Sitting of 17 May 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lord].
Bill to be read a Second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Cardiff Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable).
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, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Bolton and Kingston-upon-Hull Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRE- SERVATION) (NO. 2) BILL.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th day of April, 1927, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:
London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) (No. 2) Bill.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Bury Corporation Bill [Lords],
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Friday.
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACK- LESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered,
"of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1926, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1926–27 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 19th day of May, 1926); also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trolley Undertakings."—[Colonel Ashley.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FOODSTUFFS (BOUNTIES).
    Mr. LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what assistance is given by the Dominions and foreign food-exporting countries, respectively, in the way of bounties, subventions, and other means in the exportation, transportation, and marketing of their exportable surpluses; and if the information is not in the possession of his Department, if he will obtain from the Imperial Economic Committee a report on the subject?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The information available is too voluminous to give in answer to a question, but, if my hon. Friend desires information on any specific subject, I will do my best to supply it.

    JOINERY (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any figures to show whether the imports of foreign-made joinery for house building purposes has increased in recent years as compared with pre-war years?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer includes a table of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Value of imports in recent years of builders' woodwork (window-frames, doors, etc.), and of the corresponding imports in years immediately preceding the War:

    Period.

    Declared-value of Imports.

    Annual Average.

    £

    1911–1913

    …

    …

    169,000

    1922

    …

    …

    235,000

    1923

    …

    …

    377,000

    1924

    …

    …

    706,000

    1925

    …

    …

    1,087,000

    1926

    …

    …

    1,430,000

    The official description of the imports whose value for 1911–1913 is shown above, was, "House-frames, Fittings, and Joiners' Work."

    TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the figures of the total value of the exports, including re-exports, from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Russia during the month of April;
    (2) the figures of the total value of the imports from Russia into this country during the month of April?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom consigned from Russia in April last was £1,399,485; that of British exports consigned to Russia, £228,374; and that of re-exports consigned to Russia, £1,172,283.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do these figures show an increase over the previous months of the year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    FUEL OIL (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LEEasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of fuel oil imported into this country during the years 1910, 1912, 1920, 1923 and 1926, and, if possible, the respective values for each year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information for which he asks.
    Following is the information:
    Total quantities and declared values of fuel oil imported into the United Kingdom in each of the years specified:

    Quantities.

    Declared Values.

    Year.

    Million Gallons.

    Thousand £.

    1910

    …

    …

    34·4

    262

    1912

    …

    …

    48·1

    426

    1920

    …

    …

    347·8

    12,818

    1923

    …

    …

    363·7

    4,789

    1926

    …

    …

    398·4

    5,381

    Note.—As and from the 1st April, 1923, the foregoing particulars relate to the imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

    FRANCE (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Mr. TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Customs Commission of the

    961
    French Chamber of Deputies on the proposed new tariff contains any modifications of the tariffs originally proposed; and, if so, whether there is any proposed reduction in the duties on oil engines?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Report recommends a number of alterations in the duties originally proposed. Full particulars will be published in an early issue of the Board of Trade Journal. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman continuing to make representations to the French authorities?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have explained to the House that what I am doing is collecting all the information—not making piecemeal representations, but combining it all.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman did not make any representations before the Commission presented its Report?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. It is not very convenient by question and answer to discuss the form that representations take, but we have been in consultation on the matter. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that no representations have been made.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: What bargaining powers has my right hon. Friend against a highly protected country?
    Colonel GRETTON: Is my right hon. Friend bearing in mind the question of speed, in order that representations may be made before the new duties come into force?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. Immediately the duties were first projected, we invited all the chambers of commerce concerned as rapidly as possible to give us their comments, so that we might proceed with the matter.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will it be possible to make these representations soon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I think very shortly.

  CHINA.

    ARMS (SUPPLY).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade how many permits were granted during the month of April for the export of arms to the Chinese northern armies; the nature and extent of the armaments concerned; and the names of the firms supplying them, including the names of any Government arsenals which have directly or indirectly supplied arms to these armies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No such permits were granted.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of machine guns have been exported to Japan under permits from his Department, and has he any information to show that some of those machine guns have found their way to the Chinese Northern Army?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Obviously, a question of that kind ought to be on the Paper.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War the total number of British troops now in Shanghai and the total number at Hong Kong?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The British military forces now in Shanghai consist of 12 infantry battalions, and one Marine battalion, with ancillary troops. At Hong Kong there are, including the four battalions arriving, seven infantry battalions, with ancillary troops.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is proposing to, take any steps in the near future to bring home the Class A reservists who were sent out with the Shanghai defence force?
    Captain KING: No, Sir.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it proposed to keep these Class A reservists at Shanghai just as long as the Shanghai Defence Force is there?
    Captain KING: The hon. Member must not take it from my answer that that is so. I said that there is no immediate intention of withdrawing them.
    Captain STREATFEILD: Will my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House, and also British nationals in China, that there will be no withdrawal of the British Defence Force at Shanghai until settled conditions prevail?
    Captain KING: I do not think that that arises out of the Question on the Paper.

    NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the working capital of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes was largely derived from the distribution after the War of the profits of the Expeditionary Force canteen; and why no distribution of the Expeditionary Force canteen profits was made to the Territorial Army, seeing that the funds and profits of the Expeditionary Force canteen were derived in great part from dealings with 20 Territorial divisions at home and 14 divisions abroad?
    Captain KING: As regards the first part of the Question, approximately £150,000 was assigned under the War Service Canteens Act, 1922, to the institutes as working capital on loan, at interest, repayable over a term of years. As regards the latter part of the question, over £6,000,000 was paid to the United Services Fund to be used for the benefit of Territorial soldiers who had served in the Great War, as well as other ex-service men.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes give a flat rate of rebate of 81 per cent. to all Regular units using them, but reduce this rate to 1¼ per cent. for Territorial units if a philanthropic body, such as the Young Men's Christian Association, has a tent or hut in the same camp; and whether arrangements can be made to give a rate of rebate to Territorial units on the same basis as Regular units?
    Captain KING: When Territorial Army units are in occupation of War Department huts and buildings, it is obligatory on them to employ the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and they then receive the same rebate as units of the Regular Army. In other cases they are
    964
    at liberty to make their own arrangements, and the terms which the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes offer are in competition with those of other contractors, and naturally vary with the particular circumstances of the camp.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial units last year did not make use of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes; and what proportion this bears to the total number?
    Captain KING: Of the 280 Territorial Army units which attended camp last year 135, or 48 per cent. did not use the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of breaches of the Fair Wages Clause have been reported in regard to any contracts during the last five years?
    Captain KING: During the last five years, 45 complaints of breach of the Fair Wages Clause in War Office contracts have been received, but in 24 of these cases it was found on investigation that no breach of the Clause had been committed.
    Mr. KELLY: In cases where there have been breaches, was action taken with regard to the firms in question not having complied with the Clause?
    Captain KING: I can only give the hon. Member details with notice, but we always see that the Clause is observed.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Have any breaches occurred in connections with goods manufactured outside this country?
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is a condition of all contracts that a Fair Wages notice shall be exhibited on the work; if so, what steps are taken by the Department to see that this condition is observed; and whether such notice is now exhibited in the case of all contracts running?
    Captain KING: Generally it is a condition of War Office contracts that a Fair Wages notice shall be exhibited on the work. On grounds of expense, it is not

    965
    practicable to ensure by special inspection that all contractors exhibit the notice, and it is, therefore, not possible to state definitely that the notice is exhibited in the case of all contracts now running. If the hon. Member has in mind any Particular instances of breach of this Clause, and will give me particulars, I will look into them.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it the practice to insist on the Fair Wages Clause being observed by all contractors?
    Captain KING: Certainly it is.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that, if he discovers that there are cases where the notice is not shown, contracts will not in future be given to those firms?
    Captain KING: I could not give such an undertaking, but certainly, if the hon. Member brings to my notice any case where it is not exhibited, we will see that it is exhibited and that the terms of the contract are carried out.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the Fair Wages Clause inserted in all orders when goods are ordered abroad?
    Captain KING: Speaking from memory, I think not.
    Mr. KELLY: Is it the practice of the War Department to order a great amount from abroad?
    Captain KING: No, Sir, only a very small amount indeed. I think that, answering within recent months, I was able to say that only 0·3 of 1 per cent. of manufactured goods came from abroad.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War what is the practice in his Department for ensuring that the Fair Wages Clause is observed in all contracts?
    Captain KING: Before a firm is placed on the War Department list, its works are inspected, particular attention being paid to the rates of wages and conditions of employment, and it is required to give a written undertaking to observe the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution. The Fair Wages Clause is inserted in all contracts, and any complaint that it is not being observed is at once investigated.

    WEIR HOUSES, BO'NESS (DESTRUCTION BY FIRE).
    Mr. THOMAS HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now prepared to issue a report regarding the destruction by fire of two Weir steel houses at Bo'ness on Saturday, 12th February?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the full reply given by me on 12th April to the Noble Lord, the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon).
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these houses are supposed to be fireproof?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No more than any other houses.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    AGE OF COMMENCING WORK.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines when he proposes to take steps to make effective the Clause in the Mining Industry Act, 1926, that no person shall be employed down a coal mine unless he commenced before reaching 18 years of age?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. We are still in negotiation with the various organisations concerned with a view to arriving at an agreed procedure for dealing with the recruitment of miners.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from the reports which we have that the Government are trying to evade that Section of the Mining Industry Act?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, very far from it. We are attempting to arrive at an agreed arrangement.
    Mr. PALING: Is it a fact that it was understood that the Clause should be compulsory, and is it a fact that the Government are running away from that and are making it voluntary whether the mine-owners will accept it or not?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, it is not that at all. The Government are quite determined that the Section shall be carried

    967
    out. The only question at present under discussion is how best it can be carried out, whether by voluntary arrangement or not.
    Mr. BATEY: If the Government fail to come to a voluntary arrangement, are we to understand they will not enforce it?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The Government are quite determined that that Section of the Act shall be carried out either by voluntary arrangement or, if that fails, by Regulation.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Section has not been broken up to the present since we restarted work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think that question is based on a misconstruction of the Section itself. It does not come into operation until Regulations are framed.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that some of the objections which have been taken to that are based on what the coalowners have done and are doing at present?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I received a deputation from the Miners' Federation a few days ago, and I am expecting to hear from them any day on the points we discussed, and I hope that as a result an arrangement satisfactory to them and to every one concerned will be arrived at.
    Mr. LEE: Is the Mining Association representing all the colliery owners on this question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think it is representing them all but, of course, steps will be taken to ensure that all owners are brought into the Act whether they are affiliated to the Mining Association or not.

    FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has obtained, since the Report of the Samuel Coal Commission, any information as to the system of family allowances in the mining industry in other countries?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): No, Sir. I have plenty of information on the subject and have had no occasion to make further inquiries. Obviously, this is not a matter in which
    968
    the Government could take any action unless both sides of the industry wished to adopt the system and asked for the assistance of the Government. At present I understand that the miners are adverse to the system except on the impossible basis that the allowances are paid by the taxpayer.

    RE-ORGANISATION.
    Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines what steps he has taken to carry out the measures of re-organisation contemplated in the Mining Industry Act, 1926?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The Mining Industry Act, 1926, contains provisions on a number of different matters, and the principal of them automatically came into force as soon as the Act became law, providing fresh facilities for removing obstacles to the successful working of coal, varying the terms of leases, arranging amalgamations, supplying pithead baths, etc. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question specifying those sections which did not come automatically into force in regard to which he requires information.
    Mr. BATEY: What progress has been made with the re-organisation?
    Colonel LANE FOX: That will automatically come into effect, and there is no need for the Government to put it into operation.
    Mr. BATEY: Was it not part of the Act that re-organisation should take place within three years? Has any re-organisation taken place up to the present?
    Colonel LANE FOX: A good deal has taken place. It is a matter that is dealt with by the industry itself and not by the Government, which is not in charge of the coal industry.
    Mr. PALING: Was not one of the matters of re-organisation the question of amalgamation? Is it not a fact that only two amalgamations have taken place and that in both cases they were considered even before the Act was put into operation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions on a specific point should be put on the Paper.

    SALES-AGENCY COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Secretary for Mines whether sales-agency commission

    969
    paid in the coal-mining industry is included in the costs of production; if so, under what itemised heading is the amount entered; and what was the total sum paid for the year 1925?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The principles followed in compiling the wages ascertainments are determined by agreement between the owners' and the workmen's representatives. I understand the practice to be that selling expenses, including sales-agency commissions, are not included in the costs of production in the ascertainment statement, but are deducted from the gross proceeds of sale in arriving at the figure of proceeds to be used in the ascertainment. The amounts so deducted are confidential to the joint accountants and are not shown in their Reports.
    Mr. POTTS: What was the amount? The main point is that the amount of sales agency commissions and expenses is deducted from the receipts and remainder returned to the auditors as the proceeds of the coal industry. That is absurd and not true. Further, what was the amount paid out in 1925?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have answered that in the main answer. The amounts so deducted are confidential to the Joint Accountants and are not shown in the Report.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is no objection, surely, to giving the total amount.
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am not permitted to publish nor do I know the amount.
    Mr. POTTS: Having regard to the fact that, the miners' wages would be more if that money went into the industry, why is the amount not included in the expenditure?
    Colonel LANE FOX: That is the common practice under the agreement. It has been agreed to by the parties.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the widespread belief, whether true or not, that these sales agency commissions are excessive, why should they be kept confidential; and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remove any restrictions on their publication so that the country will be able to judge whether they are in fact excessive or not?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member had better put that question to the people who have made the agreement.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I want the right hon. Gentleman to take the responsibility of seeing that they are published.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that all these restrictions are passed by the auditors appointed by the miners in each case and, if they are dissatisfied in any way with the prices put on, their remedy is to dismiss their auditors and put in another firm that they can trust?
    Mr. POTTS: The point the hon. Member is raising cannot occur. Is it not true that the money that the hon. Member is referring to never comes to the auditors and never appears in the accounts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

    FUEL RESEARCH.
    Mr. TINKERasked the President of the Board of Education the number of tons of coal treated at the Fuel Research Station, East Greenwich, during 1925; and if he will give the value of the gas and tar sold to the South Metropolitan Gas Company for the same period?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The amount of coal treated at the Fuel Research Station, East Greenwich, during 1925 was 3,314 tons. A considerable proportion of the products from the coal carbonised is used at the Fuel Research Station. The value of the untreated gas and tar surplus to the requirements of the station and sold to the South Metropolitan Gas Company amounted to: gas £1,249, and tar £318. In addition, £250 was received from sale of coke, the balance of gas and coke being used for other experimental work and for power production.
    Mr. TINKER: Can the Noble Lady say how the prices compare with the market prices of these two commodities?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Not without notice.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the Noble lady say whether there is a record of the number of cubic feet extracted from each ton of coal?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Seeing the widespread interest taken in this matter, will it be possible for the Department to place the last Report of the Fuel Research Committee in the Library of the House?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understand that a Report of the Fuel Research Committee is about to be published.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Can we have a copy of the Report placed in the Library?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I will inquire.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the Noble Lady consider the desirability of representing to the Prime Minister that this vital industrial subject ought to be dealt with by someone other than the President of the Board of Education?
    Mr. TINKERasked the President of the Board of Education what are the financial arrangements made with the colliery companies which send coal to be tested at the East Greenwich coal-washing plant?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The coal-washing plant, as is the case with other large scale plant at the Fuel Research Station, is intended for investigations of general interest, and, as a rule, the coal required is purchased. Special investigations may be carried out for interested parties, when the plant is available. In such cases the coal is provided free, and a fee may be charged in addition, depending on whether the results are of general interest, and available for publication, or of restricted interest only.
    Mr. TINKERasked the President of the Board of Education the quantity of oil extracted per ton of coal treated by the Dr. Bergin's process; and if he will give the comparison between this method and the low-temperature carbonisation process?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The crude oil and spirit obtained from one ton of a suitable coal treated by the Bergius method amounts to from 110 to 135 gallons. In addition, a further unknown
    972
    amount of coal is necessary for power and hydrogen production. The highest yields of dry tar and spirit, observed by the Fuel Research Staff, as obtained from the low-temperature carbonisation of ordinary coal in a large scale plant, is about 21 gallons, but the average bituminous coal will probably not yield more than about 15 gallons. Good quality cannel coal, of which, however, there is only a limited supply, may yield 50 to 60 gallons.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it not the fact that there has been a great deal too much tinkering with this subject altogether?
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask the Noble Lady, since the oil produced by the system mentioned in the question is synthetic oil, whether she can give us the actual content of the coal subjected to the process?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I must ask for notice of that question.

    CARBONISATION (STATISTICS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Education the amount of coal used in Great Britain for the purpose of high-temperature carbonisation and low-temperature carbonisation, respectively, during the last year for which figures are available?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked to reply. In the year 1925 approximately 30,200,000 tons of coal were used for high-temperature carbonisation and 20,000 tons for low-temperature carbonisation.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the Secretary for Mines tell us the line of demarcation which compels him to answer this question while the Noble Lady answers the three previous questions put by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Tinker)?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. The previous questions referred to the Fuel Research Committee, while this question refers to the consumption of coal in this country.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to when the low-temperature carbonisation process is likely to be a commercial success?
    Colonel LANE FOX: That is a question which should be addressed to the President of the Board of Education?

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER CABS.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport whether he intends laying, as a White Paper, the Report recently received on the subject of crawling taximeter cabs; and whether he will indicate what, if any, action he proposes to take with regard to such taximeter cabs?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Report will be issued as a Stationery Office publication at an early date, and I hope then to be in a position to announce my decision.

    LONDON PASSENGER TRAFFIC.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations at present taking place upon the co-ordination of London passenger transport?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to add anything to the statement I made in this House on the 10th instant.
    Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when negotiations are likely to reach a stage at which he can make any announcement?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid I could not.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the proposed abolition of the Ministry affect this question in any way?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of surmise.
    Mr. THOMAS: Surmise of the Government or of the public?

    VICTORIA DOCK ROAD SCHEME.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether the legislation necessary before the Victoria Dock Road scheme can be commenced will be in the form of a Government Bill or a Private Bill; and, if the latter, by whom it will be promoted?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The point raised by the hon. Member is one of procedure which will need to be considered in the course of the negotiations with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the Government agreeing to provide 75 per cent. of the cost of carrying out the scheme, the London County Council finding the remainder, is it not possible to get on with the work?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid the hon. Member's statements are not quite accurate.
    Mr. THORNE: Did not the Prime Minister declare that the Government are prepared to provide 75 per cent., and has it not been reported to the House that the London County Council have agreed to provide the remaining 25 per cent?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Government have undertaken to find 75 per cent. if the local authorities concerned will find the remainder.
    Mr. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman must surely know that the London County Council have already agreed by resolution to supply the other 25 per cent, so there is no need to boggle about the local authorities.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know on what grounds he makes that statement?
    Mr. THORNE: Certainly.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE CALL OFFICES (TELEGRAMS)
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any special arrangements have been made with persons upon whose premises telephones are installed for public telephone call services so that telegrams can be despatched from those public telephone call offices by the public at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): A telegram can be sent from any public telephone call office on private premises so long as the premises are open to the public. I have no power to require occupiers to keep their premises open outside ordinary business hours and I do not think there is any necessity for their doing so.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how a visitor to a town can send telegrams on Sunday or Bank Holiday when the post offices are closed?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are a great many public call offices.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman then, take steps to put notices on the post offices and let the public know whether they can send telegrams.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a different question, but it is under consideration.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (LONDON INSTALLATIONS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Postmaster-General the number of orders for installation of a telephone service in the London Area which were unexecuted at the end of April this year; and how many of these had been on hand for more than a month at that date?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of orders for telephone service in the London Area uncompleted at the 30th April last was 4,068, of which 1,303 (including 380 cases in which the subscribers were not ready for the Post Office to carry out the work) had been on hand for more than a month.

    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has taken into further consideration the application of the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks for full official recognition; whether he is aware that the federation has over 200 branches throughout the country, one half of which have been granted local recognition having 40 per cent. membership of the organised staff; and whether he will now grant recognition to the federation?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, a large number of branches of one of the constituent guilds of the federation—the Guild of Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists—have qualified for local recognition by attaining the 40 per cent. standard, but neither this guild nor the federation itself is yet qualified nationally. One of the other
    976
    constituent guilds—the Guild of Postal Sorters—has a membership of about 50 per cent. of the sorters employed in London, and has held for some years full local and national recognition.
    Mr. AMMON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the question of full recognition is under discussion?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the hon. Member's question refers to national recognition as distinct from local recognition.
    Mr. AMMON: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he means that the question of national recognition is now under consideration?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The question, either national or local, is under consideration continually.
    Mr. AMMON: Does it mean that no fresh circumstances have arisen quite recently which require renewed consideration?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir, not that I am aware of.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree there is full official recognition given under the Trade Unions Bill to this blackleg organization?

  BROADCASTING.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General to state exactly what subjects with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation he is prepared to take responsibility for in this House?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made with regard to the position of the Broadcasting Corporation on the 15th November last.
    Colonel DAY: Can we have from the right hon. Gentleman what questions he is prepared to answer in this House with reference to the British Broadcasting Corporation, because when any questions are put down he says he cannot answer them?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Distinctions are difficult to draw precisely in

    977
    words, but on the broad question of policy I am prepared to deal with all questions put to me. Questions in regard to day by day working are for the British Broadcasting Corporation to deal with.

    LOCAL NEWS.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the broadcasting of the regular supply of local news in the respective districts of the country has been discontinued, to the disappointment of the communities; and whether he will, in such circumstances, make representations to the Broadcasting Corporation in support of the appeals that are being made for the renewal of the localised news service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is a matter within the responsibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, I have no doubt, will consider any representations made to it on the subject.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this having been withdrawn through pressure being put on by the Press combination and, if so, does he not, from the Government point of view, think it advisable to stop this coercion of the Broadcasting Corporation's powers?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I do not know to what the hon. Member is alluding.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WIDOWS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows who have been refused pension under Article 17 (a), though at the time of death the husband was in receipt of a pension assessed at 50 per cent. or more and the death certificate included among the causes of death the War disability; and, if these figures are not available, will he have them extracted in respect of new claims made between 1st May and 31st August, 1927?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The records of
    978
    the Department do not enable me to give the precise information required, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he does not consider that he would be justified in undertaking the additional statistical work suggested. It is thought, however, that the following figures will give substantially the information desired. Out of all the claims made, where the widow was otherwise eligible for consideration under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant, not more than 40 per cent. are finally rejected, either by the Ministry or, on appeal, by the pensions appeal tribunals. It has been calculated, from an examination of a substantial number of recent cases, that in not more than 5 per cent. of all cases was a claim rejected where a War disability, assessed at 50 per cent. or over, was given on the death certificate as one among other causes of death.

    VOLUNTARY FUND.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Voluntary Fund at his disposal has been registered as a charity under a scheme approved by the Charity Commissioners; and to what class of case and for what purpose are grants now made from this Fund?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The Voluntary Fund referred to has been brought under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1925, and a scheme for the administration of the Fund has been approved and established by the Board of Charity Commissioners. It would not be practicable to set out in detail the various types of case that are assisted from this Fund, but I may say that in all cases disablement or death by war service is a condition precedent.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether grants from this fund are made solely upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Pensions? Does it, at the present time, rest with the Ministry of Pensions?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The ultimate decision rests with the Minister who administers the Fund, but recommendations are made both by the Special Grants Committee and also by local war pensions committees.

