on trade unionism. Again and again he has displayed a constitutional inability to argue a case fairly or even set out the facts accurately when dealing with the Labour party, Socialism and trade unionism. He has followed that line throughout. This Bill was born in spite and vindictiveness. The Attorney-General has stated in this House that he is afraid of the rising power of the Labour party, and fearful and frightened men do spiteful things. 'That expresses the mind and attitude of the Attorney-General in this particular matter. He is incapable of approaching this matter impartially or fairly. He has misquoted and misrepresented the intentions of his own Bill, and when he referred to the Act of 1913 he has either overlooked it or he has done something still worse, for a man in his position, he has shown himself incapable of becoming acquainted with the law. [Interruption.] Let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite remember that the same right hon. and learned Gentleman led them into a mess over the question of the Irish deportees. He probably read the law in the same way then as he is reading it now; and he landed the Government of the day in for considerable damages and incidentally brought considerable grist to his own mill because he defended the case.
  Not only does this Bill attack trade unions all along the line, but it will bring the law into disrepute and contempt with large masses of the people. I have taken the trouble to look up the Debate which took place when this proposition was before the House in 1906 and I find that the Solicitor-General of that day, the late Sir William Robson, pointed out that trade unionists when going before the Courts, as trade unionists, were going largely before prejudiced bodies and were not likely to receive fair consideration. I refer hon. Members to Hansard of 25th April, 1906, Column 1490, where they will find

  1557
  a statement by the late Solicitor-General in which he pointed out that legal people had their prejudices against trade unions and could not prevent their judgments being coloured by those prejudices. In this Bill it is going to be a thousand times worse, because in very few instances, except in regard to penalties, is the law defined. It is to be left to the lawyers to interpret it and it is to be left to the Attorney-General—in this case a prejudiced and biased person—to institute cases and he is bound to prejudice decisions in regard to them. Yesterday the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) challenged the Attorney-General's statement with regard to the position of registered and unregistered trade unions under the Act of 1913 and pointed out that, contrary to what the Attorney-General said, unregistered trade unions when they desired to make a political fund had to seek registration and go to the Registrar-General. That is laid down in the 1913 Act and in order that it should be clear I will read that Section of the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the Attorney-General requires instruction. Section 4 of the Act refers to the setting up of political funds and it is as follows:
  "(1) A ballot for the purposes of this Act shall be taken in accordance with rules of the union to be approved for the purpose whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, but the Registrar of Friendly Societies shall not approve any such rules unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right, and, if reasonably possible, a fair opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured.
  (2) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is satisfied, and certifies, that rules for the purpose of a ballot under this Act or rules made for other purposes of this Act which require approval by the Registrar, have been, approved by a mojority of members of a trade union, whether registered or not, voting for the purpose, or by a majority of delegates of such a trade union voting at a meeting called for the purpose, those rules shall have effect as rules of the union, notwithstanding that the provisions of the rules of the union as to the alteration of rules or the making of new rules have not been complied with."
  That is fairly definite, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to prejudice the House and prejudice opinion, by making out an entirely different view, namely, that non-registered societies do not reveal their funds and
  1558
  do not go to the Registrar-General for that purpose. This Act says that they must. The Union of Post Office workers to which I belong was an unregistered society, and I have here copies of the correspondence which passed between the Registrar-General and my own organisation making it necessary that we should be registered and that we should give an annual return—as we do—to the Registrar-General for that purpose. I have here a copy of the ballot paper, a certified copy of the result of the ballot, and the initialled correspondence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted the line of suppressing the facts, or only telling half truths, in a manner which does not reflect credit on himself and is not fair to the House. I come now to a matter with which I am more intimately concerned. That is Clause 5 of the Bill and in nothing was the Attorney-General more misleading than in his references to that particular Clause. He said:
  "They (Civil Servants) expect and receive from the State great benefits. They have a certainty of tenure, they have pensions at the end of their service, and they have through the Whitley Council and through the Arbitration Agreements unrivalled opportunities of submitting their grievances. It is, of course, open to any civil servant to put forward any grievance through his Member of Parliament, and, of course, every one of us knows that such grievances are put forward from time to time. [Interruption.]"
  The interruption was when I interjected that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was driving those Members out of the House, and he replied by saying—
  "When I speak of somebody's Member of Parliament I mean the representative of his constituents. In exchange for these great advantages we think it only fair to insist that the Civil Service organisation shall be kept free from party or political associations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; cols 1338–1339, Vol. 205.]
  I want to say, in the first instance, that I think there never was a greater number of misrepresentations, not to say false statements, in so few lines as there are in these lines, and I shall endeavour to show where they arise. What are the great benefits which the civil servant receives? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting pointed out yesterday, there are about 300,000 civil servants, and, of these, 225,000 receive less than £4 a week including bonus and

  1559
  all benefits, and 150,000 receive less than £3 a week, so that they are getting pretty heavy benefits at this particular time! They are pensioned at the end of their service, but, it is well to remember just now when the Industrial Court is sitting inquiring into their conditions that the Department is always careful to include pension in their remuneration, and it is always taken into the calculations when assessing that remuneration.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Attorney-General in the £3 a week class?
  Mr. AMMON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman also says that civil servants, through the Whitley Councils, and arbitration agreements have unrivalled opportunities of submitting their grievances. I deny that absolutely. The Whitley Councils can be called together, but immediately the Department lodges an objection everything ends, and the Department, by their objection, can present a case going to arbitration. Only a week or two ago the Whitley Councils themselves asked the Prime Minister to receive a deputation in order that they might lay before him the failures and the weaknesses of the system, and the right hon. Gentleman refused to do so. The matter is still subject to correspondence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about these "unrivalled opportunities," and he is going to cut off the only means of ventilating grievances which these organisations have through their Members in this House and through their association with the larger trade union movement outside. The extraordinary thing, however, is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was open to any civil servant to put forward any grievance through his Member of Parliament. Does he know that it is contrary to regulation to do so in the Civil Service, and that it lays a man open to dismissal? I have here copies which have come to me quite recently—since the last General Election—of cases that have been reported to the Department of members of the Civil Service who have taken part in politics or in local organisations and who have approached Members of Parliament, and they have been dealt with summarily by the Department for doing that sort of thing.
  1560
  The right hon. Gentleman has the audacity to stand up in the House and say that they have that power. Why one of the reasons which in the first instance drew me out of the Service itself was because I refused to obey the law which prohibited me from expressing my political opinions. Because of that I had to choose either to remain in the Service or send in my resignation. No civil servant is allowed such expression within this Regulation or to have any alliance with any political party or to use any Member of Parliament. If he does it, he does it by running risks that are there under the Regulations. It is true it has been done but when this Bill is through the safeguard against victimisation for that will be removed and these people can be dealt without anybody raising a voice on their behalf either in the industrial movement or here. When I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman yesterday and told him he was driving those Members out of the House, he said he meant Members representing their constituents. He was wrong, because they could not go through their Members without running considerable danger of being dismissed. Again and again in my own position I received letters from members of my association saying that they desire to do this or that in politics and asking what their position is and I always have to tell them what are the Regulations of the Department and tell them that if they take such steps they do it at their own risk. This same thing was repeated by the Solicitor-General in a speech at Bristol on 28th April. He made the same statement, namely, that they had this right and he said that under the Bill a civil servant could be a member of a trade union and could even be chairman of his local Labour party. I have here copies of the Civil Service Regulations which prohibit any such thing and which have been enforced, particularly after a general election when defeated Tory candidates in constituencies where a Labour man was successful had written to the Department complaining about Post Office workers having taken part.
  I want to ask one or two specific questions. This Clause says that an association of civil servants may not have any connection with any outside organisation which has for its object the influencing or affecting of the remuneration or con-

  1561
  ditions of employment of its members. What precisely does that mean? For instance, my own union is associated with an international postal organisation. They meet periodically to discuss the conditions of service in other services in the world, the condition of employment and so forth. They are mostly academic discussions, but it cannot be denied that the meetings are held with the idea of seeing whether there is anything advantageous in one service or another which could be with advantage represented at home. I think I have a right to claim the courtesy of the Attorney-General's attention in order to ash whether he is prepared to answer that question. Would that society be prohibited under the Clause?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I heard the question of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. AMMON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman's attention was otherwise occupied; I apologise. Would this Clause, for instance, prevent this association being allied with the Workers' Educational Association? It will be difficult indeed to draw a line and say where an association directly or indirectly affected the remuneration or conditions of work. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is only since trade unionists in the Post Office and the wider Civil Service have been allied to the larger and general trade union movement outside that they have had anything approaching decent conditions whatever. My mind goes back to a picture which appeared in "Punch" before that time, and where it was asked, "Why are pillar boxes painted red?" The answer given was, "Because they are blushing for the postmen's pay." They need to blush even at this day. It is only since that association with the wider movement and since we have been able to voice opinions in this House that there has been any consideration given to the claims of these people.
  If this Bill is carried, it means that they will have no right of contact outside whatever, either on the industrial side or the political side, and, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, the regulations of the service will prevent them approaching Members of Parliament of any colour to ventilate grievances. With a Bill like this in operation and with a Government like
  1562
  this one, with the will to interpret it at its worst, heads of Departments and others will not be slow to give the very worst interpretation they possibly can to its language and a good deal of victimisation will take place. I have known—it was some time ago—men to be dismissed the service because they had taken part in politics and because they had openly allied themselves with one party or the other. They have done that and have been dismissed service for so doing, and they are still liable to dismissal under the regulations of the service, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The power that we have now was given to us under the régime of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. It was given on the representation of Mr. Sidney Buxton, the then Postmaster-General. It was born out of considerable experience which they had had of the amount of time and wasted energy which took place in this House through the constant ventilation of grievances of civil servants and others. It was in 1906 that it was recognised that they should be allowed to associate with outside bodies. Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General, including some right hon. Gentlemen now on the Front Bench, have testified in this House to the loyalty of service given by all the Departments of the Civil Service. These, like other people, have divided loyalties, as we all have but civil servants have never abused that position. If you press this sort of thing you will raise such conditions as will upset that altogether. What has happened? The Leader of the Opposition has already indicated that if and when the present Opposition come into power, one of the first things they will do will be to repeal this Bill. I say that is a disastrous and bad state of affairs to have introduced into Civil Service life, because it is forcing civil servants into the position of saying that this party will treat them more fairly as against the other, which is specially legislating to keep them out of trade unions. Above all—and this is a most extraordinary thing which has never been done before—it is legislating to throw political opponents out of the House, for my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) and myself will probably have to resign our seats if this is carried, and

  1563
  this is the sort of thing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite flatter themselves is playing the game.
  I would remind the House that attention has been called to the part that we played with regard to the general strike. We took no part in the general strike. We maintained a finer and better service than could have been done under other circumstances and for which we have received the commendation of the Department itself. By co-operation with them we were enabled to do it, but if you have chaos and ill-will, that sort of thing can never happen again. We have a right to contribute our money as we like to the maintenance and support of widows and children of miners. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that. At a deputation from a Civil Service organisation which came before him on the 1st March, he said people were entitled to give money out of their own pockets to relief funds. Then what is the occasion of quarrel with the civil servants? That is all they did, but this is simply an excuse for the party opposite to attack another section of the Labour party in an endeavour to beat their political opponents by unfair methods and to take advantage of their privileged position.
  Mr. CADOGAN: Another section of the Labour party?
  Mr. AMMON: I am a section of the Labour party.
  Mr. CADOGAN: The hon. Member said the Civil Service was a section of the Labour party.
  Mr. AMMON: If the hon. Member who interrupts me had listened he would have understood that I referred to myself as one of the sections whom the party opposite are trying to drive out of Parliament as representing civil servants in this House. Reference has been made, more than once or twice, to the statement of the Prime Minister some time ago when he prayed fervently that we might have peace in our time. I have been one of those who, at the risk of some misunderstanding by my friends, have always expressed my conviction that the Prime Minister was sincere with regard to that desire, but I am bound to say that we cannot believe that any longer, because what is the position? The right hon.
  1564
  Gentleman and his Government took definite sides with the mine-owners against the miners, and then, in order to divert attention from that, precipitated the General Strike, and they have sought by these means now to take advantage of their political opponents by unfair methods. I have been one of those who have worked in season and out of season—and nobody can deny it—in an endeavour to arrive, along proper, constitutional, ordered lines, both in the Civil Service and out of it, at a proper understanding and for a reasonable settlement and agreement of these difficulties, but I venture to say that the Government may win, and will win, a temporary victory with regard to this Bill, but they will sow such seeds of bitterness and hatred that they will not eradicate in this generation but which will grow up into a cleavage between sections of the community such as has never been known before, and men and women who have hitherto taken a different line and have tried hard to bring the two sides together will be compelled to throw in their lot with the other side and to say: "There is no honesty, no intention to do the right thing, but nothing but hatred, vindictiveness, and strife aimed at the Labour party because the working people of the country are at last coming into their own."
  Mr. CADOGAN: It is my desire to answer the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who has just announced that the Civil Service is a section of the Labour party, but before I do so I should like to make ore general observation. I understand that the more cautious advisers of the Government, in the first instance, were opposed to the introduction of this Bill, on the ground that it was a Measure peculiarly susceptible to the misrepresentation of the party opposite. I am glad that that consideration has never weighed at any time with the Prime Minister, for otherwise the output of legislation during the present Parliament would have been absolutely negligible. This Bill has been grossly misrepresented by the party opposite, even before it was printed, even before it was evolved from the minds of its promoters, and I have no hesitation in saying that, of all its Clauses, which are now available for proper investigation and discussion, none has been more

  1565
  misrepresented than Clause 5. It is for this reason, and also because I know there are a number of hon. Members opposite who are very anxious to take part in this Debate—and far be it from me to interrupt what hitherto has been a most convincing exposition of the futility and the artificiality of the opposition to this Bill—that I wish to confine my remarks mainly to Clause 5, and I have the less hesitation in taking the risk of taxing the patience of the House by discussing this Clause because for two Parliaments, one a very short one and one which, I hope, will be a very long one, I have served on the National Whitley Council, and, therefore, have had an opportunity of watching a movement in the Civil Service gaining ground which has influenced the Government, none too soon, in taking decisive action.
  The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), the ex-Solicitor-General, earlier in the Debate intimated that those who supported the Government in their wise determination to obviate the danger of the Civil Service becoming affiliated to outside political bodies, adopted that attitude merely from base party motives. I think that is what he said, and, if so, surely it is just as legitimate to argue that those who defend affiliation of the Civil Service with outside bodies lay themselves open equally to that consideration. What more cogent argument could you have against affiliation than that you have got its supporters and opponents mutually accusing each other of playing the party game? What more valid argument could you have against affiliation than that you have got the two parties claiming the Civil Service as their peculiar protege? Let me assure the House at the outset that I should adopt the same attitude to this question whether I considered that affiliation of the Civil Service with outside bodies was likely to react favourably on the fortunes of my own party or on those of the party opposite. I am not so much concerned this evening with the history of those insidious attempts on the part of extremists to capture the Civil Service for a certain political party, or to antagonise them to the present regime or even to the Constitution itself. The Attorney-General has dealt with that particular side of the question. I am rather concerned to elicit an assurance from the Government that they intend
  1566
  to persevere in their intention to preserve the Civil Service from party predilections of any kind, and my task has been rendered easy in one respect.
  If we could estimate the utterances of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite at their face value, I could only conclude that I have their unqualified support. I admit that it is not always advisable to estimate their utterances at their face value, for one very good reason, namely, that often successive utterances by the same right hon. Gentleman on the same subject are difficult to reconcile. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not remarkable for his consistency—he is too susceptible to environment—but if words have any meaning at all, he, at any rate, should be with me in spirit to-night, if he is not with me in body. At a recent banquet of civil servants—and when I say "recent" I think it was in the last two or three years—the right hon. Gentleman went further than merely to define the whole duty of civil servants to the State. He even admonished them. These were his words on that occasion. He said:
  "My friends"—
  I do not know if there is any sinister significance in his use of the personal pronoun, but I do not think so, because he went on to say:
  "you know no Government; you only know the State."
  Imagine a body of men with these winged words in their ears going off and affiliating themselves with the Trade Union Congress.
  "You know no Government; you only know the State."
  I could not put my case in a more succinct and comprehensive form. I think, then, I can rely without misgiving upon the support of the Leader of the Opposition, and I can rely with no misgiving upon the acquiescence of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), because when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a question was put to him on this very subject, he endorsed the sacred tradition of the Civil Service and went further and said:
  "If any member of the Civil Service elected to transgress this rule, the tenure of his post would be determined forthwith."
  I may say, therefore, that his support of my case is relentless; in fact, I may say almost brutal. If I were head of

