Sitting of 11 May 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER 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:
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time.
Commercial Gas Bill [Lords],
Manchester Corporation Bill,
Southern Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders
(No. 4) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ouse and Cam Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Sheffield Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS (PEKING).
    Lieut.-colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any evidence was found, as the result of the raid by the Chinese Government on the Russian Embassy at Peking, of anti-British
    358
    activities being carried on by the Soviet officials in China; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I cannot usefully say anything more about the character of the documents seized by the Chinese until I have received and examined the White Book Which the Peking Government has announced its intention to publish.
    Sir F. HALL: Considering the weeks that have elapsed since the visit by the Chinese authorities to the Soviet premises, cannot my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to give the information asked for?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say anything more than that I hope to be in a position to give further information when I have received the White Paper.
    Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend have any objection to my repeating the question in a fortnight's time?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: None whatever, but my hon. and gallant Friend must not make me responsible for the time which the Chinese Government think proper to use in the examination of the documents before they publish them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for the Chinese White Paper?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I take no responsibility for the publications of other people.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Cannot my right hon. Friend get into telegraphic communication with our representative there with a view to having the salient parts of the White Paper sent here by telegraph as quickly as possible?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: At present the White Paper is not in existence, and His Majesty's representative in Peking cannot send me a summary of a book that has not yet appeared. I have no doubt that he will give me some information as to the general character of it when it appears, but I think it will probably be necessary for me to see the book myself before I express an opinion on the documents.

    EX-EMPEROR (BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin attended the birthday celebrations of the ex-Emperor of the Ching dynasty of China; and whether he will explain why this action was taken?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the subject.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TRAFFIC IN WOMEN REPORT).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Permanent Advisory Committee of the League of Nations with a view to having Part 2 of the League of Nations Report on Traffic in Women published; and, if so, if he can state the answer he has received?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. As stated in reply to the hon. Member on 27th April, publication can only be decided by the Council.
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of reading this Report himself yet?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I was rapporteur to the Council, and I thought it my duty to read this Report.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in the public interest this Report ought to be published?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is an exaggerated importance attached to Part 2 of the Report. All that is of substance for the formation of judgment and policy is contained in Part 1. Part 2 is complementary, supplementary and illustrative, but does not really add to the information already in possession of the public. I would like to say that I am not prejudging the question of the publication of Part 2. That rests with the Council which thought— I did not suggest it to them— that it was only courteous to the Governments whose countries were particularly mentioned in Part 2 that they should have an opportunity of seeing the Report beforehand.

    CAIRO-KARACHI AIR, ROUTE (PERSIA).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the impediment placed in the way of the Cairo-Karachi air route by the Government of Persia; and whether the difficulty has now been got over?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. At present I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member on 28th April.

    VATICAN (BRITISH LEGATION).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the maintenance of a Legation at the Vatican is now regarded as a matter of permanent policy or, if not, what developments are awaited to fulfil the period necessary for the completion of its desirability according to the policy of earlier post-War Governments?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have no intention of withdrawing the Mission to the Holy See.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is considered necessary to maintain the Legation at the Vatican?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government found it convenient to establish this delegation at a time of great international trouble and difficulty. To withdraw the delegation now would, I think, he an almost offensive action, which we should be slow to adopt. Apart from that, whatver views we may have individually about the Roman Church, there can be no doubt that the head of that Church represents a great force in the world and is venerated by many millions of His Majesty's subjects.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether, as this delegation was sent at a time of abnormal circumstances, now that conditions have become normal we ought not as a matter of ordinary policy to withdraw the delegation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I think certainly not. I think it would be highly impolitic.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: Is it not a fact that the appointment of the delegation was one of ordinary policy and did not entirely arise under extraordinary circumstances?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that ordinary and extraordinary circumstances combined to induce the Government of the day to make that decision.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) keep this Legation in being very properly?

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA (BRITISH FIRMS).
    Sir Clement KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the taxation authorities in Czechoslovakia are demanding from British firms contributions by way of capital levy on goods supplied to business houses in that country, and that these demands are being extended to trade debts incurred previous to the outbreak of war; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in this matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Representations in this sense have recently been addressed to me by certain British interests concerned, and the matter is now being investigated.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of appointments at Admiralty headquarters with a salary of £500 per annum or more that have been created since July, 1914; what are the duties of the officers or officials in each case; and how many are in receipt of half-pay or pension in addition to the civil pay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The preparation in detail of the particulars asked for by the hon. Member would involve an expenditure of time and labour which hardly seems to be justified by the circumstances. I would refer the hon. Member to the Navy Estimates for 1914–15 and 1927
    362
    respectively, comparison between which would indicate what additional posts of the character indicated have been created since 1914–15.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House of the figures of the increase in the number of officers receiving the amount stated in the question?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I certainly could give the House that number, but it would take a good deal of time and labour to work it all out. My answer so far has covered the point raised by the hon. Member who put the question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman give a plain figure of the officers receiving a salary of £500 or over between 1914 and 1927, without referring to the details of the duties performed?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will consider the suggestion, but I would point out that to get particulars and numbers would necessitate looking into facts and figures and would take a great deal of time.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider employing a £500 a year man to collect this information?
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I think the Minister ought to try to satisfy Members—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

    WAR OFFICE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War the number of appointments at the War Office with a salary of £500 per annum or more that have been created since July, 1914; what are the duties of the officers or officials in each case; and how many are in receipt of retired pay or pension in addition to civil pay?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I would refer the hon. Member to pages 89 to 99 of the Army Estimates for 1914 and to Appendix XI of the Army Estimates for 1927.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health how many men and

    363
    women, respectively, are employed in the higher administrative, junior administrative, higher executive grades, and above in his Department; and how many are employed in the headquarters department of the Ministry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): 223 men and 14 women are employed in the administrative and higher executive grades and above in my Department. They are all employed at headquarters.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    KIDNEY DISEASES.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of officers and ratings of the Royal Navy who were invalided with nephritis and other diseases of the kidneys during the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively; and whether, seeing that the incidence of kidney trouble may be due to the fact that only condensed water is available for drinking purposes in His Majesty's ships, it would be possible to aerate condensed water before consumption by ships' companies?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): In 1924, six cases were invalided from the Royal Navy (excluding Marines at headquarters) for disease of the kidneys (five for nephritis and one for stone in the kidney). Particulars of cases which occurred in 1925 and 1926 are not yet available. The question of whether the consumption of distilled water is in any way detrimental to health has been the subject of inquiry, but there is no evidence available that it is a factor in the causation of disease. I may add that the distilled water produced in ships undergoes considerable aeration before it is consumed by the ships' companies.

    RHEUMATISM.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boys, second and first class, Royal Navy, at the training establishment, Shotley, who were admitted to sick-quarters and hospital suffering from rheumatism and kindred complaints during the years 1924, 1925 and 1926; and the number of boys
    364
    and men under 21 years of age who have been invalided from the Royal Navy owing to rheumatism during the years 1925 and 1926?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The following numbers of boys, second and first class, Royal Navy, at the Training Establishment, Shotley, were admitted to sick quarters and hospital for "rheumatism" and kindred complaints:

    In 1924

    20

    In 1925

    11

    In 1926

    13

    The information asked for in the second part of the question is not readily available and its compilation would involve an expenditure of time and labour which I think my hon. Friend would not consider justified in the circumstances.
    Sir B. FALLE: Does my right hon. Friend not think that some investigation should be made of these cases of rheumatism among first-class boys?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are kept under observation and the figures do not go to show that there is any increase.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it not be easy to ascertain how many men under 21 have been invalided as a result of contracting rheumatism?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope that the House will not insist on my giving these very detailed figures, which may cause an increase in the Estimates of my Department.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not this matter of such importance to the health of the men in the Royal Navy that we ought to have these facts and figures before us?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: But we have a medical department who are very diligent in this matter, and there is no prima facie evidence that there is anything wrong.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the medical officers are satisfied that there are no extraordinary circumstances causing this unfortunate disability?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I certainly imagine that that is so. I shall be only too glad to investigate these cases.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Will the First Lord say how many of these cases were invalided out with heart disease?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I require notice of that question.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether dock-yard officials received a request on behalf of the established men recently discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, to the effect that the notices should be cancelled for a month in order that a case might be drafted on behalf of the discharged men; whether this request was rejected; and, if so, the reason for its rejection?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the other parts therefore do not arise.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the established men discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, whether he will say why it is that these men were informed on one notice that their services were not entirely satisfactory, that on another notice it was stated that they were discharged on reduction, and in a third place that their character was excellent in every respect; and whether, as the statement that their services are not entirely satisfactory is calculated to place them in an impossible position when they are seeking re-employment elsewhere, he can withdraw this comment?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The statements referred to in the first and second parts of the question are statements of fact. I have no knowledge of the third communication referred to. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if it is the practice of the Government to dispense with the services of those established servants who have been given an assurance that they will have work as long as they can do it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They are employed subject to their approved efficiency. It is not the policy of the Government to do away with the services of established men, but in certain cases it is inevitable.
    Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that these men have become inefficient?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Which men does the hon. Member mean?
    Mr. KELLY: The established men who have been discharged.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The men who have been discharged are less efficient than those who are kept on.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the men discharged are less efficient than those who remain, does that justify the Department in declaring that these men are inefficient and discharging them?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My Department has never made that statement.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Then what is the reason why these established servants have been discharged?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Because there are too many employed at the present time.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an undertaking that the discharge of six established men at His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, was an exception, and that it is the intention of the Admiralty not to discharge any more established men?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No such assurance can be given, but it is not intended to discharge on reduction established men whose services are satisfactory when numbers can be reduced to the extent required by discharging hired men.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it has always been clearly understood that an established man has security of employment and certain pension rights subject to his efficiency; and can the hon. and gallant Gentleman positively say that in the case of the efficient men their contracts will not be broken and that they will be kept on?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think my answer is calculated to allay anxiety on that point.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that it is rather difficult for the Government not to discharge men, seeing that both

    367
    the Socialists and the Members of the Labour party are always asking for a reduced Navy?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: And we are not getting it.
    Viscountess ASTOR: You cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: We are not getting it either way.

    WAITRESSES (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the waitresses in Lyons' teashops worked for 12 hours at a stretch on the occasion of the Cup Final at Wembley; whether these hours are their usual working hours or only for special occasions; whether, in view of this apparent hardship suffered by the waitresses, he is still satisfied with the decision that special boards are not necessary in the catering trades; and what action he proposes to take to prevent the employment of women for such abnormal hours?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have no information as to the hours or wages of these waitresses on the occasion of the Cup Final, nor have any complaints been addressed to me. If the hours worked were as stated they were certainly in excess of those usually worked.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of my question? This evidence was given to me direct.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me evidence, I shall be very glad to consider it and as regards the last part of his question, it depends on the answer to the foregoing. It would also depend on whether the case was entirely abnormal or whether it was partly normal as regards the hours worked.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "evidence"? Have I to bring the waitresses themselves?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to do so, I shall be glad to hear the evidence, but that is not necessary. He can give me particulars of the hours and the various other information on paper in the first instance.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the wages paid by Lyons, and the hours of their workers, are better than almost any other in the trade; but is it not also true that in no industry is a Trade Board more necessary than in the catering industry, because the wages are perfectly outrageous?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the figures which he himself published last year, less than 1 per cent. of the catering trade employés are organised in trade unions and that there is no body to act for them?
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's first reply and the unsatisfactory conditions in Lyons' and other places, is he prepared to set up a Trade Board in this industry?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss Trade Boards on this question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who were recently discharged from Portsmouth Dockyard who have been found work elsewhere through the efforts of his Department?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of the 600 men recently discharged from Portsmouth Dockyard some 450 have registered at the Portsmouth Employment Exchange and 26 have so far been placed in other employment by the Exchange. I understand also that some 50 or 60 others have obtained work with contractors in the Dockyard. Local officers of the Department will continue their efforts to find work for the remainder.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any effort is being made by his Depart-

    369
    ment to obtain employment for these men in Portsmouth, or to bring them into touch with employment in other districts?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think that is the case, but I will find out further information and give it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in these cases where a Government Department discharges employés in large numbers, it is customary to consult other Departments to ascertain whether there is a reasonable probability of the men obtaining employment elsewhere?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no right to answer off-hand for my right hon. Friend. The discharges were made as part of general Government policy with regard to the Navy.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it customary for the right hon. Gentleman to be consulted as to whether these men can be found other employment before they are discharged?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is there no co-ordination whatever between Departments in connection with these discharges?

    YOUNG PERSONS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls, respectively, of ages 16 to 17 and 17 to 18, who are insured persons; and the number of boys and girls, respectively, transferred to registers of men and women during the last available year?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is estimated that at July, 1926, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of juveniles insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, exclusive of persons insured under Special Schemes, was made up as follows:

    Boys:

    16 and under 17

    274,000

    17 and under 18

    290,000

    Girls:

    16 and under 17

    198,500

    17 and under 18

    202,500

    370
    It is probable that the number of insured persons who became 18 years of age during 1926 was slightly less than the number who were aged 17 and under 18 at July of that year, but precise statistics on this point are not available.

    ROAD WORKS, HASTINGS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of casual labourers employed by the Hastings Corporation on the reconstruction of the road on the sea front went on strike recently, complaining that the work was too hard, and had to be discharged; and whether these men will be treated as entitled to unemployment relief?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result as soon as possible.
    Sir F. HALL: In the event of the first part of the question being a correct statement of the facts, will these men be entitled to unemployment relief?
    Mr. LUNN: When the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries, will he particularly inquire into the statement that these men went on strike complaining that the work was too hard?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the very hard work is done by mechanical navvies instead of ordinary labour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."]
    Mr. MARCH: Go down the Commercial Road and see.

    FLYING MEETING, BOURNEMOUTH.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any of the pilots or mechanics taking part in the flying meeting at Bournemouth on Monday, 18th April, were members of the Royal Air Force; whether any materials or machines belonging to the Royal Air Force were used on this occasion; and, if so, whether any damage was caused to any of the machines so used?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, a number of Royal Air Force officers flew in the competition, but not on service machines, and the answer to the remaining parts of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel DAY: Is it necessary for pilots to obtain special permits before taking part in these pageants?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

    PRIVATELY-OWNED AIRCRAFT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air how many privately-owned aircraft there are in Great Britain and Northern Ireland licensed to fly, apart from the aircraft owned by the companies drawing a subsidy from the Government; and how many of these former are light aeroplanes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The number of civil aircraft with valid certificates of airworthiness, excluding those owned by the Air Council, by Imperial Airways, Limited, and by subsidised light aeroplane club companies, is 138: of these, 36 are light aeroplanes.
    Mr. KELLY: How many of these are in Northern Ireland?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I could not answer that question without notice.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    STORES AND MATERIAL (SALES).
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Secretary of State for Air what amounts have been received from sales of airship stores and material during the years 1925 and 1926?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The receipts were, approximately, £8,800 in 1925 and £2,900 in 1926.
    Colonel DAY: Were these stores sold privately or advertised for public sale?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if there is more than one mooring-mast in England suitable for the R. 100 and R. 101; and is it contemplated, or possible, that both vessels can use one mast simultaneously;
    (2) if it is proposed to handle the R. 100 for trials at Howden without any
    372
    mooring-mast at that station; and does he, propose to erect a mooring-mast at that place, and, if not, will the mooring-mast at Cardington be available for R. 100 directly the ship is ready for trials?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is only one mooring-mast in England suitable for the R. 100 and R. 101, namely, that at Cardington, and it is not proposed to erect a second at Howden. The Cardington mast can be used by both airships, but not simultaneously; it is not contemplated that they will be in the air for their trial flights at the same time or that difficulty will in practice arise in regard to the availability of the mast for either airship when ready.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the hon. Baronet give us some idea as to the date of completion of the Howden airship and the Cardington airship, in view of the possibility of simultaneous trials?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I could not say definitely, but we hope to have both flying next year.
    Mr. WELLS: Does not the hon. Baronet think it essential that there should be more than one mooring mast in this country in case of bad weather?
    Sir W. DAVISON: What has happened to the mast at Pulham, in Norfolk? Is that not suitable?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is only one mast at Cardington suitable for these airships. For the trials, I think, the one mast is sufficient.
    Sir F. HALL: Supposing it is necessary to have both in the air simultaneously, what protection will there be for the two airships if they should require separate masts?
    Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Is not that a hypothetical question?
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it not necessary to ballast these large airships, when they are secured to mooring masts, before they can be replaced in their sheds; and, if that be so, and if these two ships are to do trials simultaneously, how are they to get back to their sheds unless they are ballasted at the mooring masts?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We will not have them in the air simultaneously.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Air what amount of the sums of £31,650, £36,000 and £39,750 spent upon salaries of officials, designers and draughtsmen at Cardington in the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, respectively, are included in the sum of £260,000 stated to have been expended upon experimental work in connection with the proposed airship R. 101?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that as the hon. Member's question first appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, and to supply the figures required entails some, investigation, I am not yet in a position to give a reply. I will communicate the figures to him as soon as they are available.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Air what amount of the sums of £31,650, £36,000 and £39,750 spent upon salaries of officials, designers and draughtsmen at Cardington, in the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, respectively, have to be added to the estimated sum of £280,000 for wages and materials in connection with the construction of R. 101 to include the necessary design and overhead charges?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Of the amounts quoted by the hon. Member, sums of £7,630, £13,540 and £20,000, respectively, may be taken as chargeable against R. 101 in respect of design, and £2,710, £6,010 and £14,120, respectively, in respect of overheads.

    GOVERNMENT STOCK DIVIDENDS (RECEIPTS).
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the Public Trustee issues cheques in payment of dividends on Government stock in his hands, with a notice that a 2d. stamp must be placed on the back thereof as a receipt, and that cheques have been dishonoured by reason of this stamp not being affixed; that, in addition to his authorised charges, 2d. is deducted from the amount of the dividend for the stamp on the cheque; and under what legal authority the receipt stamp for such dividends is required by the Public Trustee?
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (for The ATTORNEY-GENERAL): The hon. and gallant Member's question appears to be based upon a misapprehension. The Public Trustee does not issue cheques in payment of dividends on Government stocks. The Public Trustee, like other persons, is subject to the provisions of the Stamp Act, and when making payments to beneficiaries requires a receipt stamped 2d. for any sum of two pounds or upwards paid to a beneficiary. In certain cases when payment is made by cheque a form of receipt is printed on the back of the cheque. The revenue stamp of 2d. is an ordinary trust expense chargeable to the Trust Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Public Trustee Act, 1906.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Postmaster-General on what grounds his Department decided not to permit Messrs. Russian Oil Products, Limited, to advertise again in the Telephone Directory, in view of the fact that a Court of Appeal, on 12th May, 1921, consisting of Lord Justices Banks, Warrington, and Scrutton, declared that British Courts could not question the Soviet Government's title to property if that title was acquired by its laws within its own territory?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): It is the practice to refuse advertisements which are likely to give rise to political controversy and I regard the advertisement referred to as falling within this category.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 75 per cent. of these oil products are sold to other firms in this country, and then retailed by them as fine spirit, and is not that advertising these goods through different firms?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no knowledge of that.
    Mr. THURTLE: May we take it that there has been no pressure applied to

    375
    the right hon. Gentleman's Department by the great oil combines of this country to induce him to take up this attitude?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, yes; the hon. Member may certainly take that to be the case.

    TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Sir F. WISE (for Sir J. POWER)asked the Postmaster-General the aggregate loss on the telegraph service since 1869 up to 31st March, 1927?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The aggregate loss is estimated approximately at £44,500,000.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to encourage the telephone service?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When calculating these figures, is consideration given to those services that are known to be contracted for actually below cost price, such as newspaper telegraph messages, and so forth?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, the figures include every kind of service. Before 1906 the figures for telephones and telegraphs were not separated.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of advertising the telegraph service in the same manner as the telephone service is being advertised?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.

    COUNCIL HOUSES (SALE).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health whether any local authorities have declined to offer for sale council houses built under the 1923 Act, or to operate the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; and what action his Department has taken to encourage local authorities to sell houses to those who wish to buy?
    Sir K. WOOD: The control of houses erected by local authorities is a matter for those authorities, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and similar
    376
    provisions are adoptive by local authorities. My right hon. Friend has, by circular and other means, recommended local authorities to utilise the powers which they possess for the encouragement of house ownership, and although there are many local authorities which have not taken action, the use of these powers is becoming more widespread every year.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is there no other way in which we can ginger up the local authorities except by way of circulars, seeing that it is the Unionist party's policy that every man should own his own house?
    Sir K. WOOD: We are doing all we can, but if the Noble Lady can make any further suggestion I shall be glad to consider it.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health if a man employed by a public authority, who was an excepted person under the Health Insurance Acts, but who has paid contributions of 4½d. per week under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act from the 4th January, 1926, until his subsequent superannuation, is treated as eligible for an old age pension under the latter Act, he having attained the age of 65, irrespective of the amount of his superannuation pay?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; subject to compliance with the ordinary statutory conditions.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health in how many of the cases of small-pox which have ended fatally this year vaccination had taken place?
    Sir K. WOOD: Since the reply given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury) on 9th instant, a further death has occurred among patients suffering from small-pox. Of the 28 cases which have ended fatally this year, 21 were unvaccinated at the time when they acquired infection, while seven had been vaccinated in infancy. The ages of the latter at the time when they were attacked by small-pox were: 22, 23, 44, 50, 54, 58 and 62, respectively.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the diagnosis proved conclusively that all these cases were small-pox?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no reason to doubt the information I have received.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of these cases of small-pox were contracted abroad?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. The hon. Member had better put down a question.
    Dr. WATTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the types of cases in the last few months have been more virulent than any we have had for some time?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I have seen a statement to that effect.

    PETROL AND CRUDE OIL IMPORTS.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of gallons of petrol and crude oil brought into this country last year, or the most convenient year for which figures are obtainable?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I would refer the hon. Member to the Accounts of Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for December last, on pages 46 and 68 of which he will find the information he desires, in respect of the year 1926.

  TRANSPORT.

    PICCADILLY CIRCUS (ROAD WIDENING).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the building operations in Piccadilly Circus are now finished; and when it proposed to begin widening the road, and so prevent what is now a continuous block?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The carrying out of the widening during the London season, when the traffic in this neighbourhood is at its densest, would only add to the existing difficulties. Further, Piccadilly must be repaved in the very near future, and it is obviously desirable that the
    378
    works should be carried out together. It has therefore been arranged that they shall be put in hand in August.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what period is covered by the London season?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of individual taste.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that this block in Piccadilly is to go on until August?
    Colonel ASHLEY: First of all, I cannot admit that there is an extensive block, but for the reasons I have stated in the answer, I think it is desirable that the two works should be carried out together and that they should be postponed until August.

    GLASGOW-BALLOCH ROAD (MOTOR TRAFFIC).
    Lieut.-Colonel THOMasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the motor omnibus and other motor traffic during the summer months on the Glasgow-Balloch road is of such a volume and nature as to constitute a grave danger to the public; and whether he proposes to take any steps to regulate this traffic by a system of licensing and control or otherwise so as to ensure the public safety?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention had not previously been drawn to the volume of traffic on this particular road. So far as motor omnibus traffic is concerned, Part IV of the Draft Road Traffic Bill which I have recently circulated provides for a system of licensing and control of these vehicles throughout the country.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to introduce that Bill?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot say.

    INDIA (TEXTILE TARIFF BOARD).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that the Government of India have stated that they considered it essential to publish their decision on the more important recommendations of the India (Textile) Tariff Board when the recommendations were announced; and, as the recommendations

    379
    have now been made public, if he is in a position to announce the decision of the Government of India on the proposals;
    (2) whether he can make any statement as to the action proposed to be taken by the Government of India on the Report of the Indian (Textile) Tariff Board, which recommends that the duty on cotton goods up to 40's counts from all sources shall be raised from 11 per cent. to 15 per cent.?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I will reply to these questions together. The answer to the first part of question No. 43 is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part of that question, there is no truth whatever in the statement which appeared in the Press last week that the Report of the Tariff Board has been published in India. That being the case, it is obviously not possible for me to make any statement either as to the contents of the Report or as to the action that will be taken on it. I can, however, say this that a decision may be expected shortly.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Are we to assume that the recommendations of this Committee, if and when they are published, will necessarily be accepted by the Government of India?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not prepared to make any further statement than that I have already made in the House, that the decision of the Government of India will in all probability be announced simultaneously with the publication of the Report.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON LUNACY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Prime Minister if and when it is proposed to introduce legislation embodying the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Lunacy, presided over by Mr. R. F. Macmillan, K.C.?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) on 10th March last.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that experienced doctors in their evidence
    380
    before the Commission stated they did not know what went on behind their backs?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no knowledge of the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, and I would refer him to the answer of the 10th March.
    Lieut.-Colonel THOM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such person as R. F. Macmillan, K.C?
    Mr. THURTLE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the introduction of the Trade Disputes Bill is another proof, if proof were needed, of the urgency of the need for dealing with lunacy?

    PATRINGTON FARM COLONY.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture the total loss incurred in respect of the Patrington estate?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I regret that I am not yet able to add anything to the answers which I gave to my hon. Friend on 17th November and 16th March last. I am informed that several months must elapse before the final accounts for Patrington Farm Settlement will be ready for publication.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When these accounts are presented can we have some estimate of the amount that has been spent in unemployment relief and the value of the training for the men?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think it would be absolutely impossible to make an estimate of that kind. There is no evidence of unemployment in agriculture; on the contrary, hon. Members opposite tell me that there is such a shortage of labour that people out of the workhouse have to be employed.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is there any prospect of the two farms being let?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We are trying to let the farms. The House will perhaps be glad to know that all the agricultural workers who remained on the estate have got employment elsewhere.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (REVENUE).
    Major CRAWFURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of duty collected at the full and preferential rate in respect of all the commodities to which Imperial Preference applies for the years 1925–26 and 1926–27, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Penny) on 18th November last and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) on 26th April.

    AFRICAN RAILWAY FINANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the guarantee of £2,000,000 granted to the African Railway Finance Company, Limited, under the Trade Facilities Act, is part of the amount of £10,000,000 agreed to be guaranteed to East Africa?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

    FRANCHISE (FAILURE TO VOTE).
    Sir F. WISE (for Sir J. POWER)asked the Prime Minister whether, in the forthcoming Representation of the People Bill, any steps will be taken to disfranchise for a period those persons who fail to vote at any election without good cause shown?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. In the view of His Majesty's Government the proposal contained in my hon. Friend's question would not be practicable.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability, on the introduction of this Measure, of abolishing two-member constituencies and making them single member constituencies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely a different question.

    ATLANTIC FLIGHT (FRENCH AIRMEN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force is able to assist in any way in the search for the two missing French airmen, Captains Nungesser and Coli?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry has been in close consultation with the appropriate French authorities in this country and has given them all the advice and assistance in their power. If any further specific request for assistance is made by the French authorities, it will, of course, be immediately forthcoming.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Baronet offered the French authorities the use of some of our machines in the West of England for searching the Western Channel approaches if they desire us to do so?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We have been in the closest possible touch with the French Attache, and have done everything in our power to help him. We have sent out warnings to all units in the coastal area to keep a special look-out. We have not sent any special patrol into any part of the Channel, but if the French were specifically to request us to do so, we should do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: With regard to the Motion on the Paper to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule, may I ask, before it is put from the Chair, that the Prime Minister should give the House some information as to why this Motion has been put down. [Interruption.] Before the Committee stage is entered upon is it not unusual, if not unprecedented, to make such a Motion on so important a Bill, and does it not justify the protests from this side of the House against this early use of superior numbers?
The PRIME MINISTER: What has often been done before— I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it— has been to put down a guillotine Motion before the Committee stage was entered upon at all. Having

383
regard to the condition of the Order Paper, I think it a wise precaution to put this Motion down, not with any intention of sitting late to-night, but thinking that it might facilitate discussion as the evening went on.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 132.

Division No. 110.]

AYES.

[3.29 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Davies, Dr. Vernon

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Albery, Irving James

Dixey, A. C.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Drewe, C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

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

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Ellis, R. G.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Astor, Viscountess

Elveden, Viscount

Loder, J. de V.

Atholl, Duchess of

England, Colonel A.

Looker, Herbert William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Lougher, Lewis

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lumley, L. R.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fielden, E. B.

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

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Finburgh, S.

Maclntyre, Ian

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

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

McLean, Major A.

Berry, Sir George

Forrest, W.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Bethel, A.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Betterton, Henry B.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Macquisten, F. A.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

Ganzonl, Sir John

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

Gates, Percy

Malone, Major P. B.

Blundell, F. N.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Margesson, Captain D.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Goff, Sir Park

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Grace, John

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Brass, Captain W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

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

Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Oakley, T.

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

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

Burman, J. B.

Hammersley, S. S.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hanbury, C.

Penny, Frederick George

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Campbell, E. T.

Harland, A.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Carver, Major W. H.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Cassels, J. D.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Haslam, Henry C.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hawke, John Anthony

Preston, William

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Raine, W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Ramsden, E.

Chapman, Sir S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Remnant, Sir James

Christle, J. A.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Rice, Sir Frederick

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

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

Clayton, G. C.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Holt, Captain H. P.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Ropner, Major L.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Salmon, Major I.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cope, Major William

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

Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Sandon, Lord

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hurd, Percy A.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

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

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jacob, A. E.

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Skelton, A. N.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jephcott, A. R.

Smithers, Waldron

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

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Waddington, R.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

Womersley, W. J.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Warrender, Sir victor

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Watson Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Templeton, W. P.

Watts, Dr. T.

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

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

Wells, S. R.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Colonel Gibbs.

Tinne, J. A.

Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)

NOES.

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

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnes, A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smillie, Robert

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Briant, Frank

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sneil, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles,

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, T.

Strauss, E. A.

Charleton, H. C.

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

Sullivan, J.

Clowes, S.

Lansbury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Taylor, R. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lee, F.

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

Connolly, M.

Lowth, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lunn, William

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

Crawfurd, H. E.

Macklnder, W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalton, Hugh

MacLaren, Andrew

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Trevefyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Maxton, James

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dunnico, H.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)

Montague, Frederick

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Fenby, T. D.

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

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

Gosling, Harry

Murnin, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Oliver, George Harold

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon Josiah

Greenall, T.

Paling, W.

Wellock, Wilfred

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Palin, John Henry

Westwood, J.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wiggins, William Martin

Groves, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

Purcell, A. A.

Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Riley, Ben

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Windsor, Walter

Harney, E. A.

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

Wright, W.

Harris, Percy A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Hayday, Arthur

Scurr, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

Hayes, John Henry

Sexton, James

Mr. Allen parkinson and Mr.

Whiteley.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the urban district council of Aberdare to execute street improvements; to authorise them to discontinue trolley vehicle services; to confer further powers on them with
386
respect to tramways and omnibuses; the supply of electricity and water, and the health, local government and improvement of their district; and for other purposes." [Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Torquay Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Before I leave the Chair, I have to deal with certain Motions which stand on the Order Paper. The first, in the name of the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) and other hon. Members,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to ensure that in any legislation affecting the rights of organised workers care be taken to ensure that such legislation equally applies to organised employers,"
  is out of order because it is not necessary, since, if desired, an Amendment can be entertained without an Instruction. The second Motion, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) and other hon. Members,
  "That the proceedings on the Bill be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Selection of Amendment),"
  is out of order because it proposes to suspend a Standing Order of the House at a time when only an Instruction can be moved. That cannot be done.
  Mr. T. KENNEDY: With regard to my Motion, may I be allowed to say that I am not quite clear at the moment with regard to your ruling? As I understand it, your ruling implies that it is not competent for a private Member to move the suspension of a Standing Order, as is suggested in my Motion. The Standing Order referred to in this case is the Standing Order which empowers the Chairman to select Motions and Amendments on the Paper. I dare say you will not allow me to raise the general ground upon which this Motion is brought forward, and to discuss the extraordinary character of the Bill to be committed, but there are two points which I think I should be allowed to state to you before you finally dispose of my Motion. The first point is that this Motion, in our judgment, was made necessary by the fact that the House is now living under a modern Standing Order— a new Standing Order brought into being in 1919. The point that I wish to bring to your notice
  400
  in that regard is that the Bill which is now to be committed is not comparable with any other Bill which has been before this House since the Standing Order in question came into existence, and I would like to have your ruling on the distinction which is drawn. I understand it is competent to-day for the House to give an Instruction to a Committee with regard to a Bill on matters concerning the scope or substance of the Bill, and I understand that the House may direct a Committee to discuss and deal with matters outside the scope or Title of a Bill. If that be competent in regard to the form or substance of a Bill, may I respectfully ask why the same privilege cannot be exercised by the House with regard to matters of procedure in the Committee? My Motion relates specifically to procedure. The other point that I wish to bring to your notice is, that one of your predecessors had to create a precedent with regard to allowing Instructions to be submitted to a Committee, and I humbly suggest that on this exceptional occasion there is an urgent need that the House, if necessary, should create a new precedent and give the Committee an opportunity to have the full and unrestricted Debate that this Bill requires.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In one particular the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I did not say that it was only competent for the Government to propose the suspension of a Standing Order. Any Member can do that at the proper time, if he can find the time for it, but the Government, of course, have an advantage in control over the time of the House. A proposal, however, to suspend a Standing Order is not in the nature of an Instruction, and certainly cannot be entertained here.
  Mr. CLYNES: On that point of Order. Understanding that at some later stage a Member may be able to move such a Motion as that which is under discussion, would it be proper to ask the Government now to state what their intentions may be?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; we can only at this stage deal with what is on the Paper.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Further on the point of Order, may I ask you, Sir, whether,

  401
  as this Motion has been put upon the Paper, it would not be possible to ask the Prime Minister if an opportunity will be given for the moving of this Motion on some subsequent occasion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not on this occasion.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Further on the point of Order, I think I am expressing the opinion of most Members of the House when I say that we are not quite clear as to why this instruction cannot be moved, and we should welcome from you, Sir, an explanation as to why an ordinary Member cannot at this stage of a Bill move that an Instruction be inserted. Perhaps you will give us that explanation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A proposal to suspend a Standing Order can only be presented in due form, as is provided by the rules of the House. It is not in the nature of an Instruction at all.
  With regard to the next Motion, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson),
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions regulating the establishment, application, and public audit of funds used for political purposes by any association or body of employers,"
  this is a matter which is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I in no sense desire to challenge your ruling, but might I ask you to notice the words of the Instruction, and also to look at Subsection (5) of Clause 4 of the Bill? The Instruction ends with the words:
  "regulating the establishment, application. and public audit of funds used for political purposes by any association or body of employers."
  Then, if we turn to the Sub-section to which I have referred, it reads as follows:
  "Section sixteen of the Trade Union Act, 1871, which provides for the transmission to the registrar of annual returns of registered trade unions, shall apply"—
  and these are new words—
  "to every unregistered trade union so far as respects the receipts, funds, effects, expenditure, assets and liabilities of the political fund thereof."
  I am sure I need not remind you, Sir, that employers' associations are trade unions. It is very clearly laid down in the old Trade Union Acts that employers' associations are trade unions, and, that
  402
  being so, it cannot be questioned at this time of day that employers' associations are using their funds for political purposes. During the years that I have been here I have heard this debated over and over again, and circulars have been read in this House that were issued on Bills with which Parliament was dealing of a political and industrial character. It was clearly demonstrated that these associations, which were trade unions but were not subjected to this part of the law of 1871, were using their funds in the way that I have suggested. I hope may be permitted to say that, as this provision has been applicable for years to registered unions, we think it is only equitable that employers' associations taking an active part in politics should have the same law applied to them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, in so far as the Instruction deals with what he has now argued, is quite unnecessary, because an Amendment can be tendered, without an Instruction, in Committee for that purpose. It is only where it goes beyond what the right hon. Gentleman said that it is out of order. An Amendment could be moved in Committee in the sense he has just suggested.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Then I understand Amendments dealing with the point I have raised would be, in your opinion, if called by the Chair, really in order for discussion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly think so. With regard to the next Instruction standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), that also is out of order because it is not necessary. It seems to me it would be competent for the Committee to entertain the suggestion he makes without an Instruction. It might require a slight consequential alteration in the Title of the Bill. The last one on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is outside the scope of the Bill, and for that reason out of order.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: If the matter raised in the Instruction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) is partly in order, I think there is a very strong case to be submitted for the Instruction in the name of myself

  403
  and my hon. Friends also to be regarded as being in order. I want to lay the same stress on the point that the operations he seeks to deal with in Amendments to the Bill are carried out by employers' associations, which are, in fact, trade unions. May I cite one particular case? Three months ago there was a joint meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society and a trade union of business men called the Proprietory Articles Traders' Association. That Association exists for the purpose of withholding from large sections of the community no fewer than 8,000 commodities unless they charge only a minimum price, which will be maintained, but also consent to give no commission or dividend or discount. At that meeting those two associations agreed jointly that for the promotion of their trade union purpose it was essential that they should have a political fund and direct representations in Parliament. They are proceeding to form a political fund and to use their Association for that purpose. As they are going to use not only their present organisation but subsequent political action for the purpose of coercing the community in exactly the same way as hon. Members opposite suggest the community are coerced, we submit that we have a strong case for dealing with it in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be a matter for the Chairman. I am quite clear that the Instruction is out of order, but the hon. Member may frame an Amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS: This Bill presumes to deal with anything that is alleged to be against the interests of the community. During the Second Reading of the Debate I drew attention to a case in which supplies of flour were withheld from a firm because they refused to charge a halfpenny more per loaf than their competitors. I submit to you that this Bill is wide enough in a broad sense, as dealing with the interests of the community, to impose legislation in such a case as that. My hon. Friend's object is to give consideration to such a case in Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is such a large proposition that I would not give an opinion on it. It is altogether too vague.
  404
  But if an Amendment were framed, the Chairman of the Committee would give it consideration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the wording of the Motion of the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) which you ruled to be unnecessary because the Bill could be made to apply to employers in the same way as to workmen. This instruction deals with the coercion of employers, and I suggest that you should reconsider your ruling in the light of what you have decided.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can go further than what I have said. All I have to do in this case is to give my ruling on the particular issue. The Instruction cannot be accepted.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is not the wording of the Bill itself sufficiently clear to include the object in my hon. Friend's mind? It says,
  "calculated to coerce the Government or to intimate the community or any substantial portion of the community."
  and the wording of the Instruction is:
  "To prevent the coercion of the community by the withholding of supplies from traders or consumers' organisations."
  Is not the withholding of supplies from the community by a traders' organisation as much to be considered a conspiracy against the community and the Government as the withholding of labour from a particular industry is to be considered in certain cases as coercion of the Government or of the community?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That may or may not be so, but the hon. Member will be drawing me into a debate on the merits of the proposal, and that is not part of my duty.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am afraid, Sir, you are missing my point. I am not inviting you to enter into the merits of the question or to give a ruling as to the soundness of arguments which may be advanced one way or the other, but considering the Instruction in the light of what the Government have placed in this Bill, do you not consider that your ruling might be revised to enable us to include my hon. Friend's Instruction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I do not think so. I must leave that matter to the Chair.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE I.— (Illegal Strikes.)
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of SIR H. SLESSER:
    In page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words "For the purpose of removing doubts."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) appears to have no operative effect. I should have thought the argument I presume he has in mind could be brought in when we come to the word "declared," but if he attaches importance to it, I shall be glad to hear what he has to say with regard to it.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I think the Amendment has very considerable operative effect in this sense. This is a Measure which, instead of beginning by stating simply what the law is going to be, starts with the words, "It is hereby declared." The effect of those words is to suggest that the substance of the existing law is embodied in this Clause. It is my case, which I hope to be allowed to argue, that so far from this Clause in any way consolidating or re-enacting the existing law, it is completely reversing the existing law. Hon. Members opposite take the opposite view, and for that reason I am particularly concerned that when the Bill becomes law, if it does, it shall go to the Courts for their consideration not in the form of a naked declaration of law but that it shall be stated that at any rate the matter was in doubt. We are taking one view and some hon. Members opposite— not all I believe— are taking the other view. The precedent on which I rely is that it is almost universal, in making a declaration, in starting a Clause with the words "It is hereby declared," to insert at the outset the words "For the purpose of removing doubts." For example, in the Finance Act, 1921, to give one of many illustrations, Section 41 begins like this:
    "For the purpose of removing doubts it is hereby declared."
    4.0 p.m.
    I submit that I am entitled to ask the House that this declaration is made for the purpose of removing doubts. You suggest to me that this matter might be
    406
    raised later in Debate. For two reasons I submit that this is the proper place to raise it. First of all, if we are going to discuss at all, as I think we ought to discuss, what the existing law is, I submit that for the purpose of the convenience of the Committee, it is very much better that we should discuss and decide at the outset what we are doing, because I pledge myself—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has said enough. I will admit this Amendment, but, of course, the discussion must deal solely with the legal question of the existing law, and not range over merits.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I desire respectfully to ask whether an instruction could not be given that all Amendments to this Bill should be given a number. I believe that would be for the general convenience of the Committee if that could be done. We have 46 pages of Amendments already, and it is very difficult to keep track of the Amendments, and still more difficult to enter into correspondence with regard to them. This procedure has been adopted with success in Standing Committees, and I believe it would be for the general convenience of this Committee if it could be adopted here.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can only say with regard to that suggestion that I will consult the authorities of the House. I do not think I have any power to do it.
    Mr. THOMAS: We, on this side, would like to associate ourselves with the suggestion. There can be no doubt as to the interest taken in this question in all parts of the House, and I can quite conceive, although I do not anticipate all-night sittings or anything of that kind, that in the long protracted negotiations, a large number of Members, without attending the whole time, would like to come in and know what is being discussed.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will consult the authorities of the House on the subject.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words, "For the purpose of removing doubts."
    I think that the whole Committee, quite regardless of the opinions