    AREA OFFICES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Pensions how many area

    979
    offices and sub-offices of the Ministry of Pensions have been closed since the 1st January, 1925; and how many sub-offices have been altered from full time to half time?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: On the 1st January, 1925, there were 135 area offices, 95 whole-time sub-offices and 224 part-time sub-offices. On the 1st May, 1927, there were 58 area offices, 45 whole-time sub-offices and 177 part-time sub-offices.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister to state who will be the British delegates to the conference to be held on naval armaments on the invitation of President Coolidge; and if it has yet been settled where the conference will be held?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The composition of the British delegation has not yet been decided. The Conference will be held at Geneva.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the British delegation be purely an Admiralty delegation, or will other Members of the Government be there?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather wait until I am in a position, which I certainly hope to be in next week, to give the names.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that it is not fair to send only representatives of the Admiralty to a conference which will probably result to cutting down the Navy? There ought to be other representatives.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that, as has been publicly announced, the First Lord of the Admiralty will be in charge of the delegation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not seen any notice at all. No delegation as has yet been appointed.

    MINISTRIES (RE-ARRANGEMENT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister which of the functions of
    980
    the Mines Department will be transferred to the Home Office, the Ministry of Health, or the Board of Trade; and whether any of its functions will be transferred to any other departments?
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether the present staff of the Mines Department will be retained intact or whether it will be distributed among other Government Departments; and, in either case, whether or not it will be reduced in number?
    Mr. POTTSasked the Prime Minister to state at what date he proposes to begin the transfer of the functions of the Mines Department to other Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall answer these questions together. I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Tottenham on the 26th April.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Prime Minister clear that the former question did not deal with the transfer of the Mines Department to several other Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is equally applicable to all the Departments.
    Mr. BATEY: But what we want to know is, is it the intention of the Government to transfer the whole of the Mines Department to one other Department, or to break it up?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I quite understand. That is one of the points which is being considered, and whatever conclusion is reached—and no conclusion has been reached yet—will have to be embodied in a Bill.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the functions now performed by the Mines. Department will still continue to be performed, even though the Department may be broken up?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That, again, is one of the things which is now being examined.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill is likely to be introduced before August?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no chance of that at all.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the President of the British Association of Chambers of Commerce, dated 7th April, in which was embodied a series of reasons supporting the plea that the Department of Overseas Trade should be continued on the basis of its existing organisation; and if, before any action is taken by His Majesty's Government, he will receive a deputation from the association, who will submit further arguments in support of the president's letter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have had this communication and have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to receive the deputation.
    Sir A. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration, in making up his mind on this subject, the injury to the expansion of our overseas trade which a great many of those who are interested in it believe will occur if the Overseas Trade Department is abolished?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That point will be put before my right hon. Friend by the deputation.
    Mr. PALING: May we take it that he will be equally willing to receive another influential deputation against the abolition of the Mines Department?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think we have been asked that.

    TWO-MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unwieldy character of the existing double-Member constituencies, he will, on the presentation of the Representation of the People Bill, consider the desirability of abolishing such double-Member constituencies by dividing them into single-Member constituencies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This point has been noted, but as I have already said, it would be premature to reply to this and similar questions on this subject.

    IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he has received repre-
    982
    sentations on behalf of the Southern Irish loyalists that the pledges which Lord Dunedin's Committee determined had been made by successive Governments are not being fulfilled owing to the restrictions imposed on the Irish Grants Committee by their terms of reference, as interpreted; whether he is aware that an offer had been made by the representative committee on behalf of these loyalists to accept Lord Dunedin's arbitration on this question; and whether the Government will accept such arbitration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the third part, the Government must be the judges of what they are prepared to do to meet the claims of Irish loyalists, and they do not propose to vary the Terms of Reference of the Irish Grants Committee or to interfere with the discretion of the Committee in interpreting those terms; but I may say that they are satisfied that the Terms of Reference as interpreted by the Committee fully carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee over which Lord Dunedin presided.
    Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity for a small deputation representing the Southern Irish loyalists to lay their case before him personally?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think there have been a great many deputations, but I will consider that request.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Irish Grants Committee are not carrying out the recommendations of the Dunedin Committee with reference to claims by Irish loyalists; that, instead of all claims being dealt with and awards made in accordance with Lord Dunedin's findings, only a limited class of such cases are being considered, and these compensated on a scale much below what Lord Dunedin found to be justly due; and whether he will consider such action as will secure terms on the scale recommended by the Dunedin Committee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would

    983
    refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto).
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Irish deportees are treated on a much higher scale as regards remuneration than Irish loyalists?
    Mr. AMERY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Sir B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the amounts of the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee are not communicated to any claimant concerned, and that only payments on account of the amounts recommended are in fact being made; and whether there is any reason for this departure from the practice of communicating their awards to claimants, adopted by the Wood Renton Commission which, like the Irish Grants Committee, had power only to make recommendations?
    Mr. AMERY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that both the Governments concerned were pledged beforehand to pay in full the recommendations of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, which were therefore in effect awards. The Government hope that they may be able to pay in full the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee, but they 'are not prepared at the present stage to pledge themselves to do so, nor will they be ready to reach a decision on the point until they have the whole of the recommendations before them.
    Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any special reason why Irish loyalists should be treated with less consideration than Irish deportees, who were awarded compensation when they were enemies of the State?
    Mr. AMERY: That is a very different question, and I have no detailed figures relating to the case of Irish deportees.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before the Irish Commission get through all the cases that are before them?
    Mr. AMERY: I could not say.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member of this House entitled to characterise as enemies of the State people who have never been convicted and who have never been before any Court at all? Is it fair to characterise them as enemies of the State?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter dealing with past history and not with the present. I objected entirely to these terms being used at the time of the controversy, but now that the matter is happily over, I think we need not be so careful.

    BETTING DUTY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total yield derived from betting taxation for the month of April?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The hon Member will no doubt be relieved to hear that the revenue derived from betting taxation has risen for the month of April to £259,300.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman still considering the setting up of a Committee to investigate the whole of the betting taxation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am not still considering it. I have never considered it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the bookmaker pays this tax, or the general public?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is highly improbable that, in the lone run, the bookmaker will bear any undue proportion.
    Colonel DAY: Is the statement in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of setting up a Committee, without foundation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is entirely devoid of any foundation.

    INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT CLAIM FORMS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the forms of Income Tax repayment claims do not contain any reference to the age allowance of one-sixth to which persons over 65 years of age with incomes of less than £500 per annum are entitled; and if he will arrange to have this reference inserted when the forms are next reprinted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Income Tax repayment claim forms printed since November, 1925, and now in general use, provide a section for claiming this allowance, and, together with the instructions which are enclosed with the claim forms, notify that the allowance may be claimed for the year 1925–26 and subsequent years. In the interests of economy it is the practice when new or altered reliefs are introduced to use up the existing stock of forms, but to supply for issue with them a leaflet calling attention to the alterations. If the hon. Member has in mind some particular instance where an out-of-date form has been recently issued without the explanatory leaflet, I shall be glad to inquire into it if he will let me have particulars.

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount of interest expected to be credited during the present financial year to the holders of national savings certificates; and the amount of interest expected to be paid during the financial year on encashment of certificates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The amount provided under the head of Debt Interest in the Budget for the estimated payments in respect of interest on savings certificates is £9,000,000. The total interest accruing during the year on the whole corpus of certificates would be somewhat under £24,000,000, but it is obviously improbable that so large a number of certificates would be presented for encashment as to entail a payment on this scale.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Am I to assume that the Sinking Fund will be £15,000,000 less than that estimated in the financial statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That would not be a right deduction. In point of fact, the figure of £10,000,000 might well be ascribed to the growth of debt and as a set-off against our methods for amortisation of debt. That was dealt with by the Colwyn Committee, when they fully considered the debt, and they recommended the continuation of the present system.

    FIGHTING SERVICES (RETIRED PAY AND PENSIONS).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the system adopted by the Treasury for the adjustment of retired pay and pensions of the fighting forces; and whether pre-War naval and marine pensioners counted their war service towards additional pension and retired pay or pension of the rank held on demobilisation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Retired pay and pension in the fighting forces are regulated by the Orders-in-Council, Royal Warrants and Royal Orders of the three services, respectively. As regards the last part of the question, pre-War naval and marine pensioners counted war service in the Navy but not in the Army or Air Force for pension and retired pay purposes. This was endorsed by the House of Commons on the 27th May, 1925, after a full Debate by a majority of 179.
    Sir P. GOFF: Why was the concession granted to the naval and marine pensioners and refused to others?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A perusal of the Debate on the 27th May, 1925, will give a far more convincing answer than I could attempt to improvise on the spur of the moment.

    BANK OF ENGLAND (GOVERN- MENT SERVICES).
    Mr. RADFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state precisely the services for which the Bank of England charged the Government £1,095,199 during the year 1925£26?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The charge in question covers the management in 1924–25 of registered stocks to the nominal value of over £3,860 millions and of bonds to the nominal value of over £1,759 millions (of which nearly £800 millions are registered), as well as the issue of Treasury Bills to the value of over £2,442 millions. It covers the control of some 2½ million stock accounts, payment of over 9 million dividends or coupons, the cancellation of over a million bonds or stock certificates, and the registration of over 750,000 transfers, implying in a large number of cases the issue of powers of attorney and considerable correspondence.
    Mr. RADFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the remuneration for acting as registrars of stocks, etc., is based on some definite percentage, or on a lump sum?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not attempt to answer such a question without proper notice, but since attention has been called to this matter in the public Press and in the House of Commons I am having it made the subject of careful examination, in common with every other branch of our expenditure.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the case that the Bank of England has voluntarily reduced its charges under this head for future years by £145,000 and, if so, will he take steps to recover sums which have evidently been paid in excess in previous years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is certainly true that the current Estimates provide only £970,000 under this head, as against the figure of £1,095,000 mentioned in the question. That, I think, is an indication of the continuous efforts which are being made to secure this all-important service being discharged with a minimum cost to the public.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If this be an indication that excessive charges have been made to the Treasury in the past, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the return of those excessive payments that have been made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The fact that an economy is achieved in the future is no
    988
    guarantee or proof that an excessive charge has been made in the past. An improvement in organisation, a certain alteration in method, a certain economy in method, may yield a result which saves the public money, but in no way offers a ground for a retrospective claim.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this business a monopoly? Must it only be performed by the Bank of England, or could the right hon. Gentleman have tenders from the other great banks?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to investigate and debate the whole relations and varying functions of the Bank of England and its relationship to the Exchequer and the State generally, it would afford most interesting material for debate, but it is quite out of the range of anything that has been dealt with in this question.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech made on this subject in the other House a few days ago and, if so, is he prepared, in view of what he has said, to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the whole banking system?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I read Lord Arnold's speech, or the portions that were printed in the daily Press, which I think gave the point in question, but I certainly saw nothing that would justify the very disturbing process of an inquiry into the relations of the Bank of England to the other banks.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that any firm of chartered accountants would do the work for such a small sum of money?

    NATIONAL DEBT (ADMINISTRATION COST).
    57. Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of the administration of the National Debt, including the distribution of dividends and registration of transfers for the financial years 1913–14, 1924–25, and 1926–27, respectively?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The payments to the Banks of England and Ireland for 1913–14 for the management of £655 millions of Dead Weight Debt was £162,320. The corresponding payments for 1924–25

    989
    and 1926–27 on £5,977 millions and £5,964 millions of Debt respectively were £1,049,866 and £928,497.

    OUSE DRAINAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture, if there is any area draining into the Great Ouse which is in immediate danger of flooding owing to the neglected state of the banks, and which thereby might cause great damage and loss to agricultural interests; and, if so, will he state the locality and acreage involved?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Ouse Commission enumerated in paragraph 128 of their Report the most serious defects in the condition of the River Ouse, and in the following paragraph they stated their deliberate opinion that, if action was not taken, serious inundations will follow and the whole fen area will return to primeval conditions. It is obviously impossible to state precisely the time when or the place where serious damage may first occur, but the Report of the Commission as a whole is an emphatic warning of the danger of delay.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS (MILITARY PENSIONERS).
    Sir P. GOFFasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of military pensioners who received temporary commissions from the Admiralty during the Great War; and if these officers are in receipt of retired pay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No record of this number is available; no provision existed for the grant of retired pay from naval funds to military pensioners granted temporary commissions in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines during the Great War, but those, if any, who were invalided for wounds or disability due to or aggravated by war service would normally be in receipt of retired pay from the Ministry of Pensions.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the pre-War
    990
    naval and marine pensioners who served under the Admiralty, War Office, and Air Ministry were subsequently permitted to count their war service for pension purposes; and whether those who were promoted to higher non-commissioned ranks are now receiving pensions appropriate to the ranks held on demobilisation?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that Navy or Marine pre-War pensioners who served in the Army or Air Force were not allowed to count such service for additional pension. The service qualified them, however, for re-assessment of their pre-War pensions on the improved post-War scales.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (AIRSHIPS).
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the R100 can be rehoused at Howden without first being trimmed and ballasted at a mooring mast at that station; and what is the estimated cost of a mooring mast?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, I think my hon. and gallant Friend must be under some misapprehension; the trim of an airship riding at a mast is different from that required for her housing in a shed, and consequently she has to be retrimmed for this purpose after she has left the mast. As regards the second part of the question, the cost of a mooring tower is approximately £51,000, if similar to that erected at Cardington, or £44,000 if certain features are omitted.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements he proposes to make for rehousing the R100 if no mooring mast is available at Howden, since R101 will be in the Cardington shed; and will he state if the R101 can, when completed, be housed at Howden?
    Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, it is proposed to construct a second shed at Cardington, and this shed will be available for rehousing R100 during her trials, which will be carried out from the Cardington mast. As regards the second part of the question, the height of R101 will not permit of her being housed at Howden.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a rough estimate of the cost of the new shed?
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member will see the figures set out in the Estimate. They are included in the Estimate for this year, and I think the amount is something over £100,000.

    SMALL-POX (DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health the number of persons who contracted small-pox in the county of Durham, for the years 1924, 1925, and 1926?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The figures are as follow:

    1924

    …

    …

    20 cases

    1925

    …

    …

    1,138 cases

    1926

    …

    …

    6,645 cases

    Mr. BATEY: How many of these cases were cases of children?
    Sir K. WOOD: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: How many of these cases are cases of people who have not been vaccinated?
    Colonel DAY: In how many cases was the disease originally contracted abroad?
    Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of these questions.

    POOR LAW (WOMEN REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the services of, approximately, 2,000 women are available on boards of guardians and on county and county borough councils in England and Wales, respectively, he will consider in the scheme of Poor Law reform making such definite provision as will ensure the retention of the services of an adequate number of duly elected experienced women?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend appreciates fully the importance of retaining the Services of women in connection especially with the administration of the Poor Law, and the matter will be borne in mind in the scheme of Poor Law reform.

    LEGITIMACY ACT, 1925.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether he has now made inquiries into the administration of the Legitimacy Act, 1925; and whether he has found it possible to ameliorate the present conditions and arrange that a certificate on re-registration shall not be distinguishable from any ordinary birth certificate?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has considered this matter carefully. The arrangements for the re-registration of births under the Legitimacy Act, 1926, have been so framed as to render the entry indistinguishable from that of an ordinary legitimate birth wherever this has been possible without hardship to the parties, and it would not be possible to take any further measures without amending the whole of the general registration law. I may add, with reference to the particular points which the hon. Member has in mind, that all entries of births registered after the expiration of 12 months are required to contain the words "on the authority of the Registrar-General" and must bear the date on which they are registered.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MINERS (DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployed miners in the Crook district, county of Durham, are given travelling tickets by the Employment Exchange with instructions that they must seek employment in Northumberland; and whether this has received his approval?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No instructions are given to applicants in this connection, though they are sometimes advised by rota committees to seek employment further afield. Vacant tickets are only issued at the applicant's own request, and I can only trace one case of such a ticket being issued for the purpose of seeking work in Northumberland.

    BLANESBURGH REPORT.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if he intends to introduce legislation based on the Blanesburgh Unemployment Insurance Report this Session; and, if so, whether he has decided to accept all the findings of the Report?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot yet add anything to the reply which I gave on 2nd May, to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman not tell us whether the Government have decided to accept all the findings of the Report, or only part of the findings?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must wait for the introduction of the Bill, and he can then see for himself how far the recommendations are being carried out. [The Bill certainly will be Cased on the Report].
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if the Bill will be brought in before August?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman repeats that question next week, I hope then to be able to give him a definite answer.

    LONDON NUT FOOD COMPANY.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the strike among the girl piece-workers employed at the London Nut Food Company's works at Battersea, owing to their earnings for a week of 52 hours being under 7s. 6d. for 20 per cent. of them, under 17s. 6d. for 60 per cent. of them, and under 20s. for 80 per cent. of them; and is he prepared to take immediate steps to introduce a living wage for girls in all food industries?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware of the dispute to which the hon. Member refers. My Department was able to render some assistance to the parties, and I am informed that a provisional agreement has been reached and an early resumption of work is expected. In the circumstances, I do not think it desirable to make any other observations on the position.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that up to last night the terms issued by his Department had not been found satisfactory by either party?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No,, Sir. On the contrary, according to my information, an early resumption of work is expected.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman himself satisfied that what is described as a living wage is in fact a living wage for these girls?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The figures which are given in the question are not admitted by the firm as being accurate.
    Mr. HAYES: I am asking whether the terms in the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are regarded as being a living wage?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That, I am afraid, I cannot answer. I do not know myself what the terms are. All I know is that, according to my information, work is likely to be resumed immediately on the terms of the agreement.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for the girls who, actually, week after week, have received less than seven shillings to be brought here to the Bar of the House?

    ST. GILES'S ESTATE, LINCOLN.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the sale price of the houses on the St. Giles's Estate, Lincoln, sold by his Department to a private company in 1925, was determined by an assessment of the value of each individual house, or whether the estate was sold as a whole; and if he can state what was the total number of houses, the total area of land, the total price paid for the estate, and the current rents of these houses?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The Lincoln estate was sold, as a whole, with five other estates, and of the total price a sum of £62,500 was afterwards allocated to the Lincoln estate. The total number of houses on the estate was 196, the area of the land approximately 17 acres, and the rents at the time of sale were 11s. 6d. and 12s. a week exclusive of rates and taxes.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these houses which were bought at an average price of £312 10s. each, are now being offered for sale at £500 each; that the tenants have all been served with notices increasing their rents which are already

    995
    2s. higher than the municipal houses on the same estate; and whether he has any power to take any steps in this matter?
    Captain HACKING: No, Sir. The hon. Member has already been told that the estate was sold subject to the tenancies and to the rights and claims of the tenants by Statute or otherwise.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I am asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether his Department has any power?
    Captain HACKING: No, Sir. I do not think they have any power. The tenant has the solution in his own hands. He has his right by Statute.
    Mr. TAYLOR: In view of this ruthless exploitation of the tenants by private enterprise, will the hon. and gallant Member take some step—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL,
    Mr. TAYLOR:"to amend the Licensing Acts, 1910 and 1921; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Colonel GRETTON; supported by Sir James Agg-Gardner, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Everard; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
    CANDIDATES (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) ELECTION DEPOSIT BILL,
    Mr. TAYLOR:"to require candidates at local government elections to deposit a sum of money to be forfeited under certain conditions," presented by Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK, supported by Mr. Hannon, Mr. Smithers, Lieut.-Colonel Vivian Henderson, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Burgoyne; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

    DIVORCE JURISDICTION (OVERSEAS DOMICILE).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
    "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to confer on Courts in Great Britain jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages, the parties whereof are domiciled abroad, but one of whom is resident in Great Britain."
    996
    In view of the interest in the subsequent proceedings, I would endeavour to state the objects of this Bill in as few words as possible. In the last Session of Parliament an Act was passed entitled the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, the object of which was to enable people living in India, but technically domiciled in this country, to take proceedings in the Courts in India. In the course of the Second Reading Debate on that Measure I raised the question of women who were living in this country but were technically domiciled in other countries because they had been deserted by their husbands who happened to have domicile in those countries, and I asked if it would not be possible to bring them into the scope of the Measure. Unfortunately it was not possible, and that is the reason why I am asking leave to introduce this Bill to-day. There are in every part of the country numbers of women, who are the wives of men from overseas. These men served during the War, and have never lived in this country. Because the husbands are domiciled overseas the women are deemed to be so domiciled. For that reason, although these women might have perfectly sound reasons for instituting divorce proceedings, the doors of our own Courts are closed to them and the object of my Bill is solely to open the doors of our Courts to these women in order that they may obtain justice which at the moment is denied to them. If they were well-to-do, the difficulty would not arise because they could afford to go to the other country concerned, and initiate proceedings there; but the great bulk of these women are poor, and cannot afford to do so, and unfortunately, the Poor Persons Department of the Law Courts is debarred from assisting people who wish to take action in Courts outside this country. Those are the reasons which have led me to ask for leave to introduce this Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, Sir. I will endeavour, in so doing, to emulate the brev'ty and, I hope, the

    997
    lucidity of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). He made out in a few words what sounded like a strong case for this Bill, but there is a great deal more in it than would appear from what he said. This giving of a right to women whose husbands are abroad, and who are legally domiciled abroad, to sue in the Courts of this country for divorce is open to very grave abuse indeed. We are opening here a much wider door than anything contemplated in the Act which we passed last year and to which the hon. Member referred. This is a matter for the Law Officers of the Crown and the Government. It is a much wider thing than the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose, and it is not a fitting subject for a Bill brought in
    under the Ten Minutes Rule by a private Member. The Government have all the time of the House at their disposal and can do anything they like in this House, and if a Bill is called for, they should bring it in. The fact that the Amendment referred to was not accepted last year shows that it goes very much further than the hon. Member has made out, and I ask the House to join with me in opposing the introduction of the Bill.
    Question put,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer on Courts in Great Britain Jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages the parties whereof are domiciled abroad but one of whom is resident in Great Britain."
    The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 74.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Williams, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Groves, Captain Bourne, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Tinne, and Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell.

    DIVORCE JURISDICTION (OVERSEAS DOMICILE) BILL,
    "to confer on Courts in Great Britain jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages the parties whereof are domiciled abroad but one of whom is resident in Great Britain," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon
    1000
    Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

    SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B) Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
    Sir JOSEPH NALL reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Com-

    1001
    mittee had adjourned till Wednesday, 25th May, at Eleven of the Clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
    Sir JOHN GANZONI reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the Clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
    Estimate presented,—of Charge for Army Ordnance Factories for the year 1927 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 68].
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 12th May.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Illegal Strikes.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:

    In page 1, line 6, in lieu of the word "having" left out, to insert the words "is illegal if it has."

    Line 7, to leave out the word "besides," and to insert instead thereof the words "other than or in addition to."

    Line 9, to leave out the words "is an illegal strike if it," and to insert instead thereof the word "and."