  1567
  a Government Department, and one of my subordinates committed an Indiscretion of this nature, I might be disposed to give him another chance, but the right hon. Member for Colne Valley would determine the delinquent's tenure of his post forthwith. In case there are any on the benches of the Liberal party who hold other views, I may remind them that Lord Oxford, when Prime Minister, expressed the view that the integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service were part of the constitutional system of Great Britain.
  I admit I am faced with one difficulty. It is common knowledge that this agitation in the Civil Service has been engineered and sustained by certain extremely able propagandists, who have reduced the propaganda of the Civil Service to a fine art. I could give the House their names. I could quote their speeches and writings, and I could misquote them, and they would have no right to reply in this House, because, forsooth, through no fault of their own, they are not Members. I am one of those who consider it improper and ungenerous to steal a march on an opponent outside, by sheltering myself behind the immunities here enjoyed, when there is no chance of retaliation by those whom we attack. Hence my embarrassment. I hope to avoid this course as far as it is possible, but, in so far as it is necessary for my argument to transgress in this respect, I am quite prepared to make any of these accusations outside, so as to offer my opponents an opportunity of retaliating.
  It is necessary for the purpose of my argument to state my views as to the origin of this movement in the Civil Service. Like many agitations of a similar nature, I do not believe it is possible to trace its origin to any general desire in the rank and file of the Civil Service. If a civil servant, in his individual capacity, as the Attorney-General pointed out yesterday, has any legitimate grievance—and I am quite prepared to admit civil servants have legitimate grievances—or if he has any predilection in favour of an alternative Government, he shares the rights and privileges that any citizen possesses: he possesses the franchise. Again, in his collective capacity, if he is discontented with his lot, he has the opportunity, through his accredited re-
  1568
  presentative either on the National Whitley Council or through the Arbitration Court to air his grievances. I do not think I can go quite as far as the Attorney-General in saying that I think the National Whitley Council is the most perfect machinery for the purpose. But if that be so, surely it cannot pass the wit of statemanship to devise some more efficacious expedient for collective bargaining within the ranks of civil servants dissociated from party politics. But to advance the proposition which the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) advanced yesterday, that it is wholesome that civil servants should be able to play off one party against another, and to say, "If you do not give us all we want, we shall reject you"—to advance such a proposition is an absolute insult to any Member in any quarter of this House. It must be patent to the feeblest-minded civil servant that it must be to the best interests of the community, and, therefore, to the Service itself, that the Civil Service should be kept immune from the devastating influences of party strife. That was the accepted doctrine formerly in the Civil Service. What brought about the change of attitude?—I do not think there was ever a change of opinion. It was the steady, persistent propaganda of extreme partisans, one of whom is an avowed Communist, who, I quite admit, holds a very remarkable sway over a numerically considerable section of the Civil Service although that section does not contain in its ranks any appreciable—
  Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to challenge him to name the individual?
  Mr. CADOGAN: I said before, any accusations I make here I will repeat outside—[Interruption].
  Mr. AMMON: It is a false statement, and you know it.
  Mr. CADOGAN: Anyone can contradict me. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will not interrupt—
  Mr. AMMON: You kept up a continual fire of interruption.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I protest—I was a very patient listener. [An HON. MEMBER: "You interrupted every sentence!"] Perhaps I may be allowed to go on. [An

  1569
  HON. MEMBER: "Tell us the truth!"] I am prepared to repeat any accusation—[Interruption.] The reason this campaign has been so successful is not because it was ostensibly a party campaign. On the contrary, those who promoted it boast that it was instituted to attract men of all parties. The bait was a most attractive one. It was the bait of higher pay, shorter hours, and more generous pensions. An example of this type of angling is to be found in the manifesto issued last year by the Civil Service Clerical Association, warning its members that it was essential to prevent the defeat of the miners, because otherwise there would be a general attack upon the standard of wages, the Civil Service included. It is only natural that civil servants of the lower grade should listen to the voice of the charmer when that song is sung. It is so seductive that it must necessarily charm. But it is very regrettable to find that there are so many civil servants who have fallen victims to these blandishments.
  The cry was, "You want more pay and more generous pensions. Then pin your faith to the Socialist party and all these things will be added unto you." Those who say that should bear in mind that if the Socialist programme were carried out fully there would be a vast accretion of civil servants to the already overloaded bureaucracy. Where would the funds come from to provide an increase of pay and pensions for that bureaucracy? The Post Office is the happy hunting ground for these philanthropists who would improve the conditions of the Civil Service. If Post Office officials in their infatuation had cause to reflect upon what would happen to their pay and pensions, they would realise that under nationalisation not only would there be a Post Office, but a Land Office of gargantuan proportions, if the astonishing land proposals of the Leader of the Opposition were carried out. Every clodhopper and yokel would be a State functionary. I tremble to think of the effect on the pay and pensions of civil servants. Imagine this colossal army of bureaucrats advancing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and asking him to implement his promises of higher pay and more generous pensions! Surely then he would regret the feckless, reckless days when he promised all things to all men.
  1570
  Then he would wish affiliation to the devil and Socialists along with it. This agitation owes its origin entirely to the delusive bribe held out by the Socialist party of higher pay and pensions, even though there has been no word of explanation as to how the so-called reform could be effected.
  Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a speech?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not gather that the speech was being read, but the hon. Member is travelling over rather a wide field.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I accept your ruling, and will confine myself more rigidly to the question of Clause 5. The question of affiliation was, as everyone knows, considered by a Royal Commission in 1914, but unfortunately its findings fell on ears deafened by the clash of arms, because the Government of the day did nothing in the matter. In 1918, when it was decided to apply the recommendations of the Whitley Committee to the Civil Service, the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was recalled to the report that Mr. Bonar Law merely stated that a Departmental Committee would deal with the matter, and there the matter rested. But the propagandist did not leave it. They went on without restraint with their mischievous propaganda. In 1922 the Union of Post Office Workers gave £1,000 as an affiliation fee to the Labour party and £5,000 to be spent in contesting eight seats in general and by-elections. [Interruption.] When the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few months ago in reply to my question as to what were the intentions of the Government in this matter, informed the House what the Government proposed to do, the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) rose in his wrath and said that the Government were stirring up a nest of hornets. I do not think I have ever referred to Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowen as hornets.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: Is that the name? Is he the Communist?
  Mr. CADOGAN: Who said he was a Communist? [Interruption.]
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Member allow me?
  Mr. CADOGAN: I will not give way.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: If you will not play the game with a man who is not here, play the game with a man who is here. Will you play the game at all at any time? On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman earlier in his speech made a general charge against some Communist in the Civil Service. That charge applies to every single man, from the highest grade in the Civil Service to the lowest grade, and in spite of the repeated request the hon. Member absolutely refuses to give the name. Is that playing the game?
  HON. MEMBERS: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. MAXTON: No, it is a point of decent conduct.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a point of Order.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I would like to know what the hon. Member for North Camber-well means by the cost to the Government? Did he mean votes?
  Mr. AMMON: I would like to know what the hon. Member is talking about?
  Mr. CADOGAN: If the hon. Member looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see the reply to the question. If by cost he means votes, he can have it. The party opposite always thinks of acts in terms of votes. It may seem incomprehensible to them, but as long as I feel sure that I am advocating what is right the individual consequences to myself are no concern whatever. I am quite well aware that there is—
  Mr. AMMON: Why do you not have the decency to name the man to whom you have been referring?
  Mr. CADOGAN: Last August there was issued a circular intimating to the Government that a resolution had been carried condemning Government action in this matter of civil servants. We all know what these emanations are worth. The result of the voting, it is true, revealed two to one against the Government action, but since the ballot papers were not issued to those members of the association who protested against the action of the association in the general
  1572
  strike, and who withheld their subscription in August as a consequence, the voting has not been of much use. The Committee of the Civil Service Clerical Association, by arbitrary action which Mussolini might have envied, overruled their own rules, which forbade such action, but even so 5,000 of their members voted against continued affiliation with outside political bodies. It was stated by the right hon. Member for Platting that civil servants' grievances can only be investigated and redressed by Parliamentary pressure, but surely Parliamentary pressure can be exercised without Civil Service organisations being affiliated to outside bodies? A great deal of nonsense is talked about civil servants being powerless without the help of organised labour. That is only a prejudiced opinion of highly paid officials of labour organisations. It has been said that if the political units gain control they will gain control of appointments. The doctrine of spoils to the victors is pernicious enough in local government, but in the Civil Service it would be positively catastrophic.
  Of all the cases I have ever heard argued the case against Clause 5 is the weakest. As soon as the Government announced their intentions there was an outburst in the Press, and particularly in Civil Service magazines. I always think there is something artificial in premature screaming, but the similarity of the phraseology in this outburst on the part of various journals of the Civil Service leads to the conclusion that it had all come from one source. Surely we in this House must envy the situation of the civil servant, removed above political strife. With the exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, who in your high office are removed from the contagion of party politics, everyone in this House must envy the situation of the civil servant. On a recent occasion I was challenged by Mr. Bowen to define the whole duty of a civil servant. Surely it is a simple matter to do that. He ought to be capable, he ought to serve the Government of the day faithfully and loyally, and he ought to be capable of transferring his allegiance from the outgoing Government to the incoming Government with the same agility as was displayed by the Vicar of Bray. If I may be allowed to adapt a phrase of a famous predecessor of your-

  1573
  self in the Chair, the civil servant in his official capacity must have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak except as the Government of the day directs.
  The right hon. Member for Platting quoted the figures of recent by-elections as proof positive that the opinion of the country is against the Government's action in introducing this Measure. It is not so much on account of the advocacy of this Measure that we have lost votes, but because until recently the country was not sure whether we were going to introduce this Bill. I would like to read an extract from a letter, which is one of many, I venture to say, which hon. Members on this side are receiving:
  "As one of your constituents and a lifelong Conservative, it is with the greatest concern that I have followed the legislation of our Government. There were two main arguments of all Conservative speakers at the last election, economy and the Socialist peril. There does not appear to have been the slightest attempt to deal with either of these things. Russian influence is seen everywhere—"
  [Interruption.] I do not say that I agree, I am reading:
  "Russian influence is seen everywhere in this country undermining the morale of the working classes."
  I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why we lost so many votes at recent elections was because our supporters were unwilling to back us, because we had not dealt with the Socialist peril. A right hon. Member on the other side announced, what I suppose he had orders from the leaders of the party to announce, that if this Bill became law he and his party, if and when they had the power to do so, would repeal it. I would ask him to remember that when the Liberal party had the opportunity they did not repeal the 1902 Education Act, though we all remember what was said about that Act at the time, and I am obliged to say that though we have had the opportunity we have not repealed the Parliament Act. I think all who have followed the political history of the past 100 years will know how to estimate at its true value that kind of declaration.
  Mr. OLIVER: If the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) had been desirous of being fair to the civil servant he would have conceded to them the same right as is conceded to every
  1574
  other citizen of the country, the right to express their political views on all matters on which a citizen has the right to express them. If he makes a reference to one leader of the Civil Service being a member of the Communist party or a Communist, it is his duty, in fairness to civil servants themselves, to name that man, not outside this House but in the place where he has made the statement, that is, inside the House. Statements made here ought to be justified here, or not made at all. The hon. Member is in precisely the same position with respect to the Civil Service as the Government generally are in respect to the Bill. I have listened patiently to most of the speeches delivered in the last two days in the hope that we might have some clear exposition of the Clauses for the safeguarding of people who may be called upon to be judged by the Bill. The average trade unionist who may be in a trade dispute will want a clear understanding as to his rights. Although we have had the advantage of the speech delivered by the Attorney-General followed by a speech of the Secretary of State for War, I suggest that the majority of this House now is not clear as to the position of trade unions in relation to a strike whether it be a sectional or a general strike. Let me put a specific question to the Attorney-General. He has told us that this Bill is designed to make a general strike illegal. There is a very wide margin of difference between a general strike and a sectional strike and there may he many variations between. There may be one, two or three trades involved. There may be cross motives, and it will be on the more complicated issues that we shall require the legal guidance of the Attorney-General.
  To put a hypothetical case, what will happen if the miners and the railway-men simultaneously make an application for an increase in wages through their respective organisations? Would that constitute an effort to coerce the Government or intimidate a large section of the community? Supposing we have another miners' dispute and the railway and transport organisations, not desiring to blackleg, refuse to handle foreign coal? How does this Bill propose to define an industrial dispute of that description? These are points on which

  1575
  the trade unionists of the country desire some further guidance in addition to that which has already been given in this House, and I should be very much obliged to the Attorney-General if he will give us some definition of what would happen in such cases.
  Let us take the next Clause, in respect of a man refusing to take part in a trade dispute or, if he has taken part and desires to go back to work. Under the Bill he has either to be restored, if expelled from his union, back into the folds of the trade union or compensated or granted damages for loss of benefit. That may be the case of a person who himself has voted for the strike. Here we have the position that at a crucial moment in a dispute, for which the man himself may have voted, if he runs away he is to be placed in a favoured position which no other trade unionist has ever had before in this country either by Common Law or by Statute. What happens in the case of war? If at the crucial moment a soldier refuses to go over the top, and if he runs away when he ought not to run away, the penalty is death. If a man takes part in a trade dispute with his colleagues, and if he runs away he is going to have a favoured position, and the law is to be altered to meet his case. The Tory party is practically saying to these men, "You have turned traitor; you are the stuff the Tory party is made of, and we welcome you." I wonder how the Attorney-General and his colleagues in this House would act in their clubs? If men do not obey the rules, if they break the rules, they are not promoted to be grand masters in their organisations; they are generally rejected. Why in Heaven's name, should the trade unionists of this country be put in a different position to any other section of the community? This Bill, Clause by Clause, seems to have an inverse reasoning as compared with anything else we have had.
  I want to say a word or two in reference to the position of the local authorities. Local authorities, under the Bill, are to be put at a disadvantage as compared, say, with private employers, if trade unionism is not to be made a condition of employment. It has been my privilege over many years to meet
  1576
  many employers of labour—private employers—who make it a condition of employment that the men whom they employ must be members of a trade union; because the best private employers realise that the negotiations in regard to hours of labour, wages, or the general conditions governing short time, should that occur, are all carried on by trade union officials, and many employers of labour lay it down as a condition that men shall belong to a trade union if they are to be employed by them. We find that to be the case in trades such as artificial stone, clay, elastic web and other important industries in this country. Nevertheless, in this Bill, although a private employer may, because he thinks it desirable that he should employ trade unionists only, for some reason or other the Government come along and say that, while the private employer may do this, because he believes it to be to his advantage, a democratically elected body, although they may follow precisely the same reasoning, are refused permission to do the same thing. Whether you take that clause or any other Clause which has been discussed during these last two days, you find that there is a direct hit at the trade unions, with no other than a vindictive intention to strike a blow at them, not because of the general strike, for the general strike could have been dealt with by a one-Clause Bill, without eight or nine Clauses covering political levies and matters of that kind.
  My last word on the Bill is in relation to the political levy. In my own organisation we have roughly 145,000 members, and, in the last return, I think something like 240 claimed exemption. I have heard it asked in this House to-night, what is the great difference between contracting in and contracting out, if there is coercion taking place? My colleagues know full well, and the Government know full well, that a man may vote for political action, and the more active members will contribute and send in their forms, but there is always a difficulty in getting a large number who though in favour of political action—Socialist political action—it is always difficult to get these people to send in their forms. It is the indifferent ones whose coppers you wish to take away from our funds. Some