    407
    they may form of this Bill, will agree with me that it is for the convenience of us all that before we begin to deal with this very contentious Measure, we should at least know where we are at the present time. This is a Bill which purports to alter the law, and, surely, without going into any technical and legal distinctions— and I do not propose to do so— the Committee is entitled to have a clear idea as to what are the rights of individual workmen, what are the rights of trade unionists at the present time and how this Bill affects them. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the merits of this Bill. Rather would I concentrate on the point that, in my submission, this Measure, so far from being declaratory of any existing law, is overturning and altering the existing law with regard to the rights of strikers and trade unionists which have existed for the last 100 years. As a matter of fact, in one particular this Bill alters the law even as it existed at the time of the Combination Acts as far back as the year 1825. When striking was made an illegal offence, the law never went as far as to say that to refuse to accept employment was a criminal offence, and in the whole history of this country, from the Statutes of Labourers in the time of Richard II onwards, I know of no decision in the Courts or of any Statute which has ever made it a criminal offence for a man to refuse employment. Therefore, no one can decide for himself, by any smooth talk or evasion of the real issues, which I am sorry to say has been attempted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, what this law really is.
    What is the law at present? I want to deal with two matters. I want to deal with the law with regard to the right to strike, and I want to deal with the law with regard to trade unions. I am going to deal with the important question first, which is the question of the right to strike, because, as I have stated here, and will repeat outside this House, that if you take away from any man the right to give notice to terminate his contract, and so to cease his labour, whether he does it in combination with other men or not, by making it a criminal or illegal offence for a man to terminate his contract, I say you have reduced that man to a state of servitude or serfdom. That is
    408
    not said by way of abuse—it is a naked fact. The existing law declares that men have a right to terminate their contracts. For 100 years the Law Courts have said, over and over again, that men have the right in combination never defining the limits of combination or the size of combination, to cease their labour. I am not going to weary the Committee with all the decisions given on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am content to ask the learned Attorney-General to give a single instance of a Judge within the last 50 years who has ever decided that men in concert have not got the right to withhold their labour by giving notice to terminate their contracts. Whether the definition of an illegal strike be wide or narrow, the fact remains that, given what is here called an illegal strike—and, in my view, that definition, certainly under the new Amendment of the Attorney-General, extends to all sympathetic strikes—given that definition, the fact is you are withdrawing from all the working people of this country the right to terminate their contracts in concert.
    As a matter of fact, this has only been brought forward by the Government in connection with what they call the general strike. I, myself, cannot disguise the feeling which I have had very strongly, that the real author of this invasion of our liberties is the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He it was who, during the disturbance of last year, first laid down in this House what I believe to be an entirely incorrect view of the law. He it was who first really called the attention of the Government to the fact that, in his view, circumstances might arise in which men might not withdraw their labour. Let me be quite clear. The point will be put in this Debate by the right hon. Gentleman, "Do you say that any kind of organised action of labour, even although it overthrows the State, is legal?" The answer is obvious. The present criminal law dealing with seditious conspiracy is sufficient, and always has been sufficient, to deal with cases of sedition. I have never disguised the fact that when you can prove, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to prove last year, that the authors of a general strike or

    409
    any other action have for their intention the promotion of sedition, you can deal with them under the existing law relating to sedition.
    But that was not the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. The manner in which his speech was treated in the country was very unsatisfactory in this respect, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, when I asked him at the time whether he did or did not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley—and surely the country, in a matter of such moment, was entitled to know whether the Attorney-General thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley was right or wrong—instead of answering the question, merely published that opinion broadcast, and he and the Government took no responsibility; in fact, the Attorney-General specifically declined to give an opinion either way. But though the matter has been to some extent, I will not say concealed, but, at any rate, not given that importance which it demands, it is the fact that no less a person than Mr. Justice Erskine had decided in 1843—a long time ago, I agree, but you are dealing with the existing law—in summing-up to a jury, when an exact statement of the law was essential on this very point, made the very distinction which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley fails to make, and which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General fails to make, between a general cessation of labour for seditious purposes, and a cessation of labour for a merely sympathetic purpose, and he said in that case in terms that the one was lawful and the other was not lawful. These are the words—
    "Mr. Justice Erskine gave it as his opinion that it was not unlawful for men to agree to desist from work for the purpose of obtaining an advance of wages"—
    That is, of course, an ordinary strike—
    "Neither was it unlawful for them to agree among themselves to support each other for the purpose of obtaining any other lawful object."
    He went on to say that, of course, if the intention of the promoters of a strike was seditious, they could be indicted for seditious conspiracy. That was the existing law when the right hon. Member for Spen Valley addressed this
    410
    House. The House and country have got confused, for the reason that the right hon. Member for Spen Valley did not call the attention of the House to this decision. He did not know, or did not say, that it had already been decided that a dispute of this sort was perfectly legal. Indeed, the dispute in that case was more directly against the Government than the dispute, which was purely industrial, of last year, and the Prime Minister stated several times in this House—I have not his exact words, but this is the effect of them—that, in his opinion, the general strike of last year, though foolish, though undesirable, was not done with a seditious intention, but was done with a wrong-headed idea of helping fellow-workmen in the strike.
    That was the law when the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke. I thought, at one time, the right hon. and learned Member was really saying that the general strike was illegal because it was in breach of contract, which, of course, might or might not raise a question of action for damages. On that comparatively small point it was not a criminal question, but was merely a civil one for damages. It is a small point compared with the great constitutional issue on which we are now engaged. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke at Spen Valley, he said:
    "I want to make plain what the distinction is. The big distinction does not turn on the point of not giving notice, of the failure to give notice—a serious matter—and I think it my duty to call attention to this aspect of the case. But do not imagine that the fundamental difference between a general strike and a lawful strike depends simply on the question of the men's failure to give notice."
    I am bold enough to say that no other lawyer has ever supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his view, and the same is the case with practically every commentator. In spite of that fact, that view was pressed on the House. It was said, next, that Mr. Justice Astbury had declared the law on this point. It, really, is time that the country should not be content with vague statements of this kind. This sort of observation was excusable in the turmoil and excitement of the general strike. I can excuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having, when I raised a small point of law, accused me, of all people, of attempting to intimidate the workers of this

    411
    country. That I can excuse in the excitement of the moment, but now that we have reached a calm and tranquil period, surely we can now inquire dispassionately and quietly what Mr. Justice Astbury really did say. [An HON. MEMBER: "And what right he had to say it!"]
    First of all, it was a case for what is called an interim injunction. It was not a final determination of a legal point, but a mere question whether certain things should be done to preserve the status quo until the trial. There never was any trial—that is the first point—because the defendant, who throughout had been working with the plaintiff, as I read the report, submitted to the decision. Secondly, the defendant was not represented by counsel at all. Neither Cooper's case, nor any of the many cases decided on this point, the Glamorgan coal case, the case of Allen versus Flood, and all the others, was ever cited before the learned Judge at all; in other words, there was no argument whatever. The third point was whether, under the rules of this union, these men could be called out on strike, and that turned on the small point whether the Trade Disputes Act did or did not apply to this particular contention. What Mr. Justice Astbury said was this:
    "The so-called General Strike called by the Trade Union Congress Council is illegal, and persons inciting or taking part in it are not protected by the Trade Disputes Act."
    He said that, for the purpose of the Trade Disputes Act, this strike was illegal, and I am not prepared to quarrel with that, though on an interim judgment there was not very much evidence called on either side. On that slender foundation of dealing with a small action for benefit under rules of a single trade union—not argued, never brought to trial, most curiously reported in the Law Reports, when, to my knowledge, no other case of an interim judgment has scarcely ever found its way into the Law Reports—is built up this allegation that Mr. Justice Astbury and the law have declared the general strike, to be illegal. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out before, why, when we are told that, are we never told about the case of Mr. Justice Erskine, who discussed this very matter
    412
    as far back as 1843? I am not saying that if a general strike is used as a mean of promoting treason or sedition, it is not illegal. It is. A general strike might be evidence of a seditious conspiracy, and no doubt the reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite did not prosecute in the recent troubles was because he knew he had not evidence enough to sustain a prosecution, but when I recall the attacks made upon the late Attorney-General for allowing political considerations to deflect, his judgment in the Campbell case, I cannot believe the Attorney-General would not have done his duty and prosecuted if he thought he had a case.
    Therefore, I think I have destroyed this fiction of the illegality of the stoppage of work apart from seditious intent. Whether the law should now be altered, whether, as the Prime Minister said in his speech, he wished to have a law which would make general strikes illegal, I am not going to discuss, as I understand that will come up later. I am content at the moment to point out that the Committee is engaged to-day in making a new law, and that when this Bill begins by saying, "It is hereby declared," those words can only be there inserted for the purpose of misleading this House and the public as to the true situation. The Government have decided to make a new law, to alter the established law of this kingdom. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they must take the responsibility for their action, and they cannot get out of it by suggesting that they are merely declaring the law as it exists. But, of course, the general strike is a small and unimportant matter. [Laughter.] There is not an hon. Member opposite who laughs when I say that who honestly believes that there is the slightest chance of it happening again for generations. Why, the trade unionists have, by enormous majorities, decided not to have a general strike against this iniquitous Bill. If a Bill which is designed to destroy, as I believe, their whole estate and liberty does not provoke a general strike, I say we are safe in thinking that we shall not have one for some time, though it will not be the fault of the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN: This seems to go beyond the question of law.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I leave the question of the general strike, because I do not think that is likely to come again, but I want to deal with a far more vital question. The question of the right of the individual man to leave his labour is a thing which comes up every day and every hour. Under this Bill I am not exaggerating when I say that the definition of a strike which may be an illegal strike, which, I say, cuts at the whole root of liberty in this country—nobody would believe it if he had not read it—says it means
    "the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are, or have been employed, to continue to work or to accept employment."
    What does that mean? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the present law makes it possible to send a man to prison for two years for refusing to accept employment? I challenge him to produce any statute since the days of Richard II which has ever made such a suggestion. Therefore, how can this be said to declare the law? You are taking away from the ordinary citizen the right to make the contracts which he will, and to say, "After this week I will not work for you on certain terms," or "I will work for you, as per agreement." So much for this pretence that this Bill is merely declaratory of the present law.
    It does not seem to me that we are the least better circumstanced if the right hon. Gentleman threatens the employer with a similar persecution. Though it may be equitable, if you are to have the Bill at all, to attach it to the employer, the employer has just the same right in law to terminate his contract as has the workman. If I were enamoured of an extreme form of State interference in industry of a very noxious kind, I could never have found a worse example of bastard Socialism than is to be found in this Bill. It brings in the policeman and the law at every point. But to return to the existing law. As I say, this is entirely new. The whole industrial system of this country has been built up upon the assumption that men were at liberty to make such contracts as they would. The workman could make such agreements as he would. the employer could make such agreements as he would,
    414
    the workmen could strike collectively, the employers could lock-out collectively—that is the existing law.
    This Clause goes much further than that. In its amended form—because I must treat the whole Clause as one, and I am assuming that the Attorney-General will move his Amendment—the Government take out the words "or to intimidate the community or any substantial portion of the community," and substitute for them, by way of Amendment, the words "either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community." Is that the existing law? It is an amazing thing that when I attacked the right hon. Gentleman, as I have done, in the country for using the word "intimidate," he said that it did not mean the very thing which he now admits. His new Amendment makes it clear, to my mind, beyond dispute that wherever you can show that any strike in an industry other than your own has the effect of inflicting hardship on the community, it follows from that that it is an illegal strike. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to suggest that the words "to coerce the Government" are any protection to the striker, we will soon show him that his drafting is very faulty. To coerce the Government directly is a thing we can understand, but if you direct a Judge and jury to decide whether it was inflicting hardship on a community, it follows that that is itself the definition of the coercion of the Government, and, therefore, those words, as the right hon. Gentleman himself might agree, are otiose and unnecessary.
    The hardship on the community is itself the definition of the coercion of the Government, and, therefore, I say that this Bill now—and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having saved us the trouble of arguing this point—makes it clear beyond dispute that in this new Amendment any strike or any lock-out which occurs in any trade whatever other than your own, which has the effect of inflicting hardship on the community, becomes illegal and renders everybody concerned in it liable to two years' imprisonment. If persons were now liable to imprisonment for inflicting hardship on the community by lock-outs, I am afraid that not many of the coalowners would to-day find themselves out of prison. We say that

    415
    the coalowners were within their legal rights in calling their lock-out, just as the men are within their legal rights in calling a strike. I think I have said sufficient to show that, as far as this is concerned, the existing law is entirely against the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    One more point and I have done. This Bill goes further. It not only makes it illegal for a man to strike, but it makes furthering a strike a criminal act, with a liability to two years' imprisonment, and that comes in under the first Clause under the definition of a strike and under the definition of furthering a strike. Does that mean, or does it not, that any person who is charitably disposed, who assists a striker or a striker's wife in getting up a relief committee, is a criminal under this Clause? The Prime Minister said in this House that all that he wished to do was to make general strikes illegal, but this Bill not only makes general strikes illegal; it makes all strikers criminals, and it apparently makes all persons who further strikes criminal. To publish an article in a newspaper might be a crime; to speak in favour of a strike or to pat a striker on the back and say, "Go on, old chap; I hope you will win," might be construed as furthering a strike. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that all these things are so under the present law? What an idle farce it is to declare that all these things are the law at present and that they are merely declaring the present law!
    A most interesting thing on this aspect of the matter was stated by the Prime Minister in his speech. He stated that what he would have liked Labour to have said was that the general strike shall be illegal, but he was told that it would not be possible to put those words into the Bill. I would like to know who advised the Prime Minister that these words could not be put in the Bill. I am quite sure that the efficiency of the Parliamentary draftsmen would not have broken down at this attempt. The truth is that this has nothing to do with the general strike, and if the Government are going to insist that this shall go forward as a mere declaration of the law as it is at the present time, I say, both for the reputation of this country, which
    416
    has so far been a free country, and also for the sake of honesty and clarity, we are entitled at least, by moving this Amendment, to say that there were some people who had doubts whether you could prosecute and persecute strikers and those who assisted them and anyone else who tried to terminate a contract to work. We move this Amendment and ask the Committee to accept it in order to put on record our view, on this Bill for destroying liberty in this country, that some people had doubts whether the law of England at the time when the Bill passed was quite so tyrannical and quite so servile as the Government would have had us believe.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I do not desire on this Amendment to traverse all the ground which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), the Mover of the Amendment, has seen fit to cover. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is wholly irrelevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to cast a reflection on your conduct in the Chair?
    The CHAIRMAN: When he does so I will deal with him.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a further point of Order. Did you not hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that most of what the Solicitor-General has said was irrelevant to the Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: Relevance and order are different things.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was saying that I do not propose to go over all the ground covered by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has, at any rate, had the courtesy of a fair hearing from my side.
    Mr. J. JONES: He told the truth and you cannot. [interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) not to indulge in that kind of remark.
    Mr. JONES: Thank you very much. I hope I can.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment, as the Committee will observe, is to insert the words "For the purpose of removing doubt," so that the Clause which reads "It, is hereby declared…it is illegal" will read "for the purpose of removing doubts, it is hereby declared…it is illegal." How in order to support that Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he was advancing an argument by saying that this was not the law I confess that, at present, I do not understand. The more he proved that it was not the law, the more clear he was making it that these words ought not to be there inserted. But in truth, since the hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have made, both inside and outside this House, a series of statements as to his view of the law, I will, for a very few moments, answer one or two of his main propositions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was not the law at present, that a person who had given notice to terminate his employment had committed a crime by so doing. I agree. Nor will it be illegal for him to do so when this Bill becomes law. I had thought for some time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten to read as far as the definition of the strike, but as he read it himself later on that cannot be an excuse. If he will be good enough, once more, to look at the definition of "strike" in Clause 8 he will find that "strike" means not a cessation of work by an individual, but the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I cannot repeat, every time I say that it is not a criminal act for a man to give notice, that I mean in concert. I have said it 20 times. I say it once more, and once for all, because the point has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. When I say it is not illegal for people to leave work, I mean not illegal for them to leave work in concert.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As long as the hon. and learned Gentleman has that clearly in mind, then I need not trouble—[An HON. MEMBER: "He said it!"]—to deal with the suggestion that this Bill makes it illegal for an individual
    418
    to cease work, as he must understand that quite well. What the Bill does, is to declare that a strike, under certain conditions, is illegal, and by a strike, the Bill explains, it means the concerted action of a number of people. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least knows as well as anybody in this House the difference between an individual doing an act and a conspiracy, which is a combination of a number of people to do an act. And a conspiracy, which is a combination of a number of persons to do an act which is unlawful, is—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is as clear as mud!" and Interruption]. It does not tend to clarify it, at any rate, constantly to interrupt. A conspiracy which is a combination of a number of people to do a particular act which is unlawful, is in itself a criminal offence, and the question whether or not a general strike is illegal depends upon the question whether or not it, be lawful for a number of people to combine to cease work in order to coerce the Government. In the view of some legal authorities that is unlawful. The hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me to produce any authority during the last 50 years that said so. Well, there has been only one general strike during the last 50 years. That was last year.
    Sir H. SLESSER: My challenge goes much further than that. I challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us any authority to show that any strike, general or particular, is criminal.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman is hardly doing himself justice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and an HON.MEMBER: "That means you cannot answer!"] Nobody has suggested that a strike—an ordinary industrial strike—is illegal. What we have suggested is, that a general strike is illegal. If, therefore, there has only been one general strike during the last half century, it follows that there cannot be authorities, except on that, general strike. The hon. and learned Gentleman cited to the Committee—and he is, therefore, quite well aware of it—the only decision which deals with the question of the last general strike. That decision, in terms, has laid it down that a general strike is illegal. I will read the passage, so that there may be no doubt about it.

    419
    "The so-called general strike called by the Trade Union Congress Council is illegal."
    [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said so?"] Mr Justice Astbury.[Interruption].
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) addressed the Committee in perfect silence, and I am sure the Committee as a whole will wish to hear the answer.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The challenge was, as to the decision of the Judge to the effect that a general strike was illegal. I was pointing out that—
    Mr. J. BAKER: On a point of Order. Is an expression of opinion, given without having heard any evidence at all on the point, a decision.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The only decision on the last general strike I know of is the decision of Mr. Justice Astbury. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] After stating in terms
    "The so-called general strike called by the Trades Union Congress Council is illegal,"
    he goes on:
    "persons inciting and taking part in it are not protected by the Trades Disputes Act."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is an unsatisfactory decision because it was interlocutory. He knows as well as I do that most careful interlocutory decisions are given by Judges, especially when dealing with the question of granting an injunction. The learned Judge granted an injunction. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that such a decision is just as much a statement of the law as any considered judgment can possibly be. It is perfectly true that the whole of the points of the other side may not have been adequately put before him by the defendants who appeared in person. It is a matter which, no doubt, would be a matter of legitimate comment.
    Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us—I am not a lawyer, but only an ordinary Member of this House—when the law of this country laid it down—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. JONES: You never gave me a chance of putting it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Order! yourselves.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. and learned Gentleman, when appealing against the decision, to say that the evidence of one side or the other side was not fully represented, but it does not alter the binding character of the decision. It is a reason for contending that the learned Judge may have gone wrong. At all events, so far as it goes, the only decision which has been given is a decision which the learned Gentleman has just stated and to which I have also referred. The hon. and learned Gentleman cited a case of Mr. Justice Erskine of more than 50 years ago—it was, I think, in the year 1843—and he has cited it on several occasions. Perhaps, therefore, the Committee will permit me just to deal with that case. The case was one in which a Mr. Cooper—I think that was his name—and certain other gentlemen were indicted for conspiracy at the time of the Chartist Riots, and at the trial Mr. Justice Erskine gave the summing up. The first few words of the report which the hon. and learned Gentleman cited are not the language of Mr. Justice Erskine, but purport to be the reporter's summary of the effect of what he said. The actual summing up is set out in terms later on. At the close of the summing up the prisoners were found guilty, and Mr. Justice Erskine did not sentence them himself. The case had been removed into the Queen's Bench and accordingly the case came on the motion for judgment before a full Court in the Queen's Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Denman. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman often cites the reporter's summary of Mr. Justice Erskine, I have not heard him so far refer to the actual judgment of the Court. It is a judgment set out in actual language, and not merely a reporter's summary of the summing up.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I read it on an earlier occasion.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite accept that; but as it was not read to-day at any rate, it is rather import-

    421
    ant that the Committee should hear what was the considered judgment. This is what they say—Mr. Justice Patteson giving the unanimous view of the Court after consideration:
    "It appears there were a great many out of employment and it was put to the jury (that is, by the Judge) with respect to the circumstance in the most favourable view for you (that is, for the prisoners) that it could possibly be. Because the learned Judge told the jury a workman had a right to demand what wages he thought his labour entitled him to, and that he was not obliged to work for any lower wages, and he had a right to stipulate for what wages he would have, and, no doubt, workmen, if they agree as to wages, if it is done peaceably and without intimidation, they may do so and not commit a breach of the law"—
    I am just pausing there. The learned Judges are taking the view upon the strike that, if there was a combination to raise wages, that is legal. But he goes on:
    "But then, when we come to another matter, your (that is, the prisoners) recommending all persons to abstain from work at all, not to insist upon having any particular wages but recommending all persons to abstain from working altogether until the Charter becomes the law of the land, that matter is a very different one indeed. The Court does not say it is lawful for any men to combine not to do any work at all"—
    that is what a general strike does—
    "and it is clearly illegal for persons to compel others throughout the whole country to abstain from work until the charter becomes the law of the land. That is an act which has been characterised as an overt act of treason; at all events it is most unlawful."
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the word "compel"?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is very like "coerce." The reason that I have cited that judgment is that it is not a reporter's summary of the summing-up, but it is set out at great length in the Law Report, and it contains various phrases which do not altogether carry out the hon. and learned Member's view of Mr. Justice Erskine's remarks. Whatever Mr. Justice Erskine said or did not say, the Court of Queen's Bench, when they had the whole matter before them, after saying that Mr. Justice Erskine's summing-up was as favourable to the prisoner's point of view as it could possibly be, went on
    422
    to say, that whereas it is perfectly lawful for workmen peaceably and without intimidation to combine to abstain from work in order to improve their wages, and I suppose to improve their conditions of employment, it is a very different matter if they combine to refuse to work at all. [Interruption.] I want to be quite clear about this. I shall not make long speeches hereafter on this Bill, but I should like to trouble the Committee by reading the judgment again:
    "No doubt, workmen, if they agree as to wages, if it is done peaceably and without intimidation, may do so and not commit a breach of the law, but then when we come to another matter, your recommending all persons to abstain from work at all, not to insist upon having any particular wages but recommending all persons to abstain from working altogether until the Charter becomes the law of the land, that matter is a very different one indeed."
    Sir H. SLESSER: On Mr. Justice Erskine's direction the Court found that there was something in the nature of seditious action. The Appeal Court did not decide "Aye" or "Nay" on the question of what Mr. Justice Erskine is reported to have said in regard to the Charter, but upheld the decision that there was sedition.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that is right. Undoubtedly the Court upheld the conviction to inflict a sentence. In giving judgment they set out their view of the law, and said that it is lawful to strike in order to improve wages, but they go on to say that to recommend all persons to abstain from working altogether until the Charter becomes the law of the land was a matter which was a very different one indeed. That does not look as if those learned Judges thought that that was legal.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: They did not say it was not.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They also said:
    "The Court does not say it is lawful for any men to combine not to do any work at all, but it is clearly illegal for persons to compel others throughout the whole country to abstain from work until the Charter becomes the law of the land."
    Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Member has put two points there,

    423
    namely, the recommendation to "refrain" and to "compel." On which of these points does the illegality occur?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was referring to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. It is not my language. I was referring to it because it is the case which the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds cited, and I thought it right that the Committee should know that, whatever may be the view of Mr. Justice Erskine's summing up, the decision of the Court of Appeal was (1) that it was definitely illegal, possibly treason, for persons to compel other workmen to cease from work, (2) the Court were very far from saying that it was lawful for men to combine not to work at all, and that an agreement to recommend persons to abstain from work until the Charter became the law of the land, was a very different matter.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: They do not say it is illegal.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At any rate, it is a very different matter from being legal. I do not think it is necessary to do more now than say that as far as authorities go, it seems that the balance of judicial opinion is very much against the view that the general strike is legal. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that there are some people outside this House who have suggested that the general strike is legal. There are other people, both in and outside this House, of great legal eminence, who take the opposite view, which is the view which this Statute seeks to enact: "It is hereby declared." We are now formulating what we believe to be the law and what—at any rate, as far as legal authority is concerned at the present time, unless and until it is reversed by a higher authority—is the law. It may be that the judgment of Mr. Justice Astbury may be reversed in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords; but it has not been. At present the law is, as stated clearly, that the general strike is illegal. The hon. and learned Member has raised other points but I will reserve what I have to say on those points until they come before the Committee on the relevant Clauses. I think I have said enough to show that
    424
    there is nothing unreasonable in stating that the law is declared in the Clause with which we are dealing, and I think I have said enough to show that no advantage is to be gained on either side by inserting the word "For the purpose of removing doubts."
    Mr. HARNEY: We have enjoyed the learned disquisition on the reading of the cases which have been quoted, but I am bound to say that I have no doubt that everything which the late Solicitor-General said is right, and that the Attorney-General has been straining very hard to convince the Committee that he is making no change in the law. I think that he is changing the root principle of the law. It is a little disingenuous so glibly to quote the decision given in the Chancery Division about the time of the general strike. The Attorney-General knows as well as I do that that decision has been commented upon in very many legal articles and in some magazines, and I do not know of a single instance where the learned commentator did not take up the attitude that the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Astbury, was wrong, but that he had to be excused in the circumstances. Some say that his judgment was interlocutory. Others say that the learned Judge had not the advantage of hearing counsel, and others say that it was mere obiter dicta, and not giving a decision, and that, on the whole, too much attention must not be paid to it; in other words, "Do not blame the learned judge, but do not pay any attention to his views." That is what these articles have said.
    The Attorney-General has quoted the case which took place in 1843. I am a lawyer, but I was not able to follow quite clearly the inferences which he wished us to draw. It seemed to me that what he was reading meant no more than this, that in the Court of Appeal attempt was made to show that the Judge, in his summing up to the jury, was putting the case as favourable to the defendant as possible, and the Judge in the Court of Appeal said, "We are not saying 'yea' or 'nay,' but it may well be that if the combination was so widespread as to be calculated to compel, or urge or to put pressure upon people not to work at all, it might be a different state of things," My own view of the law is that from the

    425
    beginning it was always lawful for ten or a thousand or a million men to do in combination what each of them might lawfully do signally singly. We should have little to boast of in the way of liberty if the law was that, where I do a perfectly lawful thing to-day and it is followed up by many others doing the same thing, because we arranged it beforehand, I should be deemed guilty of an offence.
    As I understand the exact position it is this: In 1799, when the Combination Acts were passed, the country was in a state of panic. It was during the Napoleonic wars. Groupings, for any purpose were deemed dangerous, and these Acts were passed, which for the first time in the history of England said, "The mere combination of workmen shall be an unlawful conspiracy." That Act and the one of 1800 continued in operation for 24 or 25 years. They were so unjust and raised such discontent in the community that they were repealed in toto in 1824. With the repeal of these Combination Acts the law was restored to what it always had been, but many Judges between 1824 and 1871 were struggling hard to bring trade unions within the ambit of the criminal law, on the ground of their being illegal bodies, conspiracies and in restraint of trade. It was because of that very thing that a Commission sat in 1867 and made certain recommendations, with the result that the Act of 1871 was brought to lay down beyond all doubt as to what was the law. It was a declaratory Act, and it said: "It shall be perfectly lawful for men in any numbers, provided there is no breach of contract, to combine or to strike."
    5.0 p.m.
    After 1871, Judges and special juries, naturally having their interests on the side of the employing classes, endeavoured to steal away from the Act of 1871 the only effect which was intended by the legislation. Finally, another Commission, the Dunedin Commission, was held in 1903. I have not the exact words, but I think I am giving the effect of that Commission's recommendations, namely, that "Provided there is no breach of contract it shall be made clear that it is lawful for men to strike in any numbers in the industry affected, and that it is equally lawful for men to strike in any other industry, from
    426
    sympathy." That was the recommendation of the Commission, and the Act of 1906 was based upon it. I challenge the Attorney-General to deny that the law at this moment, as understood by everybody, is this, that where there is no breach of contract men are perfectly safe, no matter how many associates they have in the strike; and that even where there is a breach of contract the funds and the officials are perfectly safe, no matter how many may be on strike. Will anyone tell me that this Bill does not alter the law? Can the Attorney-General, or the Solicitor-General, produce a single Act of Parliament, or a single judicial decision, in the whole course of English history which says that it is unlawful for persons to strike after they have given in their notices and worked out their time because of certain motives they may have or because of the numbers that may be associated with them? This is the first time such a law has been placed on the Statute Book. The Attorney-General says that we have had only one general strike and there are no precedents. What does he mean by a general strike? He has been careful not to define it in the Bill. He has told the Committee that it is a thing you know when you see it, but which you cannot describe. Unfortunately, Magistrates and Judges have to go by what is described. What are the tests put forward in this Bill for knowing whether a strike is or is not a general strike? With my knowledge of the English language I can only find two. The first is this: Is there an object other than the furtherance of a trade dispute?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that this is scarcely an argument on the Amendment now before the Committee. There will be an opportunity for a general Debate on the next Amendment I propose to call.
    Mr. HARNEY: It is a little difficult to point my argument as to why this is an innovation without trying to put before the Committee what is intended by a general strike, at which this Claus is aimed. The sort of thing at which this Clause is aimed—and we are told it does not alter the law at all—is this. It is said that it is not new law to say

    427
    that where there is a strike, however extended, it becomes illegal when you look into the minds of the men and you find a certain motive. It becomes illegal if you find that its consequence is to put pressure on the Government. That is what the Bill says, and I challenge contradiction on this point—never until this moment has it been asserted by responsible Law Officers of the Crown that the question whether a strike was right or wrong had anything whatever to do with the motives of the strikers. They can strike for wages, or because they do not like the colour of their manager's hair; they can strike in sympathy with somebody else, but it is new law to say that the state of their minds affects their criminal liability.
    The second test is this. It is said that it is not new law to say that if a strike swells to such dimensions that it is calculated to coerce the Government, that at a particular point, when someone chooses to say that its dimensions are great enough to become menacing, it becomes illegal. That is what the Bill says. I challenge the Attorney-General to produce any authority for the statement that a strike is more illegal if there are 100,000 in it, or even more, than if there are only 10,000 in it. It is trifling with the Committee and the country to make a pretence—I hope I shall not be misunderstood—a political and dishonest pretence, that you are doing nothing new, that you are making no remarkable innovation when, in fact, you are doing something which, if it had been clone before the last coal strike, would have made that strike illegal. This is not declaratory. Let me take the last coal strike, or lockout, if you like to call it. I do not mind what you call it because it is the same whether you call it a lock-out or a strike. I think it was a lock-out I start with this. The Attorney-General and all the legal staff knew during that seven months, when we were all suffering owing to the coal strike, that it was very important to stop it if they could. No one ever ventured to say that it was illegal. On the contrary, by way of contrast to what was called the general strike, everyone was saying that the coal strike, however inconvenient, was perfectly legal.
    Let us test the coal strike by this Bill. Had the strikers in it any object other
    428
    than the furtherance of a trade dispute? What would be a trade dispute under this Bill? It would be a difference between masters and men in connection with labour conditions. Was the coal strike actuated in the minds of the men by a motive to improve their labour conditions as between themselves and their employers? The employers were the last persons they were trying to get anything from, because they knew they could not. Their object was to get a continuance of the subsidy; or to put pressure on the Government. Does anyone tell me that during this coal strike, if this Bill had been the law, and the men had been brought before any tribunal in the world, there would have been the smallest hesitation in finding the first test established—namely, that they had an object other than the furtherance of a dispute in their own industry?
    Take the second test. Was it designed or calculated to coerce the Government—I will leave out community for the moment. For what else was it designed or calculated? It was not designed to coerce the employers; they had nothing to gain from them. If you take it in the form of a lock-out the result under this extraordinary Bill is that one does not know who you are going to prosecute, the owners or the men. Suppose you prosecute the owners. You have to ask, had they any object other than the furtherance of a trade dispute? Their object was to get the Eight Hours Act. Were they working to coerce the Government? That is the second test. What were they trying to do but to force the Government to bring in that Act, which would never have been brought in if the Government had not been forced to do so by the lock-out. Therefore, I say that it is trifling with our intelligence to try and persuade us that this Clause, which is a complete and drastic alteration in the existing law, is merely a declaration of it. The country should know that, because if it is going to make a change of this nature it should do so with its eyes open and should realise the far-reaching alteration which is being made in the law which has obtained for centuries in this country.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I am not going to be so imprudent as to plunge into the dispute as to what is the existing law of the land with such learned

    429
    authorities as have already addressed the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) based the whole of his contention, or at any rate a large part of it, not only on the existing state of the law but upon a very broad historic survey of the law in the past, and he told, the Committee that not since the reign of Richard II had there been a single statutory enactment which prevented a man from withdrawing his labour as an individual.
    Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that since the time of Richard II there has been no Statute or decision which said that it was a criminal act for a man to refuse employment.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: I think the hon. and learned Member will not deny that a large part of his argument was based on this proposition, but he must have overlooked an important legal Statute which was passed in the year 1563—[Interruption.] I am trying to take advantage of that calm atmosphere to which the hon. and learned Member referred, in order to call his attention to what seems to me a very grave omission in his survey. There was a famous Act passed, the Statute of Artificers, which to a layman appears to contradict the statement of the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps he will allow me to quote the terms of the Statute on which I rely—[Interruption.] The third Section reads—
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: I am sorry I did not hear the particular Statute. In whose reign, and when?
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: I gave the date, it was in 1563—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now stating what has been the law. The question now before the House is, what is now the law.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: As far as I know, this Statute has never been repealed. The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to the effect that no such law had ever been enacted. That was his definite statement.
    Sir H. SLESSER: This particular Statute was repealed in part in 1824, and the remainder repealed in 1862.
    430
    The hon. Member is apparently referring to the Statute of Apprentices and Artificers.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: Does the hon. and learned Member deny that he stated that no such Statute had ever been enacted since the reign of Richard II? Those were his words, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that I am entitled to reply. The Statute, in Section 3, states—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we need pursue the argument historically any further. The question is what the law is now.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: I shall not pursue the point, but I would respectfully point out that the late Solicitor-General was permitted to found a very substantial argument on a statement which I have proved to be entirely incorrect.
    Mr. SHORT: I was amazed at the reply of the learned Attorney-General. It was a most unconvincing, weak and lame reply. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have addressed himself to the very important legal issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). The Attorney-General throughout the Debate has assumed that the law makes the general strike, or what he ventures to term the general strike, illegal, though, as has been rightly pointed out, there are no words in this Clause and nothing in the Bill which indicates what he himself believes or thinks to be a general strike. It may well be that a strike can take place under this Clause not general in character but having some of the features set out in the Clause, which would, within the provisions of the Bill, be illegal. The right hon. Gentleman based his opinion, as far as I could understand it, upon the reading of the judgment given in the case of 1843. He would have us believe that the learned Lord in that case gave a judgment on the point which has been raised, as to the legality or otherwise of a general strike, or a strike of such a nature or character. Of course the learned Lord in that case did not give any such judgment at all upon that matter, as far as I can understand it. All that he said was that if you seek to compel someone to abstain from work, then, to use the words of the learned Lord, it is a very different matter indeed. He merely expressed an opinion,

    431
    which any man other than a Judge might reasonably do, but, as far as I can understand it, it certainly had little to do with the case and it was undoubtedly not incorporated in the judgment.
    The learned Attorney-General proceeded to justify his opposition to this Amendment—I should have thought he would have fallen over himself to accept it, having regard to the state of the law at the moment—on the ground of the judgment of Mr. Justice Astbury. We all know, and the learned Attorney-General admitted, that no such issue was before the learned Judge. No evidence was submitted, no witnesses were called, and no counsel was employed on behalf of the defendants. The issue was never actually raised before the learned Judge, but in the judgment of many of us the learned Judge took advantage of the opportunity to express an opinion about something on which he was never asked to give an opinion. There has been a great deal of contention as to what the law is upon this issue of the general strike. We have a learned ex-Solicitor-General taking one view, and the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) taking another view. As has been pointed out, all legal writers upon this question have differed, and in many cases have taken the view that the matter is not so easily decided or so clear as the Attorney-General would have us believe. It is clear, as far as I am concerned, that this Bill is an attempt to reverse the law as it stands. It is not declaring the law; it is a complete reversal of the law. There are introduced into Clause I many features and difficulties in connection with workers withdrawing their labour, yet under the law now they have a legal right to withdraw their labour for the furtherance of some specific object. It might well be, as I read this Clause, that if they pursue to-morrow that which is legal to-day, their action would he made illegal under the provisions of the Bill. I take the view, as do many of my hon. Friends, that the Attorney-General is not declaring the law as it is but is seeking to reverse the law. Consequently, our Amendment is a worthy Amendment. It is one which I expected the Attorney-General to accept, and I trust that even now he will see fit to reconsider his decision.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The learned Attorney-General threw another handful of the same kind of dust with which he tried to obscure the issue on the Second Reading of the Bill, in order to confuse the Committee of the House. I am not clear even now whether he contends that this Clause, as it stands or as he proposes to amend it, is a declaration of the present law, or whether it is altering the law in the direction in which he desires that it should be altered. But as the right hon. Gentleman defended himself against the accusation that the law was being changed, I suppose he really contends that the law as he is setting it out in this Bill is in fact the law as it now exists. I suggest, however, that he can do that only by disguising the true facts from this Committee. On the Second Reading of the Bill, he said that because a general strike was illegal everybody who wished to maintain that proposition must support the first Clause of the Bill. I understand that this afternoon he goes even further than that, and suggests that because a strike, which is in fact seditious, is illegal, therefore every general strike is illegal, and not only every general strike, but every general strike contemplated as illegal in this Clause is illegal at the present time. There is a very wide difference in those propositions. It is true and no one can deny the fact—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) did not deny the fact—that an action by a workman, and a fortiori by a combination of workmen, which amounts to sedition, is, of course, illegal, and may be a conspiracy and therefore punishable as a crime; but that is quite different from saying that every general strike is illegal at the present time. The question whether a general strike amounts to sedition in the particular case or whether it does not is a question of fact; and the contention that we have taken till all through on this matter has been that there were many general strikes designed not for the purpose of sedition, but for the purpose of obtaining advantage in the matter of conditions of workpeople, not necessarily those of the workpeople who were on strike.
    But we go a great deal further than that. I am sure that the learned