    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is one of three which hang together, and they were originally put on the Paper as one. I think probably it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I allowed a discussion on the three Amendments as a whole, instead of trying to stick to the actual words of the first Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, in lieu of the words last left out, to insert the words "is illegal if it has."
    This Amendment is one which, in itself, I think, would hardly deserve more than a very few moments' consideration. The question would be whether it is more convenient to say "any strike having any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry is illegal "on one condition, or whether, as the Amendment proposes, to say "that any strike is illegal if it has such an object and is designed" etc. The reason for that alteration, which is only an alteration in language, is because some people both inside and outside the House hold the view that even a strike which had no object other than the
    1012
    furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry might be illegal if it was designed or calculated to coerce the Government. That, of course, was not the effect of the language used, but we are very anxious, if we can, to make clear to everybody what this Bill exactly does, and therefore we are making this slight alteration in language, so that it may be clear beyond doubt that both conditions have to be fulfilled. Without discussing at length the alterations in Sub-section (1), it would perhaps, as you, Mr. Hope, have indicated, be convenient that I should point out what the alterations are in the Sub-section which the Government propose.
    The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading criticism against this Clause was directed to four points. It was said, first of ail, that lock-outs were not included it was said, secondly, that the word "intimidate" was ambiguous; it was said, thirdly, that "a substantial portion of the community" was an ambiguous expression, and it was said, finally, that it was difficult to define what was a trade or industry. We have endeavoured by the alterations which we are making to deal with those points. First of all, we are proposing to introduce illegal lock-outs in language exactly similar to that used in regard to strikes; secondly, we are omitting the expression "intimidate"; and, thirdly, we are omitting the expression "a substantial portion." With regard to the words "the same trade or industry," we are satisfied that to define them would be unfair to the workmen, because any language used by way of definition would almost certainly exclude something which would necessarily in ordinary parlance seem to be included. But I think I might mention now, in order to make it clear once more—[Interruption]—I am glad that hon. Members recognise the aptness of that description—that a sympathetic strike is not of itself prohibited by this Bill. The Government are proposing to set down for to-morrow—it would have been on the Paper yesterday, but for the somewhat unusual course which was taken in the Debate, and for which we are not responsible—an Amendment which will make it clear that, without limiting the generality of the expression, it will include cases in which people are working for the same employer or work-

    1013
    ing under conditions of employment which are regulated by the same authority.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read it to us now?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I certainly will, That is a reasonable suggestion. I do not want to discuss it now, I think it would be out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: It would be congruous to the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw).
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment which I am asked to read—and I am not disposed to do more at the moment—would be in the following terms:
    "Without prejudice to the generality of the expression trade or industry,' workmen shall for the purposes of the foregoing Sub-section be deemed to be within the same trade or industry if their wages or conditions of employment are determined in accordance with the conclusion of the same Joint Industrial Council, Conciliation Board, or other similar body, or in accordance with agreements made with the same employer or group of employers."
    That is being moved in order to ensure that it shall be within the actual terms of the expression "trade or industry" where the same Conciliation Board or Industrial Council regulates the wages or where the wages are regulated by an agreement made with the same employer or group of employers. It is necessary, as the Committee will appreciate, that I should put this not as a limiting definition, because in that case it would shut out cases which are obviously within the trade or industry, such, for example, as railwaymen whose wages are not controlled by the National Wages Board, or, to take another industry, it would cut out the coal industry, where wages are regulated by district agreements.
    Mr. THOMAS: That definition already rules out 300,000 men.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has failed to observe that this is not a limiting definition. It begins with the expression
    "Without prejudice to the generality of the expression."
    It is a definition which is intended to include some things which might
    1014
    possibly otherwise be held to be outside the language, although the Government did not intend them to be outside, and, although I do not myself think that the Court will construe them as being outside, it cannot exclude anything which without those words would be in, but it may include something which without those words might possibly be deemed to be outside. The Amendment with which we are now dealing is perhaps most conveniently seen as a whole if one looks at the Amendment with regard to lockouts which is on the Order Paper, because there the words are set out exactly as they will read, substituting the word "lock-out" for the word "strike." The Amendments which we propose will make the first Sub-section read as follows:
    "It is hereby declared that any strike is illegal if it has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged and is a strike designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community; and it is further declared that it is illegal to commence or continue or to apply any sums in furtherance or support of any such illegal strike."
    The Committee will see that when these Amendments are carried, as I hope they will be, there will be two conditions which will have to be fulfilled before a strike can be declared to be illegal. The first is that it must have an object other than, or in addition to, the furtherance of a trade dispute within the industry, and, secondly, it must be designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community. That, in our view, simplifies the language used without, so far as we can judge, materially affecting the effect of the language used, and on those grounds I beg to move.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. You, Sir, said it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could take a discussion on the first three Amendments, but the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has dealt with more than three Amendments. I would like to ask how many Amendments he is expounding to the Committee at this moment? The first three Amendments, I can understand, but they do not alter the Clause in the way that he has laid down, and I think we are entitled to know to how many Amendments this refers.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are, technically and literally, four Amendments. The first is the one I am about to put; the second is the one to leave out the word "besides," and to insert instead thereof the words" other than or in addition to." Then there is one simply to insert the word "and," which is purely a drafting Amendment, and there is one of considerable substance—to leave out from the word "Government" to the word "that" in line 12, and to insert instead thereof:
    either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community; and it is further declared."
    Those Amendments, I suggest, would make one coherent scheme, and had better be discussed together.
    Sir H. SLESSER: I think the Committee will agree with me that the Amendments which are here proposed, and, indeed, the Clause for which they are substituted, constitute the gist of the most important Clause in the Bill, and that on the examination of this Clause turns the whole of the value or the peril of this particular Measure. Therefore, we cannot be too critical or too careful how we deal with the Clause, because the criminal liability, the right of trade unionists to sue their trade union, the right of the Attorney-General to sue for an injunction, all turn upon the meaning of these particular words. Therefore, we have now reached the very gist and heart of the whole of this Bill. I draw the attention of the Committee to this fact, that the Attorney-General has told us in plain and unambiguous language that he does not intend to strike at the sympathetic strike under this Bill. Whether this Amendment achieves that aspiration, we shall see before we finish; but it is a. remarkable confession that, after refusing to accept the limiting words of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), we should now be told that really what that right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to achieve is also the object of the Attorney-General. However, as has been said in another connection, we are not concerned here with the mind of the Attorney-General. We are concerned with the actual words on the Order Paper, and those words, in my opinion, make the matter definitely worse than they were in the original
    1016
    Clause, from the point of view of increasing the liability of strikers in sympathetic strikes.
    Let me explain why I say that these words definitely increase the peril of the striker, and of the trade union who orders a strike. As the Attorney-General has quite properly said, this Bill, in order to produce illegality, requires two conditions. First of all, there has to be a dispute which is other than a dispute in the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged. That may take two forms. It may either be an industrial dispute, or a dispute which is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the words "trade dispute." In addition to that, there are other words which have to satisfy the Clause. In the original Bill, the second condition was that you had to show, in order to get conviction or an injunction, that the strike was "designed or calculated to coerce the Government, or to intimidate the community." The phrase "designed or calculated to coerce the Government" still stands. What "calculated to coerce" means I do not know. "To coerce the Government" is a phrase common to the old Bill and the new Bill, and I should like to ask how any jury, face to face with an ordinary sympathetic strike, which, I agree, in itself would not be illegal, are going to decide whether that strike had or had not the intention, or was calculated, to coerce the Government?
    The Bill speaks of an "object." Who is to declare the object? Is it the executive committee of the trade union? Is it the people who advocate the strike? Is it to be the strikers themselves? Is it to be the editor of a newspaper who writes on behalf of the strike? Who is to declare what is the object of the strike? Yet on that word "object" depends the whole criminality of the act, because it is only when the object is to coerce the Government that illegality arises. It is an impossible task to put upon Judge or jury to ascertain what the object is. Take the last general strike or general dispute, whichever you choose to call it, about which, I will say, the Attorney-General this afternoon, for the first time, has not delivered an address, some people say it was intended to over-set the commonwealth. Other people

    1017
    said it was done with the intention of helping the miners. As I understand, if the object were the former, it would be illegal under this Bill, but if the object were the latter, and it was a sympathetic strike, the object not being to coerce the Government, it would be a legal strike. On this very issue, the Prime Minister himself said the other night that that particular cesser of work was not designed to coerce the Government, although it might have had that result.
    Now we come to the word "calculated," which, I suppose, means something different from "designed." It means, if anything, that men go out on strike with the design of assisting people in another industry, but do it in such a way as to make the Government afraid that they are committing an offence under this Bill. Is the timidity of the Government to be the criterion by which the criminality of the act is to be judged? If you had a strong-minded Government who stood out resolutely they could not be said to be coerced? If you had a weak and a timid Government, who allowed themselves to be coerced, as the present Government were by the coal-owners on the Eight Hours Bill, then it could be said it was "designed or calculated to coerce the Government." It is an increased peril, when we have a very weak Government in power, when so little is required to coerce them. But, leaving that aside, these were the words in the original Bill, with the addition of the words, "or to intimidate the community." I have criticised these words. I said they were uncertain words. I said I understood what was meant by the words "to intimidate an individual" but I did not understand what was meant by the words "to intimidate the community." It could not mean threatening violence. I said it must mean making the community feel that they were suffering a hardship. At that time, the Attorney-General disagreed with my definition of intimidation. He said it was wrong to say that to cause hardship to the community was a definition of intimidation. Whatever "intimidation" means, in my submission it means something much more violent, something very much more direct in application than the phrase "to cause hardship to the community." I cannot imagine anything more calculated to bring every sym-
    1018
    pathetic strike within its net than the phrase "to cause hardship to the community."
    Every strike, every lock-out, every cessation of labour, of necessity, causes hardship to the community. We deplore the strike, we deplore the lock-out, and we deplore trade disputes, because they do cause hardship to the community, and, therefore, to talk of a strike which causes hardship to the community is no more than to include within that definition practically every strike and every lockout which could be conceived. It might be said that this does not talk simply of causing hardship to the community, and that it talks of coercing the Government by inflicting hardship upon the community. But my case is this—and I think every lawyer here will agree with me—that when we have a definition of two things, the first saying you can directly coerce the Government, and the second that you can indirectly coerce the Government by inflicting hardship upon the community, once you have established the fact of inflicting hardship upon the community, you have not to go on to say the Government are coerced. That follows from the fact that it inflicts hardship upon the community. I hope this point is not too technical, but it is very vital to the Bill. The fact is, that granted the railwaymen strike in support of an industrial dispute of miners, and the Attorney-General or any prosecution can show that the effect of the cessation of labour by the railwaymen will inflict hardship on the community, then you have got two elements which constitute a crime under this Clause, because inflicting hardship upon the community will be said, of necessity, to tend to coerce the Government. The Bill draws that clear distinction, because, in the first place, it talks of directly coercing the Government. Either you coerce the Government or you, do not. But when it talks of coercing the Government indirectly by inflicting hardship on the community, it makes the test whether the community has hardship inflicted on it or not, and that is the sole question we have to consider.
    It is not for me to inquire into motives and intentions. Certainly the Government, as many supporters in the Press have said, have laid themselves open to the suspicion of deliberate obscurantism on this point. Whatever their methods may be, this Amendment definitely and

    1019
    decisively makes criminal every sympathetic strike which has the effect of inflicting hardship upon the community, and, so far from easing the situation from the point of view of the trade unions, from my point of view, speaking with every responsibility, a Bill which says given (a) a sympathetic strike, and (b) indirect coercion of the Government by inflicting hardship on the community—putting these two together, in every sympathetic strike of any dimensions at all, you have a sufficient number of facts proved to establish the illegality and criminality of that strike. Therefore, without boasting, and with some little knowledge of the subject matter we are discussing, I say that in my opinion, these Amendments as they are now moved by the Attorney-General will put every sympathetic strike of any dimensions at all in jeopardy, and that must be the effect of the Bill.
    We were told that the Government had spent six months in the consideration of this Bill—a very considerable period of gestation. And what is the child that has been produced? At the end of six months they have produced a Bill which is so badly drafted that the Government themselves have to withdraw all the cardinal points of the first Clause, and insert an entirely different set of words. What can we think of the responsibility of Ministers who, dealing with a, Bill which affects the whole industrial life of this country, are so incompetent to express their own views in proper language that they now come down to the House, on the third or fourth day of the Committee stage of this Bill, and confess that their particular proposals were quite inapt to produce the result which they desire? It reminds me of another legal gentleman, the policeman in the "Bab Ballads," who lost his way, and the Committee will remember what was said of him by the late W. S. Gilbert:
    "A haughty boy, too proud to ask,
    Upon his way resolved;
    And in the progress of his task,
    Grew more and more involved."
    That seems to me to be an exact description of the present position of the Attorney-General:
    "Too proud to ask,
    Upon his way resolved;
    And in the progress of his task,
    Grew more and more involved."
    1020
    Where is it going to end? I do not want to discuss, and I should be out of order in discussing, the new Amendment which the Attorney-General very kindly read over to me, but obviously it does not meet the point that I am making. We shall have something to say about it when we see it, but at most it only deals with an extended definition of "trade or industry." The vital question whether in fact this Measure as at present drawn does not make every sympathetic strike, if not illegal, in great peril of being illegal, is untouched by the present Amendment of the Attorney-General. Therefore, we find ourselves now, at long last, face to face with this situation, that the Government, after consideration, after Amendments, produce a Bill the effect of which is undoubtedly to make sympathetic strikes illegal. That is a very serious consideration for the House of Commons and for the country. The consequences are drastic enough. We have the criminality of the organisers and the instigators of the strike in their relentless attack upon the servile State, which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends sought first to introduce into this Bill by making every striker a criminal. I understand that now, under the pressure of public opinion and of opinion in this House on both sides, they proposed to meet that, and have now surrendered. I will not go into that now; it does not arise particularly on this point but we are left over with the criminality of the persons who instigate, declare or take part in a strike; we are left over with the liability of their funds to be sequestrated or held by some garnishee procedure or by means of an injunction; we are left over with the liability of the trade union to be sued by any recalcitrant member, apparently to the full extent of its assets. All these things are going to arise, if I am right, in every case where a sympathetic strike results on any large scale which may be calculated to inflict hardship upon the community.
    Finally, this is now to extend to the lock-out. I wonder if the Attorney-General has really given consideration to this question of the lock-out. It is not my business here to plead the cause of the employer; there are other Members more competent to do that than I am; but I am entitled to point out that great

    1021
    confusion will arise on the application of the definition of a lock-out, for, if I am right, if a sympathetic lock-out is once shown to inflict hardship upon the community, it will be just as criminal as a sympathetic strike. What is going to happen to an employer who finds that part of his works has to be closed down because men are either locked out or have gone on strike in other parts, and then it is discovered that, through the commodity being withheld from the public, an attempt is being made to coerce them indirectly by hardship, I hesitate to think. I appeal to the Government, now that they have made three attempts, to give over this form of false Socialism. I call it false Socialism because it is introducing the State into industry—not the beneficent State, but the policeman and the Judge.
    In a sense, I suppose, it might be said to be a kind of Socialism if everyone were in prison, because then the community would be keeping everyone, but that is not the sort of Socialism that we care for on these benches. Let us get back, if we may, to the old idea of individual contract. Let people make such agreements as they will; let men give notice to their employers when they want to leave their work; let employers give notice to their men when they find that there is no work going; and leave these things as they are. If there be any other way to do it, this is not the way. I appeal to the Attorney-General to stay his reckless and revolutionary hand. He and his friends are throwing dust into the industrial machine. We know that the Government have been coerced into this Amendment and into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) told us so. The Government have been directly and indirectly coerced by Conservative Associations to produce this monstrosity. Nevertheless, in spite of that fact, we do ask the Attorney-General to realise that, just as he has abandoned his first draft, so his second is not a whit better, and, if anything, he is more confused that he was. He has now got to the point where we wish to give him every credit for sincerity—[Interruption]. We give credit, but the credit is sometimes overdrawn.
    We have pointed out the increased peril in which even now the sympathetic
    1022
    strike lies under this Bill. If the Attorney-General is really sincere, and I assume he is, in saying that he does not want to touch the sympathetic strike, if he agrees with me that every strike which indirectly coerces the Government by inflicting hardship on the community is in peril, surely he must see that such a definition is going to do nothing but extend the definition of an illegal strike miles beyond a general strike. A speech which I read the other day, delivered. I think, by the Minister of Health, went, I thought, far beyond a general strike, and, therefore, these gentlemen, the Government, are speaking with many voices. Surely, a matter of such moment, whether we are merely to reinforce, as I should think, the existing law against seditious conspiracy on the one hand, or, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) thinks, to re-enact it in declaratory terms, or whether, on the other hand, we are to introduce a Bill which is to make sympathetic strikes illegal or perilous, is a matter on which even now we are entitled to a definite decision from the Government. One thing is clear beyond anything, and that is that these words here, whatever their intention, make the position more perilous and more dangerous than it was in the original draft. The distinction is simply this, that it is more perilous and more dangerous to be accused of inflicting hardship upon the community than merely to be accused of intimidation because intimidation, whatever it may mean, is a comparatively confined, ascertainable, and limited thing, whereas inflicting hardship on the community is of the essence of any strike. I say that the Attorney-General has come here with an Amendment which makes the position definitely and decisively worse, both for the workman and now, under the new dispensation, for the employer.
    With regard to the words "substantial portion of the community," I attach no importance whatever to that safeguard, and for this reason. "Community" is a collective word, but it is also a collective word which is capable of being aggregated, if I may use the expression. You may have a community, say, in Birmingham, in Leamington, or in London, and any of those is not any portion of the community; it is the community, just as

    1023
    much as the whole Commonwealth is the community. To cut off all the electric light, for example, in one town, is to imperil the community, and the expression is so used in the Emergency Powers Act when it speaks of threatening the community with loss and hardship. It does not mean that you have to show that every one of the 40,000,000 persons in this island is intimidated or coerced. If you show that any substantial portion is coerced, that is the community.
    Surely, the Attorney-General is not going to ask us to believe that, because he is taking out the words "substantial portion," you cannot have a criminal act under this Bill unless you show that the whole community are coerced? That must, obviously, be too great a tax upon our credulity. If London is to be deprived of food, if Manchester, Leeds, or any other large centre is to be deprived of food, hardship is just as much inflicted upon them whether they are called "the community" or "a substantial part of the community." Therefore, the omission of these words does not help in the least. To summarise, we are now in more deadly peril, in my opinion, than was the case under the original Bill. Hardship, which is the essence of every strike, is now made the test of illegality. Therefore the Attorney-General, whatever his intentions, however laudable his desire, has definitely and openly come down this afternoon and has said in this new Amendment, to which I suppose he proposes to adhere, that he is going to put every sympathetic strike which inflicts hardship in peril and danger, and on that we are asked to vote. I hope even now, despite the coercion and intimidation which is imposed on hon. Members who sit on the back benches opposite, that, without fear of ridicule or contempt, they will get up and tell the Attorney-General that he has tried twice, that his second attempt is no better than his first, and that all they can advise him to do is to try again.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I have already occupied the time of the Committee more than most Members, and will only delay them a very few minutes. I think it has become quite obvious that, although the Government are, I believe quite honestly, trying to improve the language of this Clause, it is still a very serious question whether it is in satisfactory shape. I do
    1024
    not take the view of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that the Government by their alterations have simply been making matters worse. That seems to me, with great respect, to be merely rhetorical exaggeration. I certainly do think, however, that, although the Government have been searching, I am sure, for a proper form of words, it is very doubtful indeed whether they have found them. When I read that the Government have been organising a raid on a certain institution connected with Russia because they were searching for a document, I wondered what the document was, and I was almost disposed to suspect that what they were looking for, and, unfortunately, have not discovered, was a definition of a general strike.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: It came from Russia.
    Sir J. SIMON: They say they are quite sure it was at one time on the premises, but it is not there now. I do not know how that may be. The fair view, I think, is this—at least, it is the view that appeals to me. I think it is true that the Government have improved their Clause by striking out the phrase about intimidating the community. I think it is true, though it is not so important, that they have improved the Clause by getting rid of the phrase "a substantial portion of the community." There was force in what the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds said just now, because, of course, the community may very well mean only a portion of the population. Community singing, at any rate at present, is not necessarily a performance at the same time of nearly 50,000,000 people. It is better to get rid of phrases like "substantial portion of the community." It is obviously well, also, to have got rid of that difficult phrase which contained the preposition "besides." In all of these ways the Government Clause is an improvement. But I must say I have grave doubts as to whether bringing in the phrase about inflicting hardship on the community is not bringing in a phrase which is calculated—I do not say designed—to make a great many people, who are trying to understand what the Government are after, feel grave doubts about it.