  1577
  of us are just as eager to obtain industrial peace, perhaps more so than some hon. Members across the way, but as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) pointed out, this Bill is not going to make industrial peace possible. It will make those people who believe in peaceful methods in industry declare war, because war will be necessary to safeguard the elementary interests of an industrial democracy.
  Mr. D. REID: I only wish to deal with one aspect of the case. When the Attorney-General was moving the Second Reading of the Bill, some comment was made on the fact that Northern Ireland was excluded from its scope. My right hon. Friend pointed out that Northern Ireland has its own Parliament, and that labour matters were matters which, under the Act of 1920, were relegated to that Parliament. That answer, of course, was technically correct but, notwithstanding that, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) said, we must face the facts, and for this purpose the facts are too strong for what the Legislature has done. There are two Clauses in the Bill which directly concern us in Northern Ireland. The first to which I wish to draw attention is that about the political levy. The fact is that the vast majority of trade unions in the North of Ireland have their headquarters on this side of the Channel. That means that no legislation passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland can affect the constitution of the unions to which they belong. With regard to the general strike, that is a local matter. The Parliament of Northern Ireland can pass legislation dealing with intimidation. That also is a local matter. The question of political contributions is a matter which concerns the constitution of the unions as a whole, and the headquarters of the unions not in Northern Ireland. Further than that, the machinery does not operate. If a man wishes to get exemption and does not succeed, his remedy is to apply to the Registrar. The Registrar is in England and his jurisdiction only extends to England—that is, the Registrar of the country in which the trade union is registered. On the other hand, if a man is in Northern Ireland, there is a Registrar in Northern Ireland, but the head office of the union is not within his jurisdiction. Therefore, our trade unions are in a much
  1578
  more difficult position than English trade unions.
  I am speaking definitely on behalf of a considerable body of trade unionists, men who are active members of their unions, and for reasons which are well-known, the vast proportion of these men are not in agreement with the political objects of the Labour party. A very large number of them have told me they want this exemption. They find it difficult to get exemption, and they have asked me and my colleagues—certainly myself—to support this Clause in this House. If there is any further supplementary legislation needed to make this matter effective in Northern Ireland, I think the trade unionists in Northern Ireland will use their influence to such an extent that any legislation that will be enacted there will probably be similar legislation.
  Mr. DUNCAN: There was no general strike in Ireland.
  Mr. REID: No! This question of the political levy is a question of common justice. The bulk of our men are either Conservatives or Liberals—they are not Socialists—and they object to contribute to a Socialist political fund. The Act of 1913, to which lion. Gentlemen opposite seem to pin their faith, was based on the one principle, which was, that a right was given to use the machinery of trade unions for the purposes of political action, but it was subject to the qualification that any man who objected should be excused contributions. The machinery for excusing a man from contribution has broken down. [Interruption.] There are many men in Northern Ireland who contribute at the present time because they are unable to get exemption. I am stating what I know to be a fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] There are many men in Northern Ireland contributing to Socialist trade unions' funds at the present time because they are not able to get exemption. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are really claiming is a vested interest in the breakdown of the machinery of the Act of 1913. Members sometimes talk about vested interests on this side of the House. What they are really claiming is a vested interest in the breakdown of the machinery of the Act of 1913. They know that the

  1579
  machinery of the Act of 1913 has not been sufficient to exclude the man who does not want to come in. They think that that contributes to their point of view and are unwilling to see this House change it.
  The other Clause of the Act to which I wish to call attention is the Clause which limits the political activities of civil servants. Now if the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Liberal benches—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked me for five minutes only, and I called him on that understanding. I must reserve the claim of the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), who is to follow.
  Mr. REID: I am very sorry. I have no intention of transgressing. The one point I wish to make is this. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) were here now, he would see that one of the things which hampered administration in Ireland during his regime was the fact that a very large proportion of civil servants in Ireland of the lower grades were affiliated to outside organisations. I say that it is almost inevitable that those in outside organisations should be included in the Bill.
  Mr. WALSH: Whatever may be the opinions of Members in any quarter of the House as to the desirability or the undesirability of the Bill before us, I think everyone will admit that no more important event which so vitally affects the industrial life of the nation has taken place during the last 100 years. I think myself, that if this Bill were given its proper title it might be described as a Bill for the repeal of all the trade union legislation passed since 1824. There cannot be the slightest doubt that if this Bill does become law the workers of this nation will be thrown back into a position exactly identical with that which they occupied 103 years ago, before the repeal of the Combination Laws under the Government of William Pitt. The Attorney-General, in moving the Second Reading, expressed the belief that as the details of the Bill were made plain it would commend itself to the judgment of fair-minded men in the country. If he is of that belief, it is very regrettable
  1580
  that he did so little to simplify that which is admittedly obscure or to make clear so much that is ambiguous. Everybody agrees that the main Clause as it affects the industrial activities of trade unions, is Clause 1. It declares any strike illegal if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government or to intimidate the community or any substantial portion of the community. If hon. Members will pay a little attention to the matter they will sec that the Clause contains double and alternative penalties. Intention or design to coerce the Government might be completely absent, but if the effect of such action is calculated, even though it entirely fails, to coerce the Government or to intimidate any portion of the community, every person taking part in that action, not merely the leader but every person taking part, thousands and tens of thousands of people who may be separated By scores of miles from the origin of the trouble, will be liable to heavy fines and long imprisonment.
  The right hon. Gentleman in the very lengthy remarks which he made yesterday did not give us any idea of the meaning of the word "community." It is a word which is very comprehensive in character. It may mean a very small community or it may mean a very large community. The true meaning of the term will be conditioned by the circumstances of the particular case. So also will be the decision of the magistrates. What is the meaning of "a substantial portion of the community?" I remember, on one occasion, reading a story of two very distinguished men, both lawyers, one a very stout, big man, six feet four inches in height, and broad in proportion, and the other being much more distinguished from the intellectual point of view. They went to a meeting and were the only two people present; but the following morning in a report of the meeting it was stated that a large and distinguished audience attended that particular meeting. When they saw each other later, the more substantial man, physically, inquired from the other how the report came into the newspaper. "It is perfectly correct," said the other. "You are large and I am distinguished." Is that the sense in which the words "substantial portion of the community" are to be interpreted? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that upon

  1581
  the meaning that will be given by the Courts to these words, quite obscure, of which no definition is even attempted in the Bill, will depend the fortune and the fate of thousands upon thousands of workers. Imprisonment, fines, all kinds of penalties, will hang upon the interpretation given by the Courts to words which are very obscure. Any person taking part in a dispute, in the furtherance of any dispute, in declaring a dispute, or in instigating a dispute, if that dispute is likely to affect any substantial portion of the community, then from that very moment the strike becomes illegal. Can any hon. Member imagine any dispute of any kind that is not likely to affect "any substantial portion of the community" or to intimidate any substantial portion of the community? Quite a new interpretation is given to the term "intimidate." Any person who believes he is liable to suffer soma loss is, under this Bill, intimidated. It does not mean physical intimidation.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but in fact the definition which he refers to only applies to the words in Clause 3, Sub-section (2).
  Mr. WALSH: There is no definition in Clause 1 at all, and it is upon that. Clause that I am speaking, and as there is no definition in Clause 1, or in any other part of the Bill except in Clause 3, I submit that the only meaning that can be given to it by the Courts is the meaning conveyed in Clause 3 on the use of the term in Clause 1. What other interpretation can be given? There is only one interpretation. The very first Clause in which the word is used is Clause 1, and I submit that the Court would have no alternative except to place upon the term used in Clause 1 the only interpretation that is given to the term at all. Is "calculated to coerce the Government or to intimidate the community or any substantial portion of the community." I submit that under the wording of this Clause, no possible strike can take place that would not be brought within the scope of this Bill. When the process of collective bargaining has failed, when the workmen in their negotiations have resisted a proposed reduction by the employers as long as they possibly can, when they are driven to cease their labour as being the only means whereby
  1582
  they can hope to maintain their standard of life, I submit that no possible strike can take place, under the provisions of this Measure, without rendering every man, from the leaders downwards, liable to fine and imprisonment. If that be the case, then the alternative is that the man becomes a felon and a criminal or else he is condemned to industrial servitude as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said yesterday. It is the alter native of serfdom or criminality.
  In those circumstances how futile it is to lead the House to believe that Clause 1 deals mainly with the general strike and with the prevention of the circumstances in which general strikes might recur in the future. What is a substantial portion of the community? Let me put the matter once again. The miners for over 100 years have been in the very forefront of these legal conflicts. That is not because they are cursed with a double dose of original sin; it is simply because the nature of their calling hides their grievances from the public view. The nation, the community as a whole, allows them to grovel along in secret year after year, and only when oppression has reached the boundary of human resistance is the nation made acquainted with the conditions under which the people are working. I will take a present illustration. The minimum wage of the miners was fixed by this House 15 years ago, and the legal minimum wage has never been changed from that time until now. The cost of living has gone up by 85 per cent. since 1912. There is, even now, a desire to raise that minimum wage in accordance with the greatly increased cost of living. Supposing that desire should take definite shape and become part and parcel of a real movement to raise the minimum wage to something comparable with the, great increase in the cost of living. The minimum wage is mainly fixed by county areas, and I think everyone will admit that the population of a county is a substantial portion of the community. If the miners in a county for which this minimum wage is fixed endeavour to raise their wages in accordance with the vastly increased cost of living, it is certain to affect a substantial portion of the community, and the men at once become criminals because of this Measure.
  At the moment I am not talking about the Government. They affect a sub-

  1583
  stantial portion of the community as well as the Government. It is a double condition and there is not the slightest doubt that the Attorney-General of the time, if this Bill became law, would be entitled to proceed, and probably would proceed, to the Courts to get an interim injunction preventing the men from taking any action pending the further development of the situation. In any case, within the terms of this Bill, every one of these men who rightly struggling—if one may quote the great utterance of one of the noblest men who was ever a, Member of this House, and who in speaking of an oppressed nation referred to them as rightly struggling to be free—to raise his standard of life, takes this action, will from that very moment become a criminal under this Clause. That is to be proof of the Prime Minister's desire for peace in his time and of the Government's desire to give full scope to the legitimate activities of the trade unions!
  I do not propose to carry that any further, but I say that the Clause as it stands makes it utterly impossible for any strikes of any substantial magnitude to take place at all. It does condemn the work people to one of two alternatives, either to risk criminal proceedings and take the consequences, or to be content with a state of industrial thraldom. A good deal of talk has been heard about victimisation and intimidation. I submit that the law as it stood and as it was passed by the Conservative Government of 1875—a law for which they have taken tremendous credit during the last half century—does itself adequately deal with intimidation—intimidation by workmen, not intimidation by employers. Of course, on paper, there was technical equality. In actual fact, as has been read out to-night and as hon. Members know quite well, there has never been a vestige of equality between the penalties visited on workpeople and those imposed on employers when guilty of similar conduct. Why, Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act deals with
  "Every person who uses violence or intimidates a person or his wife or children or injures his property or persistently follows him from place to place or hides his tools or clothes or other property or hinders him in the use thereof or watches or besets the house or place where such other person
  1584
  resides or works or carries on business or happens to be or the approaches of such house or place."
  The only thing that was permitted under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, was the process of peaceful persuasion and peacefully communicating or receiving information, and even that is now to be so hedged round as to make that one small thing for which the Tory party has taken such credit to itself since 1875 practically useless. The one thing for which the Tories were to be congratulated, and for which indeed trade unionists might very well be grateful, was the provision enabling a person peacefully to picket and to communicate or receive information, and now, under this Bill, even that small provision is to be practically destroyed.
  It is said that the provision in regard to apprehension of boycott or loss of any kind or of exposure to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, is really giving the same power to the trade unions as they have hitherto enjoyed. There is not an hon. Member in this House who does not know very well that it is impossible for any person to take the quietest action imaginable, to endeavour to communicate information or to receive it, or to picket with a view of giving to the person so picketed a chance of knowing the exact circumstances of the situation, without rendering himself liable to fine or imprisonment once the person picketed or to whom the approach has been made states himself that he apprehends some loss, or boycott, or exposure to hatred ridicule or contempt. Every one of these provisions is of such a character as to make the effective exercise of the powers of trade unionism impossible and to reduce the trade unions to practical impotence. That is undoubtedly the motive of the Bill. I hate imputing motives myself. I always desire to deal fairly and to discuss in a proper spirit the provisions of any Measure that comes before this House, but there cannot be the slightest doubt that, from the first word in this Bill to the last, nothing but class hostility and antagonism to trade unionism have been the actuating motives.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Sir Robert Hutchison.]
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  PROCEDURE (UNOFFICIAL MEM BERS' BUSINESS).
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to consider the present allocation of time for such Public Business (whether Bills or Motions) as is not Government Business, and to report whether any alterations in the Standing Orders relating to the transaction of such business are desirable."
  Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Park Goff, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lees-Smith, Major Owen, and Sir Robert Sanders nominated Members of the Committee:
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:"
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  LAND SETTLEMENT, HARRIS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Byres Monsell.]
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I only desire to occupy a few moments in asking the Secretary of State for Scotland some questions regarding the release and future prospects of the Scaristaveg raiders, as I know that, after the Secretary of State has answered me, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) desires to put a further point. On the last occasion on which this question was raised in the House, the 13th April, the Lord Advocate made some remarkable statements, to which, unfortunately, we were unable to reply in the time. Since that date these five raiders who were in Inverness Gaol have been surreptitiously released. I say "surreptitiously" because the law agent was not informed until after they had been released, and, as I understand it, is not yet informed on what conditions, if any, they were released. But from what information we can get we learn that these men received a conditional promise of some kind, that if they would behave themselves and cease land raiding for the next six months, steps would be taken to provide grazing for their stock,
  1586
  and some other promises were made to them. I am not surprised at the release of these men.
  Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not desire to mislead the House. I went to Inverness last Friday. I reasoned with these men. I disabused their minds of the teachings which had been put into them by wild and irresponsible men. I asked them to give an unconditional undertaking that they would obey the law as other law-abiding Highlanders, and they said "Yes." That is why they were let out.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I think we might have the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am going upon information supplied to me by the legal representatives of these men, and if it be the case that these men gave an unconditional promise that they would go back to Scaristaveg and starve, if they gave an unconditional promise that they would go back to the other conditions under which they have been existing for the past few years, then I am much surprised. I, too, have seen these men in gaol, and the statements they made to me are definite and emphatic, that under no circumstances could they go back to starvation unless they got promises of land to cultivate. I am not surprised that they were released in view of the difficulty the Government must have in defending the statements made by the Lord Advocate on 13th April. Those statements simply cannot be justified. Let me give one or two by way of illustration. I think the Secretary of State himself informed me, in answer to a question, that these men's relatives, 34 dependants, were being given Poor Law relief. My information is that the Poor Law relief they were getting amounted to 2 lbs. of oatmeal and free drinking water. If that statement is inaccurate I think the Secretary of State should have the earliest possible opportunity of denying it. Then we were told by the Lord Advocate that one of the men, a shepherd named MacDonald, was, as a matter of fact, already a smallholder that he sublet a smallholding to another individual. I made inquiries about that and the facts are these. The man left this other holding, on the other side of the island, five years ago. Eighteen months ago he surrendered his title to this holding—he gets not a penny for it—to his uncle.