    433
    Attorney-General, if he were giving an opinion to those who consulted him—giving an honest opinion, as I am sure he would do—would give a different answer to his clients from what he professes to give to this Committee. If he were consulted by clients who wished to know whether certain actions that they contemplated did in fact or did not amount to a general strike, I am sure that he would realise and would explain to them that they might do actions which would not amount to a general strike but which nevertheless would bring them within the provisions of this Clause of the Bill and would render their action illegal, whether we take the Bill as it is or with the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make later. I put this question to him. If he were invited by clients to express an opinion as to whether they could be brought within this Clause, even if they were not taking part in a general strike, I ask whether his opinion would be that nothing which did not amount to a general strike would bring them within the terms of illegality as included in this Clause? Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman comes to explain the new proposals which he is to make he will answer that question—whether they could be brought within the ambit of this Clause even if they were not partaking in a general strike. The right hon. Gentleman has evaded the issue up to now, and I shall not be surprised if he continues to evade it. If he does not evade it, I shall be very interested to hear his statement.
    I have shown in the first place that there may be general strikes which are by no means necessarily seditious and do not at the present time come under the same condemnation as the strike which is seditious. Secondly, there are many sympathetic strikes in industries, other than those which are primary strikes, which would be included under this Clause, which are not in the nature of general strikes. There is a still further point with which the Attorney-General ought to deal. There may be actual primary strikes which still are not considered legal under this Clause. For a strike to be legal, it must be concerned solely with wages or hours or terms of employment. But there may be a great number of other occasions for a strike,
    434
    even a primary strike, which would, as I understand this Clause, be rendered illegal. There may be a strike because the workmen find that the manager is tyrannical. They may object in certain circumstances to working with non-union men. They may object to paying certain fines. I think it is at least open to doubt whether some even of those primary strikes will not be illegal if this Bill passes into law, Further than that on this question of the declaration of the present law I should like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. That Act really contemplates something in the nature of a general strike. It contemplates action taken by a large number of people in such a way and on so extensive a scale as to be
    "calculated by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion to deprive the community or any substantial portion of the community of the essentials of life."
    That Act, passed in 1920 by the Coalition Government contemplating a general strike, expressly states:
    "Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    It is therefore clear, and stated in this Statute of 1920, that a strike even under the conditions which I have already read out is not anything but a legal strike. Therefore, taking the words of the Statute itself, it is clear that the proposals in Clause 1 of this Bill are not a declaratory statement of the law as it is at present but that they contemplate a definite change in the law. For these reasons, if the Attorney-General contends that he is merely stating the law, I support the Amendment asking that the words "for the purpose of removing doubt" be inserted at the beginning of the Clause.
    Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: The hon. Member who has just sat down complains that Clause 1 of the Bill makes a definite change in the law. That, it seems to me, is the worst reason possible for suggesting that the Clause should begin with the words "For the purpose of removing doubt." If the Clause makes a definite change in the law, the Amendment ought to be to omit the words "It

    435
    is hereby declared that" and to allow the Clause to begin "Any strike having any object…is an illegal strike" and so forth. It must be obvious from the arguments to which we have listened from both sides of the Committee with great patience—and they have been very interesting arguments—that there is a great dispute as to what the present state of the law may be. This Clause does not refer anywhere to a general strike and I do not know that a general strike, in that phrase, has ever been the subject of a legal definition. The Clause says that certain strikes—and strikes are defined later on—shall be illegal. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the late Solicitor-General, read some passages from Mr. Justice Astbury's judgment, but he, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, only read four lines. It is true it was not necessary for Mr. Justice Astbury, at the time, to go beyond the question as to whether the strike was in breach of the rules of the union, but he, as he was entitled to do, and as any judge is entitled to do, grounded his decision not only upon the fact that the strike was in breach of the rules of the union but also on the broader ground tat the strike was illegal, generally—that it was contrary to the law—and he gave his reasons:
    "No trade dispute has been alleged or shown to exist in any of the unions affected, except in the miners' case and no trade dispute does or can exist between the Trade Union Congress on the one hand and the Government and the nation on the other. The orders of the Trade Union Council, above referred to, are therefore unlawful and the defendants are, at law, acting illegally in obeying them and can he restrained by their own union from doing so."
    In order to arrive at those facts it was not necessary that there should be evidence; it was not even necessary that there should be arguments by counsel for the defendants because the facts upon which the decision is based were not in dispute and, broadly speaking, the reasons given by the learned Judge were the same reasons as those which were given by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "Once you get the proclamation of a general strike such as this, it is not pro-
    436
    perly understood a strike at all because a strike is a strike against employers to compel employers to do something, but a general strike is a strike against the general public to make the public, Parliament and the Government do something."
    There, Mr. Justice Astbury's judgment which is the only authority, up to the present time, we have upon the question, is reinforced by the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This House and the country and all lawyers have a great respect for the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the reasoning is the same in both cases. Of course, it is plain that there is a body of opinion to the contrary, but that surely just brings us to this point—that the law being uncertain it is right that the Clause should be a declaratory Clause, and that these first words "It is hereby declared that" are appropriate. To add the words "For the purpose of removing doubt" appears to be pure surplusage. When you declare something you make it clear; and the words "It is hereby declared" are, in themselves, an admission that the law is not as lucid and as certain as it might be. To add "For the purpose of removing doubt," as I say, is pure surplusage and the arguments adduced in support of the Amendment are pure pedantry.
    Mr. THOMAS: I assumed that this Amendment would be argued and debated at considerable length by the legal experts in the House. I expected it to provide an illustration of the complete unanimity existing in the greatest of all trade unions, namely, the lawyers. I listened not only with interest but with pleasure and satisfaction to the ex-Solicitor-General and I thought he had succeeded in moving an Amendment which the Government themselves ought to have moved. I say that because the opening sentence of the Attorney-General introducing this Bill was to the effect that so far as the Government were concerned, this was declaratory legislation. What did that mean? To me as a layman it meant that the Government were absolutely satisfied in their own minds that the existing law dealt with the general strike and with intimidation and that this Bill was only for the purpose of declaring the law. That was the basis of the case presented from the other side and in many speeches made in the country it has been alleged that the Gov-

    437
    ernment are making no change in the law. Conservative Members are going about the country saying that in regard to strikes and the right of the workers to combine the Government are making no change whatever. We on the other hand not only think that they are making a change but we think that all this talk about not interfering is mere humbug.
    In any case here is an Amendment moved from this side which says to the Government right away "This is an opportunity of proving what you say." But the only result of it is all this argument to prove that the Amendment is not merely unnecessary but unwise. There has been a lot of talk about the general strike and about the community. My view, for what it is worth, is that a general strike can only come about in one of two ways. In the first place suppose any leader or any body of leaders of trade unions went on the platform and declared, "On 1st May next year we propose that there should be a general stoppage of work in order to compel the removal of this Government from office and the substitution of another Government." I am stating the case quite fairly. If such a declaration as that were made, it would clearly indicate that the intention, the object and the aim of those advocating that policy was not to use their industrial power, by withholding of their labour, for an industrial purpose but was to use their industrial power for a political end. I respectfully submit that not only could a strike contemplated in these circumstances not succeed but that from the moment when it was declared, in such terms as I have indicated, the Government of the time, whether it was Liberal, Labour of Conservative would require no legislation to deal with an emergency of that kind. The law as it has been propounded by every legal authority in the House of Commons and the country would immediately declare such a strike to be seditious and actionable and the Government could and probably would prevent it.
    I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to follow the logic of that argument. If that establishes, not the legal view, but the ordinary commonsense view of the man in the street of the law of the land, what right have the Government to introduce legislation to pretend that they are dealing with some contemplated con-
    438
    spiracy? It must be admitted right away that in the circumstances I have just mentioned not only would a general strike be illegal but it would be an act for the Government to deal with. That is the first form of a general strike we can have—one deliberately organised and worked up to achieve by industrial power some political object.
    There is a second kind of general strike which could take place. How general it becomes must depend very largely upon the circumstances of the particular industry, and the circumstances I am quoting are the nearest approach to those of last year. The first general miners' strike in this country lasted 14 weeks. During the whole of that period 650,000 railway men found themselves in this position: 200,000 totally unemployed, and the remainder working on an average one, two or three days a week. Their union did its best to support them, but at the end of the time not only were the men's own savings gone but the resources of the union were mainly gone, in supporting its members, who were not directly concerned in any strike but were the innocent victims of a dispute in another industry. What was the impression left on the minds of those men? It was this: "Our job ought to be to shorten this dispute, because the longer it lasts the longer we are victims."
    I have no hesitation in saying that that was the real first reason for creating what was called the Triple Alliance. It was no attempt to override the Government, it was no challenge to authority, it was merely cold, hard, reasoning and logic arising out of the economic circumstances in which those 600,000 railway men found themselves. They said nothing about the Constitution, nothing about coercing the Government, but they made this simple proposition: "Would it not be better that all our agreements should expire at the same time, because if when the end of the miners' trouble takes place we find ourselves in conflict with our employers then we ourselves may be on strike, and what happened to us will immediately happen to the miners?" Directly the railway men cease work the miners are in precisely the same difficulty as the railway men were in. That was the kind of logic and reasoning which guided those large

    439
    masses of railway men and miners in their first formation of the Triple Alliance. There is no one on this side of the House, and I say it with absolute sincerity, who believes for one moment that on the day this Bill becomes law the present right to strike in a purely trade dispute will then exist. That is the fixed and firm view of everyone on this side of the House.
    Let us leave that for a moment, and apply ourselves to the events of last year. Neither during the dispute, nor since the dispute, did I ever hear the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for India—and I particularise those three, because, so far as I can remember, they were the only three who were in at everything throughout the negotiations last year—make the statement that the general strike last year was an organised attempt to overthrow the Government or a conspiracy towards that end. I have never heard that alleged in all our private negotiations or publicly. The General Council of the Trades Union Congress were first brought into the negotiations. last year at the invitation of the Government. Let the House remember that. The Prime Minister invited us to meet him. When he met us he said: "I am in this difficulty. I have been meeting both the mine owners and the miners' leaders and it is impossible for me to make any progress; in fact, they are about 50–50, they are as bad as each other." That was the considered view of the Prime Minister when he invited our intervention. We said to him, "Is what you suggest this, that some of us, representing other trades, bringing a detached mind to the question, not ourselves parties to the immediate dispute, should come in and assist?" He said, "That would be good, and I will ask the mine owners whether they agree to that." When we met next time we were told that the mine owners had refused—that they had refused not only the Prime Minister's view but ours.
    That is all I have to say on that, and I have recalled the circumstances in order to demonstrate this point. From the beginning to the end I challenge anyone to produce a word, spoken either publicly or privately, by any executive committee or trade union leader, or anybody carrying any responsibility for those
    440
    events, which showed that any other aspect of the question was discussed than this: "Here are terms offered to men which are unfair, and if they succeed in inflicting these unfair terms on them it is inevitable that economic pressure will immediately result in those terms being made applicable to us." That was the logic and reasoning which were the fundamental basis of all the trouble. It might have been right or wrong. I am not arguing that, I am merely stating the fact. I am sure the House will agree—I have already said that no member of the Cabinet who is present will disagree—that that was the logic, the cold, hard, bald fact, underlying last year's events. What does it prove? I submit that it proves that no Bill introduced by any Government in any conceivable circumstances would or could prevent millions of working men, influenced wholly and solely by the human desire—however unwise, if you like—to benefit their own affairs, from taking action.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I allowed this discussion on the assumption that only the legal question of what was the present law of the country was to be discussed. There will be an opportunity for discussing merits.
    Mr. THOMAS: I accept your ruling, Sir. Not being a lawyer, I thought I was arguing law all the time. I always assumed that law and common sense ran together. Now I will come back to the legal aspect. The Attorney-General said the argument in favour of describing this Bill as merely declaratory legislation was based upon a certain statement made by Mr. Justice Astbury. A number of us were surprised at this statement being made, because we knew the grounds of the action before Mr. Justice Astbury. We do not pretend to be lawyers or to know about the legal aspect, but we did know, and it has been demonstrated emphatically to-day, that Mr. Justice Astbury never had before him the question of the legality of the general strike. It was never argued before him; no counsel argued in any sense the legality or otherwise of the general strike. That is why a large number of my hon. Friends resented his decision being quoted.
    6.0 p.m.
    Reference has been made to my action in signing an agreement which says that the railway men's action in that dispute was an illegal action. I did

    441
    sign an agreement which said so—but not on the point that we are now arguing. I do not believe it is the duty of a leader to escape responsibility. These things have to be faced, and I faced the position boldly, and signed, and said quite deliberately that so far as the railway men were concerned in the general strike their action was an illegal action. But it was not an illegal action because they struck in sympathy with the miners, or because they had no right sympathetically to withhold their labour, or because they are a class who have no right to consider their obligations to their fellow men. None of those considerations was in my mind nor is involved in my signature admitting the illegality of what the railway men did. The point is that the men were under a legal obligation to give either a week's notice or a fortnight's notice before withholding their labour, and as they had not given that necessary notice they had committed an illegal action. That is an entirely different thing. If anyone from the opposite side of the House were to say to me, "Do you agree with an Act which defines illegality in that way?" I should have no hesitation in saying that I stand by my signature. What I have said in this matter I stand by. It is very difficult to argue these legal points, but here we find the Government declaring to the country that under this Bill, as far as our rights and powers of combination, and the right to sell our labour as we like, are concerned, there is no interference. The Government say that all they are doing is declaring what the legislation is, and setting out clearly what is the existing law. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Slesser) proposes an Amendment which gives the Government an opportunity of saying, "This is what we want, and it is quite in accordance with what we have said," and yet they will not accept it. They say it is not true; but if it be not true, it is no good passing declaratory legislation. You cannot have it both ways.
    It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that they are not altering the law, and that they are only declaring what it is. It is no good their saying that that is their intention, and that is what they mean, and that that is all they are doing, because when the Division is taken, they will promptly go into the Lobby to refuse
    442
    to put into the Bill exactly what they are saying to the people in the country and in this House. We have a number of Amendments on the Order Paper—I do not know how many there are—but I did think that this would be a good stunt. We know there are many blunders in the Bill and many inconsistencies. We also know that this is quite a hopeless Bill, but we thought we should be in a position to show that the first Amendment moved from this side would be one which the Government would have said was really something which they had omitted to say themselves. Now that the Government say they do not believe what they originally said, we will judge their sincerity when we go into the Division Lobby.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I find myself in some doubt as to whether the very limited scope of this particular Amendment is really appreciated in all quarters of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a very interesting contribution. Of course, in some part of that speech matters were dealt with which were quite beyond the scope of this Amendment, but as to the Amendment itself, in spite of the natural tendency of any Government or Government majority to resist any proposals to insert any words, at any rate I should have thought that this was quite a harmless Amendment putting in words for the purpose of removing doubt. I think this proposal may be said to raise two questions, and two questions only. In the first place, is there sincere doubt entertained by persons competent to judge on this particular proposition of law; and, secondly, is it the object of this Clause once and for all to clear those doubts away? I cannot imagine that there is any important issue involved in a proposal to introduce words for the purpose of removing doubt at the beginning of a declaratory Bill. First of all we want to find out whether people, who are not simply trying to get up a quarrel, but are putting their minds to the question, can be allowed to have an honest difference of opinion on the point; and, secondly, whether the object of the House of Commons and the declaratory legislation is to get rid of any further doubt.
    As regards the first of these questions, I am not at all disposed to speak with the positiveness of the hon. and learned

    443
    Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). I have noticed before that it is not always those who are most familiar with a particular corner of the law who speak with the greatest confidence about it. I apply that to myself just as much as to any other hon. Member who is here as a citizen, but who happens to have what may be the advantage of some training in the law. I know it is a common consolation to those who are not lawyers that they thank God they are persons of common sense. I have heard it said that mankind is divided into two classes—persons of common sense and lawyers. Some lawyers may hope to have a little common sense, and there are plenty of people with common sense who know a little about the law. I do not assert that anybody who differs from me on this particular proposition of law is manifestly stating something absurd, but the truth is that there is a difference of opinion on this point among persons who have tried to study this question, as to the exact limits within which you would state this proposition.
    My desire is to serve the Committee as honestly as I can, and to state my view after a fair examination. I think the statement of the ex-Solicitor-General goes too far in asserting a different view, and he thinks that I was too positive in asserting my view. I admit that there may be some doubt on the point, but it is far from being the fact, as the hon. and learned Member for South Shields said, that all the commentators have taken one view, and nobody has taken another view. My hon. and learned Friend must have studied the "Law Quarterly Review." I suppose amongst lawyers who write over initials there are no initials which are more reverenced than the initials "F.P.", which represent the honoured name of Sir Frederick Pollock, an astute and accomplished student of common law. When the Astbury decision was given, there was in the "Law Quarterly Review," a comment, apparently written by Sir Frederick Pollock, because it had the initials "F.P." at the bottom, and he points out with complete fairness that Mr. Justice Astbury's judgment was based upon two grounds either of which would have been sufficient for the purpose, and therefore, what Mr. Justice Astbury said about the general strike has
    444
    always got to be read bearing that in mind. It was a decision that was given there and then without full argument on both sides.
    People who wish to deal fairly with this subject have to admit those facts, and no advantage is to be gained in dealing with the proposition contained in that judgment as though it was the considered judgment of the House of Lords, because it was not. It is equally unfair to speak of it as though it was not part of his judgment. This learned commentator points out that the right answer to the question with reference to the general strike in May, 1926, really depends upon what is the right view of that particular event, and, having pointed that out, may I read a few sentences in regard to what "F.P." says in the "Law Quarterly Review" on this point? He says:
    "But when a simultaneous multiple strike is planned, as this was, for the avowed purpose of enforcing a particular solution of a trade dispute on Ministers and on Parliament by means of stopping transport and business in general and causing intolerable inconvenience to the King's subjects at large, then a wholly different question arises."
    This is not pronouncing judgment about a particular event, but it is pointing out that if that is the class into which you must put this event then a wholly different question arises. The same authority says:
    "It is not clear how far the difference was present to Mr. Justice Astbury's mind; in any case he was not bound to deal with this question at all."
    Sir Frederick Pollock goes on to say:
    "But it does seem on the plainest grounds of public law and justice, that a plot to usurp the Government of the country in such a fashion is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy, if indeed it be nothing more, and that no verbal protestations on the part of the managers that they did not intend a revolution will make their position any better."
    I am not quoting that to represent in one way or the other the events of a year ago, but I am quoting it for the purpose of showing that it really is a gross exaggeration for anyone, layman or lawyer, to say that, apart from any opinion expressed in this House, there was not very high and most competent legal opinion confirming what I endeavoured to state a year ago. At the same time, I should regard it as quite ridiculous to say that

    445
    there are not persons inside and outside this House who have felt more doubt about this proposition than some of us did.
    I now come back to what is more relevant to this Amendment. The insertion of this Amendment is not going to do the Bill any injury, because it is only declaratory, and it is claimed that this should be enacted, because it is thought that it is just as well that Parliament should put it in such a way that there is no doubt about it. I say that that raises these two questions: Were there doubts about it? Are there doubts about it—honest doubts? And I do not feel that it is open to the smallest challenge or controversy that there is, and has been doubt, as to the proposition. The real truth is that much of the confusion arises through failing to separate two quite separate things. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) separated them most clearly in his speech just now. One question is this: Let us suppose that you have admittedly got what the right hon. Gentleman suggested by way of illustration—notice given now, for a purely political and party purpose, that, on the 1st May next, all the wage-earners of this country, or the wage-earners in a large selection of vital trades, are going to down tools for the single purpose of turning that Government out of office. I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's statement; it was perfectly clear and candid. But I do not understand he is trying to dispute the view that there is nothing in the Trade Disputes Act which prevents that from being a seditious conspiracy. [Interruption.] Certainly; I am only stying that I appreciate the fairness with which he said it.
    There is, however, a second question, which is not the same question, and which many people think is a far more disputable question. It is whether the events of May of last year were events of that character or not. That question is not a general question of abstract law, but is a question as to the judgment which people would form if they had to deal with that particular event. I do think, and I have not withdrawn my view in the least, that on a fair view the events of last May amount to this, that it was a combination which was really not addressed simply and solely to the promotion of a trade dispute. I do not with- 446
    draw that one bit, but there are people who do not agree with me. [Interruption.] However much hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway may be suspicious of me, I hope they will do me the justice of saying that I have always recognised that people do not agree about this, and that I want to deal with it fairly. Therefore, there is a doubt, and, if there be a doubt, why on earth should not this Committee say, "We will make it perfectly plain, at the very beginning of the first Clause, that to get rid of that doubt is the reason why we are enacting this legislation"? I do not myself see the reason why not, and, therefore, I feel bound to say so.
    There is a difficulty which is inherent in the position which this particular Amendment takes in the Debate, and it is this, that this particular Amendment is being moved at the very beginning of the Clause, and, of course, we none of us know the shape in which the Clause may ultimately be put—and, if I may speak for myself, I very much hope that, by the time we have finished with it, it will not be in the shape in which it is now. Therefore, there is a certain difficulty in inserting words of this sort at the very beginning, because, of course, we are, as it were, prejudging what follows, and what follows may have to be altered. Still, I cannot see, as things stand at this moment, why, either now or on the Report stage, we should not, before this Bill passes to the Statute Book, if it does, make it plain to everyone that the reason why the Government, at any rate, think it well to enact such a Clause as this, is because they realise what many people in this country realise, namely, that there was a vast amount of confusion, doubt, uncertainty, and misunderstanding a year ago, and that it is most undesirable that that situation should not be cleared up.
    If that be so, I do hope that we may, at any rate, get from the Government this assurance, that, if they get this Clause into an order which commends itself to the vast majority here, if they get rid of what I think are its present imperfections, they do not see any fundamental objection to saying, "This is a declaratory Clause, and a Clause for the purpose of removing doubt and making things clear." It is quite true that the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) said it

    447
    was rather odd for some hon. Gentlemen who have supported this Amendment to support it in the speeches they have made, because, apparently, the people who are most emphatic that we ought to insert these words, "For the purpōse of removing doubts," are persons who put their hands on their legal hearts and say they have no doubt about the matter at all. That seems rather absurd, but, if we try to deal with the matter, as we have to deal with it, in a sensible, public-spirited way, I would ask the Government, either now or on the Report stage, what is the objection to saying, as has been said in Acts of Parliament before, "This declaratory Clause is put in by us because we do not want anybody to have any doubts about it hereafter."
    If that were done, I should not care in the least who moved the Amendment, or who got the credit for it; but it does seem to me that it is not in itself an unreasonable thing to ask. While I have my differences with the late Solicitor-General in regard to some of his propositions of law, that has very little to do with it. What is really important is that if this Bill is going to be passed at all, we should have upon the Statute Book a Clause which can be clearly understood, and which it would be possible for all persons of good will to use hereafter, if there were a threat against the community by concerted action, whether of employers or of employed; and that we should be able to say, "All this kind of trouble was a great matter of debate in 1926, but in 1927 here is what Parliament put on the Statute Book, and it is put there in order that we might declare the law and that there might be no doubt about it." That is the reason. Why should we not say that this Clause is being enacted for the purpose of removing doubts?
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that the issue with which we are dealing is of the narrowest character, and, as far as his opinion of the law is concerned, I should not in the slightest degree cavil at any phrase of his speech; but, for once, I rather think my right hon. Friend is confusing two things. When you speak of putting the words "For the purpose of removing doubts" into this Clause, you
    448
    must look to see about what it is there has been a doubt, and I think that, if my right hon. Friend had been reading this Clause instead of thinking of the doubt which there is as to whether the strike of last year was of the nature described in the Clause, he would have had no difficulty in coming to the same conclusion as the Attorney-General, namely, that there is no doubt about it at all, and that there can be no room for supposing that there is any doubt in the mind of any reasonable citizen. It says:
    "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 if it is a strike designed or calculated to coerce the Government or intimidate the community."
    That is a proposition about which it would be very wrong to suggest that there can be any possible doubt in anybody's mind, and, indeed, I shall cite in a moment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) to that effect. I do not think that that proposition has been doubted by anyone, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said in his speech that, if such a strike as is described here, having objects beyond a trade dispute and having the intention of attacking the Government or the community, were to be declared, it would be the duty—I remember his words—of any Government, Tory, Liberal or Labour, to treat that as an illegal strike, and deal with it accordingly.
    Mr. THOMAS: For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that I made it perfectly clear that, so far as Clause 1 is concerned, that interfered with the existing rights as to striking and withholding labour, but the illustration I gave of illegality was one which, as I have already said, dealt with something intended deliberately to overthrow the Government?
    Sir R. HORNE: The part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I am referring now was the one in which he dealt with the general principle, and which was really mare of the nature of a Second Reading speech, or a speech on the question that the Clause should form part of the enactment. His real point, when he was dealing with the

    449
    question whether the words "for the purpose of removing doubts" should be put in, was whether the strike of last year was of the category which is here described, and, as it seems to me, there may be considerable doubt about that. It may be said that Mr. Justice Astbury was wrong. Many people may have taken a different view of the event. I gather that on the other side of the House above the Gangway hon. Members take the view that Mr. Justice Astbury was wrong. But I think that there is no possible room for doubt with regard to the principle which this Clause enacts, and that it would be wrong, and would be, in fact, suggesting that in the past the law was something different, if these words "For the purpose of removing doubts" were put in.
    That is a phrase which is well-known to lawyers, and it is used when doubts are justifiable. For example, in the Finance Bill, when the complicated nature of Inland Revenue phraseology brings about a condition in which people may be obviously in error, in a subsequent year a Clause is put into the Finance Bill to the effect that, "for the purpose of removing doubts," the meaning of the enactment was so-and-so. I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me that, we are here in a different category of things. What we are doing is to declare the law as we believe it to be, and as Parliament says it was. My right hon. Friend says that, if the law were really of that description, and really involved that principle, what is the necessity for declaring it? The necessity is this, that, while there should not have been doubt, there were, in fact, a great many people who did not know the law, as was evinced by the events of last year. I think my right hon. Friend was right when he said, in one of his notable speeches in this House, that it was through confusion more than anything else that the general strike broke out. It is to get rid of that confusion that we are here passing this enactment to-day, and I believe a declaratory enactment of this kind will have the effect upon the British people—who, after all, are a law—abiding people—of making them not only hesitate, but refuse, to take part in events which are being characterised by Parliament as illegal. Indeed, I go further, and say that, if we had had such
    450
    a principle enacted previously, and known to all our people, the events of last year would never have occurred.
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the general strike and about the events of last year. What we have not heard much about is the strike as defined in this Bill. The Attorney-General is just as definite about the illegality of a general strike as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is about the legality of such a strike as took place last year; but nobody is able to say with any definiteness whether the events of last year were a general strike or were not, nor can anybody say that the Bill which is before the House is confined, either to a general strike as it is understood in the industrial world, or to events such as took place last year. Therefore, the question whether it is advisable to insert words to the effect that this Bill is promoted for the purpose of removing doubts, is dependent upon what the Bill sets out to achieve. I do not worry my head about the gentle phrases that have come to us from the other side as to what is the intention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the Bill. They may have all the best intentions in the world, but, if they do not in the Bill itself express in very definite language those intentions, they must not assume that a Court giving judgment will give judgment according to its own views contrary to the expressions of the Act when it comes before the Court.
    If the Attorney-General is so perfectly certain that the events of last year were a general strike, that a general strike is now unlawful, and that this Bill only sets out to declare that it is unlawful, why does he worry his head about the Bill at all? If this Bill is only declaratory of the existing law, and if the Attorney-General, as the one inspired spokesman of the Government in this House, is so definite in his view as he always is—though it is not always sustained by the Courts—[Interruption)—when. I find him so confident as to the illegality of a general strike, and so confident that this Bill goes no further than a general strike, I am wondering whether he is particularly interested in this Bill for the purpose of removing doubts as to his own opinion.

    451
    If the Bill does not confine itself to a general strike, and if, in the opinion of the Government, a Bill is required for the purpose of preventing something other than a general strike, or for preventing something different from what took place last year, then this Bill ceases to be declaratory, and becomes, in its first Clause, preventive, and, in its subsequent Clauses, punitive. That it arises from the general strike of last year the Prime Minister, of course, has assured us, and we accept the assurance. It arises from the general strike of last year, not in its declaratory intention, but in its intention to prevent a similar occurrence, and to impose restrictions upon those who were responsible for last year's occurrence, so that they may not repeat the operation. Let us, however, dismiss from our minds for a moment or two the question of a general strike, or the events of last year. That, at any rate, is in doubt. I have for some years been much interested in the question of a general strike as technically known. There is no man in this House who is so fundamentally and bitterly opposed to the idea of a general strike as I am—nobody We have seen a general strike in operation in France and in Belgium; we have never seen a general strike in operation in this country, and I most sincerely hope that we never shall. But I ask that that may be dismissed from our minds.
    There is a general doubt as to whether it was a general strike last year. There is a general doubt, I think I may say, though my opinion counts for nothing, and I would not offer it to the House on the legal side—there is a general doubt, I think, in the whole House, as to whether the events of last year were or were not illegal. But when we come to consider what things are to be made illegal in this Bill, with which we are primarily concerned, we must turn to what the Government themselves say. First of all, let us consider for a moment the definition of a strike in this Bill—not the definition of a strike in any other Act of Parlament, not a strike as we understand it by general consensus of opinion, not a strike as it has been interpreted in the past by the Courts, but a strike as defined in this Bill.
    452
    Here is the Bill. I do not mean to read it, but I would refer to Clause 8, which says:
    "In this Act the expression 'strike' means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons"—
    it is not limited; it says "any number"—
    "who are or have been employed, to continue work or to accept employment."
    Our first stage is this, that when half-adozen men in any occupation intimate to their employers that, at the expiry of one week, they desire to leave—they do not give any reason—in fact, if they are working in concert, by a common understanding that they are going to leave one occupation and go to another, they are, according to this Bill, on strike. I should think that, if that were declared to be the law by the Attorney-General, or by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds, there would be very grave doubt in the mind of every lawyer and every industrialist in this House and in the country; but that is a strike according to this Bill. Now we come to the events which are to make that strike illegal. I have said that it says "any number." In this Bill there is one provision which says that if any one person does a certain thing in such numbers they shall be liable to three months' imprisonment. How can one person do a thing in such numbers as to amount to anything? Therefore, it is not absurd, in dealing with an absurd piece of drafting like this, for me to interpret the word "strike" as it is defined in the Bill, to meet such a case as I have suggested.
    Now let us go back to Clause 1, and see what acts done or intended to be done, or consequent upon the doing of these things by a few people, may land us in a cessation of work. Clause 1 says:
    "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 there, or is there not, doubt in the mind of the people of the country as to what is a trade or what is an industry, or whether people are or are not engaged in a certain trade or industry? Let me give an example from my own experience. There are about 5,000 coal trimmers in this country. Coal trimming is a

    453
    definite trade and the coal trimmers' industry is a definite industry. A dispute arises, not on a question of wages or hours or anything of the kind, between the coal trimmers and the stevedores and the coal trimmers come out on strike. That would dislocate the whole trade of the country. That is a dispute that is quite outside a trade dispute within the trade or indusry in which the strikers are engaged.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member would be well advised to keep this speech for a later stage. It is clearly on the merits of the Bill rather than on the Amendment.
    Mr. MITCHELL: I at once accept your ruling, but I shall not require to keep my speech for a further stage as I have a great many things to say upon the Bill. What I am dealing with now is whether it is advisable to state that this so-called declaratory Clause should have for its purpose the removing of doubt. There is no definition of a general strike in the Bill. I feel I must, if I am to continue the argument at all, associate the definition of the word "strike" with the definition of what the Attorney-General persists in calling a general strike. But will not pursue my illustration. A strike becomes illegal if it has some other purpose than the purpose of the trade or industry, and is designed and calculated. I have no doubt at all about a thing that is designed, as long as it is I, myself, who am doing it, but who shall interpret the mind of another man? Who that knows anything of the sudden movements of passion, these sudden uprisings of masses of men against an injustice from which they themselves do not suffer, but which they feel sincerely when they see another suffer—who shall define whether or not such an act is designed? But what is worse, are we going to set out in life with so far a range of foresight that we have to calculate every step we take, not by what we design ourselves, but by what may be the eventual results of our operations? For not only is it to be designed or calculated. If I could have pursued the analogy of the trimmer, the docker, the coal miners for export, the coal men, the lorry men—a strike of 5,000 coal trimmers is calculated to coerce the Government, not deliberately but by the irrefutable argument of facts, and is most
    454
    certainly calculated to intimidate the community, and to put into jeopardy the livelihood of a very considerable portion of it.
    If the Bill is intended to declare that a strike of that kind is defined in the Bill, and as expanded in Clause 1, is the law of the land, it is advisable to let the country know that this decision is being taken because there has been doubt in the minds of the people. I myself may be considered, perhaps, as rather muddleheaded in these matters, but when I read Clause 8 and expand it by Clause 1, I am in very great doubt indeed, even if I were to admit that a genera] strike is illegal, and even if I were to admit that the events of last year were illegal, that either at common law or under any Statute, or by the decision of any Court or by the obiter dicta of any judge, such a strike as is defined and expanded in this Bill is illegal. If it be not illegal, this Bill is more than declaratory. If it be illegal, there is so much doubt about it that the nation should be told that the purpose of bringing in the Bill is to remove those doubts, well or ill-founded, so that it may know it is not the result either of fear of another, or of revenge for the last.
    Mr. KIDD: I wonder if I am wrong in thinking the fallacy underlying the whole of the argument of the previous speaker is this. He was trying to visualise, and trying to discover in his own visualisation, whether certain conditions represent a strike within the meaning of the Clause. He has no right to do that at this stage. The Clause declares that a strike as defined is illegal. What the hon. Member has been doing all through is anticipating the functions of the judge. Let me illustrate from a very minor offence. Suppose I ask the hon. Member to define a breach of the peace, it would be difficult. He would tell me a breach of the peace was an offence to be established by evidence before a competent judge, and similarly any set of circumstances arising would fall to be decided in the same way. The question for the judge would be: Do these represent a general strike within the definition of the Clause or do they not? That is entirely a question for the judge. It is a question that cannot be anticipated. It is a question that can only arise for decision on a certain set

    455
    of circumstances, and all this discussion in anticipation of these conditions arising is anticipating the functions of the judge.
    Mr. CHARLETON: I am bound to agree with my right hon. Friends when they say the more the Attorney-General talks to us about the Bill, the more bewildered we get. The Prime Minister last week told us that what he wanted to do was to prevent a general strike. He said he would like to put that in the Bill, but he was told by his legal adviser, who I presume is the Attorney-General, that that could not be done. So we get a Bill that is designed to prevent a general strike in which a general strike is never mentioned. The Attorney-General keeps talking about the general strike of last year. He has never told us what he means by a general strike. He has admitted he cannot. He says you know it when you see it. If he postulates that he saw a general strike last year, I want to remind the Committee that those who had the authority to ask men to withdraw their labour never exercised that authority to the full. They only asked a proportion of the men over whom they had some control to cease work. So if the Attorney-General and those who support him say that was a general strike, the words "general strike" do not mean the cessation of work of all the men who could be asked to withdraw their labour. It would appear that what the Attorney-General means is that a sympathetic strike, or a general strike, is a strike where some men or women cease work in order to assist some others who have also ceased work within a trade or industry.
    I feel sure, although the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) keep repeating that that strike was illegal, the Emergency Powers Regulations would not have been asked for by the Government had they been sure that such a strike was illegal. Let me carry the Committee back a little. In the year 1911 some men in several trades and industries in Liverpool and thereabouts went on strike—dockers, railwaymen, carters. The strike slowly spread to Manchester and Cheshire, and ultimately all the unions catering for men who were on or about a railway came out on strike in sympathy with this
    456
    small handful who originally went out at Liverpool. The Prime Minister of that day told the executive of the railway unions that he would place the whole of the forces of the Crown, military and civil, at the disposal of the railway company. Had that strike been illegal, he would have gone much further. It is obvious that at that time he did not think it was illegal, but he did that to try to frighten the railwaymen. There was a very grave political crisis at that time with a foreign Power and a railway strike, we were told, would threaten the stability of the Government and the safety of the Empire. In spite of that, the judges of that time had not discovered that a sympathetic strike was illegal. It must be a sympathetic strike about which the Attorney-General is speaking, because we have not yet had a general strike within the meaning I am laying down, that the whole of the men over whom some authority has power are being called out. It is only the question of dimensions that is at stake. If this be so, if since 1906 a sympathetic strike has always been illegal, when the Empire was in danger in 1911 and the Prime Minister told the railwaymen's executive he would place the whole power, civil and military, at the aid of the railway companies, why did not the lawyers of that day discover in that hour of need that such a sympathetic strike was illegal? It was not discovered, because they were not clever enough.
    Then, later on, there is another strike described. The Bill describes every strike except a general strike. It talks about a strike by Government employés. In 1919 the railways were controlled by the Government, and there was an altruistic strike by the railwaymen. Thousands of men who were not affected went on strike to assist their weaker brethren. The Prime Minister of that day described it as an anarchistic conspiracy. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as we do, if he had understood that the strike was illegal, within the definition of the Attorney-General, I feel sure he would have taken all the powers necessary, especially at that time, but he did not know it, and no one knew it, and no one believed it. The country to-day does not believe it at all. The only point we have before us

    457
    is that a general strike must be political in order to be illegal. That is the only evidence we have of the illegality of a general strike. Therefore, I am bound to support the Amendment, because it is just what we want. The more the Attorney-General talks to us the worse he makes the matter and the less we understand him. He will talk about anything hut the matter we want to understand. When I first read this Clause I thought it was badly drafted, but I am sure it is not that. It is designed. We have seen all the legal Gentlemen giving their views, and none of them agree. Can we hope to get any better settlement in the Courts? It seems to me what the Attorney-General is out to do is to leave the Bill in the most unsatisfactory state possible, in order that he may be relieved of the responsibility of saying exactly what he wants, and leave it to the Judges in the Courts. It seems to me we ought to insist that our Amendment be accepted, in order that we may later get the explanation of the Attorney-General's own mind put into the Bill.
    Mr. WEBB; I think it would, perhaps, be better to get a little nearer the actual Amendment. It has been discussed on both sides of the Committee by Members of the most different opinions without, as it seems to me, coming to the actual point of the Amendment, because it has been discussed from the basis of whether or not a general strike is illegal. What we have to do is to consider whether there is any reason for putting in the words "for the purpose of removing doubts" at the beginning of the Clause. I am going to argue that the words in the clause are not declaratory of the existing law. The Attorney-General has argued constantly, and we have heard to-day, that there is no doubt whatever in anyone's mind that a general strike is illegal. I am not going to discuss that, because the extraordinary thing is that a general strike is not included in Clause 1 at all, and I was surprised when the Prime Minister said the main proposition of the Bill was that a general strike was illegal. If that be so, why is not a general strike defined and described in Clause 1? It is not. It is not that it is impossible to describe a general strike. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley
    458
    (Sir J. Simon) throws out a sort of impromptu, a new wording of the Government Clause, which gives a description and a definition of a general strike. If that had been so, it might have been possible to avoid any expression of feeling that there was a doubt as to the law, and whether this Clause was declaratory, but when we find the Government carefully avoid mention of the words "general strike" and then go on to define an illegal strike in such a way as to bring in any number of other strikes, not general strikes, and, moreover, by an extraordinary ineptitude, as I must think it, not even included the general strike proper in its definition, this Bill, if it becomes an Act, with Clause 1 worded as it is, will not affect the legality of the general strike properly so-called—at least, that is my submission. That is a new ground of doubt which the Attorney-General has not yet considered, and which has not been referred to in this discussion. For that reason, I am supporting the insertion of the words of the Amendment; otherwise we shall be telling an untruth if we say it is a declaratory Clause.
    7.0 p.m.
    I do not want to trouble the. Committee with history, but as nobody has yet, in all the talk we have had, said anything about the history of the general strike, I think it is really worth while to remind the Committee what the general strike was, and when it was invented. It may be news to some Members that it was not invented in Moscow. It was not invented in any connection with the Soviet Government or the Third International, but, as far as I can discover, by a worthy man whose name, at any rate, bears not only the stamp of nationality but even, one may say, the glamour of patriotism—William Benbow. Curiously enough it was not taken up in England by trade unions at all. When he proposed a general strike, he did not propose that it should be a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute at all. He proposed it, about 1840, in the guise of a sacred month in which all the wage-earners and the population were to cease work of any kind. The interesting point is that he did not appeal to the trade unions—for there were trade unions even in 1840—but, curiously enough, as far as my researches have gone, I cannot dis-