    1025
    The whole object of this Clause, if it is going to be put on the Statute Book, is, if it can be done, to lay down a plain rule. I ventured the other day to indicate, and I think my hon. Friends rather agreed with me, the sort of phrase that I should have thought was preferable. The Government did not think fit, at any rate then, to accept it, but I am beginning to suspect that in all this changing of the Clause there is something more than a mere examination of alternative phrases. One wants to get back to an issue which is bigger than the mere issue of phrase, and, as it seems to me, the issue is this: What is the real intention of the Government in reference to a widespread industrial disturbance of this class, a disturbance which has for its object the improvement of the lot of a section of organised labour, but a disturbance leading to a strike in which other allied and friendly organisations are disposed to give their sympathetic aid, still purely for the purpose of assisting in the improvement of the conditions of life of those who first struck? [Interruption.] This is a real point, and I do not think hon. Members above the Gangway are assisting any cause if they try to use every occasion for the purpose of raising purely controversial matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you do last year?"] The country will be able to judge in what part of the House the most honest help is being given. It does seem to me that we have before us a real question which is not a question of words, but a question of substance and intention. If the intention of the Government by this Clause was to prevent a sympathetic strike in the sense of a strike which extends beyond the organisation whose members are immediately and personally interested, and none the less keeps from first to last its purely industrial character, then it is not what some of us mean when we speak of making a declaration of the law against general strikes at all. On the other hand, it is useless to pretend that you can, and you may so cut down and limit a Clause of this sort until it has no meaning left. If the Attorney-General can produce a form of words which makes a clear declaration of policy which the country is quite willing to accept, while not impinging upon the undoubted right of combination, although in sympathy one with another, well and good. There is
    1026
    not so much doubt about phrases as there is about the particular abject which the Government have in view when they propose a Clause of this kind.
    Mr. THOMAS: May I ask a simple question which has an important bearing on the point we are discussing. I do so now because I see that the Minister of Health is present, and he made a certain statement at Swansea, on Friday night, to which I wish to call attention. The statement made by the Minister of Health was this:
    "If the miners were on strike for a legitimate trade object nothing in this Bill would affect them."
    He then went on to say:
    "If the railwaymen came out in sympathy with the miners in order to help the miners and coerce the Government, that, would be illegal."
    We have just heard the Attorney-General explain the meaning of these words, which he says rule out the sympathetic strike. He says now that there is no intention of ruling out the sympathetic strike. I want to ask this simple question. Suppose the miners' trade dispute is to reduce the hours from eight hours to seven hours, and the railwaymen in an industrial dispute come out sympathetically with them. I want to know if the words which have now been proposed, and which will be included in the Bill if it becomes law, make that act of the railwaymen legal or illegal?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it will be convenient if I answer that question at once. I will give the answer, and I hope it will be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has just quoted the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, which I accept as being an accurate statement, and which, I gather, is accepted as being accurate by the Minister of Health. If the miners came out on strike for a legitimate trade object that would not be interfered with by the Bill, but if the railwaymen came out to help the miners, and to coerce the Government, it would be illegal. I agree that would be illegal. Perhaps I may just develop the point. If in any industrial dispute some other persons, who are not in the trade or industry, were to come out in sympathy, if the object and effect and the necessary result of their coming out would be merely to put

    1027
    pressure on the employers, that would not be hit by this Bill. But if another trade came out which was not concerned directly with the dispute, and was not in the same trade or industry, and which came out with the object and the necessary result not of putting pressure merely on the employers but of coercing the Government to intervene, that would be illegal under the Bill. I think that is clear.
    Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly what I want. I understand that in any legitimate dispute, where the remedying of the grievance rests alone with the Government, that is illegal.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not accept that statement.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I raise another aspect of this question. Would the Attorney-General say that in the event of the miners ceasing work in order to get their hours of labour reduced from 8 or 7½ to 7, that act on the part of the miners would be construed by the Government as an act of coercion and as an act of hardship upon the community?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir, that question would not arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason, that if the miners struck in order to reduce their hours of labour that would be a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry, and they would be endeavouring to insist that their conditions of labour should be improved. That is not interfered with by the Bill, either in its original form or with the Amendments we are proposing to insert. I have stated this point before, and it is that in order to make a strike illegal under this Bill two conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that there is an object other than and in addition to a trade dispute in the trade or industry. The second condition is that the strike must be designed or calculated to coerce the Government. Unless both those conditions are fulfilled that strike is not illegal, and in the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, the strike does not satisfy the first condition because it is a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute, namely, a dispute as to conditions of labour, and therefore it does not matter whether it satis-
    1028
    fies the second condition or not, because unless it satisfies both conditions it is not illegal. I am sorry if I have not succeeded in making that point clear before, but that is what I have been trying very hard to make clear, and I am sure that is the effect of the words which I have proposed.
    Mr. CLYNES: That is a lengthy, but I do not regard it as an adequate answer to my question. Must we not assume that in the event of the mineowners being unwilling to agree to a reduction in the working hours of the men that can only take place by a change in the Act of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—assuming that the miners cease work to have their hours reduced from eight to seven and a-half, would that be regarded as an attempt on the part of the miners to coerce the Government to reduce their hours of labour by law?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated quite accurately how the problem will arise. He says the miners in the case he puts desire to work less hours than the maximum they can work legally. Accordingly they come to the owners and say, "We desire to work only for seven or six and a-half hours," and the owners refuse. Thereupon there has arisen between the employers and the workmen a dispute as to the conditions of labour, and the miners strike in order to further that trade dispute, and in order to ensure that the mineowners shall employ them for only seven hours. The fact that in effect the mineowners are unwilling to do it so long as the Act of Parliament remains does not make the strike illegal, but it is still a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute.
    The only position in which such a case could arise and in which the question of coercion would become relevant would be if the miners were to say, "We do not care for what hours the mineowners are willing to employ us. We do not care whether they are willing to employ us six hours, seven hours, or any other figure which we are willing to accept. We are not going to work unless we get the Eight Hours Act repealed." If they were to say that, "Although the mineowners are willing to employ us for seven hours, we are going to strike because the Government will not pass a particular Act of Parliament," that would be an attempt

    1029
    to coerce the Government, and that would be an attempt not to further a trade dispute, because there would be no trade dispute, but to coerce the Government. It is inconceivable that that position could ever arise, because the moment the miners found they were able to get all they desired, there would be no need for a strike because the parties would be agreed. I hope this explanation has made the point clear.
    Mr. THOMAS: I think it will be agreed that we are now getting right to the importance of the whole thing. I want to follow up what my hon. Friend the Member for Platting has said in his question. I understand that the answer of the Attorney-General is that if the miners themselves were engaged in a dispute for a reduction of hours, never mind whether it involves legislation or not, that would be a trade dispute and would not be illegal under this Bill. I understand that is the substance of the Attorney-General's reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Then I think I had better repeat my question. I gather the answer the Attorney-General has just given is that if the miners are engaged in a trade dispute, the object of which is to reduce working hours that is a legitimate trade dispute and is not affected in any way by this Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The ATTORNEY-GENERAL indicated assent.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. THOMAS: Then apparently we are agreed upon that. Suppose the miners have engaged in this legitimate trade dispute. The railwaymen and the other transport workers feel that it is their duty to go to their help, and they withdraw their labour in support of the miners' dispute, and in doing so, in the words of the Clause, they "inflict hardship upon the community." I want to ask a simple specific question. Will the action of the transport workers or the railwaymen or any other body of men, under the precise circumstances which I have mentioned, be a legal or an illegal action?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is a plain question to which I can give quite a plain answer. The strike of the transport workers or the railwaymen, in the case which has been put to me, could obviously not be a strike to put pressure upon the employers or the miners. It
    1030
    could only be a strike which was designed to put pressure upon the Government to compel them to act. [interruption.] That, in my view, would be illegal and illegitimate either by this Bill or independent of this Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: So that any Minister or hon. Member of this House who makes a Statement that this Bill does not interfere with the sympathetic strike does not know the truth?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is quite wrong, for this reason, that some sympathetic strikes are not affected by this Bill; some are. The question whether or not a sympathetic strike is affected by this Bill depends upon two perfectly simple questions: First, is the strike in the trade or industry which is concerned—because there can be a sympathetic strike within a particular industry? If it is within the industry, then it is not touched by the Bill. Secondly, assuming that it is not within the trade or industry, then is it a strike which is aimed, by its natural and necessary consequences, at the employer or the Government? If it be aimed at the employer, then it is not touched by the Bill, but it be aimed at the Government, it is.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: If there were a general strike of the miners under the conditions which have been discussed for the purpose of enforcing a reduction of hours, then there could not be under the Bill a sympathetic strike in their aid?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would depend entirely upon who the sympathetic strikers were. If they were persons the effect of whose strikes would be to bring pressure upon the mineowners, then it would be perfectly legal. If, on the other hand, they were persons who, by their strikes, could not bring pressure upon the mineowners but were only attempting to coerce the Government, then it would be illegal.
    Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: After the wild statements which we have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (.Sir H. Slesser) and the rather more subtle statements which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) inside of this House and outside of it, I think there are some

    1031
    considerations to which we should try to come back. Taking the Clause as it is, there are at least two types of sympathetic strikes; one which is clearly a sympathetic strike, designed simply and solely to perfect the conditions in the original strike, and another which has nothing to do with the conditions of the original strike but is designed to try to bring into the original dispute outside pressure of a totally different character. If one may give an illustration of the first, take a strike in an industry producing a particular article. The employers in that industry feeling the pressure of the strike and realising that their business would be entirely ruined if it goes on, choose to make attempts to import that which they ordinarily produce in order to keep their business alive. You might then get men in other industries who would say, "If that kind of thing goes on, this strike will be broken. Effective pressure will not be brought upon these particular employers, and, in these circumstances, we will refuse to handle these imported articles, or we will refuse to work if our employers buy these imported articles and allow these employers to continue their business." In these circumstances, you would get a sympathetic strike which was designed purely and simply for the purpose of perfecting arrangements brought about by the strike. That, as I understand it, would not be touched in the slightest degree by this Bill. In these circumstances, a purely sympathetic strike, which is designed, not for the purpose of bringing any outside pressure but simply and solely to make a strike which is going on an effective strike, is not struck at by this Bill, although one realises that in all these cases great hardship would be caused to the community.
    On the other hand, one could imagine a totally different kind of strike. Suppose you have a strike in an engineering shop and suppose that, because that strike would not come to a termination, the bakers of the community said: "If we can only deprive the community of bread, we shall be able to arouse sufficient feeling to put pressure on the Government to bring in legislation to terminate that strike. In these circumstances we, the bakers, although we have no concern in the engineering industry at all, will cease
    1032
    to bake bread altogether." Then you would get something which, while it would be a sympathetic strike, would be, in fact, purely an attempt to coerce the Government to take action. If one uses that illustration with regard to the dispute of last year, you get a clear illustration from the meeting which took place at the Memorial Hall in London on the Saturday afternoon before the general strike started. If you read the report of that meeting, you will find that the orders which purported to be given, I think, by Mr. Ernest Bevan, were that the general strike should start first in one section of the industries of the country, and then, as the General Council of the Trade Union Congress saw fit, it should be extended from industry to industry until such a time as they had brought about, by a gradual process, a complete paralysis of all the industries of the country. That was clearly directed to one purpose and one purpose only, to bring ordered Government and ordered industry to an end, and to compel the Government to intervene. In these circumstances you have a clear illustration of a strike which, while it was paraded as a sympathetic strike, was designed to put pressure upon the Government.
    If one may take an illustration of the language which is used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby I would refer to a report which appeared in the "Daily Herald" on Monday. He first of all used the illustration which he has used to-day of the strike for the purpose of reducing hours of labour in the coal mines. He then founded a statement that such a sympathetic strike to help them would be illegal upon the suggestion that legislation would be absolutely necessary to reduce the hours which are worked in the coal trade. He said: "There you are. You get an illegal strike merely because you are trying to reduce the hours." He forgot, however, that the present position is that any hours may be worked in the mines, as long as they do not exceed eight, and that, in these circumstances, an agreement could be come to and an ordinary industrial strike could bring about that state of affairs if the employers gave way to the pressure of the industrial strike. A further point is that, if the position was that the sympathy of the railwaymen was invoked, no for the purpose of bringing about agreement but to compel the Government to bring in

    1033
    legislation which made it illegal to work for more than seven hours, that would be a totally different thing and would be clearly a political strike. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—if the report was right, and I am assuming it is right when it appeared in the "Daily Herald"—that if you had a strike in the railway industry for the purpose of compelling an alteration by Parliament of the Railway Regulations Bill, that would be illegal, and he suggested that that would be a very bad thing. Surely that is entirely on all fours with the illustration which he gave in this Houser a few days ago. He gave an illustration of a strike to compel legislation, and he said that that would be a seditious conspiracy, because it would be trying to get by means of a strike that which you could only get by legislation in Imperial Parliament. Then he goes to the country to address members of his own industry and he suggests to them that it is wrong to prohibit or make illegal a strike which has for its object one sole idea, that of changing the legislation of this country. In those circumstances he is saying one thing in this House and another thing in the country.
    Mr. THOMAS: I never join issue with anyone who corrects me or accurately reports what I have said. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear the speech, and he could not have read it accurately, and he certainly was not in the House when I made the statement. I will repeat for his benefit now the statement which I repeated at the public meeting. What I said in this House was that if, next week or some other time, any body of leaders said, "We will advise and organise a general strike to take place at any given date in order to supersede this Government," that, in my view, would be illegal under the existing law. That is what I said in this House. What I said at Newport is an entirely different thing, namely, that if the railwaymen, in order to get protection for their own lives by legislation, felt it was necessary to strike, that would be legal. You have just admitted it.
    Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The right hon. Gentleman has quite unwittingly proved my contention. The responsibility of the Government of the day—whatever Government it may be—is to the electors of this country and to their
    1034
    declared will as expressed in a general election. [Interruption.] When the right hon. Gentleman says that a strike to supersede the Government would be a seditious conspiracy he is condemning the very thing which he was trying to support in his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. THOMAS: Not at all!
    Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I withdraw nothing, for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman now says that it is quite wrong that you should make illegal a strike which has for its object the forcing of legislation upon this House or upon the Government of the day. If you are to make the Government of the day bring in legislation and force this House to pass it by the tyranny of a general strike, or any other type of strike, you are superseding free government by the electors of this country by something which is known purely and simply to revolutionary law. In those circumstances I venture to say that I was right when I said a few moments ago that the right hon. Gentleman had said one thing in this House and another thing in the country. [Interruption.] He has disguised it, it is true, but do not let it go forth that Members of the Opposition can try, by giving a different illustration, to produce one effect in the country and another when they know they will be met by argument in this House. If one may venture a humble opinion, this Clause, as it will be amended, strikes at no sympathetic strike which is purely industrial, but it does make illegal any strike which tries to put in the place of the Imperial Parliament an authority which is not responsible to the people of this country.
    Mr. GOSLING: It seems to me that the desire of the House is to find the right kind of words to do something which I, personally, do not wish them to do. After long experience I find that the best way of dealing with the matters which hon. Members opposite seem to me concerned about is by letting the people affected settle them for themselves. For many years now organisations on both sides have been steadily built up with that object. I am old enough to remember when parts of some of the big organisations now represented in this

    1035
    House were little odds and ends of unions, all at each others' throats, and strikes were an everyday occurrence, and were all aimed in different directions. An organisation of 1,000 or 2,000 men started to achieve something, and without consultation with any of the other people who were affected. Their action often resulted in putting those other people out of employment. As our people have become educated and have had the advantage of understanding these things they have said, "This kind of thing won't do," and they have banded themselves together in larger organisation. The employers have been doing the same thing. The two sets of organisations have grown up until we have reached the stage where, although we are expressing objection to compulsory arbitration, we are day by day getting nearer and nearer to something of that kind; but the weapon that enables all that conciliatory work to be done is the sympathetic strike—if we fail to do it.
    I do not for a moment disguise the fact that with the existence of these bigger organisations, if things do come to a strike, the strike is a very much bigger one that it otherwise would have been; but 90 times out of 100, or even a higher percentage than that, we are able to avoid the strike that we were ready to undertake as the final act—simply because those engaged know they can have the strike if they want it. That is the case also with employers and the lock-out. As regards the sympathetic lock-out by employers, there are hardly any employers worth speaking of in any industry who are not so interlocked with other employers that every action they take will be sympathetic action. Some of the cartoons which have been published lately have shown where the interest of those employers begin, I was going to say, but I think, rather, they show that it never ends, for their operations not only concern this country but extend into other countries. So from that point of view it seems to me the greatest risk the Government are running is of smashing up all the machinery which we have been organising for many years, doing this, I was going to say, at the instigation of the Government, certainly with their help in some cases, and with the help of the Ministry of Labour. I should
    1036
    like to know the opinion of the Ministry of Labour about this Bill, because if their work is to go on on the same lines it ought not to be hampered in this way.
    Let me put one or two other points. In my younger days a very terrible state of things existed at the dock gates of which some hon. Members opposite know something; some of them have written about it. There was a scramble to get a living; the tearing of clothes off each others' backs in the effort to get in front; men climbing over other men's shoulders in order that the foreman. might see them—and all that kind of thing. That has nearly all gone now. There has been a tremendous change, and this change has come about because the workers' organisation have been gradually getting together and becoming a more important body. We have been enabled to achieve much by amalgamation and co-operation. We are, to some extent with the aid of the Government, trying to introduce a form of maintenance to prevent men suffering the full effects of unemployment, and we are also, in order to prevent the state of things which I have just described, introducing and solidifying a system of registration of labour.
    But it was not even possible to talk about this until we had amalgamated, because when we went to the employer at Southampton he said, "I cannot help you, look at the competition of London," and when we went to Liverpool, the employer said, "I cannot help you, look at the competition of Manchester." So we said, "We must have a national agreement," and we have got it, and now they are all tarred with the same brush; but we have only got all these things—and this is the point to remember—by running the risk that if we did not succeed in negotiations we should at the finish be in a sympathetic strike. If it is to be said that a sympathetic strike is now to be made illegal, I am not going to say that we are going to sit down and say we are beaten. We shall find a way out, but the way out we shall have to find will not be, I believe, in the interest of the State. It will be a very sorry day if we have to go back to the individual action of unions according to their own power to resist. What we have been doing for some time is taking into account the responsibility towards the bottom dog of the men with the mighty

    1037
    power of action and bringing in the bottom dog along with them. In that way we have raised the position of the dock labourers—by conciliation and arbitration, in the main, but always with the risk of the strike, and always with the power and the right to strike if necessary. In that way the position of the men has been improved until they would not be recognised as the same men as I first remember them.
    Let us consider for a moment the awful state of things which existed on the canals of this country, where the men were helpless and hopeless until we began to pull them into the big organisations, until we began to teach them that the highly-trained and skilled men with better wages and better conditions were their comrades, and in organisation with them for the purpose of lifting them up. We begin by saying all the children in canal boats should have an opportunity of going to school. Is that an industrial or a political matter? Most of all, is it a proper matter? We begin with the employers, and the employers we begin with know that we are a mighty force, that the organisation I am speaking of is one of 400,000 members and that they are at the disposal of every one of those little children in those canal boats, and they are there to help to get them out of those boats and to get them to school, and to get their mothers out of those cabins. Some two or three years ago we had a very long stoppage because we were unable to maintain the wages we thought the men ought not to go below, and I went along the canal bank one Sunday afternoon and found the children playing and a woman leaning over the side of the boat and, guessing I was a friend or I should not be there, she said: "Do you know this is the first time in my life I have seen so many canal children playing together at one time? "That was because there was a strike and they were all in one spot. When I went to one of the children, they said to me, knowing who I was: "Is the strike over? "I said, "No, why?" They said, "Because we do not want it to be." They were going to school, because the local authorities had compelled them to go while the strike was on.
    There is a great work going on with the trade unions. I do not pretend that
    1038
    it is perfect. Now and again we misfire and we get perhaps an unofficial strike. This is going to break it up, as certain as I am here. I do not make threats, but you are not going to get us to work all the way up to the top in keeping this machinery going and then when we are bound to strike, because we cannot help ourselves, we are going to be told that is illegal. We must begin a different way altogether, and do not think we have not brains enough in our heads to think out some other way. I have been thinking, as I have been sitting here. I wonder how many lawyers there are in the House who, as a matter of professional business, would be willing to argue against anything that has been said. Look at the plight we are in if we are never going to know where we stand and what is going to happen. It is not because we are afraid of going to prison. If you take me to prison you will have to put me in the infirmary, and I shall be quite comfortable there. What we want to do is what is best in the interests of the State. I am saying that quite sincerely, and our organisations have been built up for the purpose of doing that. It is a great thing to be able to say you are speaking for 400,000 organised men, not one of them in a dispute that is not being dealt with by machinery which has been set up for the purpose. It is a very big thing to say those 400,000 men have got 200 agreements in existence at this moment and not one of them can be broken by either side unless you go through a certain amount of machinery.
    Take the politicians who are on the employers' side. The employers who are not politicians do not want you to interfere. They are quite content to meet us and they are strong enough to do it, and we do not want interference from anyone else. We are able to look after ourselves. That is what the employers would tell you if you went to them. Of course there must be a risk, but if you want to separate political from industrial action you are at least 50 years too late. What we do now has got some of each in it, each of it being wanted to help the other. In the organisation I am speaking of—and there are other big organisations that can say the same—we regard every action that we take that means life saving and health giving to our members as a benefit. We regard spending a great deal of time in

    1039
    the Committee Rooms here and framing regulations and things of that kind as being the real work of the trade unions, industrially and politically. When we see an injustice done to a comparatively small group of people and we bring our powers to their aid, helping them in every way we can by conciliation, and in many cases by arbitration, and when we get to a point that a strike comes you say it is a sympathetic strike which is illegal because they do not work for the same employers. They do not work for the same employers in the sense that we know the employer by the name over the shop or anything of that kind, but they work for the same employers if you get the diagrams and have a look at them. I have gone right through a small union up through federation, which we found was not sufficient, until we got to one union. Just as we have been doing that the employers have been doing the same kind of thing, but rather in a different way, in that they do not disclose, as we have done, that they are all together in one great organisation. They go under separate names. The proper thing to do in this case is not to try to amend but to get at the root of the whole thing You will have to leave it to us at the finish. The employers and the workmen can stand together, just as they do against each other, and if you come interfering with what we are doing now, we have got these big organisations and you will find you will not be able to function. You would do very much better to leave it to us and let us get on with the very good work that is being done. For all these reasons I am against the Amendment.
    Major GLYN: We all recognise, in whichever part of the House we sit, the great work the right hon. Gentleman has done for the union of which he is at the head, and we also realise that if all the trade union leaders in a responsible position had adopted the line he has always adopted, there would be no reason for this Bill. One point he mentioned is of tremendous importance. Some of my friends and myself have put down an Amendment. I do not say the wording is perfect, it is far from it, but if lawyers cannot find proper words how should a poor layman? At any rate I hope the Government will between now and Report consider if some words cannot be
    1040
    put into the Bill which will encourage the machinery of conciliation. My association with industry is not very great but, such as it is, I know that in the railway industry it would be almost impossible to carry on unless the management on the one hand and the unions on the other were able to get together, and both sides recognise the enormous benefit which has resulted from the conciliation machinery set up by Statute in the 1921 Act. Those of us who were on that Committee will remember the speeches made by the representatives of the Labour party in which they said they recognised fully that the time had come when statutory effect should be given to conciliation machinery so as to enable these matters to be considered in proper form and after proper discussion by bodies mutually agreed upon by both sides. The experience of the working of that machinery has been entirely satisfactory, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member behind him who has played a large part in these matters, will agree that without that machinery there would undoubtedly have been sectional disputes which might have led to a very serious national danger.
    But there is this one point which has not been faced, and could not be faced very well by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the time is coming, if it has not already come, when we shall have to recognise, whether we like it or not, that it is absurd to compare the labour done by a man in an essential industry, like railways, or the supply of gas, electricity or water, with that of another man who is equally a member of a union, who makes shirts or even boots. They might cease their labour, and it would not inflict real hardship upon the community, and some of us feel that the people in those industries who, if they exercise their legitimate right to strike, must inflict inconvenience, if not hardship, upon the communty shall know exactly where they are and, still more important to my mind, when the hotheads, who are in a minority in the labour movement, come along bombarding the responsible leaders of labour in those essential services to come out to assist them, they can say, "How can we come out? We have nothing to come out about." Our machinery is such that it must go to

    1041
    conciliation, and therefore in that case it is a deterrent to hasty action and the other things that this Bill is aiming to prevent. I know full well that the words we have put down later on on the Paper are not perfect, but I believe that it is the wish of the Prime Minister, and I think it is the wish of the great majority of those on this side of the House, that there shall be such relationship between management and labour in all industry that we shall avoid that brutal, old-fashioned method of industrial warfare, namely, the strike. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying that they hate war. We all hate war. Why have war in industry if it can be avoided? It is time that we should recognise that the great unions which have been built up and the great organisations, like the four great railway companies, have reached such a position that it is quite obvious that the whole question wants careful consideration, and that nothing should be put into this Bill which would prevent the Parliaments of the future recognising what the situation is. When you get these enormous confederations of persons exercising their legitimate rights as citizens to give or withhold their labour, they may exercise a tremendous influence upon the whole life of the State. I believe, and believe emphatically, that the four principles laid down by the Attorney-General and by the Prime Minister are the deliberate intention of His Majesty's Government. As far as I am concerned, as a layman, I have been puzzled by some of the expressions of the Bill as printed. I say no more, because I am absolutely convinced that this Bill is going to be an Act of Parliament and not only an act of the Executive. I believe, further, as it has been said from the Front Bench, that His Majesty's Government welcome anything which is said by the back bench or in any quarter of the House to make this Measure effective. It is quite impossible for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attempt to arouse us to a sense of indignation by pretending that we are doing anything in opposition to His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, we are, speaking as laymen, openly supporting the Government in carrying out those very principles which they certainly wish to incorporate in the Bill. If we are so stupid, not being lawyers, as not to see that the particular words are
    1042
    suitable, surely as free Members of this House of Commons we have every right to get up and say so. I therefore make an appeal that this question of conciliation in industry may be given further consideration by His Majesty's Government, and that at a later stage they may put in appropriate words, for by so doing they will know they have got the support of a considerable number of their supporters.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I simply rise to ask a question of the Attorney-General in order to elucidate a point which has been left in considerable doubt after his speech and the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the benches below the Gangway. It is quite clear from his last speech that the sympathetic strike is illegal, in spite of the declaration, the very emphatic declaration, which the learned Attorney-General made in his Second Reading speech that a sympathetic strike, provided it were in order to promote a purely industrial purpose, would not be illegal. In spite of that, every instance which can be conceived of a possible sympathetic strike is declared to be illegal. I never had any doubt about it from the first moment I read the Bill. If I had had a doubt, it has been completely extinguished by the speech which the Minister of Health delivered at Swansea on Friday last. I read it on Saturday, and, as I said yesterday in the course of the few observations I made in this House—they were delivered to empty benches—I had absolutely no doubt that the sympathetic strike was completely gone, whether it was for industrial purposes or not The only sympathetic strike which would be possible in the mining industry would not be a strike of transport workers, whether railwaymen or dock labourers, but would be a strike of the safety men in the mines. That would be legal according to the Attorney-General
    Mr. THOMAS: The insurance agents can come out in support of it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very important concession. I am sorry I did an injustice to the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) sought to draw a distinction between a sympathetic strike which would have the effect of intimidating the Government and a sympathetic strike in another industry