  1587
  Then, we were told that this same man, this alleged profiteer in land, was a shepherd in the employment of the man whose farm was raided. My information is that he left the employment of that man four years ago, that he worked two months without pay, that during the War he got the magnificent salary of £20 per annum, three bolls of meal, and the right to graze a cow The Secretary of State declared that these five men were scored off the list for all time, that so long as he had anything to do with it these men would never get holdings, that these raiders were not only to be punished by the ordinary processes of law, they had not only to thole their assizes, as we say in Scotland, or to do their two months in Inverness Goal, but they had, in other words, to suffer the perpetual punishment of starvation, that the Secretary of State of his own hand was to import a new punishment, the punishment of perpetual starvation for these men. I do not believe that he had any legal title whatever to do that.
  What is the situation now? Are these men to get land? The Secretary of State pays their expenses, presumably, back to Scaristaveg; he lands them back where they were. Are they to get land? Are they to get an opportunity of earning their bread by the sweat of their brow, or are they to be condemned to perpetual starvation because they raided these lands at Scaristaveg? I hope we shall have a complete explanation from the Secretary of State. At the same time, I congratulate him on having seen fit, even at this belated period, after one month, to release these men from prison. They are not criminals—no criminal charge of any kind has been laid against them. I trust also, he will be able to assure the House that there will be no further penalisation of these men, and that they will get an opportunity of doing what they want to do, namely, to earn their bread in an honest way.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I think the whole House will admit that the position of these unfortunate men reflects no credit on this Government or any Government which has been in office since 1918. The case of these men has been callously ignored by Government after Government and by Scottish Minister after Scottish Minister. I hope the right hon. Gentle-
  1588
  man the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), when he goes north, will explain to these men why he himself did so little to expedite their settlement on the land. [Interruption.] Someone once said that if you would know the merit of a Government you need only observe the condition of the people. Who are to blame for these men going to prison? Not the men who have been misled and misguided and led into prison against their own will. I saw those poor fellows last week. They did not know what they had been doing. Many irresponsible statements have been made about them. It is ridiculous to say they know only Gaelic and do not know English. They speak English as well as any Member here.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not know who made that statement in this House.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not want to refer to my hon. Friend, but he made some very wild and irresponsible statements.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have a letter from them in gaol.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: The responsibility for these men being in prison rests upon those people who encouraged and instigated them to break the law. [HOX. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] They are unknown to me. I have an idea who they are, but I have no proof and I will give no names. [Interruption.] The men did not break the law on their own initiative. Those men were not given advice till I saw them. When I reasoned with them after they had been in prison for a month they at once said, unconditionally, "Of course we had no intention of breaking the law." Those men are not only loyal, but law abiding. They have no sympathy with law breaking or law breakers. They have no sympathy with their own action. They are sorry for it. I would appeal to the Secretary of State not to harden his heart on account of the wild and irresponsible statements which have been made regarding them, but to ensure that their names will be restored to the list of applicants for small holdings, and to ensure that no official action will be taken by his Department to prevent them from reaping the crops they have sown.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon.

  1589
  Member who raised this question congratulated me upon the release of these men from prison. I wish to make it perfectly clear to this House and to all concerned that the release of these men is a matter for the Court and has nothing to do with myself or the Scottish Office. These men were convicted of an illegal act.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely this is new.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is nothing new about it. They were convicted of an illegal act. They were asked to give an undertaking to behave themselves, which they refused to give on the advice of those whom the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) said had gravely misled them. This is quite clear. These men, having been convicted of an illegal act, could only be released on satisfying the Court that they would give a definite undertaking to behave themselves. That undertaking was given before the governor of the prison, and was subsequently conveyed to the sheriff who was responsible in this matter. It has only been because the sheriff was satisfied that that guarantee was given and because he is satisfied that they have been released. Let me make it perfectly clear that they have been released on giving an undertaking which has satisfied the sheriff and the Court, and it will remain perforce for them to keep that undertaking as I have no doubt they will.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Was that undertaking given on condition that they would have grazing for their stock for six months?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The only individual who could give them that undertaking for the future is the Scottish Office, and no undertaking has been given on behalf of the Scottish Office. The release of these men has been to the satisfaction of the Court and the Court alone. As to the five individuals, I want to make it perfectly clear that they were warned before they raided, that, if they raided, they would not only prejudice their case but that their names would be struck off the list of the Board of Agriculture for land settlement. They were warned and told that.
  I want to put the point that I am the Minister responsible for land settlement, and my job is to find the land upon
  1590
  which to settle people. This House gives me certain legal powers to carry out land settlement. This particular farm is not included in those legal powers, and if any settlement is made upon this land it must be made with the consent and by arrangement with the proprietor of the farm. The Board of Agriculture had an opportunity of approaching the proprietors of three separate properties falling into the market on the death of Lord Leverhulme, and on two of them smallholders have been settled. In this particular case the proprietor put up the price and, I am informed, attempted to hold the State to ransom on this question. Does the House blame me for re fusing to be a party to that? It was well known that the Board were willing and prepared to enter into negotiations and to settle people upon this particular property. What happened? This farm was raided. Is that kind of action likely to conduce to the settlement of people upon the land?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Certainly.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Not at all.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will see that they get land.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman may some day have the opportunity of carrying these things into operation, but I wish to make it quite clear that, as far as the State is concerned, it was willing, and is willing, to come to an arrangement with the proprietor of this land on terms which were, and which remain, the terms upon which the settlement can be made to-day. Those terms are that there shall be a reasonable price and that the Government, when they come to settle people upon that land, shall have clear and free access to the land. Any other terms would be impossible. A great deal has been said about ex-service men. Two of these men may claim to be ex-service men. There is Ewan McLennan, an ex-service man, who resides in a house of his own on glebe lands, and who gets land for cultivation and grazing from the parish church minister. The second ex-service man is Kenneth McLennan, who resides in a house of his own, on glebe lands, and who gets land for cultivation and grazing from the parish church minister. The third man is Charles McLennan, who re-

  1591
  sides in a house of his own. The fourth is Neil MacDonald, a shepherd on Scaristaveg. He is employed as a shepherd on this farm, at wages of £60, with grazing and keep for a calf. Until quite recently he was tenant of another holding at a rent of £2 14s., and he is in arrear with his rent to the amount of £13 10s.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the date of the report which says that this man is the tenant of that small holding?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a report which comes to me, and is dated the 10th March, 1926, and he is in arrear with his rent to the amount of £13 10s. The last man on this list in John McLeod, who is employed as a chauffeur by the trustees of Lord Leverhulme at wages of 30s. a week and board. All of these men cannot be described as ex-service men, and if the Board of Agriculture are going to settle people upon the land, they must be free to select those who have the best claims for that position.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that by their action, contrary to all the advice which was given to them, they ceased to be on the list of the Board of Agriculture for land settlement. Let there be no mistake about it; that is final and settled, and so far as I am concerned, I must hold the ring between these men who have a right and proper claim to consideration, and who will be taken on their merits. This kind of action, however, has been supported and stimulated by law agents. The hon. Member says that these men have not had an opportunity of consulting their law agents. I do not know the rights and wrongs of it, but I think it would be infinitely better for these men that they should be free of the advice of the kind of law agents they have had interfering in this problem. If there is to be a reasonable settlement either in these Islands or elsewhere, the full claims of all men will be taken into consideration and a settlement will be made, but we are not going to have our hands forced either by raiders or by a combination of raiders and proprietors to hold the State to ransom.
  1592
  And I wish to made that abundantly clear to the House. It is an unfortunate thing that the result of the action of these men should be that they are struck off this list, but when the proprietor comes to his senses it will not prevent the settlement of men upon this farm, men who have as good and probably better service than these men we have been discussing to-night. Let the House understand that there is only a limited amount of land available; and let them realise that it is not by disorderly action that people are likely to benefit. I would advise those hon. Members opposite who have a real interest in the question of land settlement in Scotland to believe that. I am prepared to see that settlement extended and carried out, but I am not going to have my hands forced by those who break the law; and, under the circumstances, I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and his friends are ill-advised, in the interests of the people, to take this line of action.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: As the result of a letter I have had from the men in gaol, dated 30th April this year—not 1926—I should like to ask a few questions. Did the Secretary of State for Scotland know that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) was to approach the men in prison in order to obtain an undertaking from them, either that they would not interfere with Scaristaveg for a period of at least six months or that they would comply with the whole of the interdict? Were the men promised that they would get some money on their release and what money, if any, was promised to them? What terms were promised to them if they gave the undertaking desired? Was it intimated to them that they would get holdings at Scaristaveg? Was it fair for their Member of Parliament to bargain with these men, who were virtually in chains, and who had no opportunity of taking independent advice on the subject of the proposals or offers made to them? What is to become of the men now on their release, on your statement that they are not going to get any land, and what provision is to be made for them and their families? Are they to continue landless and occupy the horrible hovels

  1593
  they are now taking shelter in, or are they to get land at once on which they can produce food for themselves and their families and erect decent dwellings? You say you are going to see that these men and men like them get a fair do. Here we have the "Morning Post" of
  1594
  the 29th ultimo advertising a huge estate in Sutherlandshire with 43,820 acres for sale.
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  VITAL STATISTICS (DEATHS, LONDON).
  VITAL STATISTICS (DEATHS, LONDON).
  SLUM CLEARANCE, LIVERPOOL.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, LIVERPOOL.
  POST OFFICE (AIR MAIL).
  POST OFFICE (AIR MAIL).
  ROYAL NAVY (CONTRACT WORK)
  ROYAL NAVY (CONTRACT WORK)
  COAL SLACK (OIL PRODUCTION).
  COAL SLACK (OIL PRODUCTION).
  BANKRUPTCIES, SCOTLAND (FARMERS).
  BANKRUPTCIES, SCOTLAND (FARMERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACT WORK).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACT WORK).
  LOBSTERS.
  LOBSTERS.
  MINISTRIES (REARRANGEMENT).
  MINISTRIES (REARRANGEMENT).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
BUDGET.
  BETTING DUTY (TOTALISATOR).
  BETTING DUTY (TOTALISATOR).
  SILK DUTIES.
  SILK DUTIES.
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS).
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (HEADLIGHTS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (HEADLIGHTS).
  MANDATES COMMISSION (PETITIONS).
  MANDATES COMMISSION (PETITIONS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SILK TRADE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SILK TRADE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ST. CATHARINE'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE (CANONSHIP OF NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given in reference to this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I have one or two observations to put before your Lordships on this Bill. It will be plain to those who read it that it is an arrangement between St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, and the Chapter of Norwich. Hitherto one canonry in the cathedral establishment of Norwich has been attached to the mastership of St. Catharine's College. It is now proposed that this association should cease, and this will be done by a transference of a certain amount of the income of one of the canonries to the mastership of St. Catharine's College. The canonries are prepared to make this grant to the mastership of St. Catharine's because the Bill provides that the canonry shall now be held by one of the Archdeacons in the diocese of Norwich. The Archdeacon receives a salary in addition to his canonry, and, owing to a provision with which I need not trouble your Lordships, it is impossible for a Canon to hold so large a stipend as would result from his holding both the canonry and the archdeaconry. Accordingly, the extra sum is to be transferred to the mastership of St. Catharine's College.
12
There are three parties concerned in this matter: the Chapter of Norwich, the College of St. Catharine's, Cambridge, and the diocese of Norwich. Their interests are not wholly identical, and I could give good reasons why the arrangement will not prove altogether satisfactory to the diocese of Norwich. On the whole, however, I do not intend to oppose the Bill, because I so strongly feel the advantage that will be conferred upon St. Catharine's College by the dissociation of its mastership from the canonry, and I also fully realise the advantage to the Chapter of Norwich of having a whole-time Canon, if I may use that phrase, instead of one whose main occupation must lie in Cambridge.
At the same time, there is one small provision in this Bill to which, I think, many fair-minded men will be opposed. The Bill specfies that the canonry dissociated from the mastership of St. Catharine's shall be held now and for ever by the Archdeacon of Norfolk. That appears to me to be a too stringent regulation and, if this Bill reaches a Committee, I should propose that, instead of the canonry being for ever attached to the Archdeaconry of Norfolk, it should be attached to one of the arch-deaconries in the diocese of Norwich selected by the Bishop. I need not labour the point, but I would ask to be allowed to make one or two remarks upon it. The cathedral lies within the archdeaconry of Norwich and I think it is a rather bold step to provide that for ever and ever the Archdeacon of Norwich shall be excluded from holding a canonry which lies within his archdeaconry. Again, I think it will be found to be a mistake that the canonry should be attached to the archdeaconry of Norfolk in all cases, because I can imagine an occasion when the Archdeacon of Norfolk would be unwilling or unsuitable to hold the canonry in addition to the archdeaconry. Such a little adjustment as I suggest would, I think, meet rather grave diocesan difficulty. It does not touch the main principle of the Bill, which is to free the canonry and the mastership from one another, to enable the people of Cambridge to have greater freedom in choosing their master and also to enable the Cathedral to have a Canon who can devote his whole time to the canonry and no longer owe his princi-