    459
    cover in any of the manuscript minutes of the trade unions of the time, or in any publication or legal papers, that any trade union in England or Scotland took up this idea of a general strike. They refused to take it up then, and they have never in the history of England taken it up since—of course I am not now quibbling as to whether a general strike must be a strike of all the people, or only of some. That is not the real distinction between a general strike and a trade dispute. The real distinction is whether the object and purpose had anything to do with the trade dispute or not.
    The object and purpose of this historic proposal of a sacred month was to bring about the Charter, and it led to a good many strikes by Chartists, but never by the trade unions. That general strike, whether large or small, was absolutely distinct from a trade dispute. That, the Attorney-General told us, was an illegal movement, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) going over the same ground, apparently said there would be no doubt that a strike or general cessation of work in order to make the Charter the law of the land would be a criminal conspiracy, and therefore illegal. I do not know whether there was some uncertainty about that in 1840, or whether there is doubt about it now, but that is a general strike. A general strike means, in all the historic definitions, a strike which is not a trade dispute and not in furtherance of a trade dispute. It was invented by William Benbow, and secured a great deal of attention at the time. It did lead to a number of small strikes, but it was never taken up by any of the trade unions, and it has never been since.
    Clause 1 of this Bill is declared to have arisen from the events of last May. When the Prime Minister says he means this Bill to deal only with the general strike, I accept the Prime Minister's statement as true, but on this point that the Bill is supposed by the Prime Minister to deal only with the general strike, I want to point out that Clause 1 does not deal with the general strike at all. Let me read it:
    "It is hereby declared"—
    460
    and we want to insert the words "for the purpose of removing doubts"—
    "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, etc."
    It says "any object besides." What does the word "besides" mean, taking the two things together? It says that any strike which is a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute and is also something else, is illegal. The very point about the general strike was that it was not a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute, but something entirely different, and excluded from a trade dispute. You cannot have a general strike that is in furtherance of a trade dispute. I see the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) laughs. I do not think he can tell us anything about the general strike, because he has not pursued any researches into that. The whole point about the general strike is not that it must be a universal one, for it does not matter whether it is universal or is only a strike of a small number of people. The whole point is that it is not in furtherance of a trade dispute, but is taken part in by men of any occupation or no occupation—for Benbow was a coffeehouse-keeper. It was not a question of the furtherance of his interests, and nobody was acting in sympathy with him or his economic position. It was a political design to form an organisation which should, in concert, cease work and down tools in order to bring about something which was not the furtherance of a trade dispute. That is a general strike.
    The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) mentioned there had been general strikes. The Attorney-General said, as with an elephant, you can recognise one when you see him. I do not think the Attorney-General has ever seen one, even in the Zoological Gardens; otherwise he would not have been so mistaken in his recognition. As a matter of fact, there have been general strikes. There was one in Berlin. An attempt was made at a monarchical revolution in Germany and to overthrow the constitution of Germany by illegal means and by military force to bring back the monarchy. That attempt succeeded almost as well as the illegal revolutionary action in Ulster. It was brought to nought, as the Ulster move-

    461
    ment might have been, by a general strike of the German workers. That was not in furtherance of a trade dispute. They simply downed tools simultaneously from one end of Germany to the other without saying anything. There was no trade dispute, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that was illegal. When the Attorney-General has gone further into the mysteries of the British Constitution than he has at present, he will discover that it is part of the British Constitution on appropriate occasions to act unconstitutionally. Of course, it is equally part of the British Constitution that the Government are justified in putting down that attempt. I need not labour that, because on the other side of the House it is felt that the action taken by the Secretary of State for India and other members—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman expressed an admirable determination at the beginning of his speech to confine himself strictly to the terms of the Amendment, but he is going very far away from it now.
    Mr. WEBB: I apologise for it. I will only say, in order to justify putting in the words "For the purpose of removing doubts," that it is necessary that I should show that the words used in the second line of the Clause deal with something about which there is very considerable doubt. I say that I take it from the Prime Minister that this Clause relates to the general strike, but the words, as the Clause stands, do not relate to a general strike but relate to something else, as we chall show later on. The point is that there are doubts whether a general strike is illegal—that is, a real general strike with a political object, and the fact that there are such doubts may be indicated by the action taken by the Secretary of State for India and by the Home Secretary in regard to Ulster.
    I pass to another point. I want to keep strictly to what I was discussing, but I do want to make clear the doubt which exists with regard to the question of the meaning of the first line of the Clause and the words "any strike." Let us look at the definition of a strike. The hon. Member for Paisley anticipated one of my points by quoting a part of the definition. I do not want to go over that again, because I am
    462
    not anxious to waste time, or to be guilty of vain repetition, but I must point out that what the Attorney-General said—and there is no doubt whatever about this—that in certain circumstances a strike will be illegal. This tells us what the definition is:
    "The expression 'strike' means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, of a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been employed, to continue to work or to accept employment."
    That is the law at present, the Attorney-General says. Can hon. Members find any other lawyer who will say that? There are a large number of members of the higher branch of the legal profession on the other benches. Will any one of them say that the definition of a strike which is imported is part of the existing law? The definition reads:
    "In this Act the expression 'strike' means the cessation of work."
    That is all right and it is what is understood by a strike, and I think is good law, but it goes on:
    "The expression 'strike' means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination,"
    which is a strike—
    "or a concerted refusal.… of any number of persons who are or have been employed,… to accept employment."
    I want to point out that the Attorney-General has declared to us, with all his knowledge as a lawyer, and all his reputation, that Clause 1 does not alter the law. Will he say that now? Let me take an instance, and put a case to him. I am going to assume that the coal stoppage of last May, which lasted 7½ months, is affected by the terms of this Clause, because it was in furtherance of a trade dispute, and the Government and the Attorney-General say it had other objects as well. Those million miners were given notice by their employers, and those notices expired, and the men were discharged from their employment. They had no longer any legal relations with their employers at all. Then why does the Attorney-General bring in the words "a concerted refusal … to accept employment"? Because otherwise he could not have struck at that mining dispute. For 7½ months those men were guilty of nothing but "a concerted refusal … to accept employment." They

    463
    were not in the employment of anybody. They had been discharged, and their employers had no legal or contractual touch with them or control over them. To my knowledge, some of them went off to America immediately the stoppage began. I suppose they would fall within the ambit of this Clause. I do not know whether they could be extradited, but it is clear that if they came back on a holiday, years afterwards, they could be had up, not before the High Court, but before any two Justices in the County of Durham, and given two months' imprisonment for having in concert refused to accept employment. I must be allowed to say to the Attorney-General that I suppose the way it would be worked would be that under Clause 7 the right hon. and learned Gentleman would apply for an injunction.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is more suitable to a Second Reading Debate on the Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: On the point of Order. At the outset of the Debate the whole question turned on the wisdom of these words in regard to the legality or illegality of a general strike, and I submit that what my right hon. Friend was saying is in accordance with many other speeches that perhaps you, Captain FitzRoy, did not hear, to the effect that it is impossible to argue our particular Amendment unless we take in conjunction with it the definition of a strike as set out in Clause 1.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already allowed that to be done at great length, but I cannot allow it to be repeated.
    Mr. WEBB: I assume I may complete my argument, not by pursuing further what I have said, but by taking up another point involved in the same Amendment to insert the words "For the removal of doubt." I have challenged the Attorney-General and any member of the higher branch of the law opposite to confirm the assertion that there is no doubt that the law at present is as it is declared in this Clause.
    Captain O'CONNOR: There has been a challenge thrown out, and while I do not recognise myself as coming under the description of the higher branch of the law, is the right hon. Gentleman
    464
    aware that the definition of a strike is taken from an existing Act of Parliament, namely, the Munitions Act, 1915, and, therefore, will he not withdraw the suggestion that there is no ground for taking this definition of a strike as being an existing one?
    Mr. WEBB: I will not quarrel with the hon. and gallant Member on the point of law, but I remember a Bar story about a young man in chambers, who was very confident, and who was going to take his first brief. When asked if he would not take some advice in regard to it, he said: "Oh, no, I do not need any advice." When the case came on, he told the Court that he had a perfect answer to the plaintiff's case, and quoted Rex v. Jones. The Judge then asked, quietly: "Was not that decision overruled?" The young counsel was extinguished.
    Captain O'CONNOR: I accept the suggestion.
    Mr. WEBB: The hon. and gallant Member quoted against me as stating the existing law an Act of Parliament which has been repealed! The Attorney-General wants the Committee to declare that any strike shall, under certain circumstances, be illegal, and then to say that the word "strike" includes a refusal in concert to accept employment. What crime have any number of men committed who, having been discharged after due notice, are no longer in employment, merely refuse to accept employment? Notice that there is no question of motive and that by the proposed definition the strike is a strike even if they refuse employment because, after being discharged by their employer, they want to go for a holiday or to resume work in some other occupation. Talk about the yearly bond of a century ago in Durham and Northumberland, where the miners served under a yearly engagement by which they were under a legal obligation to continue in employment with an employer for a whole year, but the employer was not under any obligation to give them employment. They were tied to remain with him for that year. But under this Clause they will be tied for ever. I do submit that, to put it mildly, it is a matter of doubt as to that being the law now, and when the Attorney-General asks the Committee to say, "It is hereby declared" that that

    465
    is the law, surely we are entitled to say: "If you think that is the law, for goodness sake put in the words 'For the removal of doubt.'"
    It is very doubtful indeed whether the words of Clause 1 deal with the general strike at all, because they only deal with a strike having for one of its objects "the furtherance of a trade dispute" and so on. Therefore, there must be the furtherance of a trade dispute and something else. The ambiguity lies in the word "besides," and the phrase I have quoted means, as we thought, any object other than the trade dispute of the original strikers, that is to say, a sympathetic strike. The Attorney-General says:
    "There may well be in one of the essential services an industrial strike which attains so large a scale as to amount to a menace to the life of the community. … Such a strike we have not stopped by this Bill."
    That is a remarkable statement. He goes on:
    "It would have been easy to declare that the sympathetic strike. … was illegal … But, again, we have not thought it right to take that course. The sympathetic strike remains under this Bill perfectly legal so long as it is a strike directed against the employer, and not directed against the Government or the community."
    Remember, a strike in future may be nothing more than a concerted refusal to accept employment by men who have been discharged by their employer. Unfortunately, when the Solicitor-General spoke he took quite another view, for he said:
    "Supposing the miners stopped to improve or maintain conditions of labour in their industry, and the railway men struck in order to avoid carrying what he described as blackleg coal. The answer to it depends, of course, upon whether the intention of the railway men in their refusal to carry blackleg coal is to coerce the Government or intimidate the community."
    It must be remembered that this proposition that this Bill is only declaratory of the existing law extends also to Clause 3, the intimidation Clause, and the Attorney-General said that Clause 3 was really declaratory of the existing law. Well, it is not, but he thinks it is, and when the Solicitor-General came to deal with the matter he said something quite different, because he said that the word "intimidate," which is the essence of Clause 3—
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Of Clause 3?
    Mr. WEBB: I beg pardon. I meant of Clause 1. It was quite a slip, and I apologise. The Solicitor-General told me, to my surprise, that the definition of the word "intimidate" in Clause 1 would have the same meaning as it bears in the 1875 Act and every other Act where it is used without qualification. I almost gasped, because surely the Solicitor-General cannot be ignorant of the fact that the word "intimidate" in the 1875 Act has been defined over and over again, by one Judge after another and by a specially constituted King's Bench Division, to mean the threat of criminal violence to a person or persons, and you cannot offer that kind of violence to the community or even to a substantial portion of the community. The Solicitor-General told the House that that word "intimidate" was merely declaratory and that it had the same meaning as in the 1875 Act, but the Attorney-General does not think so, because he is proposing to leave out the word "intimidate." Unfortunately, he did not tell the Solicitor-General he was intending to leave it out, nor did he tell him why he was going to leave it out. The Attorney-General, no doubt, having discovered that the word "intimidate" in the 1875 Act meant violence or a threat of violence to some person or persons, proposes to leave out the word and merely to substitute something about causing hardship to the community, which is entirely different. The community was not intimidated by the events of last May, but a great deal of hardship was inflicted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) says the community was not intimidated. [Hon. MEMBERS: "You attempted it!"
    Sir FRANK MEYER: You tried to, but it was a failure.
    Mr. WEBB: The Clause as it now stands "to intimidate the community," is inept and useless. We are to have it altered to "inflicting hardship." I do not pretend to be a lawyer, or to know what the law is, but I have read a great many things on this subject; consequently, I can say with some confidence that hardly any of the propositions in this Clause are free from doubt. For that reason, I do suggest that the Govern-

    467
    ment might very well accept the insertion of these words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has pointed out that they can do no harm. It would be a becoming act of modesty on the part of the Government, after its blundering proceedings in regard to the drafting of this Bill, because many of us understand enough about the way Bills are drafted to see the blundering that has occurred. I have no right to imagine who drafted the Bill, but the one thing that I do feel pretty confident about is, that it was not drafted by the admirably qualified gentlemen who usually undertake the drafting of Government Bills. They would be positively ashamed, I think, to put their hands to such a botch, in the way of legal drafting, as this Bill is. Before we got to the Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was proposing to amend one point after another, and to withdraw the use of the words declared by law. I suggest that we are entitled to ask the Government, as an act of modesty, as an act of confession that they have not drafted this Bill in the best possible way, to insert these perfectly harmless words, "For the purpose of removing doubts." They cannot say there is no doubt. It is impossible for them to say there is no doubt as to the words of the Clause being the law. All I am pointing out is, that there are doubts whether the extraordinary wording of Clause I represents the law. The Attorney-General doubts. He thought that it represented the law in its first from, and now he thinks it completely represents the law in its second form. Do not we all know that the form of the Bill will be very considerably changed as we go on? No reason has been assigned why these words should not be inserted. I conclude by thanking the Committee for its forbearance, and once more urging the Government, unless they really wish to ride rough shod over everything else, at any rate, to accept these harmless words.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I was hoping that during the discussion in Committee on this particular Clause and the Amendment that has been moved, hon. Members would have hal a little patience, because the Clause is a very important one, so far as we are concerned. The reason I
    468
    say that is because I am quite convinced that if a similar attack were made upon the legal or medical profession, they would feel quite as angry as we feel about this particular question. I listened to the major part of the Debates of last week and the major part of the Debate this afternoon, and I should say that the words "general strike" have been used at least 500 times, if not more. As a matter of fact, there was no general strike last year, and I will tell you the reason why. As most of you are aware, on the 30th April, one million miners were locked out. There were only 1,500,000 men who thought it worth while to down tools on the 4th May. Therefore, if you take the million men who were locked out and the 1,500,000 men who came out in sympathy with the miners, you have only 2,500,000 men who were on strike—and we have got a working population in this country of 17,500,000. I fail to understand how you can in any way define that as a general strike.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) said he was not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I am convinced of what is going to happen under this particular Clause. The law at the present time is sufficient to deal with the millions of men in this country. Take one simple illustration—the case of the London gas workers. As everybody knows, or should know, every man and woman working for a gas company or a water company, either private or public, is compelled by the present law to give 14 days' notice before he or she can leave employment. In some cases 28 days' notice has to be given. May I remind the Committee that prior to the alteration of the Conspiracy Act of 1875, about 20 men working for the Mile End Gasworks gave notice to terminate their employment, and before they finished they were brought before the Court and sentenced at Maidstone Assizes to 12 months for conspiracy. That was the reason why the law of 1875 was altered. Mr. Gladstone at that time absolutely refused to alter the law. Subsequently there was a general election and the Liberal Government were sent about their business simply because they refused to alter that law. The present position, so far as the gas workers are concerned, is this: In the case of the Gas Light and Coke Company, which

    469
    controls all the gasworks in the northern part of London, the 20,000 employés, although they might give their 14 or 28 days' notice in a legal manner, would be liable to come within the definition of Sub-section (2) of Clause (1). If these employés give notice and leave their employment, and no coal is carbonised and no gas is made, and there are no gas fires, or gas cooking, or lighting in the houses of the people, I am quite convinced the present Attorney-General, if he were then a Member of the Government, would go to the Court at once and get an injunction against these men to restrain them from doing what they thought was the proper thing to do.
    The Attorney-General and hon. Members on the benches opposite have not attempted to define a general strike, because it cannot be defined. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said, there have been one or two general strikes in other parts of the world, but those strikes were for the purpose of extending the franchise. There has never been a general strike in any part of the world on industrial questions. The question of a general strike has been discussed at a number of Socialist Internationals, and the first time I remember the subject being discussed was at the International Brussels Congress in 1891, and that subject was introduced by my late friend Mr. Keir Hardie. That congress was in favour of a general strike in the case of war. I want to tell the Committee quite frankly that during the whole course of the dispute of last May—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and one or two other Members who are members of the
    Joint Council can bear me out—the question of attempting to coerce the Government was neither discussed nor mentioned. As you know, the reason why the men came out was not because they wanted higher wages or shorter hours or an alteration in their conditions, but because of their sympathy with the miners and their desire to get the miners back to the position they were in when they were locked out. Your law and no other law will ever prevent any body of workmen in this country, if they want to come out, from coming out. They will come out in spite of you or anybody else. You will have as many strikes in future as you have had in the past. You may attempt to prevent strikes as long and as often as you like, but you will not prevent the workers from having the right to choose whom they shall work for and whom they shall not work for. It may mean that some of us may go to prison. I do not care a straw about that. Men and women have gone to prison in days gone by and they will go to prison in the future, in spite of your legislation. Whatever you may say to the contrary, you are absolutely and deliberately taking away the right and the privileges that we had prior to 1906. You may pass your Bill—I know you are going to pass it—but it is not going to operate as far as some of us are concerned.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose in, his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 153.

    Division No. 111.]

    AYES

    7.45 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bethel, A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Burman, J. B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

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

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Campbell, E. T.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cassels, J. D

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Buchan, John

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Raine, W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Ramsden, E.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Cope, Major William

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

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

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

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ropner, Major L.

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

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

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rye, F. G.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Drewe, C.

    King, Captain Henry Dcuolas

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Ellis, R. G.

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

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

    Elveden, Viscount

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Loder, J. de V.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Smithers, Waldron

    Falie, Sir Bertram G.

    Lougher, Lewis

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

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

    Forrest, W.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    McLean, Major A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Marqesson, Captain D.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Goff, Sir Park

    Meller, R. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Merriman, F. B.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Grace, John

    Mever, Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Waddington, R.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Neville, R. J.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Harland, A.

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

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oakley, T.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Withers, John James

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Perring, Sir William George

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

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Preston, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Radford, E. A.

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Baker, Walter

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    472

    473

    Briant, Frank

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bromfield, William

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Smillie, Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

    Snell, Harry

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Connolly, M.

    Lee, F.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder, W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dennison, R.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Taylor, R. A.

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Dunnico, H.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    March, S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Maxton, James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gardner, J. P.

    Montague, Frederick

    Townend, A. E.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Morris, R. H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Murnin, H.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

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

    Oliver, George Harold

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

    Greenall, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Westwood, J.

    Groves, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wiggins, William Martin

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

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hardle, George D.

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Harney, E. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Windsor, Walter

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wright, W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Mr. Bayes Mr. A. Barnes.

    Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. When the Second Reading took place, the Prime. Minister said, as a reason for curtailing the length of time which was given for a Second Reading Debate, that there would be ample opportunity of full discussion when the Committee stage was reached. May I submit to you that there are large numbers of Members on these benches who have not had an opportunity of taking part in this discussion?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can we have an answer?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Certain hon. Members on these benches have marked out a place for themselves on this question. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the hon. Member for Camlachie
    474
    (Mr. Stephen), and the hon. Member for myself—[Laughter.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is really no point of Order that arises.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Hon. Members may laugh, but I am asking for guidance; it is not a point of Order.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Member is asking for guidance. [Interruption.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to give guidance when everyone is shouting at me. No point of Order arises at all on this question. The Committee have decided that the Question shall be put. Therefore, I am bound to put it.
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 302.

    Division No. 112.]

    AYES.

    [8.0 p.m.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barnes, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondaa, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Bowerman, Rt Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Broad, F. A.

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

    smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lansbury, George

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, F.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dennison, R.

    Maxton, James

    Townend, A. E.

    Duncan, C.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dunnico, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wallhead Richard C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wiggins William Martin

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

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

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

    Harney, E. A.

    Scurr, John

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Christie, J. A.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Buchan, John

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

    Batniel, Lord

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Beckett Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Berry, Sir George

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Bethel, A.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cassels, J. D.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    476

    477

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

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Drewe, C.

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Elveden, Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Salmon, Major I.

    England, Colonel A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Forrest, W.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Frece, Sir Walter de

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Smithers, Waldron

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Grace, John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Meller, R. J.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Merriman, F. B.

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Waddington, R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Harland, A.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Warner, Brigadier General W. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Neville, R. J.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wells, S. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Oakley, T.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perkins, Colonel E K.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Withers, John James

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pliditch, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Preston, William

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Radford, E. A.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Raine, W.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. This is the first Amendment that has been taken on this Clause. There will be a large number of Amendments, and I desire to ask you whether it is possible to have some collateral record
    478
    not only of the number of hon. Members voting but of the number of people they represent?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: It is a minority vote.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask you a question in connection with this Amendment? Some of us have put our names down to Amendments right through the Order Paper. I have been here to-day from the beginning of this Debate, and I want to ask you whether an hon. Member who has put his name to an Amendment has not the right to be called—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no right about it. The fact that an hon. Member has put his name to an Amendment does not give him any right to catch Mr. Speaker's or the Chairman's eye.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I have a fair amount of knowledge of the Standing Orders and I am aware that there is nothing which gives him a right, but is it not the case that it is the usual custom?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises at all.
    Mr. MACLEAN: When an hon. Member puts his name to an Amendment of such importance as this does it not signify that he intends to support it not merely by voting in the Lobby, but that he holds certain opinions in regard to it, and is it not customary, apart altogether from any Standing Order, that when an hon. Member has put his name down to an Amendment of such first-rate importance as this he has at least the right to be called during the course of the Debate and before the Closure is moved?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no primary right at all.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In the event of an hon. Member having his name down first to an Amendment, does not that give him a prior right to speak in support of it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It gives him a prior right, over those whose names appear below his, to move the Amendment himself.
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  COAL (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH).
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to move,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the scientific treatment of coal should be a normal function of the mining industry, which should apply and develop the proved commercial methods of treating raw coal as a means of increasing the national wealth, improving the prospects of the industry itself, and providing employment for the large number of miners wholly or partly unemployed, and every encouragement should be given by the State to scientific research into the treatment of coal. Further, this House declares that the coordination of coal production and coal treatment and the application of the results of publicly-aided research can only be fully secured by the unification of the coal industry under public ownership."
  This Motion deals with a subject which is not only of great importance to the mining community, but is of vital interest to the nation as a whole. The outlook in the industry is very depressing. Notwithstanding the fact that the hours of labour have been increased and wages have been reduced, many thousands of miners in all parts of the British coalfield are either wholly or partially unemployed. We were informed frequently during last year that if the miner would only consent to a reduction in wages and an increase in hours, all would be well in the industry. But all those prophecies by leading Members of the Government and by others on the other side of the House have been entirely falsified, and we find that in every part of the coalfield to-day thousands of men, as I have said, are wholly or partially unemployed. I invite Members of the House, and other sections of our people not intimately connected with the miner, to visualise the appalling poverty and destitution into which the mining population has fallen. In very many cases, in all parts of the coalfield, after the miner has worked for the full time obtainable at his colliery for the week, and after deduction for rent—in some cases arrears of rent—National Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, medical attendance upon his dependents, and other necessary purposes, he goes home with wages amounting to only a few shillings week by week. As a matter of fact I know one case in my own district where last week, after these deductions had been made from the

  481
  wages earned during the week, the man had only 2s. 6d. left with which to maintain his wife and family.
  I may be told that the miners themselves, by the stoppage of last year, contributed largely to the ills that have befallen them. I think, however, that a very superficial knowledge of the mining industry during the past 15 years or thereabouts, not only in Britain but in all parts of the world, will dispel such an idea. Even if there had been no coal stoppage, such a condition of affairs as I have described was bound to be reached sooner or later, unless steps were taken in time to enable the mining industry to get on its feet again. Unfortunately that was not done and the present deplorable condition developed in the industry. Let me recall the factors that have affected the demand for coal both in the home and the export market. So far as the export market is concerned, the factors that have contributed to the present position are the following: A considerable portion of the shipping in the world to-day gets its motive power from oil instead of from coal. Every time that a 10,000 tons ship changes from coal to oil fuel, nearly 100 miners are displaced from their employment. One has only to calculate the number of ships of that capacity which in recent years have adopted oil fuel, and to multiply it by 100, to find a very substantial reason why so many miners have been displaced.
  There has also been the development in the production of electricity from water power. There are the cases of Italy, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, which are producing electricity without the use of a single pound of coal. Then you have the fact that other countries have developed their coalfield to a much larger extent than formerly. That is so in India, Africa, Russia, America and Continental countries, and the result is that our efforts to maintain our hold on the export markets of the world have been intensified. In the home market the development of transport almost entirely driven by oil, and the increased use of oil in other parts of our industrial system, have added largely to the difficulties of the mining industry. When one looks closely at the mining situation one is apt to take rather a gloomy view of it, were it not for the fact that science during the last 20 years or so has shown the prodigious waste
  482
  that has taken place in the use of our coal at home, and what a priceless national heritage is in our possession if the services of the scientists and chemists are called in to exploit fully the potentialities of our coal supplies.
  The mines are still the greatest national asset that we have. To suppose that British coal is a diminishing asset by comparison with other factors of industrial power would be a great mistake. Our coal is potentially a greater source of national wealth than it has ever been in the course of our industrial history if the proper steps were taken to utilise it to its full value. It contains in itself, and can supply, all the driving energy we require for an age to come. By subjecting it to distillation instead of feeding it crudely into furnaces and grates, it can be made to supply us with oil, dyes and fertilisers as well as with electric current, pulverised fuel and smokeless fuel for both industrial and domestic purposes. To utilise this great source of wealth in a proper way, a wise Government ought to be prepared to spend money on research and to find out the best processes for realising its value. According to the Coal Commission Report it would pay us over and over again to spend substantial sums of money on finding out the best methods of treating our coal resources, and they say that coal is still the secret of our future economic salvation.
  In the past not only has our coal been the foundation of our industrial supremacy, but we have been in the habit for many years of exporting a considerable proportion of our output to our fellow-men in other parts of the world, and in this way we have made substantial sums of money by which to balance our imports and exports. I do not mean, in the course of what I have to say, to leave the impression that our export trade in coal will be lost. There will always be a demand for British coal but with intensified competition from all parts of the world and with competition from other sources of motive power we cannot hope to maintain the place in the world's coal market which we formerly held or to send coal abroad in such large quantities as before. Therefore, I think if we were wise we would examine closely the possibility of developing our home market. If we do so, one of the first things to strike us

  483
  will be the fact that annually we are spending no less than £45,000,000 on oil for transport and industrial purposes. That figure will steadily grow, year by year, as our transport system extends, unless we find sources of supply for ourselves. If our export is to be a diminishing quantity, we shall require to examine every penny spent on our import with a view to finding out whether it is not possible for us to supply our own national requirements and so keep the money that we are now spending abroad—foolishly, in my opinion—circulating in our own country. At the same time we could provide for the large number of men belonging to the mining industry who are wholly or partially unemployed.
  So far as oil is concerned, I am of opinion that we have a source of supply second to none in the world. Every ton of British coal of average quality contains, on the average, 20 gallons of oil, equal, if not superior, to the best well oil to be found in any part of the world either for fuel or for lubricating purposes. Each ton of coal treated and manipulated in the proper way would provide something like 14 cwts. of smokeless fuel which could be used for industrial or domestic purposes and a portion of which could be converted into pulverised fuel capable of being used as a substitute for oil in the shipping industry. Each ton of coal contains many other useful residuals. Why, then, should we continue to spend abroad an annual sum sufficient to restore in a very large degree the prosperity of the mining industry and find employment for a considerable number of the men who are at present idle? I may be asked if the distillation of coal has been reduced to a financial proposition. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Hardie), who, possibly, has as great knowledge of this subject as any Member in this House, that it has reached that stage. If further proof of that assertion were required it is to be found in the fact that private firms are raising a considerable amount of capital—evidently having confidence in the venture—with which to erect the necessary plant to develop the distillation of coal. Mr. Leonard Harvey, whose knowledge of the
  484
  subject I do not think any hon. Member will dare to dispute, adds his testimony in the following words:
  "In the fulfilment of any broad programme of coal distillation, pulverisation, concentration of power, generation, and full efficiency in any country where such can be supplied the works required will be of such magnitude that the resuscitation of the engineering industries and the great relief of unemployment on work of national value, will be brought about in the most speedy manner possible."
  That, to my mind, is testimony of the highest value from one whose expert knowledge nobody will question It is a tragedy in my opinion that this enormous development which contains such great possibilities, should fall into the hands of private firms who have no connection with the coal trade and no interest in the coal trade except in purchasing the coal which they require for their business. If the coalowners who for the time being are responsible for running the mining industry had been wise men in their day and generation they would have made this development an integral part of the mining industry. They would have been able to add the money made in that way to the other proceeds of the industry, so contributing more money to the common fund from which both profits and wages are paid, and in that way bringing much needed prosperity to the mining industry. The best thing of all, however, would have been for the Government to take this wonderful development of our national resources, with all its potentialities of wealth and welfare, and make it the heritage of the whole nation; in that way they would have been paving the way for its incorporation in the mining industry when the people of this country are wise enough to make that industry their own property. I hope the Members of the House will support me in passing this Resolution, because I believe that what it recommends will be of great value not only to the mining industry but to all sections of the community. If we are to hold our place among the industrial countries of the world, it will be necessary for all sections of the community to examine closely all sources from which we can secure the wherewithal to maintain our position. I believe this question is of sufficient importance to be raised above party politics, and certainly it is

  485
  of intense importance not only to the miners but to all interested in the mining industry.
  Mr. CLAYTON: I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out from the word "coal" to the end of the Question.
  While listening to the Mover of this Motion I felt very largely in agreement with him as to encouraging to the fullest extent the investigation of the scientific treatment of coal. The method we have adopted up to the present is a very British method, namely, collaboration between the State and private enterprise. and it is not proving a failure. I am a member of the Advisory Council of the Scientific and Industrial Research Department, and also a member of the Fuel Research Board. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) has ever been to the Fuel Research Station. If he has not been there, I hope he will shortly pay us a visit, in order to see what the Government are doing towards the scientific solution of the problems of the coal industry. In considering the fuel resources of this country one of the first things to be done is to make a physical and chemical survey of the coal measures. This is in progress at the present time, and reports have been made on the coal measures in Lancashire and Cheshire, South Yorkshire and North Staffordshire—at least to a partial extent, and work is proceeding. Committees have been formed in the following places—Scotland, Notts and Derbyshire, Durham and Northumberland, and the work of investigating the coal measures will be carried out there. This investigation is very necessary in order to ascertain the actual composition of the coal in the different seams, and to show what it is most suitable for, because there is a great variation in the actual seams themselves. This investigation is going on.
  The next problem for the Department is the sampling and analysis of coal in bulk. It is not a very easy problem to tackle, but it is being undertaken in conjunction with the trades interested in coal. It is very important that those who buy and sell coal should know definitely what they are buying and selling. The question of the better utilisation of coal in industry has been committed by the President of the Board of Trade to a Committee called the National Fuel
  486
  and Power Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). They are investigating the present uses of coal in industry, and make very valuable suggestions to the industries concerned. The Government have at East Greenwich a fuel research station on land adjoining the South Metropolitan Gas Company's premises. That connection with the South Metropolitan Gas Company is absolutely essential in carrying out large experiments, because we have to pass the gas and the tar resulting from the experiments in the research stations to the Gas Company, and they are purchasing from the research station the tar and the gas, thereby confining the cost of the experiments practically to supervision and the provision of plant. The coal and the general labour employed on the plant is paid for by the gas and tar which go back to the gas company. Large and small scale experiments of all sorts are being carried out at the Fuel Research Station where they are doing research work with vertical and horizontal gas retorts, with more or less the normal plant adopted in gas works. They have made a number of very useful discoveries which are being adopted by the gas companies, and the gas companies are keeping very closely in touch with all the work done. The value of the stations is proved by the fact that the Gas Light and Coke Company are erecting a practically similar station themselves in their own works, taking the model of the Government's Fuel Research Station as a model for theirs. This to my mind is a very good feature because the Government are most anxious in doing this kind of research work to encourage further research in industry, and get industry to take over the investigation of the different problems in which they are particularly interested. The gas companies themselves have always been very prominent in doing the research work necessary for their own particular experiments.
  Another matter which has received attention at the Fuel Research Station is coal washing. In the last few weeks a plant has been erected which is now ready for use, and the intention is that owners of coal should send coal to the station to be tested, and this station will be able to advise them which form

  487
  of washer is most suitable for their particular coal. I have mentioned the National Fuel and Power Committee. One of the subjects they have been giving attention to is the production of coke in this country. They have investigated the manufacture of coke all over the world and they have come to the conclusion that if we are to have our coke plants in this country brought up to the very highest pitch quite a considerable number of them will have to be rebuilt. This coke investigation has been carried out also at the Fuel Research Station and also the activity of coke produced by different methods. Very useful results have come from those experiments which are being watched very carefully by manufacturers requiring coke. The Fuel Research Station was put up to a very large extent for the investigation of low temperature carbonisation, and they have there a very useful sized working plant. The advantage we obtain by low temperature carbonisation over high temperature carbonisation is that we get more liquid fuel and less gas, and a coke that burns freely in the domestic fireplace, or can be used as a substitute for coal in industry.
  In carrying out investigations of that sort there are four stages. The first is in the laboratory; the second on the hundredweight scale; the third stage is on the ton a day scale, and that is done on a size that is capable of multiplication in big units; and the fourth is a battery of large scale units which makes a commercial plant. There are already a number of different low temperature carbonisation processes which have reached the third stage, and are now in the fourth stage. Some of them have only just reached the third stage, but some of these processes have been carefully investigated by the Research Board. Six of them have been investigated, and in four of them reports have been published. The fifth has been investigated and the report is complete and will shortly be published. In the fifth case the experiment was carried on at too short a time to give accurate data.
  A short time ago Sir David Milne Watson, Governor of the Gas Light and Coke Company, and President of the National Gas Council, was asked to make
  488
  an investigation through his experts of the low temperature carbonisation processes that were in existence in this country which had been taken as far as the third stage. He sent his experts all over the country. He also sent them abroad wherever there were these low temperature carbonisation plants, and he was asked to see whether there was any process his company could take up as a commercial proposition with or without Government assistance. After full investigation he decided that the most suitable plant for adoption by his company to work in conjunction with the ordinary gas process was the plant designed by the members of the Fuel Research Board staff. That shows that the Fuel Research Board staff is deserving of very great praise for the work they have done. Especially is this the case when we remember that it was the Gas Light and Coke Company who made this report, and not the South Metropolitan Gas Company, who have worked in very close relationship with the Fuel Research Station, and therefore might be thought to be prejudiced. The gas company stated that, while they thought that this was the best process, they did not consider that they were justified, as a company, in bearing the entire cost of the long experiment on this process, but I understand that the Noble Lady who is to speak later will give full details of the arrangement that has been come to.
  While we are learning a great deal from this large-scale experiment, I think it is very necessary that we should continue the research work, because there is no finality in any of these matters, and we should see also whether some of the other methods of dealing with low temperature carbonisation might not be suitable for use in co-operation with, say, electric light companies rather than with gas companies, the process that has been selected by the gas company having been selected because it w as particularly suitable for working by the gas company. I will now pass on to the subject of the hydrogenisation of coal. Even with the best of these low temperature carbonisation processes, there is a yield of only something between 15 and 20 gallons of oil per ton of coal—probably nearer 15 gallons. A process has been invented by a German chemist, Dr. Bergius, and this process promises very much larger quantities of oil per ton of coal than anything

  489
  that could possibly be obtained by the low temperature carbonisation process.
  Mr. HARDIE: At what price?
  Mr. CLAYTON: At a price which I believe will be economical. I cannot give the price at the moment but I can give the amounts that have been made. The advantages of these hydrogenisation processes are that, as I have said, you get far more oil per ton of coal, but of course you do not get the solid fuel for burning as a smokeless fuel. You get gas and you get oil in considerable quantities. We have at the Fuel Research Station a small plant in operation dealing with about a ton of coal per day, and it is giving extraordinarily good figures.
  Mr. PALING:Is that the Bergius process?
  Mr. CLAYTON: Yes. I am Department would appreciate a visit from anyone who would like to come.
  Mr. HARDIE: Most of us have been there.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. CLAYTON: There was a danger some time ago that the British Empire rights of the Bergius process might be lost to this country, but the Department very wisely advised the Government to get some control over this patent, and an option on a, considerable amount of the interest in the British rights of the Bergius process has now been acquired by Imperial Chemical Industries. While the Bergius process has really only been developed up to a large experimental scale, a modification of the Bergius process has been worked out by the German chemical group known as the Interessen Gemeinschaft, and they have got at work, now a full large-scale plant. The output of this plant is in the neighbourhood of 100,000 tons per annum of coal oil—
  Mr. HARDIE: It is working intermittently?
  Mr. CLAYTON: It is not possible to say whether it is intermittent or not at the moment, but the plant has actually been started, and is working now, and, as I understand from members of Imperial Chemical Industries who paid a visit
  490
  there a short time ago, it is working extraordinarily well, and I have no reason to believe that it is not going to be a commercial success.
  Dr. SALTER: Is the oil of the light, volatile type, or is it of the non-volatile, heavier type?
  Mr. CLAYTON: It contains both; there is a very considerable quantity of the volatile type, which can be used in substitution for petrol.
  Dr. SALTER: How many gallons per ton?
  Mr. CLAYTON: I cannot say exactly how many gallons are produced per ton, but I can state that the figure given in a publication which I have received from Germany is that the yield is about half a ton of what they call coal oil per ton of coal treated. That is a very big figure.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That would be 110 gallons?
  Mr. CLAYTON: I am not sure what the specific gravity is.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a synthetic product?
  Mr. CLAYTON: It is a synthetic product. It is produced by hydrogenisation of the coal under pressure and at a high temperature.
  Mr. HARDIE: I understand that this is a synthetic oil, and not a pure coal oil, because of the process by which it is produced.
  Mr. CLAYTON: Yes, it is a synthetic oil, because you have added the hydrogen to the coal. I have mentioned that these processes have been investigated by representatives of Imperial Chemical Industries, of which I am a director, and they are now in contact with the German group, the Interessen Gemeinschaft, familiarly called the I.G. I also want to assure the House that, should these processes which have been worked out there prove a commercial success, they will be worked in the British Empire, and we shall get from the coal, to the extent that we work them, a substitute for the imported oil that we at present have to use. I beg to move.
  Mr. R. HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution expressed the hope that a matter of this national importance would be raised above party. I am sure that all of us on these benches thoroughly echo that hope; I personally do, and can only regret that in a matter of this importance, the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to introduce a party question by the totally unnecessary addition of the last sentence of the Resolution, which my hon. Friend has moved to omit. It seemed to me, as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that I agreed with very nearly all of it, and I wondered when he was going to bring forward any justification for his claim that nationalisation would improve the present efforts that we are making towards research in the coal industry and the better treatment of coal. He disappointed me, because he dealt with it in about two sentences, and advanced no real reason. Let me remind the House, before I proceed to deal with the broader aspects of the case, that the question of nationalisation of the coal industry was very fully dealt with by the Royal Commission, and their arguments against nationalisation applied more particularly in the direction of research and the scientific treatment of coal than, possibly, to any other portion of coal industry.
  It will be remembered that they said that the coal industry was becoming increasingly a very large industrial complex—that the winning of coal was only one process in what was in many cases a very complicated industrial entity, and that the proposal to nationalise the coal industry would mean, in effect, drawing a line and dividing off the winning of coal from its subsequent treatment in other industries. The Royal Commission went on to say that standardisation was impossible in the coal industry, that at the most the greatest hope for its success lay in willingness to experiment and readiness to take risks, both of which attributes they believed would not be found in any system of State ownership. I think, therefore, that the House will agree that we are fully justified in our proposal to delete the last sentence of this Resolution.
  I would like to dwell for a few minutes on what seems to me to be a much more
  492
  important and interesting question which is raised by the Resolution, and that is the question of the limits within which the Government should assist research, and the limits within which and the extent to which we are assisting research in the coal industry, and have carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in that regard. I think everyone will agree that the general progress of science cannot be ordered by anyone, but that the direction it will take at any moment depends very largely on the birth of some genius. No Government research could have produced Senatore Marconi, no Government Research Department could have been responsible for the English invention of synthetic dyes, and certainly no Government Research Department was responsible for men like Newton or for the invention of the steam engine. The only thing the Government can rightly do, as it seems to me, is to stimulate the application of scientific results in industry, and that is what our present system of Government research in this country is endeavouring to do. The Government have come to the conclusion that merely to go in for expensive research and pay for the whole of the research in any one industry will not necessarily lead to the results of that research being applied in the industries concerned, and they believe that you stand a very much greater chance of getting those results definitely applied if the industry contributes towards the cost of the research and takes part in it co-operatively, which is the distinguishing mark of the efforts of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
  The only exception to that general rule in is regard to fuel research, and there I think the argument of the Department is fully justified, namely, that the enormous scale on which research has to be carried on in the coal industry before any process can be proved to have a commercial future necessitates our spending proportionately a greater sum on research in connection with fuel than on research, for example, in the electrical industry or in the rubber industry. We have set up, in accordance with the recommendations of the Coal Commission, a Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir

  493
  A. Mond), as was indicated by my hon. Friend. We have also set up a Committee of Research, and the considered opinion of the Board at present is that it would be unwise to set up any further machinery for research and that what is needed at present is more co-ordination of the existing organisations and associations which are devoting themselves to research. They say the progress we have made since the War has been remarkable and that there is at present no possibility of anyone denying that any young man with the necessary ability will have an opening for making use of that ability either in the Government research station or in industry, and they go so far as to call attention to the fact that the coal stoppage of last year may, in spite of its drawbacks, have one good result if it does nothing else than call attention and focus public opinion on the importance of research and of the economic use of coal.
  When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the scientific treatment of coal and low-temperature carbonisation increasing the demand for labour and giving employment to large numbers of men who are at present unemployed, let me beg him not to raise unduly and prematurely the hopes of these men, because the whole of the present research in low-temperature carbonisation is based on the fact that the price of the coal that is being used for these experiments is very low and that slack is being sold to-day at very small prices. It is only possible to sell that slack at such low prices because of the comparatively high price, above the actual cost of production, that is obtained for the coal of superior quality which is burnt for domestic use. If, however, you once get to the stage at which the production of your smokeless fuel is so great that you can, as suggested for example in the Royal Commission Report, follow the example set in America and compel people to burn smokeless fuel, you will have destroyed your market for expensive coal and you will have to charge very much more for the coal that goes through this process. In the long run undoubtedly the economic treatment of coal will be to the advantage of the mining industry, but it is not at all certain that until the balance is re-established between the prices of various
  494
  types of coal in the market, the effect of bringing this low-temperature carbonisation on to a commercial basis will not be to decrease the immediate demand for coal rather than actually increase it and so decrease unemployment, and I think hon. Members on both sides of the House should be careful in making promises to these men that a new Heaven is about to open for them if low-temperature carbonisation is brought immediately into being.
  Finally, the evidence given on behalf of the Miners' Federation did not suggest that the nationalisation of the mines was going to make for greater research. He suggested that the Transport Commission which was to be set up under the scheme was only to co-operate with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research in the promotion of research into power production and coal by-products, and that it was to undertake with it to arrange for the commercial application of the results of research into the power and transport problem. The arrangements we have made at present effectually carry out those proposals. The Colliery Owners' Research Association, which is being assisted and is in close contact with the Fuel Research Board, as soon as its funds become more adequate for the purpose, which I hope will be very soon, will carry those two purposes out. The Coal Commission suggested that up to £50,000 a year should be spent on research in the coal industry. The figures of the Fuel Research Board for this year amount to just short of £80,000. We are in effect doing everything the Coal Commission suggested for the furtherance of research. Still more, admittedly, is to be done. It is in the national interest that more should be done as soon as the results can be made commercially applicable, but nationalisation certainly will not in any wise help to obtain the end we all have in view.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment impressed me very much. I would pay a tribute to his knowledge of the chemical industry and of science in general, but I do not think it is quite inevitable that scientists should maintain such a dislike towards a problem of this kind. Scientists are men of weighty opinions. They cannot afford to be too rash in their expectations or promises, but I do not know

  495
  of any psychological law which prevents a scientist from being a little more optimistic than he has been. The hon. Member started by saying the Physical Research Committee and the Fuel Research Board were doing a great deal of the work this Motion called for. We do not deny that a beginning has been made. Many of us have visited the Fuel Research Station on more than one occasion, and we have been very interested in the work that has been done there. We are very pleased with some of the work that is done. No one on this side, I am sure, feels that all that is required to be done is being done in that one station. Neither are we satisfied with the committees the hon. Member spoke of. We do not quarrel with the personnel of these committees. We know that very eminent men are giving voluntary service on these committees in different parts of the country. I should like to ask the Minister if it is true that these committees for the physical and chemical survey which was initiated some time ago have yet been opened in all the districts, six or seven, which they were supposed to take in hand and whether the other committee which is to deal only with coal has yet commenced its duties. We are entitled to ask him whether he thinks the Sampling and Analysis Committee sitting in London, meeting periodically, can carry on the duties which will devolve upon it with any expectation of definite results in the next five or ten years. This question of sampling and analysis calls for a much more intense activity than anything we have been led to expect from the reports of the committees which have been placed in our hands.
  One or two things the hon. Member has said call for criticism. He told us the gas companies were very prominent in research. He told us that the gas companies are expending large sums of money and are very actively pursuing the task of research in questions connected with this Motion. One representative who gave evidence before the Commission said his people spent £10,000 a year and contributed an eighth of a further sum of £7,000 which was being spent in research abroad, and that was all that was being spent by the gas companies altogether in the work, not of research into the chemical treatment of
  496
  coal but in the synthetic work and in the distillation of the various elements in coal tar itself. That is a ridiculously low expenditure on the work of investigation, calling for the remuneration of experienced men of training and knowledge, in addition to expenditure on plant and equipment. I know that in addition to that the fuel research station and the Colliery Owners' Research Society are to be added, but, totalling all the research work in connection with the subject, he will find it difficult to show an expenditure of £100,000 in connection with research. That is a very small sum of money. We are faced with a most urgent problem. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion called attention to unemployment in industry. It is not only that, it is a matter of very serious import to the industries of the country, and not to the coal industry alone. If we are to keep pace with the advances made in other countries, if we are to continue to maintain the kind of industry which will enable our people to acquire the relatively high standard of life which we have enjoyed, we must make very much more progress with the means of utilising fresh scientific discoveries than we have done in recent years.
  The Seconder said one or two things to which I should like to refer. He said the coalowners have been very willing to experiment and to take risks. If you examine that statement in the light of other countries and what is taking place in Germany, America and France, you will find that our coalowners have been very timid indeed. We have bad tonight a very clear expression of the behaviour of our leading industrialists. The Mover said we should watch Germany, and if Germany was successful he promised we should not be behind in adopting their methods. That has been the position taken up by the industrialists in this country, and knowing the coalowners as well as I do, both in their private and business lives, I can assure him that very few, indeed, have taken the slightest interest in the problem we are discussing to-night. Very few of them know how much of, and still less do they care, what becomes of the coal if they can get rid of it, as long as the world continues to buy it as raw fuel and they can produce it and pass it on

  497
  to the consumer at a profit. They care very little what becomes of the enormous possibilities of this wonderful commodity which providence or nature has placed at our disposal.
  I take a much wider view than either of the two Members who spoke on the other side. I regard coal as the fundamental commodity of our national life, for upon coal rests all the prosperity of this nation. Our past has been shaped by it, our present depends upon it, and our future will depend upon it even more. It is the vital spark of our national life and if we neglect to keep the importance of coal in our minds in connection with our political problems and Imperial aspirations, we shall fall to the ground. There will be no value in anything we discuss, unless we may remember that coal is power and power means life, which is the source of our industrial life and of all social work. Let us not fail to recognise the wonderful asset we have in this commodity, for fortunately we have more coal than any other country in Europe. Our coal resources are almost unlimited and at the present rate of production and of domestic consumption they are nearly enough to provide for our own uses for a thousand years. It is a wonderful storehouse of the most wonderful element to be found. This coal, which is producing to-day the mechanical power for our every day use, has not yet begun to disclose its real value, because men have been pessimistic—black as coal itself—in their minds, refusing to see that this black substance is the most brilliant and beautiful feature of our national life.
  I want the House to remember that there have been great changes in this industry since we began to learn the use of coal for industrial purposes. There was the great development of the steam engine. Next came, 100 years ago, the discovery of gas and the possibilities of the distillation of gas from coal by high temperature carbonisation. The pessimists of those days spoke exactly as those of this day, of what they looked on as foolish ideas. The great men of 100 years ago scoffed at the idea of a future for gas. Who, looking back to the reports of the scientific societies of those days, would have believed that this great industry in this country would give light, heat and power in a variety of
  498
  ways for 36,000,000 people, with a capital of £160,000,000, with concerns owned by private companies and municipalities, paying a regular and steady profit and providing amenities undreamt of before gas was discovered about 100 years ago. This great industry has been built up on the coal industry, for without coal there would have been no gas. Without scientific faith there would have been no gas industry. The gas industry is one part, and a great part of the industrial superstructure which is built on a foundation of coal.
  Then we have the electrical industry. The pessimists of 50 years ago did not believe in the possibilities of electricity. Now we have a huge system partially owned and controlled nationally, for despite the so-called demerits of nationalisation, we have been compelled to nationalise control of our electricity system. The greater part of both our gas and electricity systems is owned by the people municipally, in a form of nationalisation with local control, for they are collectively owned with local control rather than national control. These two great industries give enormous employment—in the case of gas, directly to 100,000 workpeople and indirectly to at least an aggregate of a quarter of a million people. Not one miner has been displaced because of the quarter of a million people employed, and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment is entirely wrong in the assumption that if you affect economies in the use of coal you throw men out of employment. Indeed, all prospects of advances by scientific improvements would fail us if that were the case. We create new wants and find other ways of supplying those wants, and we find employment for our people in supplying them. Electricity has revealed new wants, and we have given employment to our men in supplying these new wants. In gas, electricity, coke ovens and the by-products, we are already employing half a million people, directly and indirectly. I submit, that if those new means of employment had not been discovered by the scientists of previous generations, coal might be burnt in larger quantities, but the standard of human welfare would have been considerably lower than it is to-day.
  If those three great industries have been built up in the last 100 years, why

  499
  should we not consider the possibilities of new industries derived from coal and built up on the coal industry? The application of science and the realisation of the scientific advance of the men of these days, will bring one industry at least, a great industry which will grow up before our eyes in the next decade and considerably more so in the few decades which follow. We are within sight of the depletion of the liquid fuel resources of the world. A great American inquiry of a few months ago has issued reports which stated that the United States was within six years of the depletion of its oil resources. The United States has nearly half of the oil resources of the world, and most people are agreed that the oil resources of the world will not last more than 25 or 30 years unless some entirely new discoveries are made in some at present unknown part of the world. What is to take the place of oil? Are we to scrap motor cars, aeroplanes and submarines, and abandon the internal-combustion engines because liquid fuel can no longer be found? Certainly not. We are going to get liquid fuel in abundance from coal.
  We, in this country, are very fortunate in having the best coal in the world. It has been found, despite the incompleteness of our physical and chemical survey, that we have the best coal in the world for conversion into oil and the various by-products that are drawn from the process. There are three alternative methods of synthetic production of oil. The Bergius method, to which the Mover and Seconder both referred, is a German method where additional units of hydrogen are added to the hydrogen already existing in the coal, in order to create new hydrocarbons, which will form the basis of the liquid oil upon which further processes have to be carried out. It is simply the addition of hydrogen to coal, the building up of new hydrocarbons, a very simple thing, even to a layman such as I am, who has dug coal all his life and has not been investigating in the laboratory, but who, perhaps because he has spent so much time in the hard task of digging coal, resents in his soul the idea of coal being wasted. Simply the addition of hydrogen under high temperature in a very strong cylinder is needed. It is a very promising method, and, as
  500
  the Mover rightly said, already the results shown have been very satisfactory. There is another system, called the Fischer system, which is different, because it derives oxygen from the destruction of water, and there is a combination there of elements under a slightly different system. There are three separate systems for the synthetic recovery of oil from coal, and there are h temperature carbonisation and low temperature carbonisation, and these different systems are already in existence, with a variety of methods and details in the processes.
  We, in this country, have not done what we could have done in following investigations and experiments. We have just one fuel research station in a country which is most dependent on the success of these experiments. Our national life and our place in the world depend upon them, and here we are with one little station and, as the Mover said, with one or two vertical retorts and horizontal retorts, small tinpot things, trying to grapple with the biggest problem that faces our nation. The details must be left to the scientists. No Members of Parliament, important as they seem to themselves, without a strictly scientific training can thoroughly understand the question. I have wasted time in some things, but I have spent some very useful time in trying to grasp the elements of science as far as mining is concerned. I feel grateful to myself for having done that, and sometimes I find that men who have had many more opportunities have not realised how very important science is to our country, and how very grateful we ought to be to these men who work alone mentally, who live to themselves, pledging themselves to the cause of human advancement. It is a great profession, which we all ought to honour, and no amount of economy or miserable stinting of funds should deprive these men of the opportunity to live while they are contributing their great services to the nation.
  All over this country there are scientists who would welcome a declaration such as is to be found in this Motion, and this country should spend more than the niggardly sum of £47,000 in one year on research. A farthing on a ton of coal would yield £250,000 per annum for research, and I am sure that, despite the difficulties of the men engaged in digging

  501
  coal, if they knew that a farthing's-worth of their product each day was being taken to advance the cause of knowledge and the methodical use of their product, they would not grumble. I am also sure that, with the wasteful methods now in use, the coal-owner should not grumble either. He is not morally entitled to what he gets, when he has the unsocial outlook of those who care nothing for the nation's welfare and think only in terms of throwing coal to any consumer who can use it in the most wasteful way. We have been led by important people, such as the Prime Minister, to believe that the Government were going to do much more than they have done in this matter. We are frankly disappointed. There is a suggestion that the Minister of Mines is going to be dismissed, that he is to pack up and leave his post. I do not know, but the next thing we may hear is that the fuel research station is to be closed down.
  The great Department of which the right hon. Member is now the head ought to be the most important Department of the State. All the implications of the industry ought to be brought to that Department. The work of research and experimentation, of co-ordinating inquiries of all kinds into the character and uses of coal, ought to be brought within the survey of the Ministry, amply provided with funds. I urge on the Government to give us some hope, to let us at least be optimistic, not discouraged. I would like to cheer up both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I want them to believe that this country is going to face the problem of the future with much more optimism and faith than they have led us to believe they have themselves; I want them to believe that we shall see the day when this country rings with a gospel of new faith in the coal industry, with a gospel of hope for the coal industry; and I want them to believe that our workpeople will not only have hope and expectation, but the realisation of happier times, if this Motion is carried through to a conclusion.
  Mr. SMILLIE: In spite of the high opinion we in Great Britain have of ourselves, thinking that we are the lords of creation and that no nation can keep pace with us in hardly any direction, I
  502
  sometimes wonder at how slow we are in many things. Do the vast majority of the people of this country realise the fact that in burning a ton of coal—produced at the risk of the miner's life—in our ordinary domestic grates we only get some 7 per cent. of its real efficiency, and that in the most efficient boilers yet invented we get only from 14 per cent. to 16 per cent. of the real efficiency of coal—coal that our men are digging underground, away from the sunshine and fresh air, producing it at the risk of their lives? I think we ought to admit that to some extent we are slow in advancing on that side. I do not intend to deal with the scientific side of this question at all.
  I have some little knowledge of it from visiting the Fuel Research Department on more than one occasion and from serving upon Committees that have gone into the coal question in one shape or another. When I think of the fact that we are only receiving such a small percentage of power from the coal produced, it reminds me of that old Scottish song "Caller Herrin," in which the wives and daughters of the fishermen on the east coast of Scotland and Northern England go out to sell the fish, the harvest of the sea. The old song places in the mouths of the fishermen's wives the line:
  "We ca' them Jives of men."
  That that wonderful line means the loss of life at sea in the gathering of the harvest of the sea. The danger to which the fishermen are exposed put this idea, into the minds of those womenfolk. I call the coal we are burning in our domestic grates and our furnaces "the lives of men." Our men are risking their lives in the production of coal, and it is our duty, and the duty of the nation, to make sure that they will secure the greatest possible efficiency from that coal that scientific research has placed in their power. I cannot think that we are entitled to claim that we are a very fast people. Some 20 or 25 years ago I visited some collieries in our own central counties of England, very large collieries, producing the best class of coal in the country. These collieries had been sunk at enormous expense, and by the side of them were coke ovens. Large quantities of the coal produced at these collieries were burnt in those ovens, but the ovens did

  503
  not belong to the owners of the collieries. Strange to say, the Germans came over here. As soon as a colliery engaged in sinking operations struck coal, they sent their scientists over to obtain samples of the coal and analyse them for the by-products. They sent back the results of their analysis to Germany, and the German owners came over and bargained with the English owners to take almost the whole of the output of the coal, in order to extract the by-products They sold the coke back again to the colliery companies. All that the poor unfortunate Germans wanted was those useful by-products! They secured these by-products in hundreds of cases in the country—by-products from the coal produced by our own men. And when the War broke out they killed thousands of our men with the explosives that had been made from the by-products that had been produced in our own collieries. I think that has proved that, although we had probably some of the finest chemists in the world, we were slow in following up what those chemists did. We have been slow in other directions in connection with the mining industry. On one Commission on which I served for a considerable time dealing with fatal accidents in mines we were particularly anxious to find out the causes of the accidents, and, as far as possible, the methods by which accidents might be prevented. During the course of our investigations my attention was called to a report of an inspector of mines, from which, at least, a full page had been crased before it was presented to Parliament. I inquired of the then Chief of the Mines Department of the Home Office as to why this leaf had been erased. I found out from the author of this report that that particular leaf had contained a report on the question of explosions in mines in which he pointed out that, in his view, there were a great many explosions in mines which were not gas explosions but were only initiated by gas, and that all the great explosions were carried through every part of the collieries by coal dust, and that thousands of our men had been killed by explosions.
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): Can the hon. Gentleman give the date of that?
  Mr. SMILLIE: I will make inquiry into it and let you know.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: About 1909.
  Mr. SMILLIE: It was about 20 years ago. Sir Henry Cunningham was at the Home Office at the time. I then found that three Chief Inspectors of Mines, two in South Wales, and one in Scotland, had, in addition to doing their ordinary work, been studying, night after night, and scientifically dealing with the question of coal explosions. They caused experimental explosions in their own little laboratory. These three men came to the conclusion that a great many explosions might be prevented by dealing with the coal dust in the mine. I made inquiry why that leaf had been erased, and the first answer I got from Sir Henry Cunningham was that those men were faddists who wanted to air and advertise their own particular views in a Government publication. The second time I raised the matter I was told that it was due to the excessive cost of the Stationery Office and that they could not go on printing these Reports. To my mind, it is the most horrible thing I ever knew. Here were men giving a part of their life—their spare time—to scientific research with regard to life-saving in mines and this is how they were treated. Within five years of that time we had set up a department to experiment on exactly the same lines that these men had been going on for years past. We spent thousands of pounds upon it, and then we discovered that these men were correct. Therefore, I say that in that respect some of our Departments were very slow indeed. I believe that if the Department concerned had taken up that question hundreds of lives would have been saved from that time onwards. The question of using our coal and getting the fullest advantage out of it is to my mind quite as important almost as the oil question. I am in favour of the nation taking over its own coal supply and using all the knowledge that science, and the various inquiries the Departments have given them with the object of getting from coal the fullest possible power in the shape of oil and other commodities. We have only dealt with the question of oil to-night.

  505
  There are many other things to be got out of coal. Most valuable by-products are being imported from foreign nations.
  We are expending an enormous amount of money in buying from the nations the by-products of coal which we ought to be producing ourselves. A few years ago, in the district in which I live a small colliery was working very irregularly. The colliery was situated at a considerable distance from the market, and it cost a good deal to carry the coal into Glasgow where it was shipped. The work at the pit at that time was very irregular—some three, four and five days a week. Soma months after I visited the colliery I asked how it was going on and was told that it was going on very steadily. I made an inquiry about this and found that the largest partner had been over to Germany with samples of coal which he had submitted to the people who were carbonising coal at low temperatures. He had got an order for almost the whole of the output of his little colliery. The colliery has gone fairly steadily from that time. That coal, a very valuable coal, was being shipped in British ships to Germany to be carbonised there. We ought to be able to carbonise our own coal. We ought to be as clever as the Germans are. I plead that this Resolution should be passed. Personally I am more concerned in the latter part of the Resolution. I am concerned with the mineral underneath the soil. I do not think that the low temperature carbonisation of coal can be undertaken by every small colliery carbonising its own coal. It is not possible for a colliery with an output of from 100 to 500 tons to put up its own plant for carbonisation by low temperature. This ought to be done in centres by means of the unification of collieries amongst the owners themselves, or the unification of collieries by the Government taking over the collieries.
  It is said that the last Coal Commission did not vote in favour of nationalisation or unification of collieries. A more important Commission than the last Commission did vote in favour of nationalisation and unification of collieries. We cannot get the best advantage out of the great discovery that in the coal placed in the bowels of the earth there are such wonderful by-products, unless it is done
  506
  by unification. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Resolution will be carried.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The last sentence of the Resolution moved by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), and so eloquently supported by the hon. Member who has just sat down, raises a question upon which there is profound difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, and that will be replied to by the Secretary to the Mines Department. The earlier part of the Resolution, which deals with the need of research in regard to the scientific treatment of coal, raises a question which I think we shall, quite irrespective of party, agree is one of exceptional interest and importance to the country. That part of the Resolution necessitates that a reply should be made on behalf of the Fuel Research Board, and it falls to me to do that as representative of the Department which replies for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the activities of which, extending as they do over many industries, necessarily have a wider range than any of its sections. Of those sections, the Fuel Research Board is one of the most important.
  As we have been reminded to-night, the Coal Commission laid stress on the necessity for research work of different kinds in the mining industry. One of the most important of those recommendations urged the expedition of the physical and chemical survey of the national coal resources, which work commenced in 1924 at the instance of the Minister of Mines in the Labour Government. This survey will be at best a lengthy process. It is necessary to select and train suitable staff to carry it out. No committee can usefully function without a trained staff to support it, and it is the lack of a sufficiency of trained staff which is partly responsible, and I believe mainly responsible, for the fact that committees have not yet been set up in every part of the coalfields. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton), who speaks with considerable knowledge and authority, told the House of various areas in which these committees are already functioning.
  10.0 p.m.
  It may be of interest to mention that the Mining Industries Act of last year,

  507
  by authorising officers of the Department to enter mines and to obtain samples of coal seams will greatly facilitate the working of the survey. The Commission also emphasised the importance of grading and cleaning coal and the desirability of producers and dealers stating the broad specifications for the coal they are able to supply. Conditions precedent to the realisation of these suggestions are the establishment of suitable methods of sampling and analyzing the coal and a knowledge of the characteristics of the various coals available. Standard methods of analysis have been worked out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and they have been, I believe, very generally accepted. The taking of a fair sample of a large commercial consignment is a very difficult matter, and disputes between buyers and sellers of coal more usually result from the method of sampling than from the method of analysis. This point is under consideration by a Committee under the Fuel Research Board and good progress is being made, although the coal stoppage of last year delayed this work very seriously, as it also delayed the work of the survey.
  Another important recommendation of the Coal Commission, which has also been referred to to-night, has been acted upon in the appointment of the National Fuel and Power Committee to consider and advise on the question of the economic use of coals and their conversion into various forms of energy. As the House has been told by the hon. Member for Widnes, this Committee is already making suggestions to industry which have proved of considerable value.
  Mr. BATEY: What are they?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member for Widnes mentioned in particular the pronouncement in regard to coke production in this country, which I think was hailed by hon. Members opposite as being of considerable importance. I turn now to the question of the treatment of coal by carbonisation or other scientific processes. The production of coke and gas from coal by high temperature processes has proved of immense benefit to the mining industry, to industry in general and to the com-
  508
  munity at large. More varied and more far-reaching benefits might be hoped to accrue from any system of scientific utilisation that succeeded in producing on a large scale not only gas, but a liquid fuel that could replace some of that now so largely imported, and a smokeless fuel that would be suitable for ordinary domestic consumption. The possible reactions of these products on our trade balance, on the question of naval defence and on our national health, as well as on the mining industry itself—more especially in regard to the mining industry if slack or low-grade coal could be utilized—are too obvious to need any emphasis from me. I can only say that I am heartily in accord with this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and he can be assured unreservedly of the Government's interest in this matter.
  I shall endeavour to give the House a brief account of the action taken by the Fuel Research Board and the position reached in general to-day in regard to this question.
  From its inception the Fuel Research Board has been engaged on a study of carbonisation in general, covering the existing gas industry and the coke oven industry for the production of metallurgical coke. Any improvements which can be effected in these processes have the advantage that they can be immediately applied to industries which are already working on a commercial basis. The investigation of low temperature carbonisation has also been steadily pursued for some time past. This work has now reached a stage at which a setting of two cast-iron vertical retorts, with a combined throughput of seven or eight tons a day, has been carbonising practically continuously since December, 1925. Though not perfect, a considerable measure of success has been obtained in treating a variety of different coal. It is not possible, however, at the Fuel Research Station to carry the process to a stage at which the success from an economic point of view can be proved.
  Much consideration has therefore been given in the last 18 months to the question of how low temperature carbonisation processes could be assisted to prove their commercial possibility. Those processes which produce the largest proportion of lump coke suitable for domestic use, also produce considerable quantities

  509
  of rich gas which form a valuable portion of the products of carbonisation. If such a process were to be adopted throughout the country very large quantities of gas would be produced, the full value of which could only be realised with the co-operation of the gas undertakings. It was accordingly decided by the Government that Mr. (now Sir) David Milne Watson, the Governor of the Gas Light and Coke Company and the President of the National Gas Council should be asked for his assistance in this matter. Questions of commercial development are somewhat outside the scope of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the matter was therefore remitted to the Mines Department, with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as technical advisers. Mr. Milne Watson was asked whether he was prepared to consider all existing processes in detail and would advise the Government—
  "(a) Whether in his opinion any of these processes had reached such a point of development that it was worth while for his company to continue the experimental development on a large scale;
  (b) if so, whether he considered the selected process or processes sufficiently promising to justify his company in taking the entire risk of this development;
  (c) if not, whether he would submit a scheme after discussion whereby the Government would be asked to bear a part of the risk involved."
  Mr. Milne Watson, after examination of all the processes being developed both in this country and on the Continent, reported that he considered the one developed at the Fuel Research Station was the most promising for development in conjunction with a gas works. He did not consider that any process was so far proved as to justify his company in taking the whole risk of its development, but he was so far impressed with the desirability of co-operation with the Government in putting the matter to a practical test, as to offer a site for a 100 ton a day plant, and to undertake to erect the plant and run it as continuously as is reasonably practicable for a period of three years, and to carry out experiments and researches in connection with the carbonisation of coal, provided that the Government would pay the original cost of providing and erecting the new plant necessary on the selected site, which already had many of the requisite conveniences.
  510
  It was finally arranged that a subsidiary company should be formed, termed the "Fuel Production Company, Ltd.," the capital of which has been guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act. The gas company will act as managers for the fuel company, and will bear all running and management costs. At the end of 1930 the gas company have an option to purchase the plant, or if they do not wish to do this, they will clear the site and dispose of the plant, etc., on behalf of the fuel company. Details of the plant are now being worked out, and it is hoped will be at work next winter. It has been agreed that the company shall keep full records of experiments and all statistics necessary to demonstrate the results obtained. The Mines Department have the right to inspect accounts, and the Research Department has the right to inspect plant, its working and all technical records. Steps have been taken to safeguard the public interest in any patents that may be taken out as the result of working the plant, and full details of the plant and the results obtained will be published and at the disposal of any company desirous of working the process. The Gas Light and Coke Company are in effect carrying out the work for the benefit of the whole industry.
  This arrangement should provide definite information as to the commercial possibilities of the process. It should perhaps be emphasised here that the fuel research station retort was considered the most suitable type for trial in conjunction with a London gas works, and it does not follow that there are not other types some of which are possibly unsuited for gas works which are equally or better suited for use under other conditions, namely, for erection at power stations or at collieries for the treatment of special types of coal. But the activities of the Fuel Research Board have not been limited to the investigation of low-temperature carbonisation. It is believed that the oil obtainable from such processes cannot be expected to average much over 15 gallons per ton of coal, and thus, although it may supply an appreciable proportion of the country's need, it seems highly improbable that it could ever make the country self-supporting as regards liquid fuel.

  511
  The Government and the Fuel Research Board have therefore kept in touch with all developments that showed any possibility of converting a larger proportion of coal substance into liquid fuels than does low temperature carbonisation. Dr. Bergius in Germany has been working for many years on the liquefaction of coal by forcing extra hydrogen into the coal substance, and claimed that far higher oil yields could be obtained from suitable coal by this method than by any other. A strong British syndicate obtained in 1924 an option on the rights of this process for the British Empire, and carried out experiments with British coal in conjunction with the inventor. By 1925 the syndicate had spent some £30,000 on these experiments, and though considerable progress had been made they were doubtful whether the process showed sufficient promise of being a commercial success within a reasonable time to justify them in continuing their experiments.
  The experiments above referred to, and independent small scale experiments carried out at the Fuel Research Station and elsewhere in this country, had shown that it was possible to obtain over 100 gallons of crude oil and motor spirit from a ton of coal, a far greater proportion than could be obtained by any other known method. In view of the national importance, especially in time of war, of being able to obtain large supplies of oil from home sources, my right hon. Friend the Lord President considered it very undesirable that the experiments should cease, or that the option on the rights for the British Empire should lapse. Finally, an agreement was entered into between the Department of Scientific Research, the British Syndicate, the International Company holding the rights in the process and the inventor, Dr. Bergius, by which the Department agreed to contribute an amount not exceeding £25,000, a sum less than that already spent by the British Syndicate, towards the cost of continuing the experiments, a condition being that the whole of the information obtained was placed at the disposal of the Department. The experiments were to be under the direction of a Committee consisting of two representatives each of the Department and the Syndicates together with the inventor, Dr. Bergius,
  512
  and to be supervised by a representative appointed by the Syndicate, the Department having the right to have a representative on the spot, or to inspect the work at any time as well as receiving full reports.
  The joint experiments have now been in progress over a year, using a continuous working plant with a throughput of about one ton of coal a day. A similar plant has recently been erected at the Fuel Research Station, East Greenwich, and the staff there has been familiarised with its working. The results of the agreement have been that full information is in the possession of the Department. The staff has a knowledge of the technique of working at high pressures and temperatures required, and the commercial working, though not yet proved possible, seems far more possible of realisation than it did when the agreement was made. Further, it is assured that the full rights of the process, so far as the British Empire is concerned, remain in British hands. Even if the process prove uncommercial at present prices, the requisite knowledge and experience will be available should liquid fuels become scarce owing to a war or other cause and their price again rise. This information could only have been obtained in default of such an agreement by an expenditure of time and money far greater than that actually incurred.
  Imperial Chemical Industries have now made arrangements for taking over the rights of the British Bergius Syndicate to acquire the Bergius patents. It has been shown that mane though not all British coals are suitable for treatment, and it is probable that many of the coals in other parts of the Empire will also be suitable.
  Another process of obtaining liquid fuels from coal has been developed to some extent by Fischer & Tropsch in Germany, and Pat art & Audibert in France. This consists of combining carbon-monoxide and hydrogen to form alcohols and hydro-carbons. This process is also being investigated by the Department and elswhere in this country. So far it has been developed commercially abroad for the production of methyl alcohol, a product which commands a higher price than do liquid fuels, and which in itself is not a very efficient fuel, but it seems possible that modifications

  513
  of the process may enable a good motor spirit to be produced. I think, therefore, it will be admitted that the Fuel Research Board have not been working on any narrow basis, and that while conducting research into such matters directly affecting the mining industry as grading, sampling and the physical and chemical properties of our coal resources, they have also been making a contribution to the solution of this very important question of the scientific treatment of coal.
  But in a country of free intellectual and commercial development other brains are necessarily also at work on this last problem. Its solution does not depend on the Fuel Research Board alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton) has outlined the four stages through which a process must pass before it can be adopted on a large scale. Probably about two hundred methods of low temperature carbonisation have been suggested and more or less proved, to the satisfaction of their sponsors, so far as stage one—the laboratory stage. A few have reached the end of stage two, that is a plant dealing with some cwts. a day; five or six are approaching the end of stage three, that of a single full-scale unit; a similar number have entered or are entering stage four; but no one has yet reached the end of stage four, where audited figures can be produced to show that actual profits have been made under normal working conditions.
  It is extremely unlikely that any one system of low-temperature carbonisation will ever be adopted to the exclusion of other systems. The type of plant to be adopted in any given case will depend on the object aimed at and the raw material available. The problem of producing a free-burning lump coke which will replace raw coal for domestic purposes is quite different from that of recovering oil-producing tars from special material such as cannel coal, or again from that of producing coke breeze, or pulverised coke for use under boilers. The use that can be made of the gas, and hence its commercial value, will depend on local circumstances as well as on the quality of the gas; this again will have a bearing on the most suitable type of plant to adopt.
  514
  The situation, therefore, in regard to scientific treatment in general may be summed up thus:

  (1) more than one process has been established as technically accurate;

  (2) none has yet been established as a commercial proposition, and some years' experience will be necessary before such a fact can be definitely established;

  (3) the variety of the products which can be obtained, and the varying degree in which these products are yielded by different processes and by different types of coal, make it probable that the commercial success of any one process must largely depend not only on its inherent merits but on the extent to which it is linked up with other industries—gas undertakings, electric power stations, and so on. In other words, success in this enterprise will depend not only on the inventive genius which is being so happily shown, but on a wide knowledge of other industries and on close co-operation with them. The function of the Fuel Research Board in relation to these proprietary processes is to furnish and publish data and to communicate freely the results obtained to technical men engaged on similar work and to carry out tests on processes where invited to do so. The issues at stake are too large and the field to be covered is too vast to make any narrow competitive spirit admissible. The Government have followed with appreciation the efforts that are being made by private individuals in this matter. They note with satisfaction the progress made; and they will watch with the keenest interest the efforts of those concerns which are entering on the stage in which their commercial value can be tested, in the hope that any one or more of them may ultimately succeed in carrying through an enterprise which should be fraught with great benefit to the people of this country.

  Mr. HARDIE: The statement we have just heard gives a reason for the excuse which is urged, that commercially, systems of the low temperature treatment of coal are not a success. The treatment that I refer to is that regarding the quantities of gas produced by such process. It has always been thus, since first I had anything to do with the low temperature carbonization of coal.

  515
  Whenever you proved a point it was always said "You are going to flood the market with oil," or "You are going to flood the market with gas." Because you were going to increase the wealth of the country, it was argued that you were going to do some great damage. The report we have just heard can be taken as a report of those who are capable of doing this kind of work, but it is merely a report and does not carry with it any vestige of an opinion. The point in the report which arose over the research department employés was that they were there, not to carry out new schemes but to take up the work that someone else outside was doing, and see if there was anything in it, and they were only allowed to put in a simple report on it. We are finding out to-night some valuable information in this respect. We are finding out to-night that while it was never possible to take up any British patentees' work it has been possible to take up a German patentee's work. I am not concerned with whether a man is a German, a Scotsman or an Englishman, but I am pointing out that the cry on the other side of "Buy British Goods" is not consistent with this attitude.
  A question was raised about the Gas Light and Coke Company. There is nothing in that. The work of all the private gas companies which have been established since Murdoch first laid on gas for lighting has been the same. It has not been a question of dealing with the subject in order to give the nation better results, and such results as have been obtained were merely incidental. The question was always one of cost. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton) who moved the Amendment mentioned part of the Report which we have just heard. The part I want to refer to is in reference to the surveying of our coal. I am surprised at that matter being brought up as something new. It has been known for more than 70 years that the content of oil and other products in coal varies—sometimes within centres. One finds a varying oil content in a coal seam 2 feet thick. While it is good to have a Report saying they are making a survey of that kind, the nation ought to see to it that we get on with some of the things we do know about. This kind of Report always makes one feel despondent. To hear that Report
  516
  one would think we had never done anything in the way of research up to the start of the station at Greenwich. That is not true. As regards production on a commercial scale, the Report takes no account of the fact that it is vested interests which prevent this process being made a commercial success. Nothing but vested interests stand in the way. In regard to what the hon. Member for Widnes said about coal washing, I would point out that there is nothing in the Report about the flotation process. I thought we should have heard something about that, because with our ores getting smaller in size every year we require coke of the highest quality in order to carry the greater burden thrown on the furnaces. Large sized ore does better in the furnaces than small stuff.
  Then, again, I had hoped anyone speaking for the Research Committee would be able to tell us something about the coking index of our coal. I hope we shall not be told that that is still subject to research, that we do not know the coking index of most of the coals in this country, because this would not be true. We were not told that the reason why the Research Committee have to go into the question of coke for our metallurgical processes is because in the past we allowed all our hard splint coal, that would carry the burden of the work, to be sent abroad as low as 10s. per ton in order that our coalowners might be created millionaires. I asked the hon. Member for Widnes whether the oil produced by the Bergius process was synthetic and he said "Yes." It would have been interesting if he had told us whether it had been fractionated and how the oil taken from the coal by this process compared with the oil obtained by distillation. It would have been interesting, also, if we could have been told if this oil could take its place in the markets in competition with natural well oil.
  We are always looking at the question of commercial values, as though the coal industry of this country existed for no other purpose than to allow other industries using coal to make more money, without any thought of the miners' wages. What has been done to make a commercial success of these experiments? This country has done nothing, although we are quite prepared to sink millions in

  517
  the sands of Iraq because some people in this country thought there was some chance of finding oil there. Not long ago a question was raised about certain investments made in New York by some astute people in oil wells, and we were told that £6,000,000 had been lost to England alone. Contrast that with what is done in this country when we ask for money for industrial development and we are always told that the money cannot be found. That £6,000,000 was found for what was nothing more than a pure gamble.
  The argument about oil displacing coal has been brought forward to-night, but that is not taking a very long view of this problem. If you take the natural oil wells of the world nobody can tell how much oil is going to flow, and you never know when it is going to stop. As a matter of fact it is a pure gamble all the time. You cannot measure the oil supply but you can measure the coal reserves of this country. Therefore, there can be no guarantee about supplies. The visitation of an earthquake might mean that the whole of your oil wells would go dry. The latest report of the Society of Petroleum Technologists in America calls attention to the necessity of restricting the exports of oil. Some time ago Mr. John Den-holm, the Chairman of the Shipping Federation, pointed out that taking the actual price of oil the saving in an oil-burning ship is considerable, but the uncertainty of the oil supply ensures a long lease of life in regard to the use of coal. All these things are going to raise the price of oil in this country.
  The last Report of the Scientific Research Board in America shows that in America they are not blind to the danger of the exhaustion of the oil wells, and that country is now busy exploring all the possibilities of what are called the shale mountains which are being properly investigated and they are making preparations to adopt improved methods, as well as a saving of both petrol products and coal. At the beginning of the last great War it was well known that even a shortage of lubricating oil might have stopped the whole of our industries, because we had no proper system of extracting oil from coal. If such provision had been
  518
  made you would then have had power to control the price, and that would mean far more to this country than all the money you are spending on what is called research.
  Apart from Scottish shale, this country has no petroleum deposits, unless you include the cannel coals of Scotland, but, despite that, we export oil from this country, that is to say, creosote for wood treatment purposes. If you take the average high temperature gas-works production, you get about 10 gallons of tar to the ton, that is to say, about 360 million gallons a year. That is sufficient for dyes, pharmaceutical products, and explosives, and the remainder is pitch and tar which is used for roads, sheep dips, and so on. We imported crude petroleum in 1925 to the amount of 569,082,169 gallons, and of motor spirit about 404,834,226 gallons, while the tar produced in this country amounts to about 350,000,000 gallons, the major proportion of which is precipitated as pitch. That shows quite clearly how you are left hopelessly at the mercy of overseas exporters so far as oil is concerned. Suppose that we carbonised another 20,000,000 tons of our coal, that is to say, doubled the quantity that we carbonise now, by low-temperature carbonisation, we could both double the output of crude oil and, from that crude oil, obtain all the different things of that kind that we require, and in that way we could not only increase the demand for coal, but increase the number of men required to work on these plants. Having worked on them myself, I speak from practical experience. All this would mean a definite lever against the raising of prices in all these commodities. By carbonising in this way four-fifths of our total output of coal, we should get sufficient oil for our requirements, including petrol and everything else that we get now from foreign countries.
  As to lubricating oils, we are in a different position. We have not yet reached the stage where we can produce that class of oil in sufficient quantities, but if we were to do what I am suggesting now, we should have such powers, by means of that lever, that we could buy at prices which we could almost dictate ourselves. In 1915, during the War, some cannel coal