    1043
    against the handling of goods which were produced in that industry. That is a very important point. It is very important as coming from the hon. and learned Member, because he is the putative father of this Bill. Therefore, I have no doubt he is understanding it with authority. If I understand him, if there is a strike in a particular industry, and there is another industry which, although it has nothing to do with the production of a particular commodity in that industry, is called upon to handle it in some sort of way and declines to do so, that is a sympathetic strike which would be permissible. I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General if that is so, and that is why I am rising.
    Supposing the railwaymen and the dock labourers—and may I add my tribute to what I consider to have been one of the most fascinating speeches to which I have ever listened in this House and to say how very glad I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for White-chapel (Mr. Gosling) back in the House again—supposing the dock labourers and the railwaymen say, "We will not handle coal. We will not handle the coal which is produced in the mines here; we will not handle coal which is brought from abroad." As I understand it, the principle which is laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman is this, it must be directed against the employers. It might be said that this is something which they themselves are concerned in and therefore it would be directed against the mine-owners and therefore would be legal. But supposing the railwaymen and the dock labourers were to say, "We decline to handle coal which comes from abroad," I should like to know whether that would be regarded as an illegal act within the meaning of this Bill? I should like to press that point, because it is a matter of very considerable importance. Supposing coal which is produced in the mines here is not handled by either railwaymen or dock labourers? That is the first point. The second point is, supposing they say, "We decline to handle coal which is produced abroad by other employers?" Is that an illegal act within the meaning of this new Amendment which has been put down by the learned Attorney-General?
    Mr. MARCH: Before the learned Attorney-General replies, I want to ask a question. I have sat and listened to all these arguments ever since the commencement and I have not had an opportunity of getting in a word on this matter. I want to ask the Attorney-General another question relating to transport. I am very much concerned about the position of 10,000 men in London and in Greater London who are engaged in the carting of coal. Supposing the miners come out on strike and coal is sent to the depots in London. If the men who are in the habit of distributing that coal throughout London refuse to handle it, would they be acting in sympathy with the miners, and would it be legal for them to act in this manner?
    Mr. MAXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I want to ask an additional question, so that it may be convenient for him to give an answer at the same time. If we assume a rather limited strike in the coal mining industry against a particular company, the chairman of which is also a great newspaper proprietor and a great ship-owner, would it be legitimate for the employés of the newspaper company and the employés of the shipowning company to come out on strike in sympathy with the miners, they having no intention to intimidate the Government or to inflict hardship on the community but merely to coerce the particular employer of labour whom they regard as the principal factor in imposing the evil conditions in the mines.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is always dangerous to answer questions without careful and full consideration, but I think the answer to the last question put to me is that it would be perfectly legal. If I may turn to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), he prefaces his question by stating that it is quite clear now that every sympathetic strike is illegal. I cannot, of course, help the right hon. Gentleman saying that or thinking it, but it is the exact opposite of what I have said. He must not assume that because he makes that statement he is in any way representing what my view is or what I believe the position is. I think it is exactly the opposite of what he said. I come to answer his question

    1045
    whether or not, assuming a coal strike, and assuming coal is imported from abroad, to take the place of the coal not being produced here, it will be an illegal action if railwaymen say they will not handle foreign coal. In my belief, if they do that without this Bill they would at this moment be committing an illegal act, for the reason that the railway company is a common carrier whose legal duty it is by Statute and by Common Law to carry coal which is offered for carriage. Therefore, a refusal of their services to carry the coal they were bound to carry would in itself be a breach of their obligations as common carriers.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not challenging that in the least. But supposing they give the usual notice and say, "Very well, we will give you a week's notice" or whatever is the legal notice, "if you insist on us carrying this coal," would that be illegal?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must be accurate on these things. The question, as framed, I am bound to answer, but this is another question, and says, "Supposing the railwayman give notice that they are going to cease their work will it be illegal." If the effect of that would be, as I think it would be, to inflict hardship on the community to such an extent as to coerce the Government to intervene—[Interruption]. I must answer the question—if the effect of that would be, as I think it would be, to inflict such hardship upon the community as to coerce the Government to intervene, the result would be that it would be illegal.
    Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question in regard to coal cartage in London?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer must be the same.
    Mr. MARCH: It is not a question of a sympathetic strike.
    6.0 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer must be the same, that if the effect of the refusal was to inflict such hardship on the community as to coerce the Government, it would be illegal, but not otherwise. I should have thought that it would not be on such a very large scale that the refusal in the case mentioned by the hon. Member would result in such
    1046
    great hardship; but in the case of the railways, which has been mentioned, the refusal would be such that the conditions which I have mentioned would be fulfilled.
    Mr. STEPHEN: From what has been said by the Attorney-General, I think the statement of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is fairly well justified, that all sympathetic strikes are illegal. It has been stated by the Attorney-General many times that sympathetic strikes are not made illegal by this Bill; but in practically every case that has been submitted to him it is obvious that, while he is willing to give that as a general principle, every particular application is practically barred out by the Attorney-General. I believe that it is impossible for the Government to get out of their present position, because they are not really facing up to what they are seeking to provide. Again and again it has been said that what the Government have in mind is such an occurrence as we had last year; that the sole object of the Government is to make impossible a recurrence of what took place last year. I suggest that the Government have failed completely to state what it was that they really objected to in the events of last year as being contrary to law.
    When it is suggested to them to take as a criterion the size of the sympathetic strike which took place last year, at once we are told that it is not in any way to be measured by the numbers engaged as to whether such a strike is legal or illegal. The Attorney-General has suggested that there might be millions engaged in a sympathetic strike, and yet that it would be perfectly legal; but on no occasion has he been able to give any particular indication of what such a sympathetic strike could be. When I heard the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), it became very plain that what is behind this legislation and what is in the mind of the Government, is the intention or the motive of the people taking part in the dispute.
    I want to take the case suggested by the Attorney-General. Suppose we have a mining dispute over a question of hours, and the miners are anxious to compel the Government to repeal the Act of Parliament that was passed last year and to restore the position as it was previous

    1047
    to that legislation. If the railwaymen took part in the dispute and came out in sympathy with the miners in order to assist the miners to achieve their object, the Attorney-General says that such action on the part of the railwaymen would make the strike illegal, because it would be an illegal act on the part of the railwaymen, such a strike satisfying the two conditions which he declares are necessary in order that a strike may be declared illegal. He said that if the railwaymen came out it would be quite obvious that the reason they came out would be in order to coerce the Government. But it is, surely, plain that if the railwaymen came out and refused to handle coal, it might mean a great deal of trouble to the mineowners, and if the railwaymen came out they might come out on the principle that they were anxious to do as much damage to the mineowners as possible. Yet, the Attorney-General would say that because certain people had a different motive, the whole matter would be illegal.
    What I think is behind this legislation is confused thinking an the part of the Government. It has been said in one of their own newspapers that all the speeches made have suggested that what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite is their desire to cripple the activities of trade unions. I believe that there is the genesis of this matter, and there also is the difficulty which the Attorney-General has to face in trying to make clear what he means. One hon. Member suggested that if all the trade union leaders were similar to the right hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), who spoke to-day in such an effective way, there would be no need for this legislation. What is in the minds of hon. Members opposite and in the mind of the Government are the activities of certain trade union leaders. If one were to ask them which of the trade unions leaders they had in mind, it would be difficult to get an answer from them. I do not think they would suggest that it is the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) or any of his colleagues on the Front Bench who are in the mind of the Government. What is in the mind of the Government, and in the minds of hon. Members opposite is a feeling of alarm because of the activities of the leader of the miners, Mr. Cook. We have heard all sorts of abuse
    1048
    of the leaders of the miners and this legislation is an attempt to make it impossible for the leader of the miners to achieve for his men the legitimate object that he ought to achieve for them. It is an attempt to cripple the whole course of trade unions. It is Cook that this legislation is aimed at, evidently on the principle that Cook has interfered with the digestion of British capitalism in this country.
    As the discussions have gone on, I do not see that the new words proposed by the Attorney-General are getting the Government one whit out of their difficulties in regard to making clear what is legal or illegal. There will always be a difficulty, so long as the Government have not made up their mind whether it is intention which they are seeking to make illegal or whether it is the size of the industrial conflict which may take place. It is hopeless to seek to persuade the Attorney-General to change his mind on this matter, but I think it is due to this Committee that the Government should make the position more clear. The Attorney-General says that sympathetic strikes will still be quite legal, but Members on the Front Opposition Bench take a different view, and the right hon. Mem-for Carnarvon Boroughs has taken a different view. I hope that in the interests of the whole community there will be another attempt made by the Attorney-General to clear up this matter.
    Speeches have been made on the other side in which a special plea has been put forward as to the advisability of setting up conciliation machinery, in order to make arbitration possible in the future. I wonder what can be the state of mind of hon. Members opposite who, on a matter like this, put up a plea for conciliation and arbitration tribunals. They surely must understand the indignation that is felt in regard to this matter. They surely must understand that throughout the whole trade union movement of this country there is the most intense feelings of indignation and disgust at the action of the Government, and yet, in this atmosphere, they have the audacity to suggest that there should be tacked on some conciliation machinery to a Measure of this kind—a Measure which is beyond anything that one would have conceived possible as coming from the present Government. It is no good making such suggestions or thinking that such sugges-

    1049
    tions are going to meet with any response. All such possibilities are destroyed by the Bill. It is the duty of Members of every party in this House to see that another attempt is made to clear up the position with regard to this legislation, which may be a good thing for the lawyers in the time to come. The whole trend of the discussion, the absolute uncertainty among all the Members who have spoken as to what will be the effect of the provisions, certainly call for another attempt to clear up the matter in definite language, so that one may understand what is illegal and what is legal if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. MERRIMAN: I do not expect to be able to convince the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) by anything I can say that this is a good Bill, but I want to help, if I can, to clear up one small point. May I thank the Attorney-General for accepting an Amendment with regard to the word "besides," which originally stood in my name on the Amendment Paper but is now embellished by much more distinguished names. The Amendment we are now discussing, that is, to strike out the words "is an illegal strike if," affects another Amendment to which I have put my name, that is, to add after the word "is" the words "and always has been." It seems to me to be absolutely vital that in the first Clause of this Bill there should be a declaration not only that the strike therein described is illegal but that it always has been illegal. And for this reason. In Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 there is the fulfilment of the Government's promise, that no one who resisted taking part in the last general strike shall be penalised by his failure to do so, and the wording of that Clause, as it is proposed to be amended by certain words the Government are inserting, regards a strike thus declared by this Bill to have been illegal.
    If you look at Clause 1, there is nothing in this Bill which is declared to have been illegal. This is rather a technical point, but Judges have a habit, as all lawyers will agree, of construing legislation which is supposed to be declaratory as from the time when the Bill is passed, and merely to say in the first Clause that such a thing is declared to be illegal will not necessarily bind any Court to say that any particular
    1050
    strike in the past has been illegal, not even though you clearly refer to the general strike of last year by inserting words in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, referring to a strike or lock-out since the 1st of May, 1926. Although I am not insisting upon any particular form of words, I invite the Attorney-General to consider whether it is not possible to put some form of words in the first Clause which will make it certain that the protection intended to be afforded to those who declined to take part in the general strike last year, and have been victimised in consequence, shall be made effective, as was the intention of the Government.
    Mr. HARNEY: I do not know whether the Committee fully appreciate the result of the cross-examination to which the Attorney-General has been subjected by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). The Attorney-General on the first day started by telling us that this is merely a declaratory Bill. On the second day he said that its purpose was only to cover a general strike. Then a controversy arose as to whether a general strike meant a strike general as regards its extent, the number of persons taking part, or the area of the strike, or whether it meant general in that it was aimed and directed at the Government. But it was not until to-day that the Attorney-General is forced to admit, what humbler Members like myself have been acclaiming from the first, that this Bill has nothing to do with declaring the existing law, it is not directed to cover a general strike, but under the cloak of doing so is really aimed at strikes that are in any way annoying to the Government. The Attorney-General has only gone so far as to say that it may cover some sympathetic strikes. I say, and I propose to satisfy the Committee fully on this point, that it will cover every sympathetic strike.
    In order that my argument may be understood, let me say what I understand to be the effect of the Clause as it has been re-drafted. Strikes are placed in two categories; first, where its object is in furtherance of better conditions of labour and, secondly, where it has any other object at all. Where its object is in favour of 'better labour conditions it does not make the slightest

    1051
    difference whether it inflicts hardship on the community or not, but where its object is for anything else you have to ask yourself this question, does the strike inflict hardship upon the community? If it does it coerces the Government, and the Bill itself says that the way to ascertain whether a particular sort of coercion is created is to see whether a strike inflicts hardship on the community, and then you have the very sort of coercion the Bill is aiming at. The first question is: show me your strike, and you then ask yourself, has it "any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute"? I call the attention of the Attorney-General to these words because the point has not been made before. There may be something in it, or there may be nothing in it. The first thing you have to ascertain is whether the object of the particular strike is in furtherance of a legitimate industrial dispute. The Attorney-General puts it this way, if your sympathetic strikers come out they may well be not acting illegally, because they may be simply giving aid to one side of the contestants in the primary dispute. But look at the Clause. The object must be
    "other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged."
    Who would be the strikers? Take the case of the railwaymen. There is a legitimate industrial dispute in the coal mines; there is no question about the legality of that. The railway men come out in sympathy. I ask: have the railway men any object other than the furtherance of the cause of the coal miners? The railway men are the strikers we are dealing with, and they must have an object other than the furtherance of a dispute in the trade in which the strikers, the railway men, are engaged. If that is the true construction, and I think it is, then, quite apart from the facts of the case, on the very wording of the Bill as it has been redrafted, on a strict construction of the Bill, I submit with all confidence that it renders every possible sympathetic strike an illegal strike.
    I do not want there to be any mistake about this, and I ask the Attorney-General to explain how it is possible
    1052
    for railway men and transport men, or men in any other secondary industry, to come out not because of a dispute in their own industry but to further a dispute in another industry and for it to be said that they have had an object other than the furtherance of a dispute in their own industry. It cannot be said. The Attorney-General will have another chance to re-draft this Clause and get over that difficulty. The real abjection to the Clause is not on the strict language, to which I have called attention, it is this; that I can conceive of no rational tribunal of any sort that would not say, in the case of a sympathetic strike, that it had an object other than the furtherance of a trade dispute in their own industry. What do they come out for? They are not looking for higher wages or shorter hours. They have no grievance in their own industry. What object have they in coming out? What is the answer? Is their object merely to make a demonstration and show the public what kind-hearted fellows these sympathetic strikers are? Do they come out, throw up their jobs, simply to stand still and show people how sympathetic they are? They give up their jobs in sympathy because they want to bring pressure to bear on somebody. It clearly is not to do anything to better their own conditions.
    What was their object? Their object must be something other than to better their own labour conditions, or the labour conditions in the primary industry. Their object must necessarily be an object that excludes them from the exemption given in this first part of Clause 1, the exemption given to those who come out with the object of the furtherance of a trade dispute. You have, therefore, your sympathetic strikers with the brand put upon them that they are in an illegal category. You ask the next question: Are these sympathetic strikers in this illegal category causing hardship to the community? Can yon tell me of any strike that would be large enough to bring out sympathetic strikers that would not inflict hardship on the community. If it does, we look at the Bill and it says that if the Court wants to know whether these sympathetic strikers are coercing the Government, the best way to find that out is to see whether they are inflicting hardship on the community. Let me put another question.

    1053
    The hardship on the community has to reach a point when it will coerce the Government. There may be created a hardship on the Government, but the Government may not choose to say that it is affecting them. But at any moment the Attorney-General, acting for the Government, may choose to say that he considers that hardship is being inflicted on the community—and the Government alone are the persons who are to consider it, they alone can say whether it is putting pressure on them or not. At that moment the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, says: "The hardship on the community has reached a point when it is affecting us. Stop the strike." Is it intended that it should henceforth be in the power of any Attorney-General to allow a strike to go on until it has reached a point at which the Government think they ought to stop it, and that he is then to say: "Stop this strike! It is inflicting hardship on the community and that hardship is affecting the Government." Is the exercise of this power by an Attorney-General to be followed by sequestration of funds and all the other penal consequences? If that be intended, then let the Government say so. They may be able to make out a case for stopping all strikes. Let them try. They may be able to make out a case for stopping sympathetic strikes. Let them try. They may be able to justify putting it in the power of the Attorney-General to decide whether any strike shall go on longer than a certain period. But if they want to do those things, let them ask for the approval of the electors.
    I think it is unfair to this Committee. It is throwing dust in the eyes of the electors and it is failing to discharge the responsibilities which should attach to His Majesty's Government to bring forward a Bill, deliberately, saying that it is only a declaration of the law and will leave strikes as they were before, when the real intention—which has been kept dark and has only been dragged out after a week's discussion—is, certainly, to stop all sympathetic strikes and also to put it in the power of the Attorney-General to declare how long a strike can proceed. That intention should be known to the country; and I have little doubt that after what has occurred to-day, whatever sympathy
    1054
    there was with the Government in this matter will henceforth vanish. The country will wake up to the fact that those who oppose the Bill are not against the four pious principles laid down by the Attorney-General—with which we all agree—but that we are opposing it because we believe the Bill to be not an honest endeavour to deal with general strikes at all, but a dishonest piece of camouflage to give the Government power to stop all strikes.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have listened to the greater part of the Debates on this Bill both on the Second Reading and in Committee and to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I must be very dense if I am not right in saying that the Attorney-General has already completely answered on half-a-dozen occasions every point put by the hon. and learned Member. I will not traverse all the arguments which have already been produced but will content myself with one or two very simple observations on matters which to me appear very clear. The whole difficulty apparently is in regard to the use of the words "sympathetic strike." This Bill does not, in my opinion, touch in any way a real sympathetic strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is a real one?"] Let me pursue my argument. It does not, I say, touch the real sympathetic strike but what it does is to prevent any strike which takes place under the guise of a sympathetic strike being treated as a sympathetic strike. I have been asked by hon. Members opposite what is a real sympathetic strike. I think there was a real sympathetic strike when on an occasion which is within the recollection of all hon. Members opposite I am sure, the moulders came out on strike in connection with a dispute in the engineering trade. The moulders' trade is one upon which the engineering industry is directly dependent. The moulders took the view that this was a dispute in the engineering industry and they came out in sympathy and as all hon. Members are aware the strike was maintained for a long time as a result of that action. That strike would not be in any way affected by this Bill.
    Mr. KELLY: In the last 30 years there has been no such strike on the part of the moulders in the engineering trade as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. BALFOUR:I think the hon. Gentleman will remember the strike to which I refer.
    Mr. KELLY: I know there was a strike of moulders but it was not a sympathetic strike.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The sort of case which I have in mind is that of an industry where one branch has already gone on strike and discussions are pending on wages in other branches of the industry. If they come out in sympathy with and to reinforce the branch which is already on strike, it would be a real sympathetic strike. But let me now give an illustration of what may be claimed to be a sympathetic strike but would not be a sympathetic strike. That is the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) when he said that if there was a strike in connection with the docks or shipping or the railways, and if the bakers came out with the avowed object of starving the population and depriving them of bread, then that would not be a sympathetic strike whatever name was attached to it. It would be a clear attempt to coerce the Government and would be illegal by the operation of this Clause.
    Mr. MAXTON: Where do you find that definition in the Bill?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 makes it perfectly clear.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do you find it there?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I find it there.
    Mr. MAXTON: Then you are the cleverest man in this House.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am glad the hon. Member thinks so.
    Mr. MAXTON: Yes, if you can find it there; but I do not believe that you can.
    Mr. BALFOUR: This Debate has centred round the loose use of the words "sympathetic strike," and that is the whole question, and I think if hon. Members opposite were to accept the distinction broadly as between a real sympathetic strike of the kind I have indicated and the loosely termed "sympathetic strike," which is in reality an attempt to intimidate the community and coerce the
    1056
    Government, a great deal of the confusion which now exists on this subject would be removed.
    Mr. KELLY: I am really surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour). One would imagine that after serving an apprenticeship in the engineering trade he would understand that industry. I may at once put him right regarding the strike to which he referred. On that occasion, three or four years ago, the moulders struck for an increase of wages, and it was not what the hon. Member terms a sympathetic strike.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It does not matter for the purpose of my argument. I could give five or six other illustrations from other trades.
    Mr. KELLY: In a moment I hope to give the hon. Member an opportunity of producing one from his own trade. He used the illustration that in the event of a strike taking place in a certain industry and the bakers coming out, that would be looked upon as an illegal strike and as something outside the trade or industry primarily concerned. I wonder how far the hon. Member intends to carry that point? If the flour millers were to come out would he hold that to be illegal? If those transporting flour came out would that be illegal? I do not know where he proposes to draw the line. Is it only when it reaches the stage of baking—
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think it is perfectly clear. If a dispute arises in a particular trade or industry and if some ancillary part of that trade or industry—the members of which perhaps have a grievance which is still under discussion—comes out to reinforce the others who are on strike within that trade or industry, it would not be struck at by this Clause.
    Mr. KELLY: Then I come back to the engineering dispute. The hon. Member told us that in the event of the engineers being in difficulties, other engineers, and he included the moulders under the style of engineers, might come to their aid. Does that means that he would declare it legal for the engineer engaged in the moulding trade to come out? If so it would be legal for these engineers to come out, but illegal for the flour millers or the bakers. Now we see just where we