13
pal allegiance to his duties at Cambridge. I shall ask leave in Committee to make these small Amendments.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, my interest in this Bill is not related to the diocese of Norwich on which the right rev. Prelate has most properly spoken: my interest lies in the relation of this Bill to St. Catharine's College, Cambridge. At pre-sent that College suffers under an arrangement dating, I believe, from the time of Queen Anne, under which the very inadequate stipend or emoluments of the master of the College were supplemented by a canonry at Norwich. The result has been that through all these generations the Master of St. Catharine's, Cambridge, has had not only to perform the duties of Master but also the quite dissociated and somewhat distant duties of Canon at Norwich. That arrangement is obviously a bad one. Originally, no doubt, it was adopted to get over purely financial difficulties. It has always been most naturally objected to both by the diocese of Norwich and the authorities of St. Catharine's and public opinion generally at Cambridge, but it has lasted all these years. Now, after considerable discussion and long negotiation, a satisfactory financial arrangement has, I understand, been arrived at. Under this the Canon of Norwich will receive a certain proportion of the salaries and the Master of St. Catharine's will receive the remainder—a smaller fraction but still one that is agreed on as adequate and fair.
I very much hope, therefore, that this Bill will pass and that St. Catharine's at all events will be relieved of the very absurd and antiquated arrangement under which for so long a period it has suffered. The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, has objected to what he properly describes as one small, and from the point of view of Cambridge unimportant, clause in the Bill, by which the holder of the canonry in future is restricted to one of the Archdeacons of the diocese. I confess that in the words which the right rev. Prelate has addressed to your Lordships I thought he made a very good case, but I do not know whether there is a case to be made against it. In any event I do not propose to enter into that discussion. All I
14
desire to say is that I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the university with which I am connected in thinking that this is a Bill which certainly ought to pass. As no Amendment, as I understand, is going to be moved at this stage upon the subject, I trust that all the future dealings of this House with the Bill will be of a character which will not impair its fundamental importance.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not think it necessary to say one word in confirmation or amplification of what the noble Earl has said. I only rise, in view of what the right rev. Prelate has said, to point out that this is a Private Bill and that there will be no Committee stage of the Whole House.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
MATLOCKS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
Read 2a.
COLCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
Read 2a.
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH BRITISH AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY'S BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MAIDSTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PETERBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
READING GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FARNHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMPANIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, this is a Bill of considerable importance and some complexity and I am afraid I must detain your Lordships for some little time in endeavouring to explain its most important provisions. It is founded on the Report of a Committee appointed about two years ago by the Board of Trade and which was requested to review the whole field of Company Law and to propose any necessary amendments. The reference, therefore, was much wider than the reference to a Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Wrenbury presided and which made a valuable Report in 1918. The Chairman of the present Committee was Mr. Wilfrid Greene, a King's Counsel of great ability and experience
16
of this branch of the law. The Committee produced a valuable Report and made a number of recommendations. Almost all those recommendations are adopted in this Bill, a few further proposals for reform being added to them.
Perhaps I may call your Lordships' attention to what I believe is a novel feature in Bills of this House. You will find noted opposite each clause of the Bill a reference to the paragraph of the Report of the Committee on which the Bill is founded, so that in reading the clause you can also refer at once to the reasons for the clause. Where you find a capital R with a number that refers to the paragraph of the Report; where you find the letters M.A with a reference they refer to a minor amendment and to the page of the Report on which the minor amendment may be found. It is unnecessary and undesirable that I should go through this long Bill clause by clause. All the proposals will no doubt be carefully considered by those who are interested in these company matters and all of them can be dealt with and, if need be, explained in Committee of the House. I propose to refer only to some of the more substantial proposals which it seems to me I ought to mention to the House in moving the Second Reading.
In doing so I shall have to call attention to some abuses and even to some dishonest practices which have crept in. But I desire at the outset to refer to a passage in the Committee's Report in which they express the opinion that cases of abuse are not the rule but the exception, and that, speaking generally, our Company Law has worked well and has been honestly used. The passage will be found on page 4 of the Report, where the Committee say this:—
"The system of Company Law and practice in force in England and Scotland has been gradually evolved to meet the needs of the community at large and the commercial community in particular. We consider that in general it fulfils this object in a highly satisfactory manner. It is a system well understood by those who have to deal with it, it has stood the test of years, and in our opinion should not be altered in any matter of principle except where alteration is imperatively demanded."
That is a very wise and prudent conclusion. The Committee proceed in this way:—
"The evidence satisfies us that the great majority of limited companies, both public

17
and private, are honestly and conscientiously managed. Cases in which fraud or lesser forms of dishonesty or improper dealing occur are comparatively few, and the public interest which such cases naturally arouse tends to divert attention from the vast number of honestly conducted concerns and to create an exaggerated idea of the evils connected with limited companies and their activities."
If I may say so I thoroughly endorse that passage.
Let me mention first a series of clauses beginning with Clause 26 of the Bill, containing proposals connected with the offer of shares to the public, which are intended for the protection of the public against inadequate or misleading information. I will first take Clause 26. An undesirable practice has grown up in connection with the offer of shares for sale. As your Lordships know, the Companies Act of 1908 requires that when shares are offered by means of a prospectus the prospectus shall state certain material facts. If those facts are not stated or are not correctly stated persons taking shares on the face of that prospectus may be relieved of their bargain. That is a very stringent rule and to avoid the necessity of complying with it some people have adopted the device of allotting the shares of the company to an individual, with the intention that that individual shall offer the shares for sale to the public. In form, of course, the offer of sale is an offer to transfer the shares and not to allot them, and the rule as to prospectuses does not apply. But the transaction, when it is carried out in complicity with the company, is an indirect issue of the shares and the public should be protected in the same way as they are protected when the shares are offered by the company itself. What I say as to shares applies also to debentures.
To meet that device, as I have called it, we propose, in Clause 26, to enact that
"where a company allots or agrees to allot any shares in or debentures of the company with a view to all or any of those shares or debentures being offered for sale to the public, the document by which the offer for sale to the, public is made shall for all purposes be deemed to be a prospectus issued by the company"—
and the law as to prospectuses applies. And, in order to prevent questions, we propose to provide that, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be evidence
18
that an allotment of shares was made with a view to the shares being offered for sale to the public if the offer for sale is made within six months after the allotment. That, I think, should put an end to the practice, and make sure that when this kind of device is adopted the person to whom the shares are offered for transfer with the complicity of the company shall have the same protection as he is entitled to in the case of an offer by the company.
Clause 27 is intended to meet other devices for evading the rule as to prospectuses. Sometimes shares are offered without any prospectus, sometimes on what is called an abridged prospectus. We propose to enact that no shares shall be offered unless the company issue a prospectus which complies with the law. Clause 28 is connected with the others. It proposes to extend the information to be contained in the prospectus by requiring it to state the profits made by the business, whether in the hands of the company or in the hands of the company's vendors, during the last preceding three years. No doubt, profits are usually disclosed, but sometimes they are not and it is only fair that the shareholders should have the right to be told what the directors know about the profits. I come to Clause 29. The existing Act requires a prospectus to state the minimum subscription on which directors may proceed to allotment; but directors sometimes specify a nominal sum, which may be only seven shares. The result is that subscribers may find themselves members of a company with onerous contracts and without sufficient funds to carry them out. It is now proposed that the prospectus shall specify the minimum amount which in the opinion of the directors must be raised by the issue of the shares offered to the public, in order to provide the purchase price of any property purchased, or to be purchased, which is to be defrayed out of the proceeds of the issue, and any preliminary expenses and commission that may be payable, and the working capital required. It is provided that the company shall not proceed to allotment unless the amount required for these purposes is subscribed.
Clause 32 refers to a matter upon which there has been some discussion. Your

19
Lordships may know that the law at present forbids the issue of shares at a discount, requiring in every case that the nominal amount of a share shall be paid up in cash or in kind. That has been found inconvenient in practice; and when a company has carried on business and its assets have depreciated in value and the company desires to issue new shares, it is not unfair that these shares should be issued at a discount. This clause makes it lawful for a company if certain conditions are satisfied, but not otherwise, to issue shares in the company at a discount. The conditions are that not less than five years must at the date of the issue have elapsed since the date on which the company was entitled to commence business, and if the company has already issued shares of the same class as the shares to be issued, the market price of the shares of the class which have already been issued muse be of less than their nominal value and the price at which the shares are issued must not be less than the market price of the shares of the class which have already been issued by more than ten per cent. or be less than fifty per cent. of the nominal value of the shares. If the company has not already issued shares of the same class as the shares to be issued, the price at which the new shares are to be issued must not be less than the nominal value of the shares by more than twenty per cent.
The rule in the past has often been evaded by paying commission to persons subscribing for new shares. The Wrenbury Committee recommended that the law should be squared with the practice and that shares might be issued at a discount, not being more than five per cent. below their market price or value. At the same time they recommended that it should not be lawful to pay a commission to subscribers for shares except, of course, by way of brokerage or underwriting commission. The Greene Committee have accepted this recommendation but have substituted ten per cent. for five per cent. Clauses 32 and 33 deal with this matter. It is impossible, of course, to protect people against all kinds of fraud, but these clauses will, I hope, afford some protection to shareholders.
I would like now to refer to a clause which comes later in the Bill and is connected with the subject of the offer of
20
shares to the public. I refer to Clause 85. A practice has grown up, though only lately imported into this country, of what is called share-hawking or, sometimes, share-pushing. A company is formed, sometimes outside Great Britain, and people are paid to go from house to house offering the shares or fractions of the shares, sometimes called units, to the people living in those houses. The offer is generally made to persons of small means and of no business experience. The shares are represented to be a splendid speculative investment, but in many, indeed in most, of these cases the shares turn out to be quite worthless and people lose money who can ill-afford to do so. Sometimes similar offers are made by circular. It is difficult to deal with every kind of fraud, but we must make some attempt to deal with this practice.
We propose therefore, (1), to prohibit house-to-house hawking altogether, and, (2), to require that an offer of shares in writing must be accompanied by a written statement containing certain essential particulars which your Lordships will find set out in subsection (4) of Clause 85. The person issuing the circular must tell people to whom he offers the shares whether he is acting as principal or agent, and if as agent, the name of the principal and an address in Great Britain where that principal can be served with process; the date on which and the country in which the company was incorporated, the address of its registered or principal office in Great Britain, the authorised share or stock capital of the company and the amount which has been issued, the dividends, if any, paid by the company on each class of shares or stock during the three financial years immediately preceding the offer, the total amount of any bonds or debentures or other similar obligations issued by the company, the names and addresses of the directors, whether or not the shares offered are fully paid up; and, where the offer relates to units representing a share or fractions of a share, particulars of the names and addresses of the persons in whom the shares represented by the units are vested. I think if those particulars are given in every case the shareholder will be safeguarded to a great extent. Due care is taken to pro

21
tect bona fide offers from being hampered by these provisions.
Then there is a series of clauses dealing with going companies and intended to regulate or facilitate the conduct of their business. These proposals are somewhat technical and it will be enough for me to refer quite shortly to some which seem to me to be of general interest. A company is forbidden by law to purchase its own shares, but some companies get over this difficulty by lending money to be applied in the purchase of the shares by somebody else. This is prohibited by Clause 12. The modification of the rights of shareholders by a majority sometimes leads to complaint that the minority is unfairly dealt with. Clause 13 allows fifteen per cent. of the shareholders to appeal to the Court. Clause 14 allows the issue of redeemable preference shares to be redeemed out of profits only. Clause 21 refers to a special resolution. Your Lordships know that a special resolution has now to be passed by two meetings, first by a threequarters majority and then by a majority at the second meeting. Second meetings have been found to be useless, as there is hardly ever a case in which a second meeting fails to confirm a special resolution passed at a first meeting. This Clause (21) dispenses with the second meeting but requires fourteen days' notice of the first meeting.
Clauses 34 to 36 are intended to secure that proper books of account are kept and proper balance sheets prepared and laid before shareholders. Clause 43 extends the process of investigation of the affairs of a company by an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade. Clause 49 makes reconstruction, now an elaborate and expensive process, easier and less expensive by enabling it to be effected by an order of the Court, while Clause 61 gives the creditors of a company in voluntary liquidation an opportunity of intervening when the company is not shown to be able to pay its debts. Clause 62 enables the liquidator to disclaim onerous property. Clause 77 requires that the liquidator of a company shall be an individual and not another company. These are only samples of the kind of clause contained in the Bill, but I think they all represent useful reforms.
Lastly, I would refer to a series of clauses connected with the liabilities of directors and other officers of a company, which are intended to increase the
22
security of all the shareholders of these companies. I begin with Clause 68, which provides that if a company goes into liquidation and proper accounts have not been kept the directors responsible, unless they show that they have acted honestly or ought to be excused, shall be liable to prosecution. Clause 69 provides a remedy against fraudulent trading by directors and increases the remedies against directors and officers who have been guilty of fraudulent trading. It makes these persons personally liable for the debts, and charges that liability upon any debts or obligations due to them and provides that a director who has been guilty of conduct of this kind shall be disabled for five years from being again a director of a company. Clause 71 provides for the prosecution of delinquent directors either by the liquidator or by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in a proper case, at the public expense. It has often been found when, a director has been guilty of fraud that nobody will incur the trouble and risk of coming forward to prosecute and the guilty person escapes. In a proper case the Director of Public Prosecutions would intervene and the costs would be at the public expense.
Clause 72 is important. The articles of some companies contain a provision for exempting directors from liability for negligence or default or breach of trust, so that where such an article exists the director is not liable even for gross negligence but only where actual fraud on his part is proved. That is thought to be unfair to the shareholders. They often take their shares without reading or understanding an article of that kind. A director ought to be liable for gross negligence. Such a provision is often put in as a matter of course, but quite lately it has led to the result that directors who had been plainly guilty of negligence escaped responsibility altogether. It is proposed that such a provision should be void, but at the same time the Bill enables the Court to relieve from liability a director who, in the opinion of the Court after considering all the circumstances, ought fairly to be excused.
Then, Clause 74 deals with a question that has led to some discussion: that is, the right of the shareholders to know what remuneration their directors are receiving. They usually know what are the ordinary directors' fees, but many

23
directors are remunerated not only by fees but by commission or by fees from some subsidiary company or in some adventitious way. It has been said that shareholders ought to have information of all these figures, but there is some objection to publishing all these figures to every shareholder of the company, because if that were done the result might be that some rival company would take one or two shares and obtain information about the company's business and perhaps seek to tempt the directors by an offer of larger remuneration. It is thought, and it seems to me to be right, that where a substantial number of shareholders—it says in the Bill shareholders holding not less than one quarter of the voting power—desire to have these particulars and make request for them, then they should be given. Clause 76 declares that no undischarged bankrupt shall act as a director of a company except with the leave of the Bankruptcy Court.
Those are, I think, the most important provisions of the Bill, or some of them at all events, and I do not think I need at this moment draw attention to any others. I think your Lordships will have gathered enough to know that the Bill proposes important changes in the law and is intended to give further protection to shareholders and persons to when shares are offered. I will only add that like all these Bills it proposes to legislate to a great extent by reference to existing Acts, and obviously there will be a strong case, if this Bill is passed, for consolidation. With that in view we propose, in Clause 103, that the Act shall come into operation on the appointed day and that the appointed day shall be such day not later than the 31st December, 1928, as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint. If the Bill passes in that form it will give a period during which we shall be able to propose to the House a consolidating Bill which will link this Bill with existing Statutes and consolidate the whole law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount on the Woolsack has given a most interesting and in some ways a very exhaustive account of a very complicated Bill involving very serious and material changes in Company Law. He has
24
pointed out that the Bill is really founded on a Report made by a Committee which was appointed in very wide terms under the Chairmanship of Mr. Wilfrid Greene. No one can read that Report, which has been presented as a White Paper, without seeing what extraordinary care, moderation and ability the Chairman showed in dealing with this complex subject. There are two matters in the Report to which I should like to call attention beyond the points which the Lord Chancellor himself mentioned in moving the Second Reading. The first of these is in paragraph 8. That paragraph says:
"Many of the suggestions made to us show that the idea that fraud and lesser malpractices can be stopped by the simple expedient of a prohibition in an Act of Parliament, dies hard."
I think the suggestion referred to in the Report has not been entirely disregarded in some of the provisions which are contained in the Bill. Some of them do appear rather to point to the idea that "by the simple expedient of a prohibition in an Act of Parliament" all frauds of this sort can be stopped or stayed. That is not only inaccurate—I agree entirely with what is said in the Report of the Committee—but it may lead to the notion that a Bill of this kind has become what is called "foolproof."
There was a suggestion made by the Lord Chancellor which fills me with some alarm. Is it possible that this Bill, framed as it is—I do not know how many members of this House have endeavoured to read it through, but I have endeavoured to do so two or three times—can be adequately dealt with in Committee in this House? Speaking personally, I should have been quite satisfied had the Lord Chancellor told us that, in his view, the Bill adequately represented the recommendations made by this important Committee and that, as presented to the House, it was a Bill which, in his opinion, not only represented the suggestions of the Committee but was a proper Bill in every way and ought to be passed. I should accept a statement of that kind, but I certainly regard with some alarm the idea that a Bill of this kind can be adequately dealt with by the Committee of this House so that it can go forward as a suggestion coming from this House after full discussion.