  519
  from Ayrshire was treated, which gave about 45 gallons to the ton. The present time is always held to be not a profitable or proper time to start something new, but that is a very short-sighted argument. If we in this country are to retain our position, it depends on what we do with our basic fuel, and the basic fuel of this country is coal. We have to take a long view and prepare not only for the possibility of the loss of the oil in other countries that now supply us, but also for the possibility of war, and the possibility of having our shipping disturbed. We have to take a long view, and have a system in this country ready to deal with any emergency that may arise. What is the use of going on reading reports telling us that a little more has been discovered, when we know that we can attain independence now, not only by the first, second and third stages that have been referred to, but by the fourth stage, which is actually working. I wonder if the members of the Government realise that the Navy during the War used some oil made from Scottish coal—not shale. That was in 1915; and yet we are told to-night that something else has to be found out.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Can the hon. Member mention any process of low temperature carbonisation that has been proved to be a success on a commercial basis?
  Mr. HARDIE: I can do that, and the best way to do so is to ask the Noble Lady to get in touch with the Glasgow Corporation, who will give her all information.
  We have been told that fuel oil is dealing harshly with the coal trade in this country, but fuel oil is the first thing to go in this country; whenever you get a reduction in the price of coal or an increase in the price of fuel oil, it is the fuel oil that goes first. We ought to take steps now, and not wait any longer. Now is the time if you are going to provide against, not only the possibilities I have mentioned, but against other things that come in the ordinary way of competition between countries in business. Coal itself is not to be considered as something that has taken a back seat, because even oil to-day is not
  520
  the commodity that some people think it is. If you take the use of high-pressure steam, which is being experimented with on a steamer in the Clyde just now, you will find that that is being proved a success, and what is going to happen is that, when that is perfected, coal will come back to where it was in the 'seventies, so far as steam raising is concerned, and steam is going to play a much greater part in the industry of this country than many people imagine. Why is it that foreign countries are always anxious to have our coal? It is something that we need not be proud of at all; it does not belong to anything we have done; it is because of the character of the coal in our country. It stands more heat than any other coal without deforming, and that is why other countries ant it. Having this natural advantage, why should we be placed at a disadvantage? We are at a disadvantage now, we are told, by the world's market not taking its former supplies of British coal. Is it only a question of price? I do not believe that for a moment. The conditions of the War are not yet far enough distant to allow the complete settling down so as to allow of the normal demand for British or any other coal, and that question has to be considered in relation to what we propose in this Motion about the treatment of coal. When your markets are low abroad is the best time that can be suggested for beginning the treatment of your coal, because it is not only a question of gas and oil and sulphate of ammonia. We are importing resins to make varnishes. You need not do that. You can take it from your coal by low-temperature carbonisation. British varnishes from coal were used on Government housing in Edinburgh. I do not suppose the Government know anything about that. The paint solvents that we bring in need not come here if you go in for this low-temperature distillation of coal. Then you get the Bakelite and other waterproofing properties. Think of the agony that must have been in the minds of men who understood this in the years gone by when special tank ships were taking toluol over to Germany to make dyes and sending it back, as if we could not do it ourselves. It is simply a question of the application of the knowledge

  521
  we have. Let us have more investigation, but let us proceed with the best knowledge we have.
  I want to point out how it would directly help our miners. We have been told it is a question of the rich coals. We know that the rich coal is the coal that has the least amount of ash in it. When we know we can take all the low-grade seams with 50 per cent. ash and take from them valuable constituents we have a means of keeping shafts from closing. It means that instead of a mine being closed down because the rich seams have been taken out, you can go on taking out all the seams, rich and poor alike, and so give continual employment until the coal is taken out and you reduce the price per ton, because the more tons you take out of the shaft the greater the spread of the cost. That is a process that ought to attract the Secretary for Mines, and if anyone can tell him this can be done I cannot see why there should be any fear about the closing down of mines. I hope those who are going to deal with this from the Government side are going to see it from the national point of view. There is a nation spending money on research. Is the nation going to get the benefit of it? The Government is handing it over to private companies instead of retaining what it has paid to get. If the men at the research places could speak out you would get the truth, that the nation is to pay for the research and it is to go to private enterprise and leave the miners at the mercy of private enterprise instead of being helped forward by the money spent, which is partly their own.
  Colonel LANE FOX: I am sorry that a second speech from the Government Bench should intrude in what is necessarily a short Debate, but several things have been said that I should like to reply to and I am afraid, owing to the way the Scientific Industrial Research Department is represented by different Departments, it is inevitable that there must be two speakers. The last speaker has, perhaps unwittingly, given a wholly wrong impression of an announcement made by my noble Friend. He said the Government are deliberately handing over to gas companies the possible results of research and experiment. If he is referring to the
  522
  plan my noble Friend alluded to, by which the Gas and Coal Company have, undertaken to carry out for the first time on a really large scale the system of low temperature carbonisation, and if he believes that the whole process is being handed over to one particular company he is entirely wrong.
  Mr. HARDIE: I did not intend to give that impression, but there is no intention on the part of the Government to keep their information. They want to hand it out to private enterprise. That is my point.
  Colonel LANE FOX: What I want to make clear is that the result of this experiment, which is the first it has been possible to carry out on a really large scale, will be available to the public and will mark certainly by far the most important step in the development of this process which has yet been taken. One hon. Gentleman talked of nothing having been done, and of no money having been spent, and he suggested that this country was the one country in the world which had done nothing. I would remind him that not only has the work of the Fuel Research Department been carried on, as has already been described by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, but there has also been an enormous amount of money lost by private individuals. More money has been lost in research of this sort on low-temperature carbonisation than almost anything else. There has been no subject of research more exploited by company promoters and no more unfortunate form of research in the history of this country. With this extremely attractive proposition before us, as the one thing which we have all been looking forward to and hoping for success, what has the right hon. Gentleman opposite done? He puts down a Motion which, from his own common sense and knowledge he drafted as a useful Motion for a discussion on this subject. Then along comes some evil genius and says, "That is a very tame thing on which to spend a Private Member's Motion. You must put some more ginger into it." Somebody came along from the direction of Eccleston Square and said, "That is a tame thing to come from a representative of the Front Opposition Bench. It may afford the House of Commons an opportunity for useful

  523
  discussion which will help the mining industry, but what is the use of it? Let us put some real, good red pepper into it."
  The right hon. Gentleman, who is not naturally gifted in distributing red pepper in large quantities—I am glad to say he has too much common sense—came along and added this miserable, wretched tag about nationalisation. He has never even taken the trouble to explain to the House what he means by nationalisation. Everybody is aware that there are a great many different types of nationalisation. There was the scheme recommended by the Sankey Commission, and then we had a Bill brought in when the Labour Government was in office, which was approved by the Labour Government. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman read and approved that Bill, but apparently he did not understand it. That is not the last scheme. Since that time a new scheme has been brought forward and propounded before the Coal Commission. There was not a single miners' leader who dared to face the awful responsibility of explaining that scheme to the Coal Commission, and they had to find a Fellow of Balliol to explain it, but the Coal Commission turned it down unanimously. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always taunting the Government for not having accepted and carried out fully the recommendations of the Coal Commission. Here they are, coming to this House and spoiling quite a useful Resolution by inserting this final tag, which goes against the whole feeling and recommendations of the Coal Commission.
  It is suggested that we cannot have effective research without nationalisation, but I can conceive of nothing more fatal to suggest than the dead hand of State control in such a matter. It seems to me to be a fallacy, because, if there is one thing necessary to make research satisfactory, it is competition between different efforts and appliances and methods. The result of constant competition is that you eventually arrive at the best method, but if you once hand over the whole of this to the State, the State will adopt what it conceives to be the best method and will proceed with no other, whereas now there are three different systems before the country, and
  524
  there is thus an opportunity for anybody interested—and there are a good many private individuals still interested—to develop their own processes and to compete with the others. Surely there is a far greater chance of satisfaction resulting from that than from, if I may say so with respect, the absolutely foolish method of restricting the whole thing to the central control of the State.
  The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said that all of those who were engaged in looking after these researches were far too pessimistic. It is well to be cautious. Large sums of money have already been lost in investigation of these processes, and it cannot yet be said that a really commercial proposition has been discovered, so when the hon. Gentleman talks about miserable economy being the only obstacle, he is bound to remember that fact. I learn with satisfaction that there is one hon. Member opposite who is frankly optimistic about the future of the coal industry. After the endless jeremiads to which I have listened from the other side, it is very satisfactory to realise that there is one hon. Member who sees some hope. I have done my utmost to encourage this House to be interested in this subject. I began by inviting a number of hon. Members to go down to the Fuel Research Department, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution never took the opportunity of going there. Perhaps if he had he would not have made the speech that he did make. He has not been to the Fuel Research Department, and I only hope that at the very earliest possible moment he will do so. He will gain there considerable knowledge of what is being done. I agree that I should like to see a great deal more, and I should, like to see a great deal more money spent, but one very serious and definite step has been taken. We are, I hope, on the eve of discovery in a few years' time, but whether or not the process is going to be successful, it is unfair and untrue to say that this investigation has not been thoroughly carried out or that efforts have not been made to make it a success. The Government are bound to advise the House to divide against this Motion, only because of the unfortunate tag which the right hon. Gentleman has added to it. I can only regret very much that it should be necessary to do so.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 251.

  Division No. 113.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barnes, A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smillie, Robert

  Broad, F. A.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bromfield, William

  Kennedy, T.

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

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

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford, T. W.

  Baxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clowes, S.

  Lee, F.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lunn, William

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackinder, W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Townend, A. E.

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dunnico, H.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Murnin, H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Gillett, George M.

  Naylor, T. E.

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

  Graham, D. M, (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

  Palin, John Henry

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Westwood J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Windsor, Walter

  Harney, E. A.

  Ritson, J.

  Wright, W.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rose, Frank H.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Clayton and Mr. R. Hudson.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

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

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

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Burman, J. B.

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Drewe, C.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Astor, Viscountess

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Campbell, E. T.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Balniel, Lord

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  England, Colonel A.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Fielden, E. B.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Christie, J. A.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Forrest, W.

  Bethel, A.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cope, Major William

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Briggs, J. Harold

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

  Grace, John

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meller, R. J.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Harland, A.

  Merriman, F. B.

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Strauss, E. A.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sueter, Rear-admiral Murray Fraser

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

  Neville, R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Holt, Captain H. P.

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Howard Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Perring, Sir William George

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

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hunter-Weston Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Pilcher, G.

  Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Watson, Rt, Hon. W. (Carlisie)

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

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Preston, William

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

  Raine, W.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Ramsden, E.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  King, Captain Henry Doublas

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Withers, John James

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

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

  Loder, J. de V.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Lougher, Lewis

  Rye, F. G.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Macintyre, I.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sandon, Lord

  Whiteley.

  Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN rose—
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  THORNTON RUST CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay.)

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [CAPTAIN FITZROY in the Chair.]

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Illegal strikes.)
    Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee will remember that, on the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, the Prime Minister was asked what the intention of the Government was with regard to the Debate to-day. It was generally felt that, powerful as they were, the Government on the first day of an important Debate like this would have no intention of carrying on a long debate. The

    529
    question was asked directly of the Prime Minister, and he replied that the only object in moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule was that if the Committee was in the midst of discussing a particular Amendment it would enable that Amendment to be disposed of.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I accept this Motion, I must point out that the House decided earlier in the afternoon to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to discuss the Trade Disputes Bill. It is, to say the least of it, very unusual to move to report Progress exactly at the hour when that particular Motion comes into operation, but I should be very loth to believe that the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Motion wished to abuse the Rules of the House. Therefore, I am willing to accept the Motion, but I presume it was moved merely in order to ask the Prime Minister what the course of the Debate will be.
    Mr. THOMAS: I quite understand and appreciate your expression of opinion, and I can assure you this is not an attempt to abuse the Rules of the House. But it is within the recollection of the House, or of those Members who were present, what was the expression of the Prime Minister in moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. My Motion is obviously moved with a view of giving the Prime Minister an opportunity of saying "Yes" to the Motion.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Unfortunately I have not got a copy of the words I used this afternoon, and I am always a little doubtful when implications and inferences are drawn from what one says. I would much rather make progress than report it, and with a view to making progress the Government asked the House on this first day, as there was an interruption at 815, to proceed with the business after Eleven o'Clock for what I said at the time would be a comparatively short period. I do not wish any time to be taken to-night which might be to the general discomfort of the House, but having regard to the number of Amendments on the Paper and the amount of business that has to be got through, think I must ask the House to-night—I do not know for certain what Amendment is to be taken—either to proceed
    530
    with and finish whatever Amendment may be taken, or at any rate to make some progress with it, in order that less time may have to be devoted to it to-morrow. The House came to the decision to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and I do not see why that decision should now be challenged.
    Mr. THOMAS: I make no apology for challenging the decision. I challenge it because I am entitled to assert that the course of moving the suspension of the Rule on the first day of the Committee stage of a Bill of this description is unprecedented. I have endeavoured to discover precedents, and I say to the Prime Minister that so far as we are concerned there is no precedent whatever for the course the Government have adopted. Unfortunately, for reasons which I can quite understand, the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the whole of the Debate to-day, but no one who was present would suggest for a moment that the Debate has been other than a useful contribution to the discussion of this important subject. It was so useful, in fact, that it left the Attorney-General without an answer. When one remembers the qualifications of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that is the best evidence of the success and importance of the Debate. At all events, I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that there is no precedent for this. It is now 11.20 p.m., and the next Amendment on the Paper raises the whole issue. Let there be no mistake about it. The next Amendment raises the issue not only of the general strike, but of the right of the workman to strike at all. We have no objection, if the House wants to go on all night. We are quite willing, but in saying that I again desire to remind the House of what the Prime Minister said earlier in the day. I think those who were present when the right hon. Gentleman answered the question this afternoon could put no other construction on his words than the one I have put on them. We are prepared to go on, but I have no hesitation in saying to the Prime Minister that I do not think it is in accord with the understanding—not an understanding as between parties, but the understanding accepted by the House as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I would much prefer that "No" to come from those

    531
    who know what they intended. I repeat that our interpretation was that the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule was in order to finish any Debate that was at the moment in progress. If that be not so, we accept it, and I am quite content to go on, but in any case, the Prime Minister will be the best judge of what he intended.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing was in my mind beyond just to insure about an hour's discussion after 11 o'clock. I told the House perfectly plainly it was not our desire to sit late. I have here the words which have appeared in the paper, and I am sorry it is the only record I have:
    "It was a wise precaution, the Prime Minister said, to put this Motion down, not with any intention of sitting late tonight, but thinking that it would facilitate discussion as the evening went on."
    I do not know if those were the exact words I used. If it be the fact—and I have not looked it up—that it is without precedent to put a Motion of this kind down on the first night of the Committee stage of a Bill, I am happy to think that I am not alone in making precedents. It is no less without precedent to promise opposition to every line of a Bill before you have seen it.
    Mr. J. KENNEDY: May I inform the Prime Minister of something of which he apparently is not aware, and about which he should be informed, namely, that there was a very clear undertaking that the Suspension of the Rule to-day was only in order to permit of the completion of any business approaching completion at 8.15 p.m. On that there was a clear undertaking which was communicated to the Members of the Opposition, and I
    should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that when he persists in carrying on the business to-night.
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I say in reply that the Chief Whip on our side has no knowledge of that. If there has been any misunderstanding—which I was not aware of at all—it is a misfortune which arises from the fact that recently on this Bill there has not been as frequent and regular communication with regard to business as there has been over other Bills. I hope very much that it will be possible, however hard the fight may be over this Bill, that there shall be, at any rate, that amount of concert between the two parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my sentence—that amount of concert which may obviate possible misunderstandings and misinterpretations such as will not conduce to the proper carrying on of the business.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will you allow me to say that I can only express my surprise that the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury should have led him to make to the Prime, Minister the communication he has made on this point? My recollection of the matter is very clear and definite. So far as arrangements between parties are concerned I can only say I have never received any communication of a desire on the part of the Government to discuss their intentions in regard to this Bill to which I have not responded.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 128; Noes, 253.

    Division No. 114.]

    AYES.

    [11. 26 p.m.

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Dennison, R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Duncan, C.

    Hardie, George D.

    Batey, Joseph

    Dunnico, H.

    Harney, E. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Bromfield, William

    Fenby, T. D.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Bromley, J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Clowes, S.

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Connolly, M.

    Greenall, T.

    Hore-Belisha, Lesile

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Paling, W.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Riley, Ben

    Varley, Frank B.

    Kennedy, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Viant, S. P.

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

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)

    Lansbury, George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sexton, James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Lee, F.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Westwood, J.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Whiteley, W.

    Lowth, T.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Mackinder, W.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Snell, Harry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    March, S.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Maxton, James

    Stamford, T. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wright, W.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Murnin, H.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Oliver, George Harold

    Taylor, R. A.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

    Palin, John Henry

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

    Barnes.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Cope, Major William

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Albery, Irving James

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Astor, Viscountess

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

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Bainiel, Lord

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

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

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Drewe, C.

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

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Bethel, A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Ellis, R. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Elveden, Viscount

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

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lougher, Lewis

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macintyre, Ian

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Major A.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grace, John

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Chlicott, Sir Warden

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Meller, R. J.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hanbury, C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harland, A.

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    534

    535

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Salmon, Major I.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Neville, R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sandon, Lord

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Oakley, T.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Plicher, G.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Smithers, Waldron

    Withers, John James

    Preston, William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Radford, E. A.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Womersley, W. J.

    Raine, W.

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

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Rees Sir Beddoe

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir George

    Hennessy.

    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), to insert, at the beginning of the Clause, the words:
    "Where any trade dispute exists or is threatened,"
    I do not propose to select that Amendment—
    Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in accordance with the custom of the House, you will allow the hon. and gallant Member in whose name this Amendment stands an opportunity of explaining to you the reasons why he is putting this Amendment forward?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I had any doubt as to my reasons, I should ask the hon. and gallant Member to explain. As I have none, it is not necessary.
    Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Some of us have some concern with this Amendment—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. [Interruption.] I have not selected that Amendment, therefore we cannot discuss it. I have passed it over.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, you will allow me to state the point of Order, which I was trying to put as briefly as possible?
    536
    I never got to the point of Order at all. This Amendment was put down by the hon. Members in question, but others of us might have put a similar Amendment on the Paper. It having, however, been put down by these Gentlemen, we left it. The point I want to put is whether a Member who is interested in an Amendment like this is not to be allowed an opportunity of stating the reasons why such an Amendment should be called?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to give any reasons—at any rate, I am not compelled to give any reasons—why I am not selecting the Amendment.
    Mr. STEPHEN: With all due respect—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No point of Order can arise on that question. It has already been disposed of.
    Mr. STEPHEN: With all due respect, I am not wanting to be contentious, but the point I am trying to put is that, if a Member asks you if he will be allowed to state his reasons, surely he is entitled to be allowed to ask you that question? You may decide not to allow him to do so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have decided that he shall not do so. With regard to the other Amendments, there are at least five which I should be fully justified in ruling out of order at this

    537
    stage of the discussion, because they amount practically to an alternative, and not to an amendment, to Clause 1. In that case they might have been put down as a new Clause, supposing Clause 1 to be not accepted by the Committee. It is generally found to be for the convenience of the Committee in the early stages of a Bill that a full discussion on the first Clause should take place on an early Amendment, and, therefore, I propose to call the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), to leave out Subsection (1), and insert:
    "(1) Where any trade dispute exists or is threatened the object or natural consequence whereof either alone or in addition to the furtherance of a dispute between employers and workmen is or would be to coerce the Government or the community such dispute shall be deemed to be illegal and the persons or parties taking part therein shall not be protected from any civil action by reason of anything in any of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1917, or the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
    Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision Section three of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, shall continue to apply to protect any person or persons actually taking part in such dispute."
    Of course, the Question that I shall put, after that Amendment has been moved, will be, "That the words 'It is hereby' stand part of the Clause," so as to save any Amendments that follow.
    Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand that your observations apply to the whole of the next five Amendments on the Paper?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendments I am referring to are the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Luton, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas), that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), that in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans), the second Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). All of these are really alternatives to the first Clause, and not merely Amendments, and I propose to allow a discussion on the first Clause on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Mem-
    538
    ber for Luton. If there be a full discussion upon that Amendment, subsequent Amendments must be confined exclusively to their actual subject matter.
    Mr. THOMAS: I gather your ruling is that you propose to take in this particular Amendment as an alternative to Clause 1, allowing a very wide discussion on everything contained in the Clause. I want to be quite sure of that.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was not going to take this as an alternative to Clause 1. As a matter of fact these Amendments could be ruled out, of order as coming in the wrong place. They are not, strictly speaking, Amendments to the Clause as it stands. I am only allowing this so that we may take a general discussion on the words "It is, hereby" stand part of the Clause. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if hon. Members who have similar alternatives expressed their views in this general discussion, but when their turn comes we should not have another discussion on the same question.
    Mr. THOMAS: I should like, having heard and appreciated your ruling, to put a question to the Prime Minister. We have had a ruling that the Amendment that is now proposed to be called and debated is one that allows the discussion on the whole basis of Clause 1. Does the Prime Minister, knowing as well as I do what that ruling implies, think that at quarter to twelve we should enter upon a general discussion? Does he think the importance of the Bill and its effect on the country is such as to justify him in accepting that situation?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee and I could not allow a discussion on that point.
    Captain O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words
    "(1) Where any trade dispute exists or is threatened the object or natural consequence whereof either alone or in addition to the furtherance of a dispute between employers and workmen is or would be to coerce the Government or the community such dispute shall be deemed to be illegal and the persons or parties taking part therein shall not be protected from any civil action by reason of anything in any of the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1917, or the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.

    539
    Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision Section three of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, shall continue to apply to protect any person or persons actually taking part in such dispute."
    I esteem it a privilege to have an opportunity, even at this late hour in the very difficult circumstances in which I find myself, in which I am sure hon. Members opposite will sympathise with me, almost the first opportunity that has been available on the Committee stage of putting to the test specific pledges which have been given by the Government. They were, first of all, the pledge of the Prime Minister that the Bill had certain specific intentions alone, and secondly, the pledge of the Attorney-General that he was prepared to consider any Amendment put forward in a constructive spirit, from whatever person, however much a tyro he might be, as I confess myself to be, such suggested Amendment might come. This Amendment, which can only be fully appreciated if it were possible for hon. Members opposite to go through the whole maze of the Order Paper in order to select those supported by the same names, strikes at what I conceive to be one of the fundamental features, not only of the Clause but of the whole Bill. I do not think it can be contested that this is the vital Clause of the Bill and that the principle raised in it is vital, from whichever aspect the Bill is faced. I do not want to follow the late Solicitor-General in using the language of hyperbole as to what Clause 1 does, but of one thing there can be no conceivable doubt, that it restricts the freedom of a man to dispose of his labour in the way he has been accustomed to dispose of it. Assuming, as it is fair to assume, that the Amendment recently put down by the Government becomes a part of the Bill, it also restricts the freedom of an employer to employ persons in the same manner as he has been accustomed to do. Again, putting one's case at its lowest, it is fair to say this is the first time for 100 years that it has been attempted to make it a crime for men acting in concert to discontinue to labour. There can be no conceivable doubt, if these two propositions are true, that this is the crux of a very important Bill.
    The crux of the Bill, in the minds of those who have put their names to this
    540
    Amendment, is very largely to be found in the words "take part," which occur in Sub-section (2), Clause 1, line 6, on page 2. I confess that, this subject having been raised within certain limits on the Amendment discussed this afternoon, I was a little surprised to see the opposition to that principle which was manifested on benches opposite, because in the Socialist State, of course, labour would be conscripted, and no doubt the employers would also be conscripted, if they are allowed to exist at all. But this Bill merely states that an emergency so grave may confront the nation that it is the right of the nation in that emergency to conscript either the employers or labour in the service of the State. It was a little refreshing to find how little are Socialist principles appreciated on the benches opposite, that there was such a hearty opposition to the application of that principle itself in a state of emergency.
    But what I think it is most necessary to inquire into is what is the emergency in which that exceptional step is to be taken? In the first place, I agree with a very great deal which has been said from the benches opposite and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). The general strike is not the emergency; it is something other than the general strike. It is the coercive or political strike and it is a question of the element of coercion and not the element of generality. The Clause as it is at present framed and in its present terms is wrongly described as a Clause which hits at the general strike.
    The Clause, in fact, deals with a strike which has two elements and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr.Webb) pointed out, it only deals with a strike which has those two elements. They are, first of all, that it must be a strike which is in the nature of a trade dispute, and besides that, it must be a strike which is coercive. Why it should be necessary for a strike to come within the ambit of this Bill, that it should have the object of a trade dispute, is one of the matters which I shall be interested to hear the Attorney-General explain later. It would appear, as I said on a previous occasion, that the most vicious strike of all, a strike, for instance, of railwaymen to prevent arms being sent to China or in pursuit

    541
    of a perfectly political aim—is excluded from the operation of the Bill by means of the word "besides," and it will be observed that those who have put their names to this Amendment have sought, however clumsily, to make it watertight in that respect at least, in regard to a single strike with a political aim.
    The difference between those of us who have put our names to the Amendment and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that we do not burke the issue that you must deal with the coercive strike. The coercive strike is the really dangerous strike. In my opinion, it would be impossible so to frame any Clause that it would deal with the general strike, because by withdrawing one or more industries from the ambit of the strike you could destroy the element of generality and so render any Act of Parliament nugatory. But really my case on the emergency proposition is finished when I have pointed out that the Clause does deal with many strikes of a kind with which this country has been familiar in the last few years, such, for instance, as the threatened triple alliance strike in 1920, and it might deal with the kind of strike which might reasonably be contemplated four years hence when the Eight Hours Act comes up for revision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I think it is only fair that the House and the country should face that possibility. This might happen to be operative in such an emergency. What my case leads me to is this. Is there any case in an emergency of that kind to introduce penal criminal consequences not only against the people who instigate a strike of that kind but against every single man who takes part in it?
    That is exactly what the Clause does at the present time. Clearly, there can have been no great sense of moral guilt on the part of a great many of those men who took pàrt in the general strike of last year. So that, by this Clause as it stands at the present time, you are presumably bringing within the operation of the criminal law a very large section of the population that feels no particular sense of moral reprehensibility in the act that they are about to perform. It is not only a, damaging criticism against this Clause at present, but a wholly unnecessary object for the Bill to aim at. The answer of the Attorney-General is that those are not
    542
    the people that the Bill is sought to aim at and that, in fact, a certain kind of selective process would exist in his mind before he instituted a prosecution, and that he would select only those people who showed a greater degree of guilt than others. But that argument is not conclusive. A partial answer was, of course, given by the Solicitor-General when he said that what you really rely on is the law-abiding nature of our citizens, but it is a very fair answer to that to say that you must not strain that sense. It is the greatest tradition and proudest prerogative we have got in this country that we have law-abiding citizens who desire above all things to remain within the law, but we have only to look across the sea to that great country of America, where it was sought to bring in a law that was not in conformity with either common sense or with the wishes of the majority of the people to find that it is possible to strain the law too far.
    12.0 m.
    The Government should not in this Bill take power to do a great deal more than is necessary. Lower down on the Paper it will be found that it is sought to enforce the full power against anyone who may incite, instigate, or foster other people to embark on a dispute. It has, I believe, been suggested that the danger of the words could be reduced by putting in some such words as "knowingly" or to leave out the words "taking part." In my opinion, at the present time neither of those suggestions would have the complete effect that we desire. In the first place, to insert the word "knowingly" merely increases the onus of proof and does not decrease the criminal element at present attaching to people who are not guilty. As for the suggestion of leaving out the words "taking part," the danger is that by merely taking those words out you leave these men described as taking part in an illegal strike, subject to the ordinary law of the land relating to criminal conspiracy and, therefore, subject to greater penalties. The purpose of the Amendment is as it is described to be. It is designed to relieve the persons who merely do no more than take part in a strike of the criminal consequences of their act. Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is retained in full force so as to protect them from

    543
    criminal prosecution. But, on the other hand, it is felt that if, in a clear case, it is known that these people embark knowingly upon an unlawful enterprise, they should not be permitted to seek to take advantage of the release from civil obligations which is granted to them by the various Trade Union Acts. That is to say, they would be liable in damages if their employers cared to sue them, but they could in no circumstances be prosecuted.
    I do not want to go at any length into the Amendments which stand in my name, but if hon. Members will, as I have suggested, follow them through the Order Paper—a formidable task in all conscience!—they will see that the Amendments attempt two or three other things. In the first place, the very ambiguous words like "strike" and "lock-out" are sought to be eliminated from the Bill. I can myself see no reason why either of these words is in. They do not exhaust all the industrial possibilities that may encompass the country. In fact, I think industry is developing in this country; you are getting a kind of glorified syndicalism in various industries. You are getting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the railway companies gradually forming nice little syndicates in which they shelter themselves, and everybody is very happy in the family. Possibly industry may very well grow up on those lines, and it may conceivably be necessary for the country at some stage in the future to introduce legislation which would be just as obnoxious to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as it would be to the railway directors whom he serves.
    Mr. THOMAS: What?
    Captain O'CONNOR: I know the right hon. Gentleman does not think I am making any aspersions of any kind in that remark. But it might be necessary for the State to introduce legislation which would be equally obnoxious to the men and to the railway managers and owners. In those circumstances, it might be thought that there would be a concerted movement between employers and employed to defeat the Act of Parliament. It would appear that that contingency could be avoided by introducing some neutral words such as "dis-
    544
    pute" or "trade dispute" giving, if necessary, a new definition for the purpose of this Bill and eliminating words like "strike" and "lock-out." We are not wedded in any way to the words in this Amendment. After the Government have shown us the example of the ready divorce that they are prepared to make from the wording which they themselves introduced, they can hardly turn round and rend my Amendment merely by picking it to pieces and saying in effect that virtually it does something more or less drastic than it is intended to do. The Government are, I trust, in possession of the principles and methods that we desire to see established, and we look to them to fulfil to the utmost the Prime Minister's pledge and give effect to those principles in words best suited to do so. We feel, for instance, that an obscure term like "coerce" should be defined. At present more pains are being taken in the Sub-section to define "trade dispute." No pains are taken and no attempt has been made to define the term "coercion." It will be found that in a series of Amendments we have endeavoured to define "coercion" by relating it to the essential industries through which coercion can be exercised upon the community.
    There are two more points which I wish to raise on Clause 1. A special attempt has been made to introduce a constructive element in the Clause by encouraging conciliation machinery. I think there is a real danger that if we leave the Clause as it now stands, certain industries which are especially susceptible to the purposes of those who desire to bring pressure to bear upon the community, may constantly find themselves selected for the purpose of having such pressure exerted. It is highly desirable in the interests of those industries that some machinery should be set up by which they can test directly whether the actions upon which they are engaged are lawful or not. It is suggested that any railway or transport undertaking which finds itself in doubt as to whether a strike is going to be legal or not should be able to get that doubt dissolved at once by applying the conciliation machinery which is attempted to be defined in our Amendment.
    Finally, and most important of all, there is an Amendment, which will be

    545
    found on page 467, by which it is attempted to set up machinery under which it shall be not only optional but absolutely essential for the Secretary of State to obtain from the Courts an authoritative definition as to whether a strike is legal or not; so that we shall not have the ridiculous anomaly of certain magistrates causing men to be sentenced and meanwhile cases being stated right up to the House of Lords and decisions given that the thing for which they were punished is not illegal at all. I have no desire at this late hour to trespass further upon the time of the House, beyond saying that we wish to put this Bill in the position that, as we must all hope, it will prevent any more of these unfortunate incidents in our industrial life. I am sure that every Member of this House must hope that Clause 1 will be put away and shall never be operated again, that there will not be any case in our industrial life which will require it; that it may be of interest only to the historian, who will look back upon the unfortunate days through which we have passed, and that never again will industry be brought to the pass when it is being prostituted for political ends. The Clause is designed to do that, and in our efforts to secure that, we must do our best to make it completely watertight and to see that it effects no more than it is intended to effect, and that the ambiguities in it are cleared up.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member said that for more than 100 years such a provision had not been operated. He is wrong. I want to recall to his memory the fact that it is not more than 10 years ago when similar conditions were enforced in regard to workmen who withheld their labour and refused to work. In view of that, it is the more extraordinary that the hon. Member should take this line, because it must have been clear to his mind, and it must have been in the mind of the Prime Minister. I have not forgotten the analogy which the Prime Minister drew between the working men of this country and the armed enemies of this country. The Prime Minister, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill said:
    "As I have often said, the conditions in the economic sphere in this country have a most remarkable resemblance to the political sphere in Europe, and just as these great massings of federations alluded to
    546
    by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and of these large bodies of employers and of men were forming themselves all over the country, so you had in Europe great armies forming themselves in every country. As in the one case, in Europe war—as we have learned from those who have spoken since the Great War—became almost inevitable, so in the industrial sphere, strife on a scale hitherto not seen or suspected became equally inevitable. We have learned in Europe what war means, and we are learning at home what a strife on that scale means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1927; col. 1671, Vol. 205.]
    Nor was the idea of war absent from the mind of those who drafted this Bill, because they have quoted from the Munitions of War Act, and have put a large part of that Act into this Bill. The reason I recall that parallel is this: If you consider the parallel carefully, it shows what a futile Measure the Government have evolved. Consider the circumstances in which the Munitions of War Act was passed. The country then by a large majority desired that there should be no strikes; it would be coercing the Government. There was consent in the case of the Munitions of War Act, but, although there was consent, consider what an enormous amount of machinery had to be set up—machinery of repression. Reference has been made in these Debates to the fact that the prisons will not be large enough to hold the strikers if this Bill becomes law, and it was received with smiles of superiority by hon. Members opposite. Consider the machinery that was necessary to enforce similar provisions which were carried by the consent of the workers; the number of munition tribunals which had to be set up all over the country to deal with the question whether people could withhold their labour; the enormous army of new Judges that was set up; the enormous time spent, and the large number of persons brought before the tribunals.
    If this Bill be carried, you will not have consent and good will. You will have people striking against it. If you interfere with the liberty of the worker to withhold his labour, you will inevitably have to set up machinery for repression, new tribunals and a special set of Judges, and you will have to go into long and complicated trials again. You cannot prohibit strikes unless you have also the full machinery of the Munitions of War Act. You are also prohibiting lock-outs, and in this connection the Attorney-General said that the Emergency Act was sufficient.

    547
    During the War the powers under that Act proved altogether futile and an amending Act had to be passed because they were utterly incapable of dealing with the situation.
    If, when the community was agreed, you could not carry out provisions to prevent strikes without a vast amount of machinery such as I have referred to, how do the Government imagine that they will stop a strike on a large scale with only the machinery of this Bill? If this Bill passes we shall be led step by step to the setting up of more aggressive machinery, the instituting of special Courts and the doing of all those things that proved absolutely necessary during the War. If you needed State protection such as that when workers generally desired to obey an Act, you will need it ten times more when you have workers rebellious against an Act.
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot conceive that the Government propose to allow a Division on this Amendment without the Committee hearing an answer from the Government Front Bench. I anticipate what I am now expecting to hear.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Captain Macmillan.
    Captain MACMILLAN rose—
    Mr. THOMAS: I certainly sat down on the assumption that the Patronage Secretary anticipated that a Motion that the Chairman do report Progress was going to be moved. We are in the position that an Amendment has been moved by a supporter of the Government who is a lawyer and there has been no reply.
    The CHAIRMAN: I called on the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan). We are in Committee and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, he can speak more than once in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman has anything more to say, there will be an opportunity of saying it.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) rose to carry on the Debate, and he was told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, I think, that the Government were going to move to report Progress, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman at once gave
    548
    way. Naturally we assumed that the Government would report Progress right away. No one rose except a Member on the back benches opposite, and you called on the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton. I am sure that neither the Prime Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury intended it, but they were treating the Committee with a lack of courtesy by saying that they were going to move to report Progress and then not doing so.
    The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises. The right hon. Member for Derby will not be prejudiced if he wishes to speak later. At the moment the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton is in possession of the Committee, Captain Macmillan.
    Captain MACMILLAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I rose to continue the Debate because, having been one of those who took an interest in the formulation of this Amendment, I wished to say something in support of it. I understand that the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair was that on this Amendment a general discussion, ranging over the whole of Clause 1, would be permissible. The object of those whose names are attached to this Amendment is merely to put to the Government for consideration certain points on which they have formed views. The Mover made it very clear that the important question of principle arising in this Amendment, and in the series of Amendments which runs with it, is the questions of pains and penalties. The question is whether those who take part in a strike, as distinct from those who instigate, further, or maintain a strike, are to be subject to the criminal law? I cannot help thinking that the words of the Bill, as originally drawn, would include all in the full criminal penalties. Those who are mere unwilling or unknowing pawns in the complicated game which is the political form now taken by Labour party activities ought not to be made liable on any criminal charge, and I hope the Government, in the course of these Debates, will see their way to alter the wording of the Clause so that those who are guilty merely of taking part in a strike, shall not be made guilty of a criminal offence. These Amendments have had to be drawn up carefully in order to meet various legal points and

    549
    in order to avoid the possibility of leaving people liable to worse penalties than those laid down in the Clause. Our Amendments may not leave the Clause in a properly drawn form, but we want to put this view to the Government, and it is a view shared by Members in all parts of the Committee reflecting all shades of opinion. We hope the Government will see their way to consider that the men themselves, as distince from the organisers of any conflict declared to be illegal, shall be relieved of any liability under the criminal law.
    There are certain other points covered by our Amendment. A great number of people in all parts of England recently have been trying to draw up their own versions of what Clause 1 ought to be. I notice on the Paper many such proposals and it may be said that attempting to draw up a new version of Clause 1 has replaced the crossword puzzle as an amusement. Even those with legal training have found how difficult it is to draw up a Clause of this kind in the exact way required to secure a definite object. We have tried to raise various points which we hope the Government will meet or at least consider. The first is that there has been confusion caused in the public Minds by the use of loose phrases such as the term "general strike." What we really mean by a "general strike" is a strike involving those industries and services which are essential to the nation. A strike may be very general in character but not coercive. You could have a strike in which 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 or 6,000,000 men might be out of work, but they might not be employed in any essential industries. Hatters and bootmakers—and bookmakers too for that matter—and all kinds of other people may go on strike, and the strike may be very general but not coercive. The more the problem is considered the more one sees that we are getting to the point when it will become necessary to define what are essential services. It will become necessary—and it will be in their own interests to do it—to devise some special machinery which will be of service to them. In the latter part of the Amendment we have tried to deal, though perhaps inefficiently, with the question of possible machinery of conciliation which might be set up in order to relieve those important services from the danger of its being said that
    550
    any strike upon which they embark is in itself an illegal strike. We want to preserve their rights. I think it is possible to do so if we lay it down that their rights shall be preserved on the understanding that they make use of the appropriate conciliation machinery.
    The worst kind of strike of all, and one which all of us—at least, all those who approve the principle of the Bill—would wish to make illegal is the strike which is purely political and has no industrial object at all. The word "besides" is loosely used in the Bill. It is not clear what it means. I rather gather from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said that he would approve of making illegal a strike, whether on a large scale or a small scale, which was purely political, and the main object of which was to coerce the Government. It is possible to conceive circumstances of grave national danger in which a strike of certain essential classes of people might be highly coercive, purely political, embarked on for no trade object at all but solely for the purpose of forcing Parliament to do something which it did not want to do. We ought to be certain that the Clause is so drawn as to cover that kind of strike. That is the worst kind of strike and I am not sure that the Clause does cover it
    I do not know whether it would be possible to devise a form of words to get rid of the term
    "within the trade or industry."
    I find a great difficulty in the definition of the word "industry" and if there is any way in which that particular phrase can be got rid of it will be of great benefit to the workability of the Bill. Clause 1 is a vitally important Clause and it is of the first importance that we should get it right. It should be a Clause which has no further effect than its framers wish it to have. It ought not to be a Clause which can be enforced only after a long series of wrangles in the Law Courts. The real importance of the Clause will not be in its application to 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people who may want to engineer a revolution or a coup d'etat; if they want to do that they will do it. What we want to see is that there is no confusion caused. If we could so draft this Clause that it is a real protection to the moderate party, the progressive party, and show them