    1057
    are being taken with regard to this Measure. I wonder also what is meant by the phrase "trade or industry" used in this Clause? Is there any man in this country who can define what is a particular trade? Is there any hon. Member opposite who is engaged in connection with limited liability companies and other concerns who can define for us what is an industry? I submit to the hon. Member for Moseley, who has some connection with the engineering trade, that he is even more capable than we credit him with being, if he can give us a definition.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to me, when he speaks of having some connection with the engineering industry, and I would point out that my constituency is Mossley and not Moseley.
    Mr. KELLY: I am sorry. I know that the hon. Members for Moseley and Mossley take exception to being mistaken one for the other. I regret my mistake very much, and I apologise to both. But I would ask the Solicitor-General what definition he proposes to attach to these words "trade and industry"? We have down an Amendment asking for the deletion of these words, and I suggest that the Solicitor-General will find it difficult clearly to delimit or define particular trades and industries. I put to the hon. Member for Hampstead the case of his own industry of civil engineering. I call it an "industry" because I can find no other word. Will he tell the Committee what is the exact definition to be placed on civil engineering, which is so wrapped up with mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, constructional engineering, building and other trades that it is impossible to distinguish it. How is it to be defined?
    Mr. BALFOUR: We have a federation on the employés side and another on the employers' side which I am glad to say have been working in great harmony for many years past, and I think we can get an easy definition in the application of those conditions to an industry.
    Mr. KELLY: If the hon. Member accepts that definition in regard to his own federation, very good. I happen to be a member of that conciliation board and to sit on the other side of the table
    1058
    from the hon. Member's associates. I will give the hon. Member an illustration. Recently in Regent Street there was erected a place for Messrs. Peter Robinson. The hon. Member and his friends stated, and stuck to it, that that was a civil engineering job, but we claimed it as a building trade job. I am not asking for lines of demarcation here. I think most of them are stupid, and it is because of the stupidity of them that I am amazed now that the Government are bringing them into this Bill. The fact of the matter is that these words have been placed in this Bill by somebody who has been quite as stupid as anything that has been said about the Government and who did not understand anything about the industries of the country. I venture to say that the Prime Minister would find a difficulty in giving any limits to the industry in which he is concerned. Connected with the iron and steel trade as he has been, I wonder what he calls the iron and steel trade and where he thinks it commences and where it concludes. Somebody mentioned earlier in the Debate Whitley Councils and conciliation boards. Whitley Councils cover a trade that is conducted in the same establishment as probably three or more other trades or industries, and you cannot take Whitley Councils as your guide, nor can you take conciliation boards as your guide. In fact, the words "trade and industry" have been placed in the Clause for all the reasons mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). They are put in there because there is no definition of them, and the Government will be able to prevent most strikes that are entered upon, whether sympathetic or otherwise.
    I would ask what is meant by the phrase about attempting to coerce the Government. I know a great many men who are employed in the dockyards of this country, men employed under tire Admiralty and in many of the departments under the control of the War Office. Do those words mean that in the event of any of those men striking for better conditions—and heaven knows every one of them require to strike at this time because of the conditions under which they are working—they would be held to be coercing the Government? It would be against the Government that they would be striking, because the Government fix

    1059
    their wages. Would that strike be illegal? I could go over something like 50 or 60 of the trades of the country in order to show the difficulties that would be found in endeavouring to delimit the words used in this Bill. Take the textile trade. I am wondering whether it is intended, when speaking of the textile trade, to take it only in the form in which we knew it a few years ago. Is it intended that, in the event of trouble in the textile trade, if we brought out in sympathy all the men and women engaged in the artificial silk trade, that would be regarded as an illegal strike? Suppose the chemical workers came out in connection and in sympathy with the textile workers, for, after all, artificial silk is a chemical product. Does it mean that if the chemical trade strikes in these circumstances it is going to be illegal, under the language used in this Clause?
    When one realises all that there is in the technicalities of these trades and industries, how is it possible to secure from any of His Majesty's Judges a decision that would be understood by the people engaged in the struggle to improve their conditions? When bon. Members refer to the Law Courts as being able to settle whether people are acting legally or illegally, and whether they are striking in sympathy or otherwise, when it is suggested that the Judges are the people who could decide it for us, I am amazed at the want of knowledge of what has happened in the Law Courts of this country. I remember one dispute in which a magistrate, who was the father of an hon. Member of this House, was asked to define a certain occupation and, in addition, to decide whether or not a person had committed a breach of the law while picketing. The magistrate decided that by picketing and by suggesting that a certain person would be a marked man, the intention of the individual was to make a mark of some kind on the individual, so that for all time he would be noted as he passed along the street, and the man was sent to prison because somebody had suggested that that particular phrase had been used. If our case as to whether a strike is legal or illegal has to be decided in the Courts, it means that this Bill is intended to prevent any dispute at all and
    1060
    to try to keep us in the position, bad as it is, in which we find ourselves at the present time.
    I know it is of very little use to plead with the Government, who appear to have made up their minds to take the side of the employers. There are some people who say that employers are opposed to this Clause. I know some employers are opposed to it. I heard the Prime Minister mention what he had received from a body called the Alliance of Employers and Employed, and I know that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is a member of that particular body, so that I am amazed to find him to-day supporting this Measure, which has been condemned by that association. During the latter part of last year I suggest that the Prime Minister received a deputation from the Confederation of Employers—not the Federation of British Industries—who insisted upon this Measure being forced through the House, but asked that the matter should not be discussed during last autumn, but should be put off until this year. Those are the masters who are directing the Government now, Those are the employers who have made up their minds that there is going to be no friendliness between them and the workers' organisations. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) knows a good deal about industry. I do not doubt.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Certainly. I know much more than you do.
    Mr. KELLY: I hope that is true. There are many federations and associations of employers in this country, but with none of them have we ever found the hon. Member associated in any way.
    Mr. ERSKINE: How do you know?
    Mr. KELLY: We have met them in conference time after time, and I suggest that the representative of the industrial constituency of St. George's, Hanover Square, is one who had better gain some knowledge of industry before he takes a part in this particular discussion. I suggest that this Measure is one that is designed to harass the workers and to prevent them from improving their position, and that it is in keeping with the mind of a Government that is not prepared to see this country placed on an improved standing.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: It seems to me the whole Debate in Committee on these Amendments has been along one particular line. Complaints are made constantly by the opponents of the Bill that the definitions are not clear, and constant and, I think, really genuine attempts are being made by those in charge of the Bill to clarify the issues involved. I wish to put forward this point of view—which has not yet been put forward—that it is distinctly dangerous to get too clear a definition in this Clause. This Clause is undoubtedly framed to deal with the possible repetition of a situation such as confronted the Government and the country last May. I may, perhaps, remind hon. Members that the main reason why the country successfully came through that very serious crisis was the fact that there was very grave uncertainty in the minds of everyone concerned—of the Government and of the country at large, as well as of the trade unions—as to what was the exact position in which they found themselves. Any Clause in any Bill which defines such a position so exactly that the tactical situation, if I may so express myself, is consolidated, does undoubtedly introduce a very grave national danger if such a situation ever arises.
    7.0 p.m.
    If hon. Members will recall the events of the early part of last May, they will remember that one section of the people concerned were running about the country saying it was merely a little industrial dispute and that it had nothing to do with revolution or rebellion of any kind, while those who thought otherwise were impressing upon the people of this country that it was undoubtedly a revolution and a rebellion with which we were confronted. From that conflict of opinion, and from the intense uncertainty of the tactical position, we got this enormous benefit—to my mind a benefit which enabled us successfully to survive that crisis—that the forces which ultimately do decide these matters were able to get fair play in that situation, and those forces are the innate decency and common sense of the vast majority of the people of this country. If, during the crisis of last May, we had been in the position in which we shall be if we get a very clear definition in the Amendments which are now proposed to us, a very dangerous situation would have arisen, for under those conditions there could be no doubt in the mind of anyone
    1062
    that the general strike had produced a revolutionary situation, and the decency and commonsense of the people would not have had that free play which they actually had in the situation which arose last May. Therefore I do hope that hon. Members will consider that point of view and consider whether on the whole, in view of the danger which this Clause is intended to meet, it is really advantageous to the country at large and to the people of this country that we should have too clear and definite a definition and in that way make the tactical situation clear if such a crisis should arise and I earnestly hope it will never arise in the future.
    Mr. NAYLOR: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) in his concluding sentence expressed the view that such a position as that of May last year was not likely to occur again. There may be many in this House who share that view, but no matter what the law may be, no matter what the penalties may be which are imposed for breaking the law, if the causes that animated the trade union movement last year were to recur at any time, I am quite certain that the men who took the action then would take the action again if they thought the circumstances justified them in doing so, whatever the penalties imposed upon them. At times of crisis in the history of mankind, men do not hesitate to do that which they think right regardless of the consequences. Although I am no supporter of the policy of the general strike or of using the industrial weapon of the strike for political purposes, I protest that it is unfair to impose restrictions upon the liberty of men organised for a specific purpose in the field of industry when you do not deny that liberty to men employed in the same industry but occupying altogether different positions. Something was said last week concerning the grammar of Clause 1 and I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General on restoring the grammar, which certainly was in a very uncertain position in the Clause as originally drafted. He has rectified that at least, and I think he has made the Clause more clear. It is not the actual wording of a Clause or the meaning of a Clause as expressed in the terms laid down in the Bill, but it is its interpretation and the possibilities of its interpretation in the Courts that matter.

    1063
    I would like to refer to the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and to the Attorney-General's reply. The right hon. Member put this illustration. He asked us to assume that the miners were out on strike, and that after the strike had been in progress the railwaymen, after giving notice of their intention to do so, refused to handle blackleg coal. He asked if that would be legal or illegal, and the Attorney-General said that, under the terms of the Clause, such action would be illegal. I do not quite follow that, and I put it to the Attorney-General that the position of the railwaymen in that case does not fall under the two conditions imposed by the Clause. The first condition is that it must be a question other than the furtherance of a trade dispute. The action of the railwaymen in declining to handle that coal and in going out on strike rather than be compelled to do so, does not come in conflict with the Clause. The refusal of the railwaymen to handle coal is a dispute within the trade or industry. It is true that the dispute in the trade or industry starts as a consequence of the miners being out on strike, but it would be quite easy to argue in a Court of Law that the railwaymen were simply coming out in furtherance of a trade dispute within the industry. The first condition, therefore, does not affect the position of the railwaymen in that industry, and I am quite certain that, if the Clause passes in its present form, any King's Counsel would argue against that strike being illegal within the meaning of the Clause. I put that as a point to be answered, because I think it covers quite a number of cases as well as the one already mentioned. I leave it to the Committee to say whether or not this Clause clearly indicates what trade unions may or may not do in definite circumstances, and whether it is fair to place those restrictions upon them.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: This discussion to my mind is just about as unreal as the question of what is a real or an unreal sympathetic strike. We all know quite well what is meant. The Attorney-General has been subjected to an extraordinary fire of questions. It was one of the ancients that said that one child-sometimes the story puts it more
    1064
    cruelly as one fool—can ask more questions in one hour than a hundred philosophers can answer in a hundred years. The Attorney-General stood up extraordinarily well to the enormous fire of hypothetical, and in some cases hypocritical, questions that were let loose upon him. We know perfectly well what this Clause is directed against. It is directed against the events of last year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not buy their morning newspaper. They could only get the "Workers' Weekly," which they would not otherwise have thought of buying, and the "British Gazette." They had to walk to their work, and they were rather short of food supplies. I do not know what you like to call the events of last year, but no one wants to see them happen again.
    Even hon. Gentlemen opposite, with one or two exceptions. do not want to see them happen again. They do not want to have them, but they want to have the power to threaten them again. They want the weapon of the events of last year—whether you call them a general strike or national strike—they want to keep the monster in the cave, so that they can always threaten to bring it out again. They are very sorry they brought it out at all, because it was far more efficient as a weapon when it had never materialised. We found when it came out that it was like some of those giants in a white sheet, that sometimes frighten females at night. When you examine one, you find that it is some individual of moderate stature holding a white sheet high over his head. It was not so much the Government, but the general mass of the community that disposed of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why this Bill?"] Because the gentlemen who authorised the last of these strikes are quite capable of organising another. I do not want it to happen again if only that it rendered all the trade union funds nearly bankrupt. I would like myself to see their funds better conserved, because I have a very deep interest in working men.
    The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) said that employers who are not politicians disapprove of the Bill. It is not for him to make that remark as a universal statement. I know as much about employés as most people, and I say, in answer, that employ—eacute;s who are not politicians approve of the Bill.

    1065
    It is the employés who are politicians who do not approve of it, because they generally get some other employment in addition to their usual occupation. The hon. Member said in addition that it was not in the best interests of the State. That is just where the issue is joined. I agree with the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that there is a fundamental difference between the parties. That difference is that we who support the Government think that this Bill is to the interest of the whole community, including the trade unionists. Hon. Members on the other side are thinking of the present powers and privileges of trade unionists, or rather of their leaders, and not of the good of the community at all. It is these powers and privileges and immunities for which they are anxious. When one hears the complaints that are being made about these poor oppressed trade unionists, I would like to read them a quotation from a very valuable work on trade unions which says that:
    "The Trade Disputes Act, which remains (in 1920) the main charter of trade unionism, explicitly declares, without any qualification or exception, that no civil action shall be entertained against a trade union in respect of any wrongful act committed by or on behalf of the Union."
    That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) who queried me last time I spoke—
    "An extraordinary and unlimited immunity, however great may be the damage caused and however unwarranted the act, which most lawyers as well as all employers regard as nothing less than monstrous."
    Why do lawyers regard it as monstrous? Because one of the most fundamental principles in the law of this country, which it took centuries to get established, is that of equality for all before the law. Your associations are not equal before the law. You are put before the law in a position of extraordinary and unlimited immunity, however great may be the damage caused and however unwarranted the act.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Do not these remarks apply equally to employers' associations?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Certainly, and I object equally to employers and any other persons combining to put themselves above the ordinary law of the land. What is the result, to leave them to fight one
    1066
    another like the old lawless clans when the Campbells slew the Macleans and vice versa, and the Macdonalds fought the Campbells and there was no law. This Bill still leaves that unhappy state of affairs and only creates a liability where the State and the community are attacked.
    Major CRAWFURD: The hon. and learned Member must be well aware that in 1906 his own party was in the House. I would like to ask him whether they opposed the Bill then?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: In 1906 the Bill was opposed in Committee by the party to which I belong, and if I had had the good fortune to be in the House at that time it would have been opposed even more strenuously than it was. It was, as I said on the last occasion I spoke, promoted with the full and certain confidence that it would be rejected in another place. It was not meant to be law. This book from which I am quoting goes on to say:
    "Some friends of the trade unions expressed at the time the doubt whether the policy thus forced upon Parliament would prove, in the long run, entirely in the interests of the Movement; and whether it would not have been better to have chosen the bolder policy of insisting on a complete reform of the law, to which, when properly reformed, trade unions should be subject in the same way as any other associations."
    Surely that was, and is, the sound view, and it is the view I have always taken, and the view that the wisest members of the trade union party have always taken. If Parliament restores the unions the protection of the law in this respect, it will put hon. Members opposite in a far stronger position with the community. This Clause is directed to put an end to the sort of sympathetic strike known as the general strike. The position of sympathetic strikes is very doubtful as the law stands at present. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of what I am about to read. [An HON. MEMBER: "From what chapter are you reading?"] I am reading from a great authority on Trade Union Law, the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). It will be observed that I was waiting to be asked, because an answer in cross-examination is always more effective than in chief examination. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:

    1067
    "Trade unionists would be well advised not to presume too far on this apparently absolute immunity from legal proceedings. It must not be imagined that either the ingenuity of the lawyers or the prejudice of the judges has been exhausted."
    That is a very unworthy remark. It is the old story. Trade unions have lost a great many cases, and whenever their cases are lost, why do they turn round and say that the judges are prejudiced? Is it not possible that they themselves may be wrong? Even Oliver Cromwell admitted that he might be wrong.
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me, if not to suggest a correction of law, at least a correction of his history?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Well, he said it to and of the House of Commons—I think it was the Barebones Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
    "It has already been urged that the immunity of a trade union from being sued should be regarded as implicitly limited to acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute; but such a limitation has so far been negative. It is now suggested that the immunity might one day be held to be limited to acts committed by a trade union in the exercise of its specifically trade union functions, or for the 'statutory objects' of trade unions as defined by the Act, and not to acts which the Court might hold to be beyond its legitimate scope, or not specifically connected with what they might in their wisdom consider to be the principal purpose of a trade union. Thus, a new Taff Vale case, at a moment when public opinion was exceptionally hostile to trade unionism, is by no means impossible. Similarly, trade union officials should remember that their privileged position is confined to a trade dispute."
    It is a very doubtful position whether, even as matters stand, people are in a position to take to a strike in sympathy with a quarrel, with which they have no concern in their own industry. If one's own trade is close enough to a particular trade or industry, a sympathetic strike is perfectly understandable, but as for the suggestion about the railwaymen not handling coal from abroad, never in the history of trade unionism has a more absurd suggestion been made. They may, as an act of sympathy, occasionally make a show of not handling a particular consignment, but to say there is any bond of union or solidarity of labour in the privileged position of railwaymen and
    1068
    the poor miners who have to stand in competition against the whole world, is the most ridiculous position in the world. There is no relationship or solidarity whatever, and, therefore, that is a situation which, I think, very unlikely to arise. This Parliament would have failed in its duty, and I believe trade union leaders themselves would have been disappointed, if it had not taken the action it has taken, and the working classes and the mass of trade unionists would have despised this House. Here is one of the many letters I have received from working men:
    "Sir,—Reading your remarks at Caxton Hall last week, I as a working man coincide in everything you said there. When we have men (save the name) posing as our leaders who went to Russia in the middle of our last War and made peace with the Russians and Germans, and through their mission to Russia the Germans were able to put a million and a half more men on the Western front, which cost us and our Allies millions of money, and millions of casualties, I, following their careers,"
    and here follows an adjective—and he says of them—
    "Why, they go into chapel in the morning and preach Christianity, and then go into some hall or to some street-corner and preach anarchy or vice versa. Look at that ….….… who at Bristol told the men to take up guns and he would lead them on the Sunday, and when this valorous march was to come off, he was in the pulpit at Victoria Park Chapel—preaching a sermon on the humility of our Lord and Master—200 miles away. I now close, hoping the working men will open their eyes and see through them."
    I have known the working-men all my life, and I say that in every part of the country they feel that some legislation of this kind is essential. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) has said there is nothing but misery from strikes. I do not believe in the benefit of strikes. They are just like war—abominable things in which to engage, and involve loss and suffering to all. If before a strikes takes place, those who can look at the Statute and find doubt as to its legality, there will often be no strike. I think it is much better that that should be the position, because it will give some time for consideration; there will be opportunity for the parties to come together. That is the meaning of the phrase in the Prayer-book quoted by the Prime Minister, "Give peace in our time." It gives time for employers to

    1069
    see that they are conceding too little, and for employés to see that they are demanding too much. The instantaneous lightning strike without any consideration is the seed of anarchy and of war, and it is the duty of this or any other Government to see that such a state of affairs as prevailed last May will not occur again.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I recognise the difficulty, and a certain amount of danger, one incurs in entering into a discussion which we have had for seven days between the legal elements of the House employed on one side or the other. It seems to me that the further we go with the legal luminaries, the more confusion becomes confounded. There is a point or two arising out of the interjections I made this evening when the Attorney-General was speaking. It seems to be assumed that a sympathetic strike must necessarily have some connection, directly or otherwise, with the men engaged in the trade, and the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken seemed to infer that men in certain trades, apparently far removed, say, from miners, could have little or no economic connection one with the other, or no real industrial sympathy. But industry is becoming of such a character that it ought to be perfectly apparent by now that many strikes, which take upon themselves the character of sympathetic strikes, can be really strikes of self-interest. Wages are closely interlocked. The wages paid to men in one industry might well be reflected in the wages paid to other men, and I can well understand that the wages of the engineers might well be defended by the railway men in a sympathetic strike, because of the effect a cut in their wages might have upon railway men themselves.
    The same can be said with regard to the miners and the railway men. I believe last May, in addition to the fact that the railway men had tremendous sympathy with the resistance to the attack being made upon the wages of the miners, there was also the feeling that if the wages of a million men were to be reduced, if their conditions of labour were to be made worse, ultimately that was bound to be reflected in the condition of every other workman in this country. There is that point of view,
    1070
    at least, to be taken into consideration. It is becoming abundantly clear—I sit here as a representative of miners—that never again under this Bill can the miners, if on strike, look for any sympathetic aid from any other trade or industry. That seems to be perfectly clear.
    Let me put this position. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) say he could suggest something whereby the difficulties in the coal trade could be overcome, and he spoke of international relationships. It is easy to assume that before very long we may see the coal owners of this country linked up with the coal owners of Germany, France and Belgium; there would be inter-locking arrangements of an international character, just as we now have them of a national character. With those conditions the miners here might feel themselves compelled to strike. Then the owners might begin to import coal from the other pits in which they are directly interested on the Continent, and the miners here would be beaten, yet under this Bill it would be illegal for the dockers or railway men to refuse to handle the coal brought in to smash our miners down. It would not he an illegal strike from my point of view, because it would not be directed at the State. Of course, it might bring about hardship for the community, but long before hardship is imposed upon the community by means of a strike very large sections of the community would have been suffering hardship. Men strike because of hardships, they do not strike unless there are hardships. Hardships are endured by millions of men, and it is only by striking that they can remove them. When we talk of hardships being inflicted on others, it is well to remember the hardships which are always with us so far as many people are concerned. That is a point of view which appears to have been missed up to the present.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) is not the first who has addressed the House in the manner in which he did this afternoon. Many members of the Labour party have continually urged that instead of striking the better way to conduct industrial negotiations is by negotiation and arbitration, and by getting together. More and more men on this side of the House

    1071
    have come to believe that methods of conciliation were the proper methods, in opposition to those who have urged the other point of view, who have taken what hon. Members on the Government side call the class-war attitude. By the introduction of this Bill the Government have proved conclusively that those who argue that conciliation is useless are in the right. When the Attorney-General was speaking in Committee last week he made a reference to those of us on these benches who, he said, believe evil of the Government. I said in an interjection that I was one of them. I said I believed the worst, and so I do, and I believe this Bill is a part of the class struggle which hon. Members opposite are always declaring does not exist. For the past 12 months, in the whole conduct of the dispute of last year, and by ranging themselves now on the employers' side in the action being taken to prevent sympathetic strikes on the part of workmen who feel a joint interest in contesting reductions of wages in a particular trade, the Government are proving themselves the champions of vested interests on all occasions.
    This is not the end of the matter. This Bill will settle nothing. It may be taken for granted that none of these prohibitive Clauses can be made really effective. It would be a great deal better if the Government had set themselves to discover some method whereby conciliation might have been followed, instead of throwing down the glove as they have done by introducing this Bill. I am opposed to the Bill from top to bottom. I will preach opposition to this Bill for all I am worth amongst the men I represent, and I will stir up as much opposition to it as I possibly can, and if the Government attempt to make it operative I will do the best I can to prevent it from being effective. [Interruption.] I do not see why hon. Members should object to that. They have thrown down the challenge and they must take what follows. They have indicated clearly that it is war to the knife between one side and the other, and as far as I am personally concerned I will do my level best to assist the workmen in my district to make their protest affective by making this Bill inoperative.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: I feel quite certain the hon. Member who has just sat down will carry into effect the pledge he has given—no one doubts it—but I hope that when he fights this Bill in the country he will be careful as to the accuracy of the statements he makes. The hon. Member did my constituency the honour of paying it a visit a few weeks ago, and in the course of a speech which he made there, of which I have a cutting in my hand, he made the following statement:
    "The Commission set up"—
    He was referring to the Royal Commission:
    "reported in favour of a reorganisation of the coal industry and that a subsidy should be given to the industry over the difficult period until reorganisation could be made effective."
    That is an entirely and grossly inaccurate statement. If the hon. Member had read the Report of the Royal Commission, as he ought to have done as the representative of a coalmining constituency, he would have read the words:
    "The subsidy should come to an end at the end of the appointed period and never be repeated."
    Therefore, I say with confidence, that in that statement to my constituents he made a statement which he should have known was grossly inaccurate.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not hold that it is inaccurate even now. The suggestion was that the subsidy might have been continued until reorganisation had taken place.
    Sir F. MEYER: The hon. Member confuses the issue. Either he has not studied the question or his memory is at fault. The Commission reported definitely that no further subsidy should be given, and the Government, in suggesting to give even the £3,000,000, were going against the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member is confusing the Report of the Royal Commission with what Sir Herbert Samuel, after the strike, suggested as a possible via media; he is quite inaccurate in saying that the Royal Commission reported in favour of a subsidy; and I hope that when he goes round the country speaking about this Bill he will