25
Another suggestion is made in the Report. It says:—
"We desire respectfully to urge that if an amending Act be passed by Parliament it should be followed immediately by a consolidating Act. Constant reference has to be made to the Companies Acts by business men and the advantages of having the Statute Law embodied in a single code which can easily be referred to without the necessity for cross reference are obvious."
It is obvious, if the Bill is to be understood or is to be capable of being understood, that a Consolidation Act should be passed before the provisions of this Bill become operative. I did not understand the view of the Lord Chancellor to go as far as that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As to consolidation, Clause 85 would come into operation at once, but the remainder of the Bill would not have effect until an Order in Council is made, and we have no intention of advising the making of such an Order in Council until there has been time for the passing of a consolidating Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: If that is so it meets a great difficulty. If after this Bill has passed it goes to the Consolidation Committee, presided over by my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, then by consolidation this difficulty of reference would be overcome or at all events greatly alleviated, and there would be one consistent code, so that not only lawyers but also business men would know how the law stood on these important points. There were one or two other matters to which the Lord Chancellor referred and it is very important to know what he considers to be subjects for consideration in a Bill of this kind. It enables us to direct our attention to the points he has indicated before the Committee stage is entered upon. I hope that before the Committee stage is reached there will be ample opportunity to consider the terms of the Bill, and that when it begins a communication will be made which will enable my noble Leader, Lord Haldane, who is, of course, a great authority on all subjects of this kind, to be present.
The three points referred to by the Lord Chancellor are all important. The first series of clauses he dealt with have as their object the protection of the public, and the principle he brought to
26
our notice, a principle of great importance, is that, in whatever way shares are offered to the public, the purchasing public should have the same advantages as if they had a prospectus before them. He said that if allotments were made to an individual and those shares were then passed on to the public—which is one of the methods adopted—there should also be passed on to the public information in such a form that the public should have, in substance, the same information as must have been placed in a prospectus in order that it should be in legal form. He also referred to certain clauses which he said were clauses applicable to companies as going concerns. It is rather difficult to follow the proposals exactly but he told us that from his experience—and that is quite sufficient for me—it would get rid of a certain complication, because it has been found that the confirmation meeting is really a matter of form and is no material safeguard.
One series of clauses which I hope will be carefully considered is the series of penalty clauses. It appeared to me as I read them that they were severe. Whether they are too severe or not is a question that can be discussed at a later stage, but they are undoubtedly severe. I will take as an illustration Clause 67, which deals with offences by officers of companies in liquidation. It provides that if the official concerned (and I am not sure if this does not apply to directors) makes any material omission in any statement relating to the affairs of the company—and whether the omission is material or not is a matter of opinion which will have to come before the Courts—he is liable on summary conviction before two magistrates or, in the City of London, before two Aldermen, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months. Surely it is extremely harsh that, if an official omits a statement which he really thought to be immaterial but other persons thought subsequently to be material, he should be liable to a penalty of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has not noticed the proviso which appears at the top of page 57 of the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I shall deal with the proviso in a moment, but first let me finish the clause. There is a great

27
variety of offences in the clause, and in all cases the offender is liable on summary conviction to a term not exceeding twelve months, and for some of them he is able to penal servitude for five years. Those are extremely heavy penalties and ought to be carefully considered. The proviso is as follows:—
"Provided that it shall be a good defence to a charge under any of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (n) and (o), if the accused proves that he had no intent to defraud, and to a charge under any of paragraphs (h), (i) and (j), if he proves that he had no intent to conceal the state of affairs of the company or to defeat the law.
The modification introduced by that proviso certainly has some bearing upon the complaint that I am making, but, after all, it is only a proviso. This liability remains and, if any official in the circumstances that I have mentioned desires to get out of that liability, I presume that the onus of proof will rest upon him; that is to say, he will be put upon his defence to prove, in accordance with these paragraphs of Clause 67, that he had no intent to defraud. I have the very greatest faith in the Courts, but this possibility of a sentence of penal servitude or of twelve months imprisonment on summary conviction involves a very heavy obligation, and, though the proviso brings in some mitigation, I do not think that it is a sufficient protection. I agree generally with what the noble and learned Viscount has said regarding the need of a sufficient penalty to deal with misfeasances, if I may use that expression, of this character, but I think these provisions are somewhat unduly harsh.
I have only one other observation to make. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that a Bill of this kind, drafted in this way, must be made up of a series of references. The Bill, as it stands, is primâ facie almost incomprehensible, and when I say that I am speaking as a lawyer. It is made up of a certain number of recommendations, as they are called, and a certain number of what are described as minor amendments, but it is very difficult to draw a line between the two, and I noticed that the Lord Chancellor referred to one of these so-called minor amendments as a matter of importance in principle. From this side of the House the Lord Chancellor will have every support. We think that
28
the Bill ought to be read a second time and we hope that in the subsequent stage something will be done to assist the House in a very difficult and prolix problem. I trust there will be no change in the view that, before the Bill becomes law, it should be consolidated with the existing Companies Acts. Generally, we shall support the Lord Chancellor in his effort to improve Company Law.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, if I rightly understood the noble and learned Lord opposite, he rather doubts the competence of this House to examine this Bill effectively in Committee, and I dare say that a good many of your Lordships share that view. In my judgment there is really only one class of person that is competent to deal with this question: I refer to the solicitors who practise in the City of London. Judges, and even barristers, really see the seamy side of life. They see the City Equitable case and things of that sort, but they do not see how the business of the City of London is conducted. The City solicitor knows all the tricks of the trade, if I may use that expression; he knows how business ought to be conducted and what weight should be attached to the objections raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite as to the heavy penalties that may be imposed on respectable people, and how far these people will be deterred from joining companies. I do not know whether I may venture to make a suggestion which I have already mentioned to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The Law Society, as I understand, is considering this Bill at the present moment. Owing to the recess it has been able to hold only one meeting, but I believe a committee mainly composed of City solicitors is considering the Bill, and for my part I should very much like to hear the report of that committee before your Lordships take any further action in this matter.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I do not know whether I quite understood the observations of the noble and learned Lord who spoke from the Front Bench opposite. I gather that he rather doubted the competence of this House to deal with this Bill in Committee. I do not quite know whether he advocated sending the Bill to a Select Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his courteous inquiry. I suggested that this question should be left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I certainly indicated the difficulty of dealing with it in Committee, but I did not make the suggestion that it should be sent to a Select Committee. I felt that any suggestion regarding further procedure should come from the Woolsack.
LORD DANESFORT: I desire only to say that I hope that the Government will not take the course of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. After all, its provisions have been most carefully considered already by an extremely competent Committee which had every opportunity of inquiring into the matter very fully, and I am sure that the foundations of the Bill are perfectly sound. I have no doubt of the competence of your Lordships' House in Committee to deal with the Bill as it now stands. I have only one other point to make. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord who spoke last, and who represents great commercial interests, as to the desirability of hearing the report of the Law Society before we proceed with this Bill. I think he said a very true thing when he said that gentlemen connected with the Bar, and even Judges, see very largely the seamy side of company life. When companies are really well and properly conducted they do not come before the Courts. Solicitors in large practice in the City of London see companies that are well conducted and they know the requirements of those companies perhaps better than those who are actively engaged in the practice of law, either at the Bar or upon the Bench. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will accede to the suggestion that before this Bill goes to Committee we shall have the advantage vantage of reading the report of the Law Society on its provisions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, was good enough to say that if I told him that the Bill was in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee he would be satisfied with that assurance. I do say so quite frankly, but I do not expect the House to accept that statement as sufficient in
30
itself, and I hope that members of your Lordships' House will take advice, if need be, and will present to the House any considerations that they may think proper in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, has said with perfect truth that nobody is better qualified to judge a Bill of this kind than an experienced City solicitor. If he will look at the list of members of the Committee he will find the names of members of some of the best known firms in the City of London, and no doubt these gentlemen gave their best help to the other members of the Committee. Apart from that, I am glad to hear that they are considering the Bill in a committee of their own, and I will most gladly give any reasonable time to enable them to put forward their views before the Bill goes into Committee. I do not know what time your Lordships would think convenient, but I was thinking of putting the Bill down for its Committee stage for this day fortnight. If a longer term is required, I will, of course, do anything that your Lordships think proper.
I will add one word about the penalty clauses, to which Lord Parmoor referred. It is true that the offences committed in connection with liquidation are very carefully set out, and that the penalties imposed in the proper case are severe. Of course, when the Bill says "summary conviction" the person charged always has the right of going to a jury instead of being dealt with by the magistrates, and the proviso to Clause 67 makes it clear that a man is not to be convicted for an honest mistake: if the accused proves that he had no intent to defraud it will be a good defence to a charge. If your Lordships think that the clause requires modification, I should be glad to consider the matter between now and the Committee stage. I ought to have said that Clause 85 is intended to come into operation on the passing of the Bill, but the rest of the Bill only comes into operation after an Order in Council has been made, and certainly our intention is not to advise the making of an Order in Council until sufficient time has passed to enable Parliament to pass a consolidating Act.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RABBITS AND ROOKS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It has only one effective clause, the second being merely an interpretation clause. Its object is to check the undue multiplication of rabbits and rooks in any part of Great Britain to the detriment of farm crops or of timber. So far as rabbits are concerned, it in effect re-enacts the provisions of the Corn Production Act, which was repealed in 1921, and extends them to rooks, so far as they are applicable. The Bill authorises a county council—which is interpreted to include a borough council—or one of its committees, to serve on an occupier of land, whose failure to keep rabbits and rooks under control has caused or threatened damage to crops or timber, a notice to restrict their number, and if he fails to comply with the notice, it empowers the council to employ someone to diminish their number at his expense. If the value of any rabbits sold as the result of the exercise of these powers exceeds the cost involved in their reduction, the balance will be paid over to the occupier. Subsection (6) provides for meeting the council's administrative expenses in this connection. Subsection (7) prohibits the use of spring traps by the council's officer. As your Lordships know, there is a strong objection on the part of some persons to the use of such devices, and it is deemed unreasonable to employ on another person's land any instrument to which he might reasonably take exception. The latter part of the same subsection, which provides that rabbits and rooks shall not be vermin—a rather mysterious provision—is intended to exclude the use of poison for their destruction, as the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, disallows the use of poison except for the purpose of destroying vermin.
That is the Whole Bill, and although it might be contended in pre-War days that there was no sufficient reason for such legislation, it would be difficult effectively to press the same contention now, in view of the altered conditions prevailing over most parts of the country. The widespread splitting up of estates
32
has resulted to a large extent in the discontinuance of the organised destruction of both rabbits and rooks, and there is an increasing tendency to let the sporting rights on agricultural estates to shooting syndicates, many of which have far less sympathy with the difficulties of the farming community than the old-fashioned landowners, who formerly retained the shooting in their own hands. Evidence from all over the country goes to show that there is an increase in the number of rabbits destroying both crops and timber, and in some parts of the country the same applies to rooks in respect of cereal crops. Let me pause to admit this. I think we must all agree that so far as rooks are concerned their depredations on farm crops are not very extensive unless they exist in excessive numbers. Their natural food is not corn or turnips but, very largely, insects: but it is admitted by ornithological experts that where they exist in excessive numbers there is competition for their normal type of food and they do turn to farm crops for food, sometimes causing excessive damage. There has in consequence been a strong and increasing demand on the part of farmers' organisations for a Bill of this character, the principles of which were accepted three years ago by the National Councils of Agriculture for England and Wales, which include both landowners and farmers, as well as the county administrators.
Under the Ground Game Acts, 1880 and 1906, any occupier has an inalienable right to kill and take ground game on his holding, and employ one man to use a gun for this purpose in the day time. But this does not suffice to keep within reasonable bounds what is becoming in many areas a serious pest, comparable in a lesser degree with what for at least a generation was the main deterrent to profitable farming in Australia and New Zealand. Of course, it may be said that many owners of rabbits and rooks do keep them within reasonable bounds for their own and their neighbour's protection. So far as these are concerned, this Bill will have no effect whatever, and consequently there is no danger—as may possibly be argued in the course of this debate—that county council officials will swarm over private property or invade any well-administered estate. It is in fact only the negligent or thoughtless minority who will be affected by the Bill, and I think that

33
the county councils may be trusted to exercise their powers with wisdom and discretion. The county councils have, through the County Councils Association, expressed their willingness to administer the Bill when passed. The Land Agents' Society, moreover, who may probably be deemed to represent efficient estate administration, have, in a recent issue of their journal, the Land Agents' Record, expressed the hope that a Bill to this effect would be introduced at an early date and have a speedy and successful passage.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me before sitting down to add one further observation, especially as it is proposed, I see, to move the rejection of this Bill from this side of the House. Proposals are being put forward by leading representatives of the other Parties in the State for the total or partial expropriation of agricultural landowners. We on this side of the House are still firm believers in the advantages, both to agriculture and to the State, of individual ownership, in spite of the many difficulties and embarrassments from which landowners are now suffering, and which I myself, as a country squire, can feelingly appreciate. But when, under rapidly changing conditions, incidents or consequences of such ownership appreciably affect the winning of a full output of food or of timber from the soil of this country it is not only in entire consonance with the traditions of our Party, but it is our patriotic duty, to provide a remedy. I hope that I may confidently rely on all those who wish well to the farming community to support the Second Reading of a Bill which, so far as I am aware, they are unanimous in demanding for their reasonable protection. I beg to move.
Moved That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, my noble friend has warned us that if we object to this Bill we shall be encouraging those persons who desire to abolish individual ownership of land. All history teaches us that when you have an opponent you do not conciliate him or stop him by giving him a little sop. You will not stop Mr. Lloyd George and his land campaign by allowing county council officials to go upon a man's land
34
and kill his rabbits and his rooks—if they can get near them. Nor will you placate the Labour Party, who have already intimated that the private ownership of land is to be abolished. My noble friend, as I understood him, suggested that there was something of this sort in the Corn Production Act. My experience of the Corn Production Act was that it was an extremely bad Act. The only good thing that could be said for it was that it gave a subsidy to farmers, and that was done away with. And therefore anything which reproduces the Corn Production Act ought, I think, at once to be rejected.
Clause 1 of this Bill says that if it is proved to the satisfaction of a county council that, by reason of the failure of an occupier of land to restrict the number of rabbits on his land, certain things occur, then they may authorise somebody to go on the land. If you look at subsection (3), you will see that
"where a county council has reasonable cause to suspect that circumstances exist in which their powers under this section ought to be exercised with respect to any land in their area they may authorise any person to enter on and inspect the land on their behalf."
Therefore there is no need of any proof or of any complaint to be made to the county council; but if the county council, or a borough council, or any of their officials have cause to suspect that this thing occurs they may then send upon another man's land any number of people, who may wander about in his woods and on his land, endeavouring to shoot his rooks or his rabbits.
Let me first of all deal with the rooks. My noble friend says that rooks do a certain amount of harm. I read yesterday Fream's Epitomy of Farming, which I believe is a standard book. Fream gives a list of birds which are harmful to agriculture and of birds which are beneficial, and the rook appears in neither list; he is in the doubtful class. Let me give my own experience of rooks. I have a rookery—in fact, I am not at all sure I have not got two—and consequently there are a good many rooks about my land. My experience is that when you put in winter corn or spring corn rooks may, for about a fortnight, do a certain amount of damage. But they can be kept off to a certain extent by putting up two or three dead rooks—if you can shoot a rook. I have tried to shoot them,