    551
    that it enables them not to be drawn into contests which are not their own and yet cover their inaction by obedience to the law our aim would be achieved. The Clause would operate in that way and not by the action of force. It is these points that we ask the Government to consider. We are conscious that by obtaining such an early place with this Amendment we have gained a slight Parliamentary advantage but we are also conscious that, with all these suggestions, it is difficult to hit upon a form of words which will carry out the principles we have put forward. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the other hon. Members associated with it only wish to put forward the principle—the most vital of all—and we hope the Government will see their way to consider this principle, of relieving these men from a criminal charge.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    552
    I think possibly as we have had some little discussion upon this in the general Debate it might be to the advantage of the Committee if I move to report Progress.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before One o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  BOOT AND SHOE TRADE (JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS).
  BOOT AND SHOE TRADE (JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS).
  REJECTED GLASS MEASURES (STATUTORY FEE, EAST HAM).
  REJECTED GLASS MEASURES (STATUTORY FEE, EAST HAM).
  AWARDS TO INVENTORS (INCOME TAX).
  AWARDS TO INVENTORS (INCOME TAX).
  SAFEGUARDING APPLICATION COSTS (INCOME TAX).
  SAFEGUARDING APPLICATION COSTS (INCOME TAX).
  PARKHURST PRISON (BOARD OF VISITORS).
  PARKHURST PRISON (BOARD OF VISITORS).
  OFFICE OF WORKS' HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  OFFICE OF WORKS' HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  STRACHUR PIER.
  STRACHUR PIER.
  HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) ACT.
  HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) ACT.
  VENEZUELA (IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH CAPTAIN).
  VENEZUELA (IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH CAPTAIN).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  FAIREY-NAPIER AEROPLANES (CHINA).
  FAIREY-NAPIER AEROPLANES (CHINA).
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  PLAYING FIELDS.
  PLAYING FIELDS.
  BENMORE ESTATE (TILES).
  BENMORE ESTATE (TILES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  CHINESE FORTS (FIRING).
  CHINESE FORTS (FIRING).
  MALT VINEGAR.
  MALT VINEGAR.
  CHIEF PATTY OFFICE WRITERS.
  CHIEF PATTY OFFICE WRITERS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BUXTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION BILL.
Read 2a.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY LORD ARNOLD.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I ask permission to say a few words of personal explanation in regard to a matter which occurred at the conclusion of the debate on National Expenditure last night. Most unfortunately I had a very important meeting at half-past five, which it was imperative I should attend, and therefore I was not here when the debate ended. Just at the close the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, rose and challenged certain figures which I had given. As the matter is rather important I ask permission first to quote what Lord Gainford said. He said:—
"I was rather surprised when Lord Arnold said that if you eliminated the cost of the Post Office, which was a Department which made a profit in connection with its transactions, the cost of the Civil Service would be brought down to £20,000,000 a year. Having been at the Post Office I felt sure that the cost of the Post Office was nothing like £55,000,000 a year—the difference between £75,000,000 and the £20,000,000 which Lord Arnold mentioned. I find that in the Estimates for 1926–7 the cost of the Post Office is given as £35,000,000, instead of £55,000,000; in other words, Lord Arnold is £20,000,000 wrong in under-estimating the cost of the Civil Service."
There are two points raised there—of which the first is the cost of the Post
172
Office Service, which the noble Lord says should be £35,000,000 and not £55,000,000.
I have in my hand the White Paper which is always published and which is dated April 11 this year. On page 76 this appears:—
"Estimates of Expenditure on existing basis for the current year. Self-supporting Services, Post Office, £54,852,000."
That is, in round figures, £55,000,000. Again, on the last page the final figure is given—Post Office Vote, £57,643,000. The statement I made was perfectly correct. The explanation probably is that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I am sure quite unwittingly, had been led into an error by getting hold of some Government Paper which was presumably dealing with Estimates and had there come across the place where the Post Office, expenditure had been divided. As your Lordships know, there are three kinds of service which the Post Office renders. They are:—carrying letters and parcels and sending telegrams and telephones. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, had evidently come across the first item, which would be over £35,000,000, but that does not give the cost of the Post Office Vote. It has always been given in the principal Government statements of finance, as I have shown, for the three services. That has always been done.
The second point is this. As a matter of fact, the question at issue was not the Post Office Vote at all, it was the cost of the Civil Service, but the noble Lord, taking up a figure which the noble Earl opposite, Lord Midleton, had given of £75,000,000 for the cost of the Civil Service and deducting £35,000,000 for the Post Office—as I pointed out the £75,000,000 included the cost of the Post Office—said the cost of the Civil Service was £40,000,000 and not £20,000,000 as I had indicated to your Lordships. The noble Lord was wrong and the figure of £20,000,000 which I gave was quite accurate. I think the matter is of some importance and I take this opportunity of giving the facts. I am sure the noble Lord had no intention of misrepresenting me. Had he had any such idea as that he would not have done it in the way which made it so easy to refute. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make this correction.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, may I be allowed to say that Lord Gainford, being unable himself to attend, has asked me to say that there is a difference in the figures. I think we have got into confusion by comparing the whole cost of the Post Office with the question of salaries. The whole question on which Lord Gainford was speaking was upon salaries alone and the salaries to which he desired to refer had risen by 152 per cent. since 1914. That was the whole gist of his complaint. I quite understand how the difference between him and the noble Lord has arisen.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To call attention to the unanimous Report of the Select Committee of the House appointed to enquire as to the pledges given by Ministers of the Crown with regard to land purchase in Ireland to the effect that these pledges have not yet been carried out, and to move, That this House relies on His Majesty's Government to take such measures as they deem right to ensure their fulfilment.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be in the recollection of many of your Lordships that on February 3 last year I moved that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to examine the pledges given between 1920 and 1923, by Ministers of the Crown, in regard to the completion of Irish land purchase, and to report whether these pledges had been fulfilled. The Motion was opposed on behalf of His Majesty's Government by my noble friend Lord Clarendon and by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I hope in the course of my remarks to deal with those two speeches, but for the present it will suffice to say that the arguments advanced did not convince the majority of the House and the Motion was carried.
It may be said that the majority was a small one and also that the number of Peers who voted was not large—I think
174
it was 68 in all. But to neither of those facts do I attach much weight. It is never a pleasing task for Conservatives to vote against the present Government. It is true that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the course of his remarks had criticised my Motion as one which improperly and unjustly attacked the Government, and though I had strongly controverted the suggestion that this was the case, it may have had an effect upon some of your Lordships. But what I think weighed much more with the majority was their reluctance to vote against the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who commands in so strong a manner not only the respect but also, if I may say so, the affection of his followers, and whose personal sympathy with the loyalists of Southern Ireland is so well known and has been shown so conspicuously on many occasions.
It was principally those who, like myself, when they realised that the fight for the Union was over, strove to effect a settlement in Ireland which would have preserved that loyalty to the Sovereign which has now been done away with and which would have given the loyalists in Ireland a share in the Government of their country, and were bitterly disappointed at the failure of all their hopes and expectations, who felt it absolutely necessary to press this Motion to a Division in order that, if possible, heavy pecuniary loss, if not financial ruin, should not be added to the changes which are now the lot of those loyalists who remain in Southern Ireland. But there were many others, I think, who, though they would not vote for the Motion, yet felt it was an accusation which deserved to be enquired into, and therefore would not vote against it. The Motion was carried not so much by those who voted for it as by those who abstained from voting against it. I have made inquiries and find that there were in the House on that day no fewer than 123 Peers and yet only 33 could be mustered to vote in favour of the Government, and of those eleven were Ministers or ex-Ministers and nine were followers either of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, or the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who, we are so sorry to know, is by illness prevented from being in his place to-day.
The Motion having been carried, it fell to my lot, with the assistance of my

175
noble friends, to submit to the House the names of those noble Lords whom I had been able to persuade to sit on the Committee. It was of the utmost importance that that Committee should be one which would command the respect of all from the weight of those of whom it was composed and that it should consist of persons who were known to have no special predilection for Irish loyalists or particular sympathy for those who claimed that they were injured by the non-fulfilment of the pledges. It appeared to me that in a case of this kind, which was purely non-political and dealt only with questions of fact, it was desirable as far as possible to secure co-operation from all shades of opinion in the House. I was fortunate enough to persuade my noble friend Viscount Chelmsford to become Chairman of the Committee and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him and the other noble Lords who sat on the Committee for the very able and exhaustive Report which we are considering to-day. The noble Viscount, as your Lordships all know, has not only held some of the highest posts under the Crown abroad but he also occupied a seat in the Cabinet of the Labour Government of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.
Lord Forres represented that section of opinion which was then under the leadership of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith and now marches under the banner of Earl Beauchamp. The legal and judicial aspect of the case was amply and ably represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, who I am sorry to say is still abroad, and by Lord Askwith and Lord Halsbury. The other two members of the Committee, Lord Lamington and Lord Redesdale, are so well known to your Lordships that it would be impertinent for me to dwell on their qualifications. As a matter of courtesy, before submitting the names to this House, I submitted them to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. He very naturally informed me that it did not concern the Government, but I think—I may be wrong—that if he had thought any of the noble Lords were specially unsuited for the task he would probably have been kind enough to inform me of his view. The Select Committee sat and heard evidence, after which they presented a unanimous Report.
The evidence they heard, if I may so express it, was for the prosecution, because the defendants refused to appear before them. His Majesty's Government, in reply to an invitation to give evidence through any of their members, sent the reply that after due consideration the Government did not propose to offer any evidence to the Committee. I have been told that it is not the habit of the Government to offer evidence to a Committee which has been set up against their wishes, but I do not think this can be the case on all occasions, because, if so, the reply would have been based on precedent, instead of which the Committee were informed that after due consideration the Government had decided to let the matter go by default and not offer any evidence. However, we shall have an opportunity, I have no doubt, in the course of the debate of hearing why the Government felt unable to assist the Committee. Mr. Lloyd George was also invited to attend, but he did not avail himself of the invitation. If there was one person more than another whose evidence would have been useful to the Committee it was Mr. Lloyd George. He was Prime Minister during, I think, the whole of the period under review. He was more than any one else responsible for the pledges given to the Southern Unionists and for the absolute neglect to embody any of them in the so-called Treaty when the final surrender to Sinn Fein took place.
I should have thought he would have been glad of the opportunity of attending before the Committee and of telling the Committee: "Yes, I did make promises, but the Sinn Feiners were too strong for us. They would not let us protect our nationals whom we had to surrender, but they undertook to treat them fairly and I have no doubt they meant to treat them fairly, but again their left wing was too strong for them, with the result that the Land Bill, which the Irish Free State Government introduced and which eventually passed into law, was much less favourable to the loyalists than the one which we intended to pass. Consequently, they suffered severely from a financial point of view. I shall be glad if the Government can do anything for them." That is what I imagine Mr. Lloyd George would have said to the

177
Committee. On the other hand, of course, he might have taken the view of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and if that was the case, faced as he would have been by quotations from his speeches and letters I am not surprised that he was not anxious to offer himself for examination by the Committee.
The Committee said in their Report that they had not the advantage of being helped by any evidence from members of His Majesty's Government. They have been forced, therefore, to rely on the speeches of Ministers as reported in the Parliamentary Debates for the presentation of arguments per contra. They deal first with the argument advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, whom I am glad to see in his place, and recapitulated last year in his enforced absence by Lord Clarendon. I am afraid I must ask the permission of the House to read the two paragraphs which deal with that point and the reply that was made by the Committee to the arguments which Lord Birkenhead put forward. They are to be found in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Report. Those paragraphs are as follows:—
"22. Again, the following contention has been put forward by Lord Birkenhead when out of office in 1923, but adopted by Lord Clarendon, who spoke for the Government in 1926:—
'But the Bill of 1920, which the noble Earl appears to think possesses some verbal sanctity, was a Bill which depended upon the hypothesis that agreement was reached by the Convention. No such agreement ever was reached. It depended in the second place and was stated to depend in the second place upon the agreement of the landlord and the tenant. And no one can claim that anybody was verbally bound until the conditions precedent, soon to prove themselves impossible of verbal repetition or attainment, were satisfied, the first condition being that there was agreement at the Convention, the second condition being that there was agreement between landlord and tenant.'
"23. The Committee find it difficult to understand this presentation of the facts. In so far as the land purchase question was concerned, agreement was reached by the Convention as shown in paragraph 9 of this Report; indeed, Lord Birkenhead himself, in an earlier speech on 17th May, 1920, alluded to the preparation of the Irish Land Purchase Scheme as the most noteworthy practical achievement of the Convention, and that it was a tribute to the efforts of the Sub-Committee that their
178
report was accepted by the Convention unanimously.
"As far as the second point is concerned, Lord Midleton said, 'With regard to agreement between landlord and tenant there is no question—Lord Oranmore and Browne, who was on the Committee, will correct me if I am wrong—that the Bill of the Convention was to be a compulsory one, and therefore it is not a question of agreement' ….
"Finally, the Committee fail to understand how a Bill which was introduced in the autumn of 1920 could 'depend upon the hypothesis that agreement was reached by the Convention' which had in fact come to an end in 1918. The fact that the Bill was introduced by the Government clearly shows that they were satisfied on these two points, and that the conditions mentioned had been fulfilled."
There was another argument put forward by Lord Clarendon last year, and I am sorry he is unable to be here to-day, because I should have liked to ask him for an explanation of it. He then put forward as an argument in favour of the Free State that the Bill might have been much worse than it was because he said a Bill for confiscation without compensation would have been very popular at the time and would have strengthened the position of the Free State Government. I should have liked to ask whether he holds the view that in this extraordinary case no help should have been given to the Southern Unionists, and, if not, what is the measure of spoliation short of confiscation there should have been when the Government was relieved from its promises.
The Report then deals with the subject of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I must apologise for reading so many of these paragraphs, but it is the only way, I think, of presenting my arguments. I hope the House will forgive me. The Report says:
"Lastly, it was urged by Lord Cave, the Lord Chancellor, on 3rd February, 1926, in the debate which resulted in the Committee being appointed, as follows:—
'Surely no one says that the bringing in of a Bill constitutes a pledge or that if a Bill is introduced and not carried the public fund must make good to those who would have benefited by the Bill all that has been lost by its rejection. No one contends that the Bill of 1920 was anything in the nature of a pledge, otherwise the difficulty of proposing measures to Parliament would be greater than it is.'
"The Committee have shown in the preceding pages of the Report the declara-

179
tions of Ministers of the Crown, which are described, and therefore presumably defined, by Ministers themselves as pledges, and they have felt bound to accept the Ministerial definition.
"They have alluded, in paragraph 18, to the Bill of 1920 not as a pledge, but as evidence of the nature of the pledge."
I think this requires no comment from me, but I submit that it completely exonerates me from the charge made by the Lord Chancellor of having improperly and unjustly attacked the Government when I moved that, this Committee should be set up.
I am afraid that I must ask permission to read two more paragraphs summing up the conclusions at which the Committee arrived. They are paragraphs 18 and 33, and the former runs as follows:
"The Committee are satisfied that pledges were given by Ministers of the Crown—necessarily subject to the concurrence of Parliament that they would complete Irish land purchase upon the lines of the Convention scheme, and they are fortified in this conclusion by the facts:—

"(1) that in 1920 an Irish Land Purchase Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and

"(2) that in 1925 a Land Purchase Act was passed by Parliament for Northern Ireland; and that both the Bill and the Act were drawn substantially on the lines of the proposals agreed to by the Convention."

They go on, in paragraph 33, to say:
"To sum up: The Committee have examined the declarations made by Ministers of the Crown in regard to the completion of Irish land purchase and they accept the Ministerial definition of those declarations as pledges.
"The nature of the pledges given may be found crystallised in statutory form in the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925.
"In so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the pledges have been substantially fulfilled by the passing into law of that Act.
"In so far as the Free State is concerned, the pledges have not been fulfilled, to the extent that the provisions of the Free State Land Act differ from and fall short of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925."
This is a Report unanimously agreed to by seven noble Lords who are absolutely impartial and whose names deservedly lend weight to any statement that they endorse, and I do not see how the Government, having allowed the case to go by default, can say, as a Minister of the Crown said to me the other day: "We do not agree with the verdict."
The defendant in a civil case, the prisoner in a criminal case, seldom, if ever, agrees with the verdict if it is against him, but this does not invalidate it. The verdict will remain on record as the considered opinion of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, drawn from all Parties in the State, after weighing the evidence which was submitted to them. It has been found by them that Ministers were pledged up to the hilt to complete land purchase in Southern Ireland on the same terms as those that have since been granted to Northern Ireland as a condition to the setting up of self-government in that country, and that up to the present the Government have refused to implement the pledge and are satisfied that those who have been our friends and supporters for 800 years should be handed over without even obtaining for them such terms as the Germans were able to obtain for their surrendered nationals in the Treaty of Versailles.
The Motion that I propose is purposely framed so that there may be no suggestion of a Vote of Censure on the Government. I beg to call special attention to this point. Attention is called to the Report of the Select Committee and the House is asked to express the opinion that they rely upon His Majesty's Government to take such steps as they think necessary to fulfil their pledges. More than that we cannot ask. We must leave it to the Cabinet, a Committee of English gentlemen, to see that the honour of this country goes down untarnished to posterity. No mention of money is made in my Motion. This reminds me of an invitation that I received the other day to a banquet in aid of a charitable institution, on which it was stated that no collection would be made at the banquet; but I gathered that this would not preclude a subsequent demand for a subscription. Naturally money will be needed for this purpose. The amount has been mentioned over and over again as approximately £6,000,000, or about one half of the additional money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking from the taxpayers of this country under Schedule A for the present year. The interest on the total sum is approximately equivalent to the amount of a Supplementary Estimate for Northern

181
Ireland for the present year which was passed without any comment in another place.
Why is it suggested that these pledges alone should be dishonoured? Is it because Irish loyalists are helpless and have no votes? Enormous sums are being given, and will continue to be given for the next sixty years, to the United States of America because this country guaranteed money which was practically used for her Allies. No doubt it is quite right that this Debt should be honoured. Again, millions are being spent yearly to redeem pledges of social reform made by Ministers before the last General Election, and at the present time the whole constitution of the electorate is apparently to be changed, with enormous danger to the future of the Constitutional Party in this country, because of the dalliance of one Minister before the last Election with what is called the "Flapper Vote." Every day I hear of some new pledge that is sacrosanct, and only our loyal fellow subjects in Ireland are treated as if they were not worth considering. Millions are being spent on new bridges over the Thames, and £150,000 is nothing if it is spent for a new Embassy at Washington. But £250,000 a year, if it is to be spent on those who have given you of their all for 800 years, is money that cannot be spared.
These men are still loyal to the King and to this country. But how long will they remain so? They are very bitter at the treatment that they have received. If they are to have a future in Ireland it will be by joining the Republicans. They could easily become their leaders. Already one-third of the members of the Irish Parliament refuse to take their seats because they will not take even the modified oath of fidelity to the King so long as he remains Head of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and already one-third of those who have taken the Oath have voted for its abolition—the vote in the Dail the other day was seventeen to thirty-seven. If you remember now the loyalists in their time of trouble they will not fail you, but if you break the promises that you have made, if you cast them off like an old glove, can you expect that they will remain loyal for ever? Love spurned turns to hate: let your action now show that you appreciate their love and value its continuance. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House relies on His Majesty's Government to take such measures as they deem right to ensure the fulfilment of the pledges given by Ministers of the Crown with regard to land purchase in Ireland.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I had not intended to speak so early in the debate, but as the Government seem to hesitate to say anything at the present moment perhaps I may make at this stage the few observations that occur to me upon the very moderate Motion of my noble friend who has introduced this subject. I must confess that there is nothing that I dislike more than having to intervene in this House from time to time—and I do so as seldom as I can—to call attention to the treachery of the British Government towards those who were once their friends and who indeed were once their tools in Ireland. The reason why I dislike doing it is that I hate speaking with bitterness, particularly with regard to those with whom I was so long associated in public life, before they took that leap in the dark in 1921. They took that leap, as I will show your Lordships in a few moments, with the grim determination not merely to surrender to their former enemies but to do everything they could to trample down their former friends, or at least as far as possible to have their previous relations with the loyalists of Ireland entirely blotted out in this horrible chapter of the history of this country.
One feels every time the question comes up more and more disgust. It may be that I personally feel that disgust more than others, because for the whole of the five years that have passed since the so-called treaty of surrender, I am every day, and I might say almost every hour, either by personal interview or by correspondence, brought into personal contact with man after man who has been absolutely ruined in Ireland by the methods which the Conservative and other Parties in this country have adopted towards them. Occasionally one gets bright spots in being able to do something, but it is not generally in this House. Some three or four months ago a man of very good position in Ireland, whose father I had known as a Land Commissioner, who had acted in one of the most disturbed parts of Ireland as what they call Crown

183
Solicitor—as the representative of this country there—and who had held a number of high offices under the British Crown, came to me and said: "I am on my last legs; there is nothing for me but to go with my wife and ten children, and, at the age of 58, seek a new career in Canada. I have been turned out of all my offices, I can get no redress, and I get no encouragement"—as indeed we never do, except for the short time when the Labour Party was in office—"from the Colonial Office. I have only £300 left in the world. You knew my father and my family, and you knew me slightly when I was a well-off man with £2,000 or £3,000 a year, and now I am down to my last £300."
I knew there was no sympathy with him in this country, and although his relatives had written for me to try to persuade him not to go away, I could not take that course upon my shoulders, and I gave him a letter of introduction to a friend of this country and of mine in Canada. There he was treated somewhat differently to the way men are treated whenever they make application for help to the Colonial Office here. When he arrived there he found that my friend was a man of position who took him to the Prime Minister of the Province and to the Attorney-General of the Province, and the latter, having been a legal official himself for so long in Ireland, when he heard the story set about to make provision for this man. I have had the most grateful letter I have ever seen in my life. Thank God there is a place in the Empire where they care about men who did loyal service for this country. Therefore I admit frankly that I speak, and I cannot help speaking, with bitterness upon this subject.
But here, to-day, we have a very plain and very simple Motion. Pledges were made, when the so-called Treaty of surrender was being brought about, to the Irish landlords. Do not imagine that in talking of Irish landlords I am talking of great and wealthy millionaires. I am talking of men, many of whom this country has made paupers. Pledges were made and those pledges had a great effect in inducing many members of one Party in this House to support the so-called Treaty in 1921. I know nothing more pathetic than to read the evidence of my noble friend Lord Midleton, given
184
before the Committee which was set up and whose Report we are discussing to-day. I frankly admit that I was not at all in concurrence with the line which Lord Midleton took, though I never questioned that he was acting from the very highest and best of motives. He read the interviews with the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Lloyd George, and he is asked at the end of giving those statements this question by one of the members of the Committee:
"You say: 'It never occurred to me to ask for a written pledge.' At what moment of time would you have asked for that written pledge?—It really never occurred to me at any time, and for this reason. The word of a Minister is absolutely reliable."
I hope he thinks so still.
This Committee was set up by a Motion in this House, with a Conservative Government in power, and here are the names of the Committee:—Lord Halsbury, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Lamington, Lord Redesdale, Lord Askwith, Lord Forres, and Lord Darling. No one can say that that was not a proper Committee. No one can say that having had a vote of the House—at least no one but a Conservative Government would say—you were to pay no attention to that vote. What happened? There was a great deal of controversy about pledges given by Ministers. There were explanations or attempted explanations, as there always are, to try and winnow away the substance of the declarations. No tribunal could be more fitted to consider what the pledges meant, or how they were to be taken in a full House, and nothing could be more proper than for this Committee to examine the statements on one side or the other. The matter went before this Committee. What happened? The pledges, both those made in public and at various interviews, both those made by various members of the present Government and by others, were all put before this Committee and they asked His Majesty's Government to come down and say what they had to say about these solemn pledges. The answer was: "We do not intend to give your Committee any help or any explanation." That is a very easy way and I have no doubt that, when some member of the Government speaks, he will proceed to justify everything by trying to mix up these pledges and the explanations of them, although

185
the Government refused to give any explanation before the Committee.
I venture to ask, because it is a question that goes far beyond this Motion, what is the function of this House, or has it any function? If this House sets up a Committee to examine into various solemn pledges made by various public Ministers in this country and that Committee on the vote of the House proceeds to do its duty and to sit and hear the cases, is it carrying out the functions of a Government—particularly a Conservative Government—in relation to this House to say: "You may hold your Committee, but we will neither help you nor explain and when your Report comes we will treat it as if it was waste paper"? That is what the matter comes to. When you come to the ex-Prime Minister and the details of his private communications—I will not call them private because they were made to deputations in connection with the settlement of 1921, and those deputations proved up to the hilt the case made by Lord Oranmore and the case referred to the Committee and the case as found by the Committee—the right hon. Gentleman is asked if he will come and explain, but he refuses likewise. What a glorious courage! What a glorious example of a method for public men to keep out of any explanation of the statements they have made in trying to induce people to pass their Bills at the critical moment and which, the moment they have got their Bills passed, they care no more about!
The pledges were proved up to the hilt and I defy any man with any sense of fair play to read the evidence and the Report of the Committee and say that I am not accurate in this. The pledges were proved up to the hilt, the pledges that helped to pass this iniquitous Bill of 1921. The moment that was passed the people to whom the pledges were made were no longer of any use. They had neither voting power nor influence. They were ignored and that is what has been done ever since the day that that Bill has been passed. It is a sorry tale and it goes far beyond this Motion. It is setting the Committee, whose character I have described, absolutely at defiance. It is a refusal to support a vote of this House solemnly given with a Conservative Government in power.
There is no use arguing the merits or the demerits of the case because the
186
House could not possibly understand them in the course of the debate. I refer to none of these pledges because in the debate here before they were read out and it was said there were explanations of them. There is nothing I hate more than to see a Minister, particularly of the Party to which I used to belong, trying to wriggle out of pledges. That is the matter that has been referred to the Committee. That is the matter to which they have honourably applied themselves to try to solve. That Committee finds that there were pledges made to these unfortunate people in Ireland which have not been fulfilled, and the very modest Motion of the noble Lord who has introduced this question this evening is simply that the Government should see that the best should be done that is possible to try to carry out the pledges.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, it is of course with regret that I find myself speaking on behalf of the Government with any difference with the noble Lords that sit on the same side of the House as I do myself. We have heard some strong words used both by Lord Oranmore and Browne and Lord Carson, who alluded to the treachery of the Government in the action they have taken. I should like to remind your Lordships that this subject has been discussed by, and has been before, no less than four Governments. It has been before the Coalition Government, the short Conservative Government of Mr. Baldwin, the Labour Government and the present Government. It is worth remarking at the outset that those four Governments, so differently composed, have one and all come to exactly the same point of view on this subject; one and all have taken the view most clearly and definitely that no pledges whatever have been broken. I merely state that at first, whatever may be the views of the Committee—and I propose to examine the Committee and its Report with some care. Bearing that in mind, it is a fact which should make some impression on your Lordships.
Some preliminary criticisms were cast upon this Government, both by Lord Oranmore and Browne and Lord Carson, although they were criticisms of a different kind. Lord Oranmore and Browne attacked this Government be-

187
cause, when this Committee was set up, the Government refused to allow members of the Government to become members of the Committee. He asked me what is the reason for that. I think the reason was very clearly given by the noble Lords themselves. This Committee was a prosecution and clearly the defendants were the Government. It would surely be a very remarkable thing if the defendants were to become members of the prosecution and sit upon the very Committee which was to inquire into their misdeeds.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I never suggested the Government should sit on the Committee. I suggested they should appear as witnesses.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, I am within the recollection of the House and I think the noble Lord suggested that some of them should sit on it. The second point was made by Lord Carson, who asked why they did not come forward and give evidence before the Committee. Here was a Committee which they had opposed in this House, but the appointment of which was carried against them. Why were they going to go and give evidence before such a Committee? They had already made their statement.
LORD CARSON: Is that the way the Government treat their supporters in the House?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They had made their own statement, they had given their own account of the proceedings. Why on earth should they come before the prosecution, as my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne says, and again justify the actions they had taken? However, that is by the way. I would also remind your Lordships that this whole subject was very fully discussed only last year, and the defence of the Government was plainly put before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Clarendon, and also by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, now sitting on the Woolsack. Indeed, the only new fact that has come up between then and now is the Report of this Committee. Before I sit down I am going to look very carefully into some of the facts that have been examined by the Committee, because this was the prosecuting Committee, and I
188
submit that, if it was such a Committee, it ought to be impartial, and it ought to be fair.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Was it not fair?
LORD CARSON: Do you charge Lord Halsbury with being unfair?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to finish my sentence? I say it ought to be impartial and fair. I am going to say this—that there are definite mis-statements made. I have no doubt the Committee meant well, but there are mis-statements which I am going to explain and expose, and I say that it was the duty of the Committee, if it was criticising the pledges of the Government, to take the utmost care that the whole matter was looked into most carefully.
LORD CARSON: Why did you not go there and answer them?
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble and learned Lord will listen I will try to explain the matter. I am not altogether certain as to the ground on which this Motion is brought forward. Though it has not been stated in so many words by the noble Lord, the request, if it can be translated into matters of fact, is that the Irish landowners, or rather that portion of them who are affected by the Act of 1923, should have paid to them the difference between the compensation that they received under the Irish Act of 1923, and that which they would have received under the Bill of 1920, if that Bill had been passed into law and had been acted upon.
The claim, as I understand it, is that this money is to be found, not by the Irish taxpayer—because obviously the Government cannot deal with the Irish taxpayer in the South of Ireland—but by the British taxpayer. Before examining this point, I should like to remind your Lordships what is the compensation which these landowners received under the Irish Act of 1923. They have secured to them a fixed, permanent and secure income of from 65 to 73 per cent. of the existing rents. Instead, therefore, of receiving a fluctuating and risky gross income of £100 they get a certain net income, without deductions and without liabilities, of about 70 per cent. of that income. From a practical point of

189
view, do your Lordships think that there really is any likelihood, however many Resolutions we might pass, or however many Committees might report, that any Government, of whatever political complexion, or any House of Commons, would really assent to this large contribution to these landowners from the funds of the British taxpayer?
I am not talking now of sympathies with Irish landowners, I am talking now of the history of Ireland—I am trying to deal with this matter as a practical question, based upon the facts of the case, as known to all your Lordships. The question, I am afraid, therefore is largely, as regards these landowners, academic. I submit, further, that it is really not fair, it is unjust to these landowners, to try and raise expectations in their minds that, by means of a Motion of this House or elsewhere, they are likely to get this larger compensation—the difference between the measures of 1923 and 1920. However many Resolutions we pass in this House on the subject I am afraid that it would be no more than a demonstration.
And therefore I can pass for the moment from the case of the Irish landowners, because nothing that can be done here can affect them, and I will deal with what I think is the real object of the Motion, and that is an attempt to fix a charge of a breach of faith—not, I think, on the Government exactly, so much as on certain Ministers who were members of the Coalition Government—and in that way to attach some discredit to the present Government as having broken pledges, or been guilty in the words of the noble and learned Lord, of "treachery." The Committee, in effect, argued that the undertaking as to the settlement of the Irish land question was a positive pledge, which would hold good irrespective of any accompanying circumstances, conditions, or qualifications. Now, the position of the Government on this was made perfectly clear last year, and I can show from the statements of Ministers themselves, quoted by the Committee itself—quoted quite fairly-and frankly—that these promises as to land purchase were conditional, were a part of the general settlement of the Irish question, and were not pledges given independently and irrespectively of any such settlement.
190
I am going to quote for that a statement—it was not quoted by my noble friend—made by Mr. Lloyd George, who, of course, was Prime Minister. He said:—
"If this Report commends itself to the Convention, the Government would be prepared to introduce in Parliament, as part of the plan of settlement (and simultaneously with the Bill amending the Government of Ireland Act, 1914) a measure for the purpose of inviting Parliament to give effect to the recommendations of the Convention on the subject of land purchase."
That is the great governing statement of the whole, and it is absolutely clear from that, taken in its plain and literal meaning, that any pledges or undertakings as regards Irish land settlement were connected with, conditioned by, and an accompaniment of the general political settlement of the South of Ireland. I say, further, that other statements are governed by that general statement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George.
Further than that, certain statements were made as late as July, 1921, by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead, who was then, I think, Lord Chancellor. He said, and these words are again quoted by the Committee:—
"It is true as everyone knows that the Government was deeply pledged and is of course deeply pledged on this question. But it is also clear that any undertaking of that kind must be construed in relation to the circumstances as they existed then and as they were anticipated by most people at that time."
There again, it is absolutely clear from the statement of the noble Earl himself that this undertaking was conditioned by other matters. It was not a separate undertaking irrespective of the circumstances under which the pledge was given. I do not think I need quote any more of those statements because they were clearly given and they are frankly put forward by the Committee. What I do quarrel with is the conclusion drawn by the Committee. They say that they can only construe the statements above set out in their plain and literal meanings. I submit that is exactly what they do not do. If they had construed them in their plain and literal meaning they would have taken the two statements together as part of one whole and dependent one upon the other.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: Would the noble Viscount read the last part of

191
paragraph 21 in the Committee's Report? I think that will explain why they have to interpret the statements in their plain and literal meaning.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will read the words, but I do not think they are relevant. They simply say they have
"examined those pledges in the light of the evidence available to them, and, in the absence of evidence from the Government which might explain the circumstances in which they were made, they can only construe the statements above set out in their plain and literal meaning."
I have already dealt with the reasons why the Government did not give evidence. It does not affect my argument that the pledges, apart from any statement made, are plainly connected with the larger question of the general settlement in Ireland. The Committee, in fact, separate the words in the context and ignore Mr. Lloyd George's statement that the land purchase scheme was a part, and a comparatively small part, of that plan of settlement. The larger portion of the statement was, of course, concerned with the amendment of the Government of Ireland Act of 1914. Those two were closely connected together and when the Act of 1920 failed to operate the whole arrangement fell to the ground.
I will conclude that story very shortly, because it has been told at some length by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead in your Lordships' House. During the discussions over the Treaty the Government still were anxious to deal with the question of land settlement, although their specific pledges were not in question, and finally, in the year 1923, the Irish Government, on their own motion no doubt and under the urgency of the British Government, did deal with this question and settle with these Irish landlords on terms which I have stated to your Lordships. I admit they are not terms as good as the terms that were proposed in the Bill brought forward in 1920. Then follow all those other Ministerial statements, but I think they are all governed by the general proposition of Mr. Lloyd George and by the qualifying statements made by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead.
LORD CARSON: Would the noble Viscount read the criticism of the Committee upon that statement of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in paragraph 23 of the Report?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have got as far now as 21.
LORD CARSON: You are referring to the statements of Lord Birkenhead.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not referring to the statement there but to the statement he made about the action he took during the negotiations for the Treaty. I will refer to the other later. I will only say that I was particularly anxious to quote the statements of Ministers made while they were the responsible Ministers of the Crown. Lord Birkenhead made the other statement when he was not a responsible Minister and when he was in the rather unusual position of defending a Government to which he was, to some extent, opposed. But I will deal with that a little later when I come to it. I want to get to what is the real gravamen of the charge about the Act of 1923 as compared with the Act of 1920.
I come now to paragraph 26 in the Report of the Committee. There the complaint is made by the representatives of the landowners about the omission of the bonus provision in the Irish Free State Act of 1923 as the main respect in which that Act has failed to fulfil the pledges of Ministers, and they go on:
"It is clear that the witnesses relied, as the chief ground of their complaint, on the absence of the bonus in the provisions of the Free State Act."
They adopt, therefore, in their Report, the statements made by these owners. It is literally true that there was no bonus in the Irish Free State Act and they lay great stress upon that, but, though there was no bonus there was a free grant from the Irish Government amounting to no less than 10 per cent. of the purchase money, and, after all, it does not seem to me to make very much difference whether? you call it a bonus or a free grant.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It was to the tenant, not to the landlord.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a free grant and in that respect it is a matter which surely ought to have been alluded to in the Report. I think the only other point that I need deal with is in paragraph 30. There the Lord Chancellor is quoted as having said:
"I do not think that anywhere in the whole of history can you find a promise to put a charge of £6,000,000, or, indeed, any charge at all, upon British funds."

193
In the next paragraph, paragraph 31, having previously stated that they are relying upon the terms of the Act of 1920, they go back to the Convention of 1918, and quote this passage from the Report:
"The bonus was always regarded as 'a free gift to Ireland,' that is, it was to be paid, not by the taxpayers of Great Britain or of Ireland, but of the United Kingdom as a whole."
They then refer to the evidence of Lord Midleton who said that at the time when the bonus under the Wyndham Act was being paid the expenditure in Ireland from the general funds was larger than the contribution of Ireland towards those funds and that therefore, in fact, the bonus under the Wyndham Act was paid by the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, I suppose, they argue that it ought to be paid again by them. It would, as he says, "only be a repetition of the same." They further argue, that it amounted to a pledge given by Ministers of the Crown.
On that I must point out that the whole strength of their argument on page 7 has been that the Bill of 1920 has not been carried out, and the whole gravamen of their charge against the Government is that the terms of the Act of 1923 are different from those of 1920. But in the Bill of 1920 there was no provision whatever for the payment of a bonus out of British funds. What were the arrangements of the Act of 1920? They were that the British Government were to collect the taxes from Ireland, that then they were to deduct from them the Cost of certain Imperial Services, including Reserved Services, and that then the surplus was to be handed over to the Government of Southern Ireland for the purposes of government. Yes, but there is no question there whatever of any sum coming from the British taxpayer. All that money was clearly and obviously, under the terms of the Bill, to come from the Irish taxpayer. Therefore When the Committee want to argue that a bonus should be paid to the landlords from the British taxpayer, they leave aside entirely their contention that they should be treated under the terms of the Act of 1920, and they go back two years to the Convention and base their ground for the contribution from the British taxpayer on the terms of the Convention of 1918.
I really submit that if the iniquities and the breach of pledges of a British
194
Government depend on the question of the bonus the Committee should have been more careful to see on which leg they were standing. They cannot denounce the Government because they did not carry out the provisions of the Act of 1920 and then make a claim against the British Government which they say is substantially a claim which is based not on the Act of 1920 but on the Convention of 1918. Further than that they say, in paragraph 33, that so far as the North of Ireland is concerned the pledges have been substantially fulfilled by the passing into law of the Act called the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925. The pledges there, they say, are crystallised in statutory form. But, there is no question in the Act of 1925 of any payment to be made from the British taxpayer. On the contrary, it follows the Act of 1920. That is to say, money is collected by the British Government, certain Services are deducted, including the Reserved Services of which this land administration is one, and then the surplus is paid over to the Northern Ireland Government. There is no question there of any bonus being paid by the British Government or the British taxpayer. Therefore, on both grounds this charge fails, because if they say that the terms are fully fulfilled under the Acts of 1920 and 1925, then it is out of the question that they should demand from the British taxpayer a subsidy of £6,000,000. The whole of their charge on that ground entirely fails.
Let me add this further point, that the conditions laid down by the Earl of Birkenhead in the speech to which Lord Carson referred and which is quoted here were that there should be agreement between landlord and tenant—which of course means between landlords and tenants—and that the provisions of the Act of 1920 should be carried out. Both those conditions did prevail because not only was there agreement between landlord and tenant in the North of Ireland but the provisions of the Act of 1920 did not fail, as in the South of Ireland, but were carried out. Therefore both those conditions on which he there insists were carried out in the case of Northern Ireland.
LORD CARSON: Would the noble Viscount now read paragraph 23?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have stated the substance of it fully. I do not want to be turned from my argument.
LORD CARSON: I am sure you do not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never interrupt the noble and learned Lord when he is speaking, but if he interrupts me I have no objection. I submit that if this Act of 1920 had been carried into effect as it was in Northern Ireland then the pledge of the Government by the Act of 1920 and the Land Bill of 1920 would have been fulfilled, as they have been fulfilled in the Act of 1925 as applied to Northern Ireland. But everybody knows that that is not the case. Everybody knows that the Act of 1920 never came into operation, that a different state of things prevailed, and that therefore the conditions which accompanied the pledge given by the Government naturally fall to the ground. I submit that there is no charge that can be brought against the Government of breach of pledge or treachery or anything else, and I trust your Lordships—
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hope my noble friend will not mind my interrupting him, but he speaks of the Act of 1920. The measure of 1920 did not pass. It way the Bill of 1920 which we complain was not made into an Act, which was introduced by the Government but was not passed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I mean exactly what I say. There were two Bills introduced. One became an Act. That was the Bill for the Government of Ireland. That became an Act. There was also a Bill introduced which did not become an Act, the Bill for land purchase. I am perfectly correct and I have been explaining to the best of my ability that these two things hung together. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will vote against this Motion. I have shown that there is no pledge that has been broken. I have shown further that where the conditions were carried out these pledges have been carried out to the letter, that they have been carried out in the North of Ireland and would have been carried out in the South of Ireland if the Act of 1920 had there been carried into effect, and had carried with it also the Bill which never became an Act, the Bill dealing with Irish
196
land purchase. I submit, therefore, that no pledge of the Government has been unfulfilled and that the Government, so far from deserving the censure of the Committee or of your Lordships' House, is as honourable in regard to the pledge undertaken as the three Governments who have preceded it and who have taken on that pledge precisely the same view as is taken by the Government to-day.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I hope you will accord me your indulgence as Chairman of this unfortunate Committee which against its will had, under the orders of this House, to examine the pledges given between 1920 and 1923 with regard to the completion of Irish land purchase and to report whether the pledges had been fulfilled. I say "unfortunate," because I think anybody who has listened to the noble Viscount who has just spoken will realise the extraordinary difficulty under which that Committee worked. It had certain speeches, it had certain documents and it had evidence from certain distinguished men from Ireland who knew the Irish Land Acts and all the details with regard to the Irish Land Acts, and from certain noble Lords who gave their assistance. But we had no one on the other hand to criticise these statements or to help us in any way with regard to what might be said on the other side. We were in the position in which I imagine anybody sitting in a judicial capacity would be if one side appeared and the other side did not. We were obliged to judge on the evidence put before us and judge as best we could what possible argument might be used on the other side. May I suggest to the noble Viscount who has just sat down that I think it is an almost unheard-of thing in this House to state that a Committee which has been set up by this House was in the nature of a prosecuting Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not suggest that.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: I am very glad to hear that the noble Viscount did not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I simply quoted the phrase used by Lord Oranmore and Browne.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Lord Oranmore and Browne said that.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I said nothing of the kind. I said that evidence was given by the prosecution, by which I meant the aggrieved persons who thought that they had suffered from the non-fulfilment of the pledges. I did not suggest for a moment that the Committee was a prosecuting Committee, any more than I suggested, as the noble Viscount said a few minutes ago, that the Government should have formed part of the Committee.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: At all events the point will be made quite clear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I was certainly under the misapprehension, as apparently were others of your Lordships, that it was suggested that this Committee did not approach the task that this House had laid upon it with an impartial examination of the evidence that was laid before it. Let me refer also to the complaint that the noble Viscount made. He asked if there was any likelihood of any House of Commons looking at any large contribution to Irish land-holders. I say quite clearly that this was not a matter before the Committee. We had nothing to do with any action that any Government might take as the result of this Report or of their examination into this question. Nor could it be suggested that the Committee had any idea that an attack was being engineered upon any members of this Government. Those were matters entirely outside the purview of the Committee.
At the risk of being tedious, let me point out what appears on the face of this Report. We began by drawing attention to the limited character of our reference. We then proceeded to take the documents that we had and to quote, as we hoped fairly, the salient and pertinent matters which appeared in those documents. We clearly set out that which Mr. Lloyd George said in his letter to Sir Horace Plunkett in reference to land purchase. That is all on the face of the Report and any one can read it for himself. Nothing has been kept back in any way. But here again the Committee were in a difficulty. We recited some two pages of promises or declarations on this matter from various members of the various Governments. With these documents before us, but with no explanation of the circumstances under which the declarations were made, we came to the
198
conclusion that it was not an unfair statement to say that these, statements, which the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, termed pledges—and he is a master of precise language—were in fact pledges.
We then came to consider what was the nature of the pledges, and we decided that it was to be found in the character of the Bill of 1920 and in the Northern Ireland Land Purchase Act of 1925. I find it very difficult to follow the noble Viscount's argument that we must always go back to the pledge in Mr. Lloyd George's letter and that there was nothing outside that letter. I admit at once that the letter was the foundation of everything that came afterwards, but circumstances were continually changing. Why should the Northern Ireland Act of 1925 have been passed if some similar measure was not to be given to Southern Ireland or if, supposing that inadequate measures were taken by the Free State, the British Government were not to consider whether they could alleviate the difficulty of the position?
Let me pass to the noble Viscount's reference to Lord Birkenhead's speech of July 13, 1921. I hope the House will forgive me for repeating it once more. Lord Birkenhead said:—
"But it is also clear that any undertaking of that kind must be construed in relation to the circumstances as they existed then and as they were anticipated by most people at that time."
It would have been everything for the Committee if we had had Lord Birkenhead before us and if he had kindly illuminated us upon those circumstances and said that the pledges must be read in the light of certain precise statements. I would remind the noble Earl that we had to deal with precise statements and not with rhetoric of rather a general character, and when we came to examine Lord Birkenhead's statements we found that they were not as precise as we had thought that they must be.
Paragraph 23 has been continually referred to by Lord Carson, but the noble Viscount has not given it the attention which Lord Carson would have liked. Before I read it, let me refer to one other point. My noble friend Lord Peel said that Lord Birkenhead was not a member of the Government when he made that speech. That is perfectly true, but this particular paragraph of Lord Birkenhead's speech was adopted