    1073
    take a little more care to be accurate. The inaccurate statements he made in Great Yarmouth have been fully exposed in the locality.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I shall take nothing back.
    Sir F. MEYER: I feel confident the hon. Gentleman will take nothing back, but the fact remains that inaccuracy, when it is exposed, does not pay in the long run.
    This Debate has revolved mainly about the question of the sympathetic strike. I must confess that when I first approached the objects of this Bill I had some doubts as to whether it was the right object for the Bill to endeavour to attain that sympathetic strikes should be made illegal; but since I have heard the views put forward in this Debate, principally from the Labour benches, and, to some extent, from the, Liberal benches, I have come to the conclusion that sympathetic strikes as there defined should be made illegal. [Interruption.] I am quite prepared to defend that statement in this House or outside. If sympathetic strikes were defined merely as strikes by men within an industry trying to bring pressure on the same—
    Mr. KELLY: What is an industry?
    Sir F. MEYER: I am not here to enter into dialectical arguments. One does try sometimes to follow up a train of thought, though no doubt the hon. Member wishes to turn it to one side. So long as they are directed solely against the same employer or group of employers to endeavour to force them to give better terms, to improve wages or not to lower them, sympathetic strikes are perfectly justified; but the sympathetic strikes that have been referred to by hon. Members opposite and the examples they have given have invariably dealt with cases where it would not be the employer in dispute with his workmen who would be affected, but the general public; and my contention is that sympathetic strikes of that kind, if they are not illegal at the present time, should be made illegal. The party opposite have quite definitely said that last year there was no general strike but only a sympathetic strike. If that is so, I say what the public demand
    1074
    of us is that we should stop sympathetic strikes.
    There are opposing views as to what the general strike of last year really was. The present chairman of the Council of the Trade Union Congress says that the general strike of last year was
    "a nobler, a bigger, a better and a braver battle than any battle fought in the Great War and resounds more to the honour of the British people than any action in the European War."
    That is mere turgid nonsense, which will be judged by the British people. What does the printing trade say? We have had an hon. Member closely identified with the printing trade taking part in the Debate this afternoon. The printing trade says about the general strike:
    "The curtain may well be dropped finally on this unfortunate affair. As a means to a designed end it was an absolute failure. The Printing Trade Unions are not likely to be drawn again into the vortex of a general strike. It is equally unlikely that the general council will be tempted to repeat the experiment. Trade unions exceed their functions in trying to create conditions akin to revolution."
    The view of the Trade Union concerned and of Mr. Hicks are not the same. Hon. Members opposite say that the strike last year was merely a sympathetic strike. Whether it was so or not it seems to me that the main issue is largely lost sight of in discussing what are the rights or wrongs of it, or what are the duties of the trade unions themselves, and what is the position of the Government, and whether it is right to coerce it, or whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was right when he said, "Governments exist only to be coerced." All that can be argued one way or the other. One thing of which I am convinced is that nine-tenths of the people of this country are determined that they will not be used as pawns in the game between employers and employed or between the employed and the Government, and for that reason I am in favour not only of the principle laid down by the Attorney-General in his opening speech on the Bill but of making it clear that sympathetic strikes which either intentionally or, if not intentionally, obviously and clearly, result in inflicting hardship on the community outside the unions in dispute shall be made illegal.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Did the Attorney-General in his opening speech on the Second Reading say that? Did he not say something very different? Let me read what he said.
    Sir F. MEYER: Surely this is somewhat irrelevant to my argument.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: You referred to the opening speech of the Attorney-General and what he said with regard to the life of the community. This is what he said:
    "But if we had used that definition, we should have interfered with legitimate and industrial strikes, because as the House will realise, 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."
    Sir H. SLESSER: That is not stopped by the Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Such a strike as the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has said we have not stopped by this Bill.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927: col. 1320, Vol. 205.]
    Sir F. MEYER: I merely said that I was in favour of the principles as enunciated by the Attorney-General in his opening speech, and further that I was in favour of making sympathetic strikes illegal which in their effect or intention inflicted harm upon the community. I was in favour of making those taking part in them illegal, not necessarily of making them subject to criminal prosecution, but making them illegal in order that those conspiring in that way should be subject to penalties. That is my view and it is the view of nine-tenths of the community outside trade unions. That is also the view of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists themselves. I believe that trade unionists value very highly the right to strike in order to improve the conditions within their industry, but I do not believe they value highly the right of being called out by their leaders in a dispute in which they have no concern.
    An incident occurred the other day which impressed me very much. As I was leaving my constituency, a member of the National Union of Railwaymen whom I had never seen before, whose name I do not know and who is not a member of my association, came on to the platform at the station, and as the train was moving out he tapped on the window of the carriage and said, "Do not forget to vote for the Trade Unions Bill." A
    1076
    think like that has never happened to me before. I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) because he is one of those who delivers the goods and all Members of the National Union of Railwaymen are thoroughly grateful to him. But although he may defend the rights of trade unionists to strike in sympathy with the men belonging to other unions, I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he would take a secret ballot of his union as to whether they wanted to give to their leaders the right to call them out in a sympathetic strike without consulting them by ballot, they would by an overwhelming majority say that they were not in favour of giving any such power to their leaders.
    Mr. THOMAS: The more this Debate goes on the more necessary is it to clearly define the issue. The majority of hon. Members on the opposite side who have given any kind of support to this Bill have done so under the sincere belief that they are doing something which, in the first place, will prevent a general strike, and, secondly, will tend to curtail industrial disputes as a whole. I think that is a fair statement of their case, and I want to meet that position right away. The hon. Member who has just sat down opened his speech by a very strong note of censure on what he called the exaggerated statements of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). I ask the hon. Member to reflect as to whether he himself has not fallen into precisely the same error of which he has complained. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) said that he was satisfied that nine-tenths of the people of this country were in favour of this Measure.
    Sir F. MEYER: I said nine-tenths of the community outside trade unions, and that is my opinion. What I said in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr was a statement of fact as to what the Royal Commission had said in a printed document which was sent forth to the community.
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr was also giving his opinion of the Samuel Report, and that was his interpretation of the Report. [HON. MEMBER: "He is wrong."] That at least was his opinion. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has told us a story about a railwayman tapping at the window of a railway carriage just as he

    1077
    was leaving the station, and he said he had never seen that railwayman before and did not even know his name. He stated that that man asked him to vote for the Trade Unions Bill. If the hon. Member had not seen that railwayman before how did he know that he was a member of the National Union of Railwaymen?
    Sir F. MEYER: I grant that. I know he was a railwayman, but I do not know whether or not he was a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member now tells the Committee that he had no such evidence. I think it is rather unwise for anyone to criticise other people in that way. I want to come back to what I will call the practical side of the Bill. I have heard a number of speeches from hon. Members opposite, who declare that the ordinary trade unionist wishes to be protected against the bad advice and the precipitate action of their leaders in bringing them out on strike. I think that is a fair summary of their statements. Let me take my own case. I represent the biggest trade union, not only in this country but in the world—the biggest single organisation. I think there has been no dispute in which so far as authority is concerned, whatever else may be said about me, no one can say that there has not been some discipline in my union. I wonder how many Members in this House realise that when the whole of those men struck on two occasions, and when they were ordered back to work and went back, not one of them knew the terms on which they went back. That shows the power of the organisation, and it was at their own request that they did not have a ballot. The curious thing about our organisation is that there was a motion on the agenda that before a strike took place and before a settlement could be effected—this proposal was aimed directly at me in order to curtail my own power—the question should be submitted to a ballot of the men. Hon. Members will scarcely believe that there was not 2 per cent. of the railwaymen voted in favour of that motion. I ask the House in fairness, when talking about protecting the men, can there be any more democratic system than that of allowing the members to do exactly as they want to do? Strong as is my position in the union, it may surprise hon.
    1078
    Members to know that I have not even a vote in determining a strike, and all this talk about leaders determining strikes is quite untrue. In the case of a vote taken by my own executive to decide whether there shall be a strike or not, I have not even the power to vote one way or the other, and I think other leaders are in exactly the same position.
    Whatever may be the rights or the wrongs of this system, it certainly demonstrates that the power in regard to strikes rests with the rank and file. When we come to the question of a strike, I go beyond that and I say that I have never known my executive actually sanction a strike that was not already started. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about last year?"] When hon. Members talk about the leaders calling the strike, they at once show that they know nothing about the facts. There were no less than 19 motions for my dismissal on our agenda in July, and they were actually put down because I refused to allow strikes and because I was opposed to them. Therefore, when hon. Members assume that the leaders are the cause of strikes, it shows how ignorant they are of the actual facts. I have known a strike engineered, and deliberately engineered, against my advice by a minority movement, and this Bill is going to inflict punishment on my executive and make them pay damages caused by somebody else who engineers the strike.
    Captain O'CONNOR: Is that not exactly what the Prime Minister said? He stated that it was perfectly well known that some of the unions had come under the control of the minority movement? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has just given us an instance of that, and it will be remembered that when the Prime Minister made that statement he was called a liar
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. THOMAS: We are going to keep quite cool upon this point. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth could not have followed clearly what I said. What I said is a far different thing, and it only shows the hon. Member's ignorance of the trade union movements when he makes such statements. It is an entirely different thing not only to have one, but 10, 12, and even 20 sectional strikes going on in different parts in which the people who engineered them

    1079
    or were responsible for them were not under the control of the union. Take the example of what happened at Liverpool, when Liverpool was paralysed by a sectional strike which my own executive opposed. In that ease the executive went to the length of refusing to negotiate with the employers until the men went back to work. That was imposing discipline from the head office. The moral of all that is, you believe it is something that ought to be stopped and that you ought to abolish it. You really believe that, and you would support that against the practical experience of every man connected with a union. Surely, such a man ought to be the best judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), who spoke this afternoon, has sat with me on a committee year after year, and I have never known him fail to be condemned for his conciliatory methods. I have never known him in any other capacity. If there was an opportunity of finding a way out of the difficulty he would find it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There is common agreement on that. But my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel gets up and says: "I am willing to put my 40 years' actual experience against your theoretical knowledge," and by their votes hon. Members say: "We do not believe you." I ask hon. Members to come back to the logic of it. I am sure they did not intend to reply in that way, but the fact remains that, when my hon. Friend tells the Committee that, hon. Members, by their votes, say to him what I have said.
    I come back to the question of this Amendment. To-day we have had admitted what was not made clear on the Second Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading of the Bill there was no Member on this side of the House who did not understand the Attorney-General to say that, so far as this Bill was concerned, it did not interfere with the existing rights of the workers to strike. I think that is a fair way of putting it. That was immediately challenged from this side of the House. We challenged it, not because of the accuracy of the statement, not because the Attorney-General said it, but because we could not reconcile it with the language of the Bill. That was the
    1080
    whole point. In other words, we said: "Whatever you may say in these speeches, we are compelled to recognise, when it is interpreted by a Judge or a Magistrate, that it will not be your speech but the language in this Bill." That was our case. What followed? The Second Reading went through. The first two days of the Committee took place. We are faced now on the third day with the Government's own actual words, that is to say, the amended words, the words which, when put in the Bill, will show exactly what the Government mean. When those words are submitted to this Committee there is an immediate, frank, and quite straightforward statement—the Attorney-General was not ambiguous, he did not attempt to camouflage it at all—by the Attorney-General, who said quite honestly and frankly, "Yes, in the, illustration that I myself gave I stated that a sympathetic strike would be illegal under this Bill." He has put the question fairly and squarely, and therefore I ask hon. Members not to go away with the impression, or to say in the country, or to contend, that we are dealing with something that retains the existing right of organised labour to withhold that labour.
    I say that for this reason. If it was possible for anybody from any part of the House, I do not care where, to introduce a Bill into this House which in its object and in its application was calculated to minimise disputes, to develop more conciliation, in spite of what has been said I would support it. I have no hesitation in saying that, because I have had practical experience of both. I have had the experience of using conciliation, and I have had the experience of controlling strikes, and I have no hesitation in saying that he is a blind, mad, foolish leader who knows nothing of his job and who is in an insignificant minority, who attempts for one moment to say that he prefers the method of a strike. He is not only a foolish man but he is an unwise leader, he would be not only unwise but he would be false to his trust and his obligations, strong as he was for conciliation, bitter as he may be against a strike, anxious as he may be to promote peace—he would be a blind fool both to his own position and to his trust, if he did not recognise that once you take away the power to strike, the

    1081
    method of conciliation is absolutely gone. All experience proves that. Folks talk in this country as if the trade union movement merely came into being last year and the general strike was the result of it, and that is all the connection. I am one of those who frankly admit that there have been mistakes. I am not going to pretend that every strike has been justified. Of course, I know that every strike has not been justified, but I also know that there have been a number of lock-outs that have not been justified. There have been mistakes on both sides. But, making all those allowances, can anyone dispute that trade unions can ultimately only be maintained and have only been built up in the position that they occupy to-day, not by their conciliation methods, but because they have had the power to say, as a last resort: "We will withhold our labour, because we recognise that it is our essential bargaining power and we are not prepared to see it taken away."
    We had a speech in the early afternoon from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). He is always as happy as if he were discussing a Licensing Bill or some such Bill as that; he is always introducing a lot of quips and cranks, but this is far too serious a matter for a speech of this kind. So far as this House is concerned, this is a very important Bill. There are four millions or five millions on the workers' side and there are large employers who will be affected by it. If, as a result of the Division, this Bill is placed on the Statute Book and the bar put up against these conciliation agreements, this House will have made it more difficult for the spirit of good will to be introduced and hon. Members will not have gained any political kudos. Even if they had, that would have been a detail. What that would have done will have been to create further handicaps on the improvement of the trade and development of this country. If I could have approached this question feeling for one moment that this Bill would do anything to help towards solving the problem, no party consideration would influence me in the least. But I suppose I meet as many men as other Members of the House every week-end. I have met more thousands of men this weekend than many Members will meet for
    1082
    a very long time. I am not now speaking of the sort of man who is always in trouble, but I am speaking of the sober-minded trade unionist; the man who is quiet. I can put in a sentence what he says. He says: "I know that my only bargaining power is the right to withhold my labour and sell it to the best advantage. Take that away and I am done."
    Mr. HANNON: He still retains that right, surely?
    Mr. THOMAS: Can that be truthfully said after this Debate? If you say he still retains a limited right, I agree with you. But it cannot be argued, it cannot be pretended, that that same right, that power to help not only himself but to help others, not only the desire to help himself economically but to help a man who is not in his own industry—it cannot be pretended that all these things are not affected by it. They are taken away under this Bill. It becomes more and more difficult for me, not only to define this Bill but to say what will be the ultimate end of it. The only end of it, I am perfectly sure, is what we originally suspected. It is not for me to give advice to the Government, but if I were attempting to give advice I would say: "Save the rest of your 19 Parliamentary days and occupy them with something more profitable to yourselves and, certainly, more advantageous to the community."
    Captain O'CONNOR: With a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I find myself in complete agreement, and if this Bill or any portion of it or any Amendments that we have put down to it really menaced the method of conciliation seriously, then neither the Bill nor the Amendment would have any support from me, no matter on which side of the House I sat. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was chasing a hare. I wonder if he could possibly conceive any matter that could be submitted to conciliation in his industry about which this Bill would prevent a strike? The right of the workers in an industry to withhold their labour and to use that withholding as a supplement to any conciliation method is, so far as I can see, even under the amended Clause, not affected in any conceivable way. But what this Bill does do, and what this

    1083
    Clause does do, is to prevent an industry like that in which the right hon. Gentleman himself is engaged from being made the catspaw of other industries which are desirous of using his undoubted weight and his undoubted organisation for the purpose of a wholly illegal object. I have the honour to represent a constituency which is very largely composed of hat-makers and, taking all the hat-makers in the country, they comprise a very formidable economic body. It is difficult to think of any conceivable trade in which more economic hardship would follow than from a general strike in the hat-making trade. You never find the hat-makers being called in to support the miners, or to support any other industry. The trade or industry that you will find called in nearly always is the industry in which the right hon. Gentleman himself is particularly interested. Is not the reason for that quite obvious, namely, that the motive is too often not a sympathetic motive at all, not a motive for the purpose of putting economic pressure on anyone, but simply the motive of dragging in that trade or industry which will have the most disastrous consequences to the convenience of the community as a whole?
    Mr. THOMAS: May I interrupt for the purpose of making a correction? A similar statement has been made several times this afternoon, and I will endeavour to show in one sentence the connection that exists. In every miners' dispute, no matter how long it lasts, whether it be long or short, the first thing that happens is that an overwhelming number of the trained men employed on the railways go on one, two, or three days a week, and their union have had to support them under those conditions for as long as seven or eight months. The connection, therefore, can easily be seen.
    Captain O'CONNOR: I do not deny that certain disputes have direct economic results which would cause an economic connection between the railways and the industry that is engaged in a strike, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would not dispute this, that his industry is the doyen, so to speak, of all industries, and that there is hardly a trade that wanted its particular grievances voiced that would not, if it could possibly to do so, enlist the sympathy
    1084
    of the right hon. Gentleman's union for the purpose of supporting it in its strike. The moment when the motive is so transmuted by a desire to coerce is the moment at which you want to catch the motive and inhibit it, as this Bill seeks to do. I am not saying for a moment that it does so in any way perfectly, or that you can in practice decide at what moment the motives of people cease to be merely sympathetic, and begin to be coercive. That is one of the real difficulties about this Clause as it was at first, or as it has been ever since, but not as I hope it will be before it finally goes on to the Statute Book.
    From that argument I am led to be so bold as, first of all, to congratulate the Government on having altered their own Clause considerably. I do not think that in the mind of any discriminating people in the country they have weakened their position in the very least by recognising that they could improve their own Clause, and I hope they will keep to that point of view until this Bill finally comes back from another place. One of the things I am going to ask them to consider is whether they are wedded to the very form of this Clause even as it has been amended by them, and especially to the words as to imposing hardship on the community. The point of view that I want to advance is this: It seems to me, taking the illustration I have just been using, namely, that of the right hon. Gentleman's union, that there are really only a limited number of ways in which a strike such as we are all trying to suppress can be operated at all. It is only by bringing in a very limited number of industries that you can get into a strike that coercive element which is the element that we want to defeat. Why should not the Government recognise that definitely? Why should not they include a specification of a certain number of industries which may be used as the catspaw of coercion? As I have said, one cannot conceive a general strike of hatmakers, or even of bootmakers, and certainly not of barristers, or, less certainly, of doctors—
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Doctors have had a strike.
    Captain O'CONNOR: Then they are outside the scope of my argument. Really, when you come to boil it down, there are comparatively very few occupa-

    1085
    tions in this country which could be included within the designs of those who want to coerce the Government. Why not face that, and put them into the Clause, and put them in in this form, that coercing the Government would be attempting to deprive the Government or the community of these various things? Later on the Paper there is an Amendment in my name which attempts to do that by saying that coercing the Government means depriving the community of an essential food supply, of electricity, transport, and so on, and in that way recognising the directions in which the coercive forces are most likely to operate. Having done that, you have then to go a stage further, because you have to provide some machinery whereby the industries which are involved in that definition shall be able to make perfectly certain that they are not engaged in an unlawful enterprise. In connection with that, I have also attempted to put down an Amendment involving conciliation machinery, for which the right hon. Gentleman was pleading so eloquently a moment ago, so that any enterprise which comes within the ambit of the definition of an enterprise that might amount to coercion could put its object to the test. All that it would have to do would be to submit its object to the conciliation machinery, and, if it were a proper object for conciliation machinery, and had not passed through the ordinary stages of that machinery, it would possibly be put down as a general strike and come within the penalties of the Act. I suggest that some such proposal is at any rate worth consideration.
    There are, of course, obvious difficulties. It would not be suggested, for instance, that the provision of conciliation machinery should be made a mere device by which those who wanted a general strike could formally submit their objects to the conciliation machinery and, when they were rejected, be able to say, "Now we will have a general strike." The matter would have to be made watertight in that respect. But, until some progress has been made in the direction of defining what coercion is, and, in so defining it, defining the means by which coercion can be exercised, we shall never really make this an absolutely satisfactory Clause. Coercion is the keynote of the whole thing. There
    1086
    are two keynotes. There is the design to coerce, and there is the effect of coercion, and, although it has been indicated that the design may be by inflicting hardship, nothing so far has been done to define the actual central term "coercion." That ought to be defined, even if, if I may say so with great respect, it should at some time or other involve remodelling the Clause; and, if that involves bringing a conciliation Clause into the Bill, I hope we can rely on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who, as he said, was prepared to put aside party and so on, to get up and, notwithstanding what those behind him may say, support that part of the Bill which deals with conciliation machinery.
    Mr. MORRIS: With much of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) I fully agree, but his speech also illustrates the difficulty of dealing with a Clause of this character, even with the Amendment which the Government have brought in. The hon. and gallant Member suggests that it can only be clarified by defining what coercion is by stating the particular services of which the Government may be deprived, by setting out in a kind of schedule the specific trades. That would virtually mean that in certain classes of trades there would be no right to strike at all. This would merely remove from these people the right to strike in any circumstances, because it could easily be translated as coercion of the Government. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when he says this Amendment is an improvement upon the original Clause. It may well be an improvement on the original Clause, but even so it illustrates the real difficulty of attempting to legislate against revolutions, and that is what the Bill is here attempting to do. When events have moved so as to reach the stage of revolution, the Government must either be master in its own house or it must be beaten. An attempt to legislate beforehand against these circumstances is futile. I listened to the Debate through the afternoon, and much has been said about the sympathetic strike. It has been suggested that a sympathetic strike is hit at by this Clause as amended. With that I do not agree. It seems to me that, as the Attorney-General said on

    1087
    the Second Reading, it was not intended on the part of the Government to make the sympathetic strike illegal, and that the Bill does not do so. In my mind that is so, and as far as the wording of the Clause goes, I do not think the sympathetic strike is actually included in the Bill notwithstanding the fact that he said so to-day. It seems to me a sympathetic strike is illegal in certain given circumstances. It must be in furtherance of something beyond a trade dispute, and it must be designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community. Assume for a moment that the coalminers are out on strike, and it is a strike in which they are engaged in pursuance of a dispute within their own trade or industry, and the railwaymen, to take the illustration given by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) come out on strike, not to coerce the Government but in sympathy with the miners. It is a sympathetic strike in sympathy with the miners. There can be no dispute about the second part, that it will inflict hardship on the community. That is true, but the infliction of hardship on the community by itself does not make that strike illegal. You have to go further and show that that infliction of hardship on the community is designed or calculated to coerce the Government, and unless you satisfy the magistrate or the Judge, as the case may be, that hardship is inflicted on the community in pursuance of that design and attempt to coerce the Government, as I understand and read the Clause, a sympathetic strike is a perfectly legal strike. The difficulty arises not at that point but when the Act comes to be administered. If the hon. Baronet the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) had been the magistrate who had to try the case, in his view the Clause as it stands makes illegal a sympathetic strike of any kind. Holding that view and interpreting the Clause as he does, it would be clear that in cases coming before him as a magistrate there would be convictions in all of them. Assume a case of this sort, which has happened even in the events of the last 12 months. Take the miners' strike of 1921, where many unions, instead of coming out themselves, continued in employment but showed their sym-
    1088
    pathy by devoting part of their funds to assisting the miners. I have no doubt in many cases last year one of the arguments that weighed with certain other unions in deciding whether to assist the miners by devoting a portion of their funds or by coming out on strike, was that they should spend the money on themselves. I am not sure that that argument was not used last year.
    Supposing a union took this view, that they were going to spend their money and come out on strike. They are clearly inflicting hardship on the community, but it cannot be said their purpose is to coerce the Government. Therefore, they are not engaged in an illegal strike. You come up against the practical difficulty of administration at once, whether the magistrate is going to accept the evidence in favour of the union or against it. It becomes merely a matter of evidence.
    Captain O'CONNOR: The hon. Member, of course, appreciates that there is nothing to prevent any union from applying money to support a perfectly legal strike.
    Mr. MORRIS: I quite agree that there is nothing to prevent them supplying money, but suppose instead of supplying money they decide to come out themselves, and they are in a key industry. The first thing you have to do is to decide motives. That is the thing you have to determine in order to determine whether a strike is calculated to coerce the Government. You are within the sphere of motives. One magistrate may very well convict and another may acquit. In my view the magistrate clearly in these circumstances ought to acquit. In the view of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, if he were the magistrate, he would convict. The result will be a great anomaly in the administration of the law in different parts of the country, and it may very well be that in certain cases where a conviction had been registered the people might not lodge an appeal and not serve their sentence for the given period. In another case there might be an appeal lodged upon the same set of facts and the Court might hold that no offence had been committed. The result will be that certain innocent people wrongfully convicted will have had to serve a sentence for which they ought not to have been sentenced at all.