35
because my keeper said he could not get near them. I tried for two or three days, and I did succeed in shooting one. What my friends on the county councils will do I do not know, and how many cartridges I shall have to pay for I do not know, but I am afraid it will be a great many.
After all, do rooks do very much harm? At the end of March I began to sow a field with spring oats, but, owing to the wet weather, I could not do more than sow half the field. My bailiff said to me: "I have a man there trying to keep off the rooks, but they are doing an awful amount of damage." I was rather perturbed, because I had rather a bad sample of seed. What has happened? I have a beautiful plant, and the other day, when I was harrowing that part of the field which I had not been able to sow on account of the wet weather, I observed that the rooks were not on the spring corn, but were following the harrows. I said to my bailiff: "Look there, those rooks are following the harrows." He replied: "Yes, they are picking up insects and grubs." A little further, where I was ploughing, the same thing happened. Therefore I do not think it is by any means a certainty that rooks do the harm which they are supposed to do.
I mentioned that I have a rookery. Three or four years ago I had a letter from the owner of a farm which adjoins my boundaries, the nearest point of which is about two miles from my rookery. This gentleman, who does not live on the farm but about forty or fifty miles away, wrote saying that his bailiff told him that his crops were being injured by rooks which came off my land, because I never shot my young rooks, and he said that his bailiff would be very pleased to come and shoot my young rooks for me, and bring some friends to assist him. I replied that for twenty-five years my tenants had shot my young rooks as often as they liked, had killed as many as they liked, and had been allowed to bring their sons with them: all they had to do was to inform my keeper that they had come to shoot. No restrictions of any sort were put upon them. Therefore I said: "I am extremely obliged to your bailiff but I do not require his assistance."
Supposing this Bill had been in operation, this gentleman would have written
36
to the county council and would have said: "I have a serious complaint from my bailiff. The food of the people is being interfered with"—that is the phrase used by my noble friend—"the food of the people is being interfered with because Lord Banbury does not shoot his rooks." I think my county council are very reasonable people, but I do not think every county council is reasonable. My county council must, I think, under the Bill, if they do their duty, either write to me or send an official to see what has been done. My noble friend says that agriculture is in a bad state. It is, unfortunately, but do we want any more of these petty restrictions under which officials come worrying you to ascertain whether you did, or did not, shoot your own rooks as hard as you might do? There is one other matter with regard to rooks to which I wish to refer. If noble Lords will look at the Bill they will see that rabbits must be killed where they are doing damage to a particular piece of land, but in the case of rooks the words are "is likely to be caused to any crops." Therefore, I might have people walking all over my crops to see whether or not a rook was doing any damage, and trying to shoot any rooks that they found there.
Let me now come to rabbits. Who is the great preserver of rabbits? Why, the farmer. I think Your Lordships will agree with me that if you go upon land let to a tenant, or if you send your keeper there to ferret or to shoot rabbits, the tenant will probably write and say he is rather sorry but that he thought the rabbits were left to him. I have found that to be the case on very many occasions. Now it is proposed that somebody else, not his landlord, should come and destroy the rabbits on his land. I do not think the farmers really understand what this Bill is and what it proposes to do. It is quite easy for one or two members of the Farmers' Union, sitting in London, to say they think this, that or the other. There were two or three occasions in the House of Commons when a similar Bill was introduced. I was then a member of the House of Commons and I saw that the Bill did not get any further. In 1922 the Coalition Government introduced a Bill of this sort, but they did not include rooks in it. I went to the Whips and pointed out how unreasonable

37
such a Bill was and they, being reason able people, agreed with me and the Bill got no further.
I suppose there are occasions when rabbits in a wood in the hands, we will say, of Mr. A go upon the land of Farmer B. Farmer B can kill those rabbits. It is sometimes said that if he goes with a gun and shoots two or three of them the others run back into the wood and he cannot get at them. But he can snare them. He can go out at night with a long net and kill them by that means. He can do something further: he can go to his landlord and say: "The rabbits coming from this wood are so damaging my land that I must have my rent reduced." In nine cases out of ten that would be done and the rabbits would be stopped from going on his land without any Bill of this kind. Or he can go to his landlord and say: "Either you yourself must put up some wire netting or you must give me something to enable me to put up wire netting." Many years ago I rented some shooting. There was a long "shaw" about half a mile long and it was difficult to kill the rabbits in it. They got out of this "shaw" and did a certain amount of damage to the land of one of the tenants of the property which I rented. I asked the tenant to take a plough and run a furrow along the edge of the wood. I then bought, for a very little money, some rabbit netting, put that netting up and then told my keepers to turn the soil over upon it. We never had any trouble after that. The rabbits came out on the other side into the park and nothing happened. Such a thing as that can be done now.
I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject this Bill. It is one of those petty things which do no good to agriculture but encourage enmity amongst everybody concerned in the industry, which is so unfortunate at the present moment It is to be regretted that a Conservative Government should bring in a Bill of this sort. I know perfectly well what has happened. Some official in the Ministry of Agriculture has seen that a Bill was introduced in 1922 by the Coalition Government and as the Ministry has not done much good to farmers or to landlords since, they thought they had better do something and so they decided to bring in this Bill. I do not
38
wish to take up your Lordships' time any further, but I hope I have made such a good case against the Bill that you will support me in the Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southem.)
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I am glad on this occasion to be able to associate myself with that bulwark of the Constitution, Lord Banbury of Southam, who has given us a most interesting account of his dealings with farmers. My memory goes back to the time—I think it was about a year ago—when in this House, in conjuction with Lord Banbury of Southam, I ventured to bring forward a Bill in which I was very much interested. That Bill was almost unanimously rejected and we were held up to a great deal of opprobrium because we had had the impudence to bring a question of that sort before your Lordships and take up your time upon a subject which was said to be more fitted for a debating society than for this House. I have much too high an opinion of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to use against him some of the epithets that were employed against us, but I am bound to say that a more "twopenny-ha'penny." Bill than this has seldom been produced before your Lordships' House.
You employ a Minister of Agriculture, and the whole of the agricultural office, and I daresay more persons besides—parturiunt montes—and what have they produced? They have produced a very small measure and one which in my opinion is of precious little value. You are going to employ the county council to walk about our land and to interfere in matters which the landlord and tenant are perfectly capable of dealing with and settling between themselves. My noble friend acknowledged that most people are very careful and that in most cases no trouble arises, but, he says, we must always legislate for the thoughtless minority. I do not think our time should be taken up by legislating for the thoughtless minority.
My noble friend Lord Bledisloe also laid claim to an anxiety to protect individual owners and occupiers. I cannot say that we have had up to the present

39
time a brilliant example of care for owners and occupiers, for on every possible occasion the Ministry has seemed anxious to take from us what few rights we possess over the land and what few rights the farmers and occupiers possess, and to hand them over to a committee of the county council or some body equally careless. From my experience I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. If I have ever sent keepers to go and kill rabbits on a farmer's property the farmer has always said: "I hope you will leave me a few rabbits to kill for myself." He is quite capable of killing any rabbits that there may be on his land and he does not want to have the county council interfering with him.
Then come the rooks. I think it is more than doubtful whether rooks do not do as much good as harm. I know perfectly well all the authorities which Lord Bledisloe and the whole of the office besides searched, but I am not at all convinced, and I do not think anybody who follows the movements of the rook tribe, the most interesting body in bird creation, will come to the conclusion that they do the damage which Lord Bledisloe is anxious in a Second Reading debate to prove that they do. I think that this Bill is uncalled for, that it is unwanted, and if I may say so (I do not wish to use an offensive expression) that it is useless for the particular purpose. As for farmers wanting it, I have heard of none. If you take the farmers all round they are perfectly content to manage their own affairs with their landlords and with each other. If Lord Banbury goes to a Division I shall most certainly vote with him and I hope that we shall get rid of this absurd measure.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I hope I may be pardoned if I express some surprise that in this twentieth century any noble Lord should rise in his place and pose as the champion of the rabbit. I believe that of all the curses with which agriculture is endowed the rabbit is absolutely the worst. It consumes crops which were never meant for its consumption and it poisons what it does not consume. In the counties which are fenced with banks it has caused damage to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds, which has to be made good. In the case of individual planting or planting in small
40
quantities it doubles the cost. There is nothing whatever on the credit side of the rabbit. The rabbit never paid for his keep.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I was not pleading for the rabbit.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Nor was I. I hate rabbits. It took me four years trying to kill every rabbit on my land and I think I have done it.
LORD CLINTON: Then it was only the rook and I will say a word or two on that later. Rabbits of recent years have increased very much and they have increased since the passing of the Ground Game Act. In the old days the tenant farmer was loud in his outcry against the owner for keeping rabbits. To-day, whet he has a concurrent right, and only a concurrent right, he objects to the owner coming in and killing rabbits on the farm. I know cases in the South West of England where owners trying to keep rabbits down on farms have sent keepers to do it and have had men actually throwing up their farms. They like having the rabbits and object to the owner killing them. My noble friend Lord Lambourne seems to suggest that this is only a "twopenny-ha'penny" little Bill. Why then should he be at such pains to oppose it? The danger that is feared seems to be that the county council may send somebody into the noble Lord's covers and kill his rabbits. If that is so it seems to me it will be entirely the fault of the noble Lord himself in not keeping down the rabbits. My only fear is that the county councils, being goverened largely by farmers—farmers who want to keep up rabbits—will take no action at all. The Bill really only amounts to an effort to persuade county councils to do something against people who keep up rabbits. To that extent I look upon the Bill as really a very valuable piece of machinery.
I am quite sure that in the district in which I live rabbits are becoming a greater and greater pest and are doing very serious damage. The farmer objects to landlords killing the rabbits on the ground that the rabbits are his. Legally that is not so, but I think this measure lends some support to that idea because it is provided in the Bill that the county council, having killed rabbits, shall sell them at the highest price and after deducting expenses shall return the proceeds to the occupier. Really they do not

41
belong to the occupier—he only has a concurrent right—but though I do not raise any objection to that, it does rather seem to support the theory that the rabbits are their own.
Rooks constitute really a doubtful point. Rooks in small quantities I am sure do good, but I am also sure that in large quantities they do harm. They are the worst egg stealers we have. They do good where they can get grubs, but if the supply of grubs gives out they are not very careful what they eat. That point may perhaps be dealt with in a later stage of the Bill, and I think probably one or two other Amendments may be suggested, but I hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I think the idea of this Bill must have arisen from a volume published some years ago called, I think, the Liberal Land Book, in which the special animal or creature that was aimed at as doing these depredations was the pheasant. If the noble Lord responsible for the Bill had included protection against the pheasant I should have said the Bill marched on all fours, or all threes, and was a more reasonable Bill. But a Bill which includes the rook and the rabbit and excludes the pheasant is not one which can commend itself to noble Lords on these Benches. As regards the general principles of the Bill I agree on the whole with Lord Banbury and the noble Lord who supported him, that it is not a Bill really worth passing. Lord Clinton has dealt with the case of the rook. When I was at the Board of Agriculture we went fully into the question of the rook and we found on balance that there was no overwhelming case against it: on the whole it was useful. Those who had studied bird life were strongly of opinion that the balance was in favour of the rook. I think the Bill is unnecessary and inopportune, and I am pretty sure that you are not going to get from county councils any effective action under a Bill of this sort. As regards the rook the Bill ought not to be passed, as regards the rabbit it is doubtful, and as regards practice it will be a dead letter. Therefore I do not think that at the present time it should have your Lordships' support. As part of a policy to give county councils power to deal with all agricultural questions
42
clauses of this nature might be considered, but as an individual Bill it is beneath the notice of your Lordships' House.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it was said by one of the speakers in the debate that county councils might be trusted to carry out the Bill properly. In the county in which I live, where the majority on the county council are so "red" that they have recently elected a condemned criminal as a county alderman, the county council is capable of using the facilities which this Bill offers for harrying political opponents. What is it this Bill does? It creates a new offence, the offence of harbouring noxious wild animals, and it makes the offence punishable not by the proper Courts but by county councils, which I submit are the most unsuitable bodies for that purpose.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I must confess that at first I was opposed to this Bill, but, on further consideration and after consulting a number of practical farmers, I came to the conclusion that it should be passed, subject to certain Amendments in Committee. The truth is that on well-managed estates rabbits, rooks and other vermin have been kept down in the past and will be in the future, and the Bill will not apply to them. But new conditions have arisen. Many of the old, well-managed estates are disappearing and there are a considerable number of cases of real hardship through the ravages of rabbits and rooks, while the provisions of the existing law do not protect people from their ravages or properly compensate them.
May I say a word about rooks, as rabbits have been fully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton? Rooks do a great deal of good. They eat slugs, wire worms, leather jackets, insects and other pests, provided they are not in too great numbers. If they are in too great numbers they are driven away from their natural food and forced to eat eggs and corn. In certain parts of the country where rooks have become too numerous considerable injury to agriculture has resulted. The same result has followed in certain parts of the country where the number of starlings has enormously increased, and, because they compete with rooks for wire worms, slugs and

43
other grubs, the rooks have been driven, to eat the seeds and do damage to agriculture in that way. Where the rooks are in such excessive numbers that they do damage, they ought to be kept down, and it is only where they are in such numbers that the Bill will apply.
I should like to read a short extract from an ancient Act of Parliament which Henry VIII, who in this matter is the predecessor of Lord Bledisloe, found it convenient to pass to deal with rooks. The Act was passed in 1533 and this is the Preamble:—
"For as much as innumerable numbers of rooks, crows, and choughs do daily breed and increase throughout this Realm … and do yearly devour and consume a wonderful and marvellous quantity of corn and grain of all kinds … so that if the said crows, rooks and choughs should be suffered to breed and continue they will undoubtedly be the cause of great destruction and consumption of grain"—
the measure then goes on to enact that
"Everyone shall do as much as may be to kill and utterly destroy all manner of choughs, crows and rooks under pain of a grievous amercement."
This is a good deal stronger than my noble friend's Bill. He is content to invoke the county councils. Henry VIII invoked everyone, and the amercement which was imposed was to be assessed by stewards of manors or by sheriffs or justices of the peace at their discretion. The Act was limited to ten years and, although it was continued by an Act of Elizabeth, it was repealed in circumstances which I have been unable to trace. There is therefore no Act at present for checking this increase of rooks. The case seems to me to be made out for dealing with rooks whenever they have grown to greater numbers than the land can support by means of their natural food.
If the Bill is passed into law it will require some amendment. In the first place the tribunal under the Bill for deciding whether there are too many rooks or rabbits is the county council. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has drawn a very touching picture of the county council who are going to deal with his land. Assuming that other noble Lords are in a more fortunate position, I do not consider the county council to be the proper judicial body to decide a matter of this kind. They have not the equipment, they cannot
44
take evidence on oath, and cannot properly decide a matter which is often very complicated. Rooks often come from ten miles away and Lord Banbury might find the county council saying that they came from his rookery when, in fact, they came from a place miles away. Much difficulty may arise in deciding whether the powers under the Bill should be brought into operation or not and I would suggest that, if the Bill is read a second time, the tribunal for deciding this question should be the petty sessional court. The magistrates would be perfectly competent and would be a far better tribunal than the county council. If I am not mistaken, that is the view which has been taken on several occasions by the Association of County Councils.
Another point which I think will require attention is as to the time when and the place where the county council may authorise persons to enter upon the land. As the Bill stands, there is no limit or restriction whatsoever; the county council may authorise a person to enter upon the land and take steps to diminish the number of rabbits and rooks at any period of the year and at any time they think fit. Does anyone think it right that the county council should send their men with guns and traps into your coverts where breeding is going on and do an infinite amount of damage for which there is no compensation? I hope that, if the Bill is passed, my noble friend will put some restriction on the places and times at which the county council can authorise persons to go upon the land. If those conditions are applied, I think the Bill will be a useful one.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as has been clearly expressed by every noble Lord, with the exception of Lord Clinton, the methods of the Bill are bad and unworkable and require amendment. It is my view that the Bill is right in principle but that the methods are entirely wrong, and that it will be an entirely valueless Bill if it reaches the Statute Book. The only one who has supported the Bill is Lord Clinton. The county councils would not destroy rabbits or rooks in the interests of the landlord. I quite agree that it is in the interests of landlords that there