199
by the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, in this House when he was putting forth the Government case in 1926. He quoted it, and I think Lord Carson challenged him at that time and asked if he stood by it, and he said, in effect, "I am afraid I must." I think, therefore, that we are entitled to regard it not only as a statement from Lord Birkenhead, who was not then in a responsible position as a member of the Government, but as one that was adopted and accepted by the representative of the Government, Lord Clarendon, when my noble friend brought the question up last year. It concerns the two points that are referred to as conditions precedent.
Lord Birkenhead said that the Bill of 1920—
"was a Bill which depended upon the hypothesis that agreement was reached by the Convention."
He went on to say:—
"No such agreement ever was reached. It depended in the second place and was stated to depend in the second place upon the agreement of the landlord and the tenant. And no one can claim that anybody was verbally bound until the conditions precedent, soon to prove themselves impossible of verbal repetition or attainment, were satisfied, the first condition being that there was agreement at the Convention, the second condition being that there was agreement between landlord and tenant."
Lord Birkenhead was a very busy man at that time and one can quite understand how easy it would be to make a slip in a long debate, but we should have liked to have Lord Birkenhead before us and to ask him what he meant by these "conditions precedent." I am not saying this as a debating point, but am merely justifying the attitude of the Committee. We were at a great loss because we did not have the advantage of Lord Birkenhead's assistance in these matters. If we had had that assistance, I do not think there would have been any matters in dispute, for all these difficulties would have been discussed over the table.
With regard to the question of bonus let me say that this again was an extremely difficult question and, if your Lordships will look at the Report of the evidence, you will find there was considerable examination of it. Personally I found it very difficult to believe that that bonus, as was claimed, was to be a
200
charge upon the British taxpayer, and I asked questions upon that. Then I was met in the first place by the witnesses who said: "Oh, you will find that in the Report it says the bonus was always regarded as a free gift to Ireland; that is, to be paid not by the taxpayers of Great Britain or Ireland but of the United Kingdom as a whole." When we questioned them that was their reply. Then Lord Midleton went one further and said, in effect, "Well, that actually means not the taxpayers of Great Britain or Ireland but the taxpayers of Great Britain, because under the financial conditions as between Ireland and Great Britain, Ireland is not in a position to pay, and therefore the British taxpayer would have to pay."
Then, on this last question of the Northern Ireland Act, 1925, the witnesses who came before us were asked specifically: "Do you regard the Bill of 1920 as carrying out all the pledges of the Government? Do you regard the Northern Ireland Land Purchase Act as a substantial carrying out of the pledges?" To both of those questions they replied that they would be perfectly satisfied. So with that evidence we summed up, I think not unfairly, the position as we found it, that in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the pledges have been substantially fulfilled by the passing into law of the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925, but that in so far as the Free State is concerned the pledges have not been fulfilled to the extent that the provisions of the Free State Land Act differ from and fall short of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925. I hope I have not trespassed upon your Lordships' indulgence too far, but I should like to impress upon Viscount Peel the fact that none of us wanted to be on this Committee. When I was asked by Lord Oranmore to sit on the Committee I declined, and it was only after pressure that I assented. I have not been concerned in Irish affairs.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not charge the noble Lords with wanting to be on the Committee.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: No, but you impeach our conduct when on the Committee. You will not get noble Lords to serve on disagreeable Committees if their conduct when in the

201
chair, or as members of a Committee, is to be impeached across the floor of the House.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I did not intend to trouble your Lordships, because although I have been connected with the subject from the very first, I had very much desired to leave it where it was left by my noble and learned friend behind me. I must, however, say that I feel very deeply one remark which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel. I thought, I confess, that, the tone of the noble Viscount's speech with regard to this Committee was a deplorable tone. I think the Government from the first deprecated this Committee. When the Committee was set up they boycotted it, and now the noble Viscount goes on to reflect upon the fairness of the Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I am in the recollection of the House. The noble Viscount made one or two statements for which I would like to call him to account, and in addition he spoke with a disrespect of the Committee which I do not believe I, or the oldest member of your Lordships' House, ever heard before with regard to any Committee. Not one of the members of this Committee has had any previous contact with the Irish question or any connection with Irish land, and the Committee sat with absolute impartiality. I cannot allow to pass without challenge the statement of the noble Viscount that four Governments have held that no pledge had been given, or his own final decision that no pledge was given. I have felt deeply for the position of the Government in this matter. I fully realise how difficult their course has been, owing to the course of events since the midnight sitting when the Treaty was signed. I think it is quite possible, and quite arguable, that the Government might say there were certain pledges given under certain conditions which it may not be in the power of the Government to carry out, but for the noble Viscount to tell me, with regard to pledges which I had in writing from the head of the Government during the Convention, pledges given to me privately time after time—to me and my colleagues, one of whom is sitting there—
202
pledges which were reiterated—some of which I have not even got the right to produce because they are in private letters—up to within a few months of the settlement being made, that there never were those pledges is more than any private member of this House can allow a member of the Cabinet to say without challenge.
That is my position. It has always been common ground between all Parties that you could not settle the Irish question with fairness if you left it to those who would have to contend with the difficulties which the Free State would have to contend with, to settle the most difficult and trying question which has divided all classes in Ireland. That was the reason why the Convention, by a unanimous vote, not only decided to settle it but decided that we should have it in writing from the Prime Minister of this country that he would accept such settlement as part of the general settlement. That, I have no doubt, was the full intention of those who signed the Treaty. Now, may I say in one sentence what I have told your Lordships before—namely, that my personal interests in what might be done for Irish landlords in the matter of land is exiguous. My property in Ireland is urban property and so far as I am concerned the land question was settled long ago, but even since Lord Oranmore moved for that Committee the state of those who were left in the lurch and deserted by the decision of the Government has been far worse. They were offered fifteen years' purchase compulsorily for land worth twenty or twenty-two years' purchase and had to accept it, but have not been paid. What they were told with regard to, their arrears has not been fulfilled, they have had to give up untenanted land at their own hall doors, and if my noble and learned friend speaks for those on behalf of whom he argued in and out of Parliament for years, I feel equally for those for whom I was trusted to negotiate, on whose behalf I believed in the word of a British Minister, and who have seen the inability to carry out those pledges.
I for one will not sit here and allow the noble Viscount to say that no such pledges were, ever given. So far as I am concerned, I do not want to argue the question of who should pay the owners. Undoubtedly it came out of the pockets

203
of the British taxpayer before. I was myself a member of the Cabinet which brought in the Wyndham Act. I know myself that, as a British member, I had very strong feelings with regard to the taxation of Great Britain for that purpose, but it has been done. This was promised in the 1920 Act and it matters very little to the Irish landlord whether what they were promised comes from one source or the other, but it does matter very much to them that many of them have had to take a sum of money which has left them in practical penury. In the position in which we are I had hoped that we should have had from the Government to-night at all events a recognition that the decision of the Committee was one which required very grave consideration on their part. We have had in detail what I may call a rather jaunty deprecation of pledges of any description, of the authority of the Committee and of what is due to the majority of this House who appointed that Committee. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, if my noble friend chooses to go to a Division on his very moderate Motion, I for one will feel it my duty to support him.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I was a member of the late Government which has been stated—quite erroneously—to have come to a decision on this question. It never was before us formally and we never gave a decision about it. I am, therefore, all the more in an impartial position in rising to consider it. There is a very remarkable confusion of thought about this whole question. There is the noble Earl, who has just sat down, who speaks of this as if there were some legal contract to pay a sum out of the assets of this country, the assets under the control of the Exchequer. But there is no legal contract and what he is proposing is to give a present, notwithstanding the declarations which he made only yesterday in this House on the obligation of the State to proceed with the utmost strictness. The truth is that it is not a question of legal obligation at all and I say that when you have no legal obligation you have got to look at the whole situation.
This Committee ought never to have been appointed. It was brought about by the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne. It was presided over by my noble friend Lord Chelms-
204
ford with his conspicuous fairness. He and his colleagues sought to examine the pledges given and came to the conclusion that there were pledges given which covered this matter. I assume all that, but the question we have to answer here is what is the obligation on this Government to provide this money. It must come out of the British Exchequer. The Irish Exchequer has dealt with it in its own way and now it is a question of the British Exchequer. Even if there had been in 1920, which there was not, a legal obligation entered into, it would have been a legal obligation to be answered not by the British Exchequer to-day but by the Irish Exchequer. To the Irish Government and to its funds have been transferred the burden of the obligations entered into before the change of Government. That has been decided by your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, and in an entirely unprejudiced matter very recently.
The result is that it is idle to talk of contracts, to talk of this matter as if it were one to be debated by lawyers. It is one to be debated by statesmen and it ought never to have been referred to the Committee, as it is a question of high policy for the Cabinet of the time. When you ask what is the character of the obligation entered into, it is very obvious that it was of a political character. There was a bonus dating back to the time of the late Mr. George Wyndham and that bonus, if it were given to-day, would, it is estimated, amount to £6,000,000. I, for my part, would be very glad if there were £6,000,000 made available for the benefit of the Irish landlords. They have had very difficult times. On the other hand, it is very difficult for any Irish Government to give them the very full payment, because there is a history behind Irish land which naturally limits the possibilities within the reach of Ministers.
The case of Northern Ireland was so different that I do not even stop to consider it. It was dealt with and debated in different circumstances. But with regard to Southern Ireland, the whole matter was transferred to the new Irish Government to be dealt with and debated as an Irish matter. That was the legal position and it was also the natural political position. I have no doubt it was hoped when it was done that the Irish

205
Government would shape their policy so as to be able to give effect to what was done here, but certainly we never said that if they did not we would make up the difference out of the taxes in this country. Certainly there was nothing said to that effect. What was laid down was a declaration of the policy of the Government which at that time governed Ireland as well as this country. Now all that is over. The government of Ireland has to be carried on by an Irish Government and one of the consequences is that the obligations are transferred wholly and entirely to the shoulders of that Government.
That Government is now dealing with them as best it can. It has found something approaching seventy per cent. of the revenue that the Irish landowners used to have. It may be that in the circumstances that is not an altogether adequate recompense. What the history of Irish land would have been if there had been no settlement I do not know. I have always agreed entirely with the views of the noble Earl opposite about the settlement made at that time. It was a precious settlement, both from our point of view and that of Ireland, because it got rid of a great many questions and it also got rid of an incalculable amount of suffering on those living in Ireland who were not of the prevalent political complexion. Therefore I think it is a fallacy from beginning to end to treat this Report as if it was the foundation of any contract or the recognising of any contract. It is not a question of legal contract, but of statesmanship and of what can be done here and of what can be done by the Government of Ireland.
The second of these questions is entirely for the Government of Ireland, which has been doing its best and has done a good deal. The other question is one for ourselves. I want to make it perfectly clear that it cannot be decided as it might be decided by a solicitor sitting down and reading it up. It is a matter of statesmanship, and statesmanship forbids the fulfilment of any obligation which has devolved upon the Irish Government by taking out of the taxes of this country £6,000,000, or any other sum, which could only be payable on the footing that there was an obligation such as does not exist.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has just told us that it was a great mistake to set up this Committee, but unfortunately the House had a different view. The Committee was appointed and has presented a Report, and it is the least your Lordships can do, if the noble Lords who were on that Committee took the trouble to sit, to consider their Report and see what action should be taken upon it. The noble and learned Viscount also said that there is no legal contract. I am not a lawyer, but I may respectfully say that I quite agree with him. There can be no legal contract in such a case, but there is what I, as a layman, would suggest is an equitable obligation. I believe that equity never existed in the Scottish law, so perhaps it does not appeal so much to the noble and learned Viscount, but it is a point we make that as a matter of equity this should be done.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, told us that the pledges of the Government fell to the ground when the Act of 1920 failed to operate. But that is exactly what we complain of. He said that the Bill and the Act went together. The Act was passed, and the Bill concerning land purchase, which we said—and which the Government said—it was absolutely necessary to settle before they established self-government in Ireland, was not passed. Therefore we contend that the Bill ought to have been passed simultaneously with the Act of 1920; if so, it would have been the law of the land before the Treaty was made. We know that the Government realised that it was necessary to pass it as regards Northern Ireland, and I would point out to the noble Viscount that when he argued that £67 for every £100 which was previously received is quite sufficient for landowners——
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that. I said I was not going to pronounce on the question at all. I simply wanted to state what the facts of the case were.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: At any rate, the Government of which the noble Viscount was a member, when they dealt with the question of Northern Ireland did not think it sufficient, and passed an Act which gave them £82 instead of £67.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is it not from £69 to £72?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: No, I think it is £82 for Northern Ireland and £67 for Southern Ireland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it is more than that.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Well, that was stated last year, and was not contradicted—I have just looked it up in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have the figures in the Report of the Select Committee.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The noble Viscount also mentioned a free grant from the Irish Government, and it might appear to some of your Lordships that that free grant was received by the landlords, and was therefore to be added to the amount of £67
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
which they received; but, on the contrary, it was a free gift to the tenants, so that their annuities for the future should be less. I am sorry that the Government refuse to accept this Motion, which I purposely framed in such a way that it could not be contended that it was in any way a Vote of Censure on the Government; it was only calling on the Government to recognise the Report of the Committee which this House had set up, and to express the opinion of this House that they relied on His Majesty's Government doing what was proper and just in the matter. I am afraid, in the circumstances, I cannot withdraw the Motion, which must go to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Askwith, L.

Morris, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Normanby, M.

Bellew, L. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Carew, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Halsbury, E.

Carson, L.

Midleton, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.) [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Westmeath, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Allendale, V.

Doverdale, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Farnham, L.

Shandon, L.

De Vesci, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Sinclair, L.

Elibank, V.

Hemphill, L.

Southwark, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Stanmore, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Lambourne, L.

Strachie, L.

Sumner, V.

Lamington, L.

Teynham, L.

Templetown, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wavertree, L.

Middleton, L.

Wharton, L.

Annaly, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Ystwyth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Scarbrough, E.

Gage, L.(V Gage.)

Stanhope, E.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hawke, L.

Astor, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Peel, V.

Kylsant, L.

Airlie, E.

Arnold, L.

Lovat, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Biddulph, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Clarendon, E.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Shaw, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Cottesloe, L.

Suffield, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Vestey, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wargrave, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

TEMPERANCE (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, in view of the late hour at which the debate on this Bill begins, I will be as brief as possible in moving the Second Reading. It is perhaps not necessary to remind the House at the outset that it is a purely Welsh Bill, and it is, I submit, an expression of the views and convictions of the majority of the people of Wales upon the temperance question. It is long since a Welsh Temperance Bill came before this House. It was in 1881, more than forty years ago, that the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill was passed through all its stages in this House. That measure has resulted in undoubted benefit to the life of Wales. The claim of Wales for special legislation was further recognised in the sphere of education in the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. This Bill raises two questions. It is the expression of the dominant views of Wales in regard to licensing legislation but it is also something more than that. This Bill really raises the issue of the right of Wales to secure legislation upon a question of vital importance to the welfare of the people as to which there is unmistakable evidence of popular support. Let me very briefly set before the House the main provisions of the Bill, and after that I hope I may be able to show by a few facts something of the strength of the support which this Bill has from Wales itself.
The Bill deals with two points. It confers in the first place upon the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of licences, and it amends the law relating to clubs. There is no need for me to endeavour either to explain or to justify the necessity of dealing with these two questions of licences and of clubs together. It is quite obvious that a reduction in the number of licences cannot be effective so long as drinking facilities in clubs continue unrestrained. I think this is common ground. It was admitted by the Home Secretary himself to a deputation which waited upon him in November, 1925, upon the question of clubs. Speaking of the reduction of licences under the compensa-
210
tion provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904, he said:—
"I entirely agree we have to see that the reduction is not minimised or the proportion altogether reduced by the springing up of another method which enables the same quantity of drink to be consumed."
This, therefore, is, I think, a point on which we can, claim fairly general agreement—namely, that no measure of licensing reform which is designed to secure a reduction in liquor licences can be effective unless accompanied by adequate regulation of the consumption of drink in clubs.
The local option clauses in the Bill follows in the main the lines of the Scottish Temperance Act. I will give one or two figures as to the rate of reduction of licences in Wales and Monmouthshire under the Licensing Act, 1904. What I want to show the House from the standpoint of Wales and Monmouthshire is that the present position in regard to the reduction brought about by the operation of the Licensing Act of 1904 cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Let me take as an illustration the position in regard to the on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire. On January 1, 1905, there were 7,276 of these on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire. On January 1, 1925, there were 5,780. That means that in a period of twenty years there has been a reduction in Wales and Monmouthshire of 1,496 licences, not all of them, as a matter of fact, owing to the compensation provisions of the Act. Only 1,168 were due to the compensation provisions of the Act, the others being lapses and refusals without compensation.
May I take one further illustration afforded by the last six years—1920–1925? The number of licences reduced under the licensing Act, 1904, during those six years was 256, an average of forty-three licences per annum. I have made a calculation that at this rate it would take something like twenty-seven years to secure that reduction in the number of on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire which would bring them down to the scale recommended by Lord Peel's Report—namely, one to every 750 inhabitants in urban areas and one to every 400 inhabitants in the rural areas. It is not surprising, in view of these facts, that temperance reformers in Wales are not

211
satisfied with the existing situation and that they should continue to press for special legislation and for the larger powers contained in such a Bill as this.
I will be as brief as I can in describing the local option provisions of the Bill. As I have stated, they follow the lines laid down in the Scottish Act and provide first of all a time limit of seven years, and then for a triennial poll, the voting areas to be the licensing districts and the voters to be the local government electors. Three options are to be placed before the electors at the poll—namely, no-change, limitation and no-licence. In the event of a limiting resolution being passed the licensing justices are to prepare a scheme determining in what way a reduction of a minimum of twenty-five per cent. in the number of existing licences is to be achieved. The Minister of Health is to make rules as to the conduct of the poll and other incidental matters.
There is only one further point in connection with the local option clauses of the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and that is that under Clause 19 of this Bill licence holders in Wales and Monmouth are to be exempted from the payment of the compensation levy during the seven years period. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to arrive exactly at the proceeds of the compensation levy, but as far as I can calculate it that sum in relation to Wales and Monmouth would be something like £90,000 per annum. Therefore, at the end of the time limit of seven years there would be, with interest, a sum of something like £650,000. There would be a credit available for the purpose of meeting the financial consequences of the Bill. I know very well that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to arrive at any agreement with regard to such a financial provision, but I think it fair to the framers of the Bill that that point should be made clear as an indication of their view that such a provision should be made in that way.
I should like to deal briefly with the club clauses of the Bill. I think this is a question upon which in principle there is a great deal of agreement. There is no difference of opinion, I think, as to the important part played by clubs to-day in our social life. They are most valuable institutions as centres of recreation and comfort. The sole point with which we
212
are concerned here is the consumption of intoxicating liquor within their walls. It is evident to all who have studied this question that the rapid growth of clubs, both in numbers and in membership, renders it necessary so to amend the law as to secure the effective regulation of the consumption of intoxicating liquor upon club premises. The situation in regard to clubs in Wales is, briefly, that in January, 1905, there were in Wales and Monmouth 234 clubs. There were in 1925 550 clubs, an increase of 316 in twenty years. It is not very easy to get precise figures with regard to the membership of the clubs, but there are as a matter of fact in Wales and Monmouth to-day 125 clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. The number of members of those clubs is 37,300. I estimate that the total membership of clubs in Wales and Monmouth would be something like this:—members of clubs in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth, 121,000; members of clubs in the rest of Wales, 30,000; making a total of 150,000 members.
The club provisions of this Bill provide that the supply of intoxicating liquor in clubs in Wales and Monmouth should be subject to the grant of a licensing justices' certificate. The Bill provides for a difference in procedure between existing clubs and new clubs. As to existing clubs, the Bill provides that the same procedure should be followed as at present, but as to new clubs the procedure would be practically the same as in the case of an application for a new licence. The Bill also provides that the hours for the consumption of intoxicating liquor in clubs should be the same as upon licensed premises in the same district. In passing let me point out the special urgency that exists in Wales for similarity of hours for drinking purposes in clubs and upon licensed premises. As things are now, public houses in Wales are closed on Sundays but clubs are not closed. Your Lordships will understand that that is a point of special seriousness from the standpoint of those for whom I speak to-day. Under the Bill clubs will come under the operation of the local option clauses.
Before I sit down I should like, if I may, to put very briefly before the House some of the main facts in connection with the history of this Bill, in order

213
to show, if I can, how strong and how continuous support of the measure has been over a period of at least forty years. In 1883, more than forty years ago, a local option resolution was passed in the other House. In 1891 Wales indicated its support of the local option principle in a very remarkable way. It indicated it by resolutions passed by local bodies and, more than that, by a resolution passed by all the county councils in Wales in favour of the local option principle. After that had been done a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 1891. It passed by a small majority, and I would like your Lordships to note the fact that twenty-two Welsh members voted for that Bill and not a single Welsh member voted against it. In 1893 the Bill was again introduced in the other House and it passed its Second Reading by a majority of thirty-five. Twenty-eight Welsh members voted for it and one against. If I may be allowed a personal reminiscence, I remember that occasion somewhat vividly because it was the first occasion upon which I ventured to address the other House, and I voted for the Bill in that year. The Bill was introduced then year by year until the War, but those interested in the measure were not successful in obtaining time for its discussion.
There are two additional evidences of the recognition of the strength of the Welsh case for special licensing legislation that I should like to mention. The first is the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1899, presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, which recommended that at the end of a given period, say of seven years, a wide measure of popular control might be applied with a proper safeguard to Scotland and to Wales. Scotland has received those powers, Wales has not. The second evidence is the fact that, in the Licensing Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, then Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister in the House of Commons in 1908, there were special clauses giving to Wales and Monmouth-shire a very considerable measure of popular control in regard to licensing.
Let me add one or two words as to the recent history of the Bill that we are debating to-day. In 1920 a favourable place was obtained in the ballot in another place and the Bill passed its
214
Second Reading by a small majority, 24 Welsh members voting for it and 4 against. The last time that this Bill was discussed in the House of Commons was three years ago, in 1924, under the Labour Government. On that occasion the Second Reading was defeated by 26 votes, but there was no substantial alteration in the majority of Welsh members voting for it, for 22 were in favour of the Bill and only 6 were opposed to it. I think I may claim that these facts show something of the strength of the feeling that lies behind the Bill. They show that for a period of forty years and more a measure of local option for Wales has had the support of Welsh public opinion, which has been exhibited in a manner and to an extent that I venture to call remarkable in the history of temperance reform.
My second point is of cardinal importance. It is that the Bill has been supported, on every occasion on which it has been debated in the other House, by the overwhelming majority of the Parliamentary representatives of Wales, who have supported it whenever an opportunity occurred to consider the question. I think it would be difficult to find a clearer case of decisive and continuous support of a measure on the part of those directly interested. I do not want to put this point too high, but I would ask Your Lordships to consider what would have been the effect of such a Bill as this if it had received such support from English constituencies. It is not perhaps altogether surprising that, in view of the experience of Wales in regard to this Bill, there is growing up to-day in certain quarters in Wales a demand for such a change in our legislative machinery as will enable such a measure as this to obtain legislative recognition by Parliament.
I have said all that I have to say as to the grounds upon which I submit this Bill to the House. I have endeavoured to state the case for the Bill as clearly and fairly as I can. I am fully aware that the views of those who support this Bill in Wales in regard to local option are not the views that are held by the majority of your Lordships, but I would venture in conclusion to press the point that the claim of Wales for separate treatment in licensing is one of exceptional strength and is one

215
which, I think, it is entitled to have considered by Parliament. It is on the ground of the exceptional strength of the support for this measure in Wales and Monmouthshire that I submit the Bill to the judgment of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down commenced his speech by saying that he would be very brief owing to the hour. I also will be very brief, and I hope that I shall not take up more than four or five minutes of your time. The noble Lord did not on this occasion bring forward any examples from foreign countries who had taken action in this particular way. On former occasions we were always told that all foreign countries and our own Colonies were doing something of this sort. I was rather surprised that nothing of that kind was said to-day, but on looking at some papers that were sent to me this morning I found the reason. It is that in practically all foreign countries and in our Colonies they are reversing the very principle that the noble Lord wishes to enforce.
The noble Lord says that this Bill is practically the same as the Scottish measure. I would point out to your Lordships that Wales is not Scotland—that Wales is, in fact, in a very different positron regarding licensing, from that of Scotland. I am not going to influence you by expressing my own opinion, but I will quote Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, a Liberal and a member of the Government in 1920, when he spoke in the House of Commons on a similar Bill. He said:—
"There is a difference between the position-of Wales and the position of Scotland, and it is this: The Licensing Act of 1904, which establishes property in a licence, does not apply to Scotland, but it does apply to Wales. … After all, facts are facts, and we must accept them. This Act of 1904 was applied to Wales, and on the strength of that Act licenses have been bought and sold properties have changed hands and a fabric of legitimate expectations has been built up. Therefore, to come down to the House now and to propose, as this Bill does, that licenses should be extinguished without any compensation at all after an
216
interval of six years would be to inflict a manifest injustice."
The noble Lord says that the opinion of Wales is in favour of this Bill. I will quote the opinion of a Welshman whom, I am sure, the noble Lord will respect.
Mr. Lloyd George, answering a deputation of Welsh Calvinistic Methodists on October 22, 1920, said:—
"Rightly or wrongly, a property has been conferred in England and Wales with respect to licences. You cannot go behind that, because if you do you may depend upon it, especially in the present atmosphere, there are people who will quote that as a precedent for other property. You may say that property ought not to have been conferred. There are people who will say the same thing about all sorts of property, and therefore it is a very dangerous atmosphere in which to challenge legal property."
Again, speaking at Walsall on October 20, 1924, Mr. Lloyd George said this:—
"We do not believe in confiscation. If you commence confiscation, you do not know where the end will be. You will convert this country into another Russia, and one Russia is quite enough in this world."
I do not often agree with the right hon. gentleman, but on that occasion I think he spoke extremely well and told the truth.
Now let me point out the difference, and a very important difference, between this Bill and the Scottish Act. The Scottish Act says that a poll can only be demanded if there is a requisition of ten per cent. of the electors in the district. This Bill says:—
"Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the Act the local authority shall cause a poll …. to be taken.…"
The people of the district may not want it, but there is perhaps a busybody on the local body who is a temperance man, who may not care to drink anything but water and who may not think anybody else ought to drink anything but water, and who therefore may ask for a poll. Although the electors do not want a poll, a poll has got to be taken, and the expense incurred.
Let me point out what may happen. I was going to say something about the areas, but as it is getting so late I will not do so. Three questions are to be put to the electors. In the first place they can vote for a no-change resolution; or (2), a limiting resolution; or (3), a no-licence resolution. We will suppose

217
there is a poll. We will suppose that something like 2,000 people vote. A thousand people vote for no-change; 700 people vote for limitation; 301 people vote for no-licence. One would have thought that as 1,000 people voted for no change and only 700 for limiting and 301 for no-licence, the 1,000 people would win. Not at all. The noble Lord knows a trick worth two of that. He takes the 301, adds them to the 700, and says there is a majority of one in favour of limitation. As a reactionary Tory that seems to me to be an extraordinary kind of local option.
The Scottish Act says there must be, I think, a vote of 35 per cent. of the electorate. The decision in Scotland does not go merely by a majority of one. I would also point out that there is no authority on the part of the 301 people who vote for no-licence that their votes should be tacked on to the 700 voting for limitation. Apparently, because they do not believe in allowing people to drink liquor containing alcohol at all, they are to be added to those who think that you may drink liquor containing alcohol but in a smaller number of places. Then there is to be a poll taken every third year. People are never to be left alone. Everybody is to be interfered with and I suppose when the people of Wales have been told by certain people who hold one opinion what they may drink, and by others how much they may drink, they will next be told that ladies should have their skirts a little longer. If the noble Lord does that I am not sure that I will not go with him.
I will leave out the other clauses, which are extremely bad, and I will come to the last part of the Bill, which is not local option at all but which says there are only to be certain clubs, which have to be registered and can only supply liquor in certain circumstances. In fact, it is an alteration of the licensing law. Other parts of the Bill alter the powers of the justices, and therefore this Bill is really two Bills. One part deals with local option and the other with alterations in the licensing law. I venture to say that an alteration in the licensing law ought not to be allowed, in conflict with the powers given under the Act of 1904, under which people have invested their money. I am afraid I have spoken badly, but my excuse must be that I have
218
endeavoured, owing to the lateness of the hour, to condense within a speech of four or five minutes what should have taken a quarter of an hour to say.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, as the time is getting on, it may perhaps be convenient if I state as clearly as I can what is the position of the Government on this matter. I do not propose to follow the eloquent speech of the noble Lord opposite. I have no doubt his Bill does embody the opinion of his followers. Still less have I any intention of debating the question whether you make people more sober by telling them what they may or may not drink, or whether you do not. In one or two words I will explain the position of the Government on this Bill. Detailed criticism, as I have said, is unnecessary, because the position of the Government is that whatever the merits or demerits of the proposals in this Bill may be, they are not prepared at the present time to embark on any legislation involving amendment of the licensing law. My noble friend Lord Banbury said there were two main principles in this Bill, but I make out that there are at least three; They are:—(1), local option; (2), hours of licensing for clubs; and (3), the question of the abolition of compensation when licences are taken away. I propose to say a few words on each of those three points.
As your Lordships are aware, the whole question of licensing was very carefully considered by the Government last year, particularly in connection with the question of the hours for the supply or intoxicating liquor in clubs, and the Home Secretary stated the decision of the Government in the following reply to a Question:—
"As I promised, I have placed this matter fully before my colleagues in His Majesty's Government and we have decided to await the Report of Lord Southborough's Committee which is now sitting on a branch of the licensing law—namely, disinterested management, and if it he necessary after consideration of such Report, the Government will direct a full inquiry into the whole of the questions raised before me by the various deputations."
The reasons for this decision were that the Government were convinced that the various aspects of the licensing problem

219
are so closely interlocked that it would be impracticable to deal with any one portion of the question without a review of the whole field.
For this reason they decided to wait till they had received the Report of the important Committee which was considering disinterested management and then to consider not only this Report but the various other aspects of the licensing question. The Report of Lord Southborough's Committee has only just been received. It has been presented to Parliament; it is at present in the press; and it is expected that copies will be available in a few days. The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering it and consequently their present position with regard to the licensing question is still the same as it was when the Home Secretary gave the reply last year which I have quoted. They are not at present in a position to make any announcement as to the policy which after consideration of this Report they may think it right to take. It may, of course, take the form of a fresh inquiry or even of a Royal Commission.
The present Bill deals not only with the question of the supply of intoxicating liquor in clubs so far as Wales is concerned, but also with two other important matters—namely, the system of local option and the question of compensation funds for extinguished licences. As regards local option, the Bill would introduce into Wales and Monmouthshire as from October, 1934, a system similar to the local option system which was introduced by the Temperance (Scotland) Act of 1913 and has been in force in Scotland since 1920, with certain modifications in the details as to the system of voting and other questions. On this point I would only say that the Government could not commit themselves to an extension of the principle of Scottish local option to Wales, at any rate without further inquiry. I do not propose now to express any definite opinion as to the results of the local option system in Scotland. Opinions will no doubt differ as to the value of this system, but I think at any rate it may be said that experience of the Scottish system is not conclusive at all events in its favour.
Supporters of the system of local option will, I think, recognise that the use which
220
has been made in Scotland of the Act of 1913 is very limited. I have obtained some information as to the number of areas in which resolutions are in operation that no licence shall be granted and I understand that such resolutions are at present in force in eight small burghs, in three of the wards of Glasgow, in five wards in the towns of Greenock, Kilmarnock and Rutherglen, and in twelve parishes of rural counties, including one parish in Orkney and three parishes in Zetland. Returns are presented periodically to Parliament summarising information with respect to the polls taken under the Act of 1913 in Scotland. The last of these Returns was published in March of this year. It showed that in 1926 polls had been taken in 113 areas and that in none of these areas had a no-licence resolution been carried. In two areas in 1926 no-licence resolutions had been repealed. Out of 637,000 electors entitled to vote, only 387,000 had voted—a percentage of about 61 per cent.—and the cost of polling in 1926—I would like to direct the attention of my noble friend behind me to this—amounted to £9,119. Some people, I believe, question whether the trouble and expense involved by these polls is commensurate with the value of the results. As, however, I have already said, I merely put these points before your Lordships as indications that the use hitherto made of the Scottish Act is comparatively small and that it cannot be said that experience has demonstrated in any conclusive manner the desirability of its extension, though I do not express any opinion as to the value of local option or its effects upon drinking or otherwise.
The second main object of this Bill is to put clubs in Wales under the same restrictions as public houses with regard to the supply of intoxicating liquor. That would mean, as regards clubs, total Sunday closing because I understand that in Wales the Sunday Closing Act is in force.
LORD CLWYD: So far as drinking is concerned.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes, so far as drinking is concerned. It would not close them altogether. Suppose, too, you had an area which went in for total prohibition, that would equally apply to a

221
club in that area. That is to say that if the public houses were closed no drinks would be supplied in the clubs at all. That is the effect of the Bill with regard to clubs. The position of the Government on this matter is this. They have received many representations—and from Wales—in favour of relaxing the present restrictions on the hours of supply in clubs. The effect of the Bill would be to tighten those restrictions. The importance of the question of clubs is fully recognised by the Government. These institutions throughout England and Wales have a very large membership and the Government have considerable evidence that members of these social clubs feel considerable resentment against the existing restrictions and are anxious that clubs should have greater liberty to regulate their own hours in acordance with the convenience of their members. In Wales, I think, there are 550 clubs. This question of clubs is one which deserves, and will receive, the very careful consideration of the Government, and in the meantime I can only say that they could not contemplate giving assent to the proposals in the present Bill.
The third object of the Bill is abolish, as from its passing, the compensation funds and levies in Wales and Monmouthshire and to hand over the balance, if any, of the compensation funds to county or borough funds, and to expose all on-licensed premises to extinction at the discretion of the Licensing. Justices without compensation, as before the Balfour Act of 1904. The strong objections to this proposal are obvious. The effect would be that on-licences in Wales and Monmouthshire would, without any time limit or other opportunity of preparation, be cast back from their present position of comparative security—a security for which they have paid since 1904—and be forthwith exposed to the risk of extinction without compensation. I would point out that there appears to be no justification for transferring the balance, if any, of the compensation funds to county or borough funds. The money in question has been levied from licensees, counties and boroughs have contributed nothing to such funds, and it is difficult to see on what grounds it can be suggested that county or borough funds have any rights to the balances.
222
On these grounds, so far as the Government are concerned, I must ask your Lordships not, to give a Second Reading to the Bill. They admit, and they are quite alive to the fact, that the whole temperance question is one of the very greatest importance. They have received this Report of the Southborough Committee and before anything is done they will have carefully to consider whether there should not be most careful inquiry into all these difficult matters. In the meantime they are strongly opposed to a Bill of this sort being carried.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend who introduced this Bill claims to speak on behalf of Wales and Monmouthshire. If by that he means on behalf of Liberalism in Wales and Monmouthshire I would remind him and your Lordships that not so many years ago the Liberals could claim 98 per cent. of the seats in Wales, but that a considerable change has come over Wales lately. There are now thirty-seven seats allotted to Wales, but the Liberals cannot claim even twelve out of that number. Liberal supremacy in Wales is a thing of the past. My noble friend may or may not be speaking for North Wales, but I do not think he can speak for South Wales. North Wales is a thinly-populated area, mostly agricultural. South Wales has a large industrial population, in which the towns are ever increasing. Some of those increasing towns may in the future require more licences, not fewer.
This Bill says that there is to be a poll on this question every three years. Who is going to pay for those polls? The Bill says the county councils, out of the county rates. I do not know what the rates are in North Wales, but in South Wales numbers of districts have a rate, at the present moment, of between 20s. and 30s. in the £; in some cases it is even between 30s. and 40s. in the £. My noble friend suggests that these rates should be still further increased by this Bill. I gather that the counties are to be cut up into squares, rather like a chess board, and if any of those squares vote "dry" you will at once have to increase your police in those areas, and to put a cordon of police right round those squares, in order to prevent the creeping in of what my noble friend wants kept out.

223
Why is every county in Wales and Monmouthshire to be obliged to hold polls every three years, whatever the emphasis with which it may have spoken at the last election? The Bill says that if by chance a poll is declared by the High Court to be void—I suppose for malpractices—the county council then is immediately to hold another poll; so that still further expense would be put on the rates. No compensation is to be given to the dispossessed licensees, although they may have paid quite lately huge sums in Death Duties—up to 40 per cent. of their capital value. My noble friend suggests that the State should step in and squash the remaining value of those licences. I hope your

CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

St. Davids, V.

Hemphill, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Worcester, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Arnold, L.

Shandon, L.

Allendale, V.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Shaw, L.

Astor, V.

Clwyd, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Haldane, V.

Denman, L.

Ystwyth, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

NOT-COXTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Peel, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Kylsant, L.

Annaly, L.

Lambourne, L.

Askwith, L.

Lamington, L.

Sutherland, D.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blythswood, L.

Lovat, L.

Airlie, E.

Carew, L.

Middleton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Newton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)

Malmesbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Midleton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Southwark, L.

Morton, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sumner, L.

Onslow, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Vestey, L.

Westmeath, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wargrave, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wavertree, L.

De Vesci, V.

Hampton, L.

Wharton, L.

Elibank, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Lordships will not give a Second Reading to this most unjust and ill-conceived Bill.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, who moved the rejection of the Bill, there was only one point to which I should like to make a reply. That was with reference to the views expressed by Mr. Lloyd George. It is quite sufficient for me to say that Mr. Lloyd George supported and voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in 1924 in the other House.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 51.
On Question, Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Monteagle of Brandon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of eleven members to join with the Committee appointed by this House us mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 4th instant.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
READING GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
FARNHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MERSEY TUNNEL (BIRKENHEAD ENTRANCE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the
226
opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 22nd of February and 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

SCARBOROUGH GAS COMPANY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 24th of February and 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SUTHERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  The Order made on Tuesday the 8th of March last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills discharged.
BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION BILL.
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
    CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.