45
should be as few rabbits as possible, but surely the best way of getting farmers to destroy rabbits is not to ask the county councils to interfere with this matter. It is said that various bodies have supported this proposal, but I do not think that there has been any strong expression of opinion. It may be that a resolution was accepted by the Council of Agriculture for England, and I believe that I was present at a meeting many years ago when some such resolution was carried, but there has been no real agitation in the country. I move about a good deal in agricultural circles, but I have never heard any suggestion that so much damage was done by rabbits and rooks that the need of legislation was urgent. I think the very fact that the proposal is brought forward after so many years shows that there is no real demand for it.
As regards the administration by county councils, there seems to me to be serious objection to it. I may point out, as a member of the County Councils Association, that this question has been before us and that the executive was very half-hearted in the matter. If Parliament puts this duty upon them, they are, of course, ready to carry it out, but the general feeling is that it is hardly the business of county councils, which are not judicial bodies, to investigate these matters. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to this as a judicial inquiry, but the county councils have no power to administer oaths. The matter would go before the agricultural committees, and they would merely have hearsay evidence before them. If rabbits and rooks are to be destroyed in this way, it surely ought to be done after judicial inquiry. This Bill provides that the county council shall have power to inquire, not only what damage is being done, but also where it is likely to be caused, to crops, trees, fences or pastures. That seems to me a very large order. You will have a roving inquiry by officials of the county councils to see whether it is likely that rabbits or rooks are in future going to do damage to property which is not being so damaged at the moment. To my mind the Bill is illogical in this respect and is not conceived in a proper judicial spirit.
The further criticism has been made that it is not clear that no expense will
46
fall upon the local rates. All of us who have to pay heavy local rates will feel strongly on this point. How is the cost going to be provided for? There is a provision that the cost shall be provided in part by the sale of rabbits, but noble Lords know that the best time for destroying rabbits, if you really want to get rid of them, is to shoot, trap and dig them during the summer, when they are perfectly valueless and no good for sale. You are not to be allowed to use traps, even in the holes. That, again, creates a great difficulty, and the county council officials will have to use wires. There may be a very serious objection to wiring, because in many cases the wire set to catch a rabbit simply catches a pheasant. You may say that this can be guarded against, but who are the people who are going to be employed by the county councils to catch rabbits? The Bill provides that they may employ any person that they like. Some county councils, for the sake of economy, will employ people in the district who are unemployed, and even in some cases the village poacher, who will take care that, he catches hares, pheasants and, it may be, partridges as well. Then again, there are many large tracts of woodland that were cut down during the War and have not been replanted. These have formed a jungle which it is impossible to get through. How would the county council deal with a hundred acres of this kind of land? They would have to clear the jungle at enormous expense. Is it likely that they are going to be paid for this by the sale of rabbits?
No doubt the noble Lord will point out that there is a provision in the Bill by which the county council can bring a civil action against the owner of the land that has been cleared by the council, or in cases where they have employed men to dig out rabbits. Surely it is hardly the business of the county council to have to bring civil actions against owners of property in this matter. I cannot help thinking that it would have been much better if, instead of throwing the onus upon the county council, the Government had thrown it upon the owner of the land on which these rabbits and rooks are found, so that, if it is proved in a county court that damage has been done, the owner may be liable to pay for that damage. I cannot see why you should constitute the county council a judicial

47
body in this matter. Why should not the man who has suffered damage from rooks or rabbits have a civil remedy by going to a court? He cannot do this now, because rabbits are farœ naturœ and there is no remedy for trespass, but it seems to me that the aggrieved person should be given power to go into a county court and prove his case for damages against, the owner of the land from which the rabbits come. This seems to me a much more reasonable method.
The noble Lord referred to statistics, but he told us of no cases in which great damage had been done. I should have thought that when he came here to ask your Lordships to assent to this great interference he would have come armed with a large volume of facts showing how acres of wheat and corn, oats and barley, had been destroyed by rabbits and rooks, and giving evidence that there was a real grievance and that the food of the people had been seriously diminished. The noble Lord did nothing of the kind, nor did he do anything to prove his case that rooks had done an enormous amount of damage. We all know that the noble Lord is a great agriculturist. I am a small agriculturist in my way, and I know that on my own farm, instead of doing damage, the rooks do an enormous amount of good. I have often noticed when I have put in spring corn that the whole field has been covered with rooks and I have had a splendid crop afterwards. We all know the danger from wire-worms. The rooks were eating the wire-worms and not the corn, and to my mind it would do a great deal of harm to allow rooks to be indiscriminately slaughtered because of the objections raised by some committee of a county council. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that some years ago the Board of Agriculture, as it then was, made an investigation regarding rooks and published in their journal the conclusion that it was very doubtful indeed if they did more harm than good. It will be interesting, when the noble Lord replies, if he can give any evidence of extensive damage by rooks.
If this Bill is read a second time I have given Notice to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. It seems to me that this would be far the best way of dealing with it. There is no hurry in this matter and the question
48
could be thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee that would hear evidence and go into details that cannot be considered by your Lordships on the Second Reading, thus making quite certain that no injury was done to any one. They might well consider whether rooks might not be struck out of the Bill altogether. They could consider also whether it would not be better to provide for civil action instead of establishing a semi-judicial body like the county council, who certainly are not anxious to undertake this work. I shall be perfectly ready to vote for the principle of the Bill, as I believe will my noble friends beside me, if the Government will tell us that they are prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that the question may be thoroughly thrashed out. If they are not ready to do so, I shall be obliged with some reluctance to vote against the Second Reading.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have listened to almost every word of this debate except the opening words of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, and I should like in the first place to offer to him my congratulations upon having come back to the House after his rather serious illness. I am quite sure there is no member of this House who would want to have the reputation of desiring to maintain a conception of private property which would allow us to keep upon our land animals which were really noxious to our neighbours and to the food supply of the country. I quite agree that great difference of opinion has been revealed in the course of the discussion amongst your Lordships as to some of the provisions of the Bill and notably as to the particular remedy which is suggested. I would submit, however, that the real principle of the Bill is that your Lordships' House is asked to say that no man is to be allowed upon his property to keep rabbits or rooks which do damage to his neighbours and to the food supply of the country.
I cannot believe that there is really any difference of opinion amongst any members of your Lordships' House upon that broad principle. I need not say that it is entirely in accordance with the almost universal precedent of modern legislation. I do not suppose

49
there will be found in any assembly men who are more careful of the rights of individuals than are to be found in this House, but yet, over and over again, have I been witness of and taken part in debates and decisions wherein the rights of individuals, where they trench upon the rights of others, have been restrained. That has happened Over and over again in the case of rights of property. We have seen, in repeated acts of legislation, that although we maintain, and properly maintain, the rights of property of individuals, yet we do not allow them to go to such an extent as to be injurious to others.
The Bill is a very short one, and if you look at the whole of the first page of the Bill I think there will be practically no difference of opinion that such excesses as are dealt with ought to be restrained. That is the principle of the Bill, and I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to agree to the Second Beading. I agree that there are differences of opinion upon detail. As to rabbits, I have not heard a single word from any noble Lord in defence of the rabbit. There was a certain doubt in the case of Lord Lambourne, but upon being pressed I gather that he hates rabbits as much as anybody else. Lord Banbury kills every rabbit he can see. Lord Clinton, who is one of the greatest authorities upon agriculture in this House, has nothing to say for the rabbit. I think we all agree that, except where it can be carefully segregated and so cannot get upon the land, the rabbit is nothing but a nuisance.
I should very much regret if it should go out to the country that in a Division in this House a majority of your Lordships had been in favour of maintaining the rabbit, with all his wickedness, upon your land. I think that would be a very unfortunate decision and one that would tend to misrepresentation of the real sentiments of your Lordships, as experts in the management of land, both agricultural land and forest land—for rabbits are equally noxious in both. Therefore I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if a decision of this House could be quoted as in favour of maintaining, for the purpose of second-rate sport—for that is what it really is—the over-production of rabbits, with their destructive habits on trees, plantings and crops.
50
As to rooks, I admit that there is a difference of opinion. I am not, however, quite so confident about it as my noble friend Lord Lambourne appears to be. I have just been shown a statement by a very high agricultural authority, tending to show that although rooks, when in few numbers, do good, yet, when they are in large numbers, they do harm. I ask your Lordships to remember that this Bill is not directed against the small rookeries—I should be very sorry if anything were done to damage what is one of the glories of the countryside—but where, owing to want of care and proper consideration for others, the owner or occupier of land allowed a large and excessive number of rooks to be bred, there alone, according to the principle of the Bill, would any action be taken. I admit that there is a little doubt about the rooks.
Then comes the remedy, and noble Lords have criticised rather severely the fact that the county councils are imported. I am not going to express a very confident opinion about this, but, so far as the county councils with which I have any connection are concerned, I cannot say that I have any apprehension that they will misuse the powers with which they are to be entrusted. I am confident that the county council of which I have the honour to be a member would exercise its powers in a very judicial spirit indeed, and with very great consideration for the interests, and even the susceptibilities, of the owners and occupiers of land over which it proposed to operate. I can, however, readily understand that many of your Lordships might wish to have a more judicial authority imported, to come to a decision as to whether particular land or a particular occupier is so much in fault as to call for a remedy.
The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has put down a Motion for a Select Committee. He would like to have this Bill considered more carefully before it is passed into law. I think it is true, as he said, that there is no great hurry for this Bill. If it were towards the end of the Session I do not know that it would be wise for the Government to consent to a Select Committee, which might result in the Bill being shelved altogether, but there is no such danger in the case of the present Bill, and if your Lordships desire that

51
matters of great importance in the Bill should be the subject of further inquiry, before the Bill passes through your Lordships' House, His Majesty's Government will not resist that Motion. Therefore, if I have any intimation from your Lordships that you would prefer, after the Bill has been read a second time, that it should be referred to a Select Committee, so that the question of whether the county councils should be replaced by some other authority, or the question of how far rooks are as pernicious as rabbits, may be further considered together with other topics, and thoroughly threshed out, then His Majesty's Government will not resist such a Motion. But I very much hope that the House will carry the Second Reading, for I am afraid that if the Bill were rejected public opinion, and especially a certain section of public opinion, would undoubtedly say that the House, which is sometimes called the House of Landlords, in order to maintain the sporting rights of its members, had done its best to allow a certain injury to be inflicted upon the food supplies of the country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to accept at once the offer which has been so handsomely made by the noble Marquess. All opposition on the part of my noble friends and myself is, of course, withdrawn in view of the offer which he has been good enough to make of a Select Committee to go into the whole matter. I particularly welcome the decision of the noble Marquess because I cannot feel that it is quite fair to condemn the rook unheard. More evidence should be brought in support. We have not heard counsel either for or against the rook, therefore I am very glad to think that we are not expected this afternoon to condemn him altogether. May I also mention one other matter, without any idea of prejudging the questions which will come before the Select Committee? There is this weak point which might be considered by that Committee. We have had it stated, and I
believe it to be true, that the rook travels ay good many miles to get his food. If he does this damage it seems to me he may very often not have the same regard and respect for the county council divisions as is held at the Ministry of Health, and there is no provision in this Bill by which, if the rook is in one place, he can be prevented from committing his depredations in another place. So if the rook is eventually condemned and found "guilty" it may be necessary to strengthen the Bill in this direction. That, no doubt, will come under the consideration of the Select Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I heartily accept the views put forward by the noble Marquess. I think he exaggerated the danger that any obloquy would fall on this House, if the Second Reading were not accepted. Personally I should have voted against the Second Reading but for the statement the noble Marquess has made. I believe that the rook does do harm. But the whole machinery of this Bill is perfectly ludicrous. As regards the rabbit, although I agree with Lord Clinton, it is the tenant more than anybody else who is interested in the rabbit question. It is not a landlord's question, it is a tenant's question. But I think it is a ludicrous Bill. It will put some further charge on the rates, which farmers certainly do not like. Having regard to what the noble Marquess said, however, I shall support the Bill if it goes to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move, That for the remainder of this Session leave be given to Lord Merthyr to vote in his place in the House.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Wellington, D.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Beauchamp, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clarendon, E.

Chaplin, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cranbrook, E.

Peel, V.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Ullswater, V.

Lovelace, E.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Worcester L. Bp.

Askwith, L.

FitzWalter, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Merthyr, L.

Clinton, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gainford, L.

Olivier, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Danesfort, L.

Harris, L.

Strachie, L.

Desborough, L.

Hayter, L.

Teplemore, L.

Wargrave, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Bathurst, E.

Biddulph, L,

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly)

Derby, E.

Carew, L.

Mowbray, L.

Midleton, E.

Carson, L.

Newton, L.

Morton, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Churchill, V.

Hanworth, L.

Raglan, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Saltoun, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hindlip, L.

Sandys, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Savile, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wyfold.

Annaly, L.

Lambourne, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly, and Bill read 2a.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Strachie.)

COLONIAL PROBATES (PROTECTED STATES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg Leave to introduce the Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill, to confirm Orders relating to Amersham, Beaconsfield and District Water, Canterbury Water, Dorking Water, and Newhaven and Seaford Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill, to confirm Orders relating to Combe Down and District Water, Thirsk District Water, and York Water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill, to confirm Orders relating to Clare and Bumpstead Joint Hospital District, Guildford, Scarborough, Sheffield, Wandle Valley Joint, Sewerage District, and Whitehaven; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions).
Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund).
Frimley and Farnborough District Water.
Westgate and Birchington Water.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Gainsborough Bridge. [H.L.]
The same were Ordered to lie on the Table.

GAINSBOROUGH BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
  PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.
  Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
ABERSOCH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 16th and 17th March last discharged, and Bill committed.
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
  COLCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. BILL.

TENBY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the borough of Tenby, in the County of Pembroke:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WICK AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the Royal Burgh of Wick, and the parish of Wick, in the County of Caithness:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WITTON-LE-WEAR ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the township of Witton-le-Wear, in the rural district, of Auckland, in the County of Durham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.