    1089
    I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) said in that very moving speech, in his appeal for the development of conciliation and in that part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby. At present the existing law is strong enough to cope with events like those of last year. We saw a signal instance of that in South Wales itself. The Assizes sat one after the other continuously from the middle of November till the end of March of this year, and this is a remarkable thing that happened at Swansea. We found that a number of prisoners who had been convicted and sentenced passed a resolution, after conviction, expressing their appreciation of the way justice had been administered in that Court. The best guarantee for the administration of the law is respect for law and order, and respect for law and order even among those who have offended against the law, and when the law has been administered, they themselves have been sentenced under it. That is very remarkable. Another very remarkable thing is that a year before the general strike in South Wales there was a strike in the anthracite area and a number of offences were committed against the law. It may be said there were as many of the extremist elements in that area—I am putting the case from the point of view of the Government—as there are in any other area in South Wales, but the curious fact is that when the law took its course in the year before last in the anthracite area there was not a single case, as far as I know, from that area during the whole of the trouble in the coal mining district, including the general strike last year. That actually proves that the law as it stands is strong enough to cope with the whole of the situation that can arise, even in dealing with events of the magnitude and as far-reaching as the events of last year. You have to rest your case in this country, and especially so in circumstances that arise in a ease like last year, upon the people's belief in the maintenance of law and order. I would join in the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that it would be better for the House of Commons to be spending its time in devising means of conciliation in industry
    1090
    rather than in discussing this Clause in a futile attempt to define a situation which it is impossible to define.
    Captain BRASS: I only want to occupy the attention of the Committee for a very short time. I have spent this afternoon listening to the Debate, and what has interested me so much has been this general discussion of what is or is not a sympathetic strike, and whether a sympathetic strike will come under this Bill or not. A sympathetic strike, to my mind, will not come under this Bill, unless it is one trying to attack the community in some way or other. Ordinarily, a strike is called because of a threatened reduction of wages. If other unions threaten to come out on a sympathetic strike and withhold their labour in another industry altogether, how can they force the owners in the original industry to improve the conditions for the men in that industry? The amalgamations of the unions—I do not know whether I am correct in this—I have always understood, were for the purpose of trying to help one another financially, the object being that, if a strike were declared in one industry, the other unions in other industries would be able to support financially the strikers who had gone out, so as to be able to keep them out sufficiently long to bring pressure to bear on the owners in that particular industry, and in that way to win what they were out to get. But when a strike is declared in another industry it has a totally different object, like the general strike of last year. The general strike of last year could not possibly have compelled the coal owners to do anything so far as the miners were concerned. Obviously, it was only a strike to coerce the Government either to give a subsidy or to nationalise the mines. Any sympathetic strike, which, as far as I can make out, does not actually hurt or disturb in any way the owners of the original industry in which the strike takes place would become an illegal strike, because the only pressure it could possibly bring to bear would be a pressure brought to bear on the community and not on the owners or employers in that industry. The sympathetic strike, as I see it, is a strike in an industry where pressure can be brought to bear on that particular industry. That does not come under this

    1091
    Bill at all. That is not an illegal strike at all. It is only illegal when pressure is brought to bear, not on the employers, who are the people upon whom the pressure ought to be brought, but on the community, and, through the community, on the Government. That, I think, is perfectly right, and should be an illegal strike. That, it seems to me, appears to be the difference. The only way to bring pressure to bear on the owners so as to force them to do something is to do it financially, by getting employés to stay out long enough.
    Mr. THURTLE: Several speakers have recently said that none of us can be congratulated on the new form of this Clause which has been moved. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the Committee who regards the amended and expurgated Clause as anything in the nature of improvement on the one which was put forward originally. The only kind of improvement we would like to see would be one which would do away with the Clause altogether. The point I want to deal with in the very short time I intend to address the Committee is the inroad which this Clause makes on the right to strike. The right to strike, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said, is the very bedrock of trade unionism. If you take that away, trade unionism is of no use. It is the one weapon which can give something like equality of bargaining power as between the employers and employed. The sympathetic strike is becoming an essential part of that strike. It is said that the right of the sympathetic strike is not taken away. It is true that the sympathetic strike is not made expressly illegal, but it amounts to the same thing, because conditions are created which make the sympathetic strike impossible. I am reminded of a few lines which run something like this:
    "Thou shalt not kill, but need not strive, Officiously to keep alive."
    The Government are saying: "We will not take away the right of the sympathetic strike. We will not destroy that altogether, but we will create such conditions as will make it utterly impossible." I would suggest to the Committee that the developments which have taken place in industry—the
    1092
    great combinations of finance—have made it absolutely essential, if the right to strike is to be of any value, that it should include the right to a sympathetic strike. I do not know whether hon. Members will cast their minds back to the early days of the War, but if they will do so, they will remember this, that when the Allies were fighting the Germans in the early days of the War there was a constant attempt on the part of the Germans to increase their fighting line and so turn the flank of the Allies. The Allies, in order to counter that, had to extend the length of their line until it reached from the Alps to the sea. The same kind of thing has been happening in industry and finance. The employers have been getting together in enormous financial and industrial combinations, and the only effective way in which the workers can counteract these great aggregations of finance is by combining and having, if necessary, sympathetic strikes. Let me give one illustration. Supposing the miners have a strike. They are fighting nominally only the employers in the mining industry, but the fact of the matter is, that these mining companies are now so interlocked and connected with other industries that all the time the contest is going on in that given industry these companies are drawing financial sustenance from their other undertakings. There are concerns which are engaged in 20 or 30 different trades. They can very well be engaged in an industrial dispute in one of their industries. but, having about 29 other industries from which they can draw their sustenance, they can afford to prolong that strike indefinitely. If workers are to stand any chance at all in competition of that sort, obviously, they have got to extend the nature of their strike and try to draw other industries into it and so bring effective pressure to bear upon the employers.
    I would like to make this further point. A good deal has been said about the impropriety of coercive strikes—strikes which are going to coerce the Government into a certain line of action. I would suggest that strikes whiċh are designed and calculated to coerce the Government may, in certain instances, be justifiable. Take the conditions which prevailed in the mining industry last year. By general consent those conditions were

    1093
    of a nature which were deplorable. The great mass of the people believed that the miners were being underpaid and that the miners ought not to work more than seven hours a day. When you have a condition of things like that, when you have the conscience of the nation aroused and the mass of trade unionists in the country believing that this position of things ought not to obtain, they ought to be allowed to exercise what coercive power is at their command, in order to bring that condition of things to an end. Coercion is not confined to trade unions. There is coercion of an extra-Parliamentary kind. We had a situation in Shanghai a few months ago—
    The CHAIRMAN: That cannot possibly apply to anything in this Clause.
    Mr. THURTLE: I hope you will allow me to make this illustration, that when one form of coercion is admitted, another form of coercion should also be allowed. I am speaking of extra-Parliamentary coercion of the nation's policy. You had a small community in Shanghai, very small in relation to the great mass of the mining community in this country. It was thought that their condition was such that a certain line of Government policy was necessary, and all sorts of extra-Parliamentary coercion were brought to bear on the Government in order to deflect policy. You had financial interests operating—
    The CHAIRMAN: No one in Shanghai struck work to coerce the Government.
    Mr. THURTLE: The matter we are now discussing is whether or not it is right for trade unions to endeavour to coerce the Government in a certain line of policy. May we not also suggest, as conditions now obtain which permit other interests to coerce the Government, that it is reasonable to suggest that the trade unions should be allowed to continue to coerce the Government? Is not that a perfectly reasonable point?
    The CHAIRMAN: The point is whether the illustration is one that will be generally accepted, or whether it will start fresh controversy. If the hon. Member argues that coercion and other influences were brought to bear in Shanghai, some other hon. Member will
    1094
    proceed to rebut him, and we shall get far away from the subject under discussion.
    Mr. THURTLE: I do not wish to provoke fresh controversy. May I make my analogy more general? I will not refer specifically to Shanghai, but I will refer to the generally accepted fact that we have great newspapers in this country, with enormous power in influencing Government policy. These newspapers are frequently used for the purpose of coercing the Government. A community like the mining community has not at its command the necessary millions with which to establish and carry on newspapers of this character and to carry on that form of coercion. That kind of coercion is admitted, and I see no reason why, when you have a community like the mining community in conditions which arouse the sympathy of the great mass of the people, that they should not be allowed to utilise what poor coercive means there are at their command, in an endeavour to influence the policy of the Government. The same things apply in regard to legislation. It will never arise unless there are conditions of a scandalous character. You will never get the great mass of trade unionists in this country to agree to carry out a sympathetic strike unless the conditions of the industry which they are going to support are deplorable. If you do get conditions of that kind, if you get men so badly underpaid, or so greatly overworked, that the sympathy of the whole working class is aroused in support of them, and aroused to the point of being prepared to strike in support of them, there is no legitimate reason why you should interfere with that course.
    I would like to call attention to the perverted kind of ethics upon which this Bill is based. I cannot refer to the question of the exaltation of blacklegs, because that would be out of order, but I will refer to the fact that you are seeking to degrade the nobility of the sympathetic strike. The Government may say what they like about the sympathetic strike, but it does call forth some of the finest attributes of the British character. You could not possibly hope to see a finer exhibition of altruism, a finer exhibition of comradeship than was displayed last year, when the great mass of the organized

    1095
    workers came out in support of the miners, and yet it is just that fine, exalted spirit of humanity which you are seeking to degrade by means of this prohibition of sympathetic strikes.
    My final point is in reference to the right to the general strike. This House ought to be very reluctant to pass any kind of Measure which will make the general strike illegal. I can conceive of this House failing in its function as a representative chamber. There have been Governments in the past which have involved this country in a war which did not at the outset command the support of the great mass of the people. It is true that afterwards, by means of beating drums and all sorts of jingoistic appeals, they have contrived to get the mass of the people behind them, but at the outset of the War—
    Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in talking about the War?
    The CHAIRMAN: What is the hon. Member's point of Order. I have not been able to gather it.
    Mr. ERSKINE: I was asking whether the hon. Member was in order. You have ruled him out of order twice, and I suggest that he ought to be ruled out of order now.
    The CHAIRMAN: The argument which the hon. Member is making is that a general strike against the outbreak of the late War would have been justifiable and should have been allowed, and that such a strike should be allowed in future. That argument seems to me to be perfectly in order.
    Mr. THURTLE: I would point out to the hon. Member that I am not discussing sex determination, but the right of the people to determine their industrial destiny. Governments have involved this country in wars which did not at the outset command the approval of the great mass of the people. I can conceive of such a contingency arising at some future time, and in that event it does seem to me that the weapon of the general strike would be a most beneficial weapon; it would be something which would command the approval and deserve the gratitude of the whole community,
    1096
    and I hope that when we are discussing the question of the general strike, even apart from the sympathetic strike, that that point of view will not be lost sight of. There was one other point which I wished to develop, but as other hon. Members wish to speak I will not proceed with it.
    Mr. NEVILLE: If I had not been a lawyer I do not think I should have taken part in this discussion, but having for many years spent a great portion of my time in considering the history of the Labour movement I can well understand the attitude of most hon. Members opposite in regard to this Bill. When I look back, I see that the chief trouble that has been going through the country since we have had a long list of labour laws has been doubt, and the fact that almost always in every Act of Parliament, when you get to the crucial point, there is some doubt which makes it impossible for the plain man to know on which side law and order or lawlessness resides. When we are considering this Bill, and I think every one is attempting to deal most sincerely with it, we should look at it not from the point of view of any particular party or any particular interest, but from the point of view of the country. Indeed we must not forget that point of view. We have to ask ourselves, what is the reasonable thing to do? I believe everybody in the country, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, wants to act reasonably, if he is a loyal citizen of the country, and, therefore, the point of view is, what is the reasonable thing to be done in the circumstances?
    The first thing is to make the provisions of the Bill as clear as it is possible to get them. Anyone looking at this Bill at first sight, would say that the provisions are not clear, and, therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view of the country generally and desiring to do the best that is possible to promote peace in the future, it should be our object to make the law clear and to do everything in our power to clarify and make as definite as possible this very difficult subject. We are dealing with perhaps the most difficult subject which this or many future Parliaments will be called upon to deal. It affects a large number of other cognate questions, such as sedition, treason and blasphemy, and Matters of that sort, and in these matters

    1097
    you are always confronted with the difficulty of giving a definition. We are in this position to-day. We want to have a reasonable definition. Nobody I think desires in the slightest degree to see taken away from labour the right to strike. I agree with much that has been said by hon. Members opposite, and I think they have shown admirable temper in the way they have discussed this question. I do not think any other party could have done better. Let us see what is reasonable.
    9.0 p.m.
    We have to consider three great sections in the country. We have to consider the employers, who are a small section; we have to consider the em-employés, which is a larger class, and we have to consider also a party which is neither an employer nor an employé, and that is the largest class in the community. The object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to see that this large class, which is not affected directly but which is largely and very hardly affected indirectly, should at all events have justice. If that is the object of the Bill, there is nobody on the Opposition side of the House, certainly no one on this, who would not want to see some reasonable Measure passed; and unless the Measure is a reasonable one, and such as men of good will are prepared to accept, it is going to do no good. If, on the other hand, it is a Measure which, taking into account all the difficulties of defining any of the subjects referred to in the Bill, is, on the whole, reasonable and meets with the approval of men of good will, then, I think, the effect will be like the effect created by a "Fleet-in-Being," it will never be wanted or required. This Bill if it is improved and properly administered may have the effect of bringing peace in the industries of this country. We have to have interpretations in this Measure. Many of the speeches made on the other side of the House, and also some on this side, have dealt with the matter, and I think the general opinion on the Labour benches is against the interpretation which has been placed upon various sections of the preceding Act by High Court Judges. I leave entirely out of the question the magistrates, because very often they are not trained lawyers and are incapable of weighing the niceties of distinctions
    1098
    in an Act of Parliament, and especially in such an Act of Parliament as this. May I say this. It is quite true that Judges are human. So are we in this House, so are also working men and employers. We are dealing with a most human question in the most human way, and when hon. Members find fault with Judges for being human they are only finding fault with themselves, for they are human too. You have to look at the way in which Judges have interpreted the law, first on one side and then on the other, and there are a good many occasions on which Judges have interpreted the law in favour of the working man as against the employers. Let me give one instance. The word "intimidate" appears in this Bill, and there is no word which has—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is going rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. NEVILLE: I was only trying to point out that the ambiguities in this Clause are inherent in any question which deeply affects a large number of people, and that it is impossible to lay down words which will fit every case. You are bound to have some kind of interpretation in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite say that interpretations given by High Court Judges have been biassed in some cases. I think that is rather unfair. Judges are unable to protect themselves. They cannot write to the papers or defend themselves in public. The only people who can possibly give them protection are hon. Members in this House. I should like to point out, however, that when it comes to a question of interpretation judges have very often interpreted the law against the employers. Let me give one instance. The Act, I think it was the Act of 1871, in which there was a definition of "intimidation" was repealed. The definition in that Act was "such intimidation as would justify a magistrate in binding the man over." That Act was repealed, and the next Statute simply gave the word "intimidate." In one case a judge said that he could not go back on the definition in the previous Act, that intimidation means intimidation which would justify a magistrate in binding a man over, and he held that, although that Act had been repealed, the definition applied to this particular case. When hon. Members

    1099
    talk about judges acting in a biassed way, I think an instance like that, when a judge actually used the interpretation of a word in an Act which had been repealed, should be brought to the attention of the Committee.
    I heard with great interest the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor). It seems to me there are only two ways in which you can deal with such a phrase as "trade or industry." You can either specify every trade and industry intended to be dealt with under the Bill, or you can use some general word, and I do not think anybody has suggested any word to cover all the cases which might arise, other than the words "trade or industry" or, perhaps, the word "employment." I think the hon. Member's suggestion that we should put into a Schedule to the Bill all those industries which are vital to the comfort and indeed to the existence of the great mass of the people, is an excellent one. I hope the Government will take the hon. Member's suggestion into their most careful consideration. I think the Bill ought to have a Schedule definitely setting out those key industries, a strike or stoppage in which would gravely affect the food, or the ordinary comforts or, perhaps, even the existence of the population generally who are not interested in the dispute on either side. Such strikes should be made illegal if carried out for the purpose of coercing the Government. I do not, however, like that word "coerce," and I think "compel" would be a better word. "Coerce" has been eliminated from certain Acts of Parliament because of the difficulties which it raised in the courts, and the word has a bad history in that respect. If a stoppage in a vital industry is for the purpose, not of helping some cognate industry, but of affecting the judgment of the Government and the well-being of the large bulk of the citizens, then I think it ought to be dealt with and by means of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton we should know exactly what industries are liable to be dealt with under that head. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) suggested that if these various industries were named, the men in them could never strike. I think he is in error. In these matters we always come back to the old point of the intent with which a thing
    1100
    is done. If a strike, even in a vital industry, were not for the purpose, of compelling the Government to do something which they did not wish to do, or affecting the community, then it would not be a strike affected by this Clause. You must have the motive of compelling the Government or the country or the State to do something which it does not see fit to do, and a strike not designed and calculated for that purpose would be entirely legal.
    With regard to sympathetic strikes, I think the excellent book written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb)—which is a sort of handbook for those interested in this question—shows that the sympathetic strike first arose about the year 1890, and I think since that time there has never been any decision of the Courts stating that the sympathetic strike is illegal. There is, therefore, a great deal to be said for the line taken by hon. Members of the Labour party, and this question has been admirably and most dispassionately discussed by Members of the Labour party. On that matter, however, they and I are on different sides. I think steps should be taken to deal with anything which menaces the country at large and the mass of citizens who, generally speaking, take but little part in these matters. I am all out for making these things quite clear, and I hope the Government will recognise the necessity for doing so. To leave these matters in doubt is not fair to the men, and is not fair to the employers and it is not fair to the Judges if they are to have put upon them the unpopularity and difficulty of interpreting ambiguous phrases merely because the House of Commons showed itself to be cowardly in facing these matters, and failed to find the best and most sensible words in which to express exactly what it meant.
    Mr. WELLOCK: I desire that my remarks should be chiefly in the nature of a warning. I have listened very carefully to these Debates, trying to discover the sort of dispute which would be possible under this Bill. Not only is the general strike made illegal but what we understand as the sympathetic strike is also ruled out. If we are not allowed to have a strike on a large scale, it may be found that in endeavouring to avoid certain evils, we have fallen into much

    1101
    greater evils. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) spoke about the disastrous nature of the dispute of last year and said that was the kind of thing which this Bill sought to avoid in the future. But there may be evils much greater than those arising from such a dispute as that of last year. I put this very obvious question to hon. Members. If the dispute of last year had been a success, what might have been the result? As things turned out, it was a failure. It might have been a success, however, and had it been a success it might have produced a revolution in the industrial methods of this country with far-reaching results. It is well to consider what happened in America a few years ago. We all know that there have been in America during the last few years tremendous changes in industrial methods. Those changes were the result of a series of successful strikes in that country. Those strikes were not exactly general strikes and, perhaps, they were not in the nature of sympathetic strikes, but a number of strikes took place and several of them ran concurrently. As a result, industrial methods were changed almost completely. The delegation recently appointed to study industrial conditions in Canada and the United States made a Report in which there is this very significant passage:
    "There is no doubt that, in the first place, the policy favoured and actually put into operation by employers for the purpose of recovering from the depression of trade in 1921 was a general reduction of wages. Wherever the organisation of the workers was strong this was strongly resisted and with considerable success, notably in the mining, printing and building industries. The resistance to the policy of wages reduction was sufficiently great to enable other counsels to receive consideration."
    The Report goes on to state:
    "The policy was changed to one of reduction of costs other than by further wages reductions and there was a concentration on increasing productivity, reducing costs and generally increasing efficiency, which, with the maintenance of the purchasing power of the people at the highest level has had far-reaching effects on American industry."
    If the stoppage of last year had had such a result—and it might have had—it would have revolutionised industrial conditions and method in this country and have justified itself in that particular respect. I want to suggest that there
    1102
    is a very great danger in making the Constitution too watertight. There are instances, such as were referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), where the Parliamentary system might break down, but there may be other instances. We had a few years ago great trouble in Ireland, and there were members of the party opposite who were inclined to an act of rebellion on that occasion. Supposing we had had a rebellion in this country, led by the present Home Secretary and Lords Birkenhead and Carson. I suggest that in those conditions the probability is that a general strike would have been the only salvation.
    Again, I think one can get a very useful illustration from what happened in Germany in 1920, in an incident which I had the opportunity of witnessing at first hand. Reference has already been made to it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). In March, 1920, when what is known as the Kapp putsch took place, I was staying in Berlin and I was living in the centre of the city. On a particular Friday night, quite unknown to anybody a few thousand troops marched into Berlin and took possession of the city. During Saturday and Sunday a general strike was organised by the workers of Berlin, and it was the most complete general strike that has ever taken place in any part of the world. By Sunday evening that strike was in perfect order, and on Monday morning there was not a single service running, gas and electricity were cut off, water was allowed to run, but it was impossible to have any cooked food, and so on, for a period of four or five days, and the result was that the Government, who were previously opposed to a general strike—as much opposed to it as are the present Government of this country—were glad to welcome the general strike as the only means of saving the situation. It did save the situation, and without a safety valve of that kind any country is liable to be in a very queer street when certain situations arise.
    That is a very germane illustration of what may happen, and the result was that by the following Thursday evening the whole action of the Kapp putsch fell to pieces, and terms were made. I stood on that Thursday evening in the Leipziger-strasse at the foot of Wilhelmstrasse, and

    1103
    I watched a few thousand troops according to the terms of the agreement march out of the city, defeated by a defenceless mass of people who had operated a very successful general strike. We do not know what the future may have in store for us, and it may be that we should need to resort to a condition of that kind. I may make further mention of a very delicate situation that arose in India a few years ago, at the time when the non-co-operation movement was coming into being. There was discussion in India at that time as to whether this kind of action should be allowed or declared illegal, and thanks to Lord Reading, who held a consultation with Mr. Gandhi and with Lala Rajpat Rai and one or two other leaders, it was decided not to declare that action illegal. If they had declared it illegal, the probability is that there would have been an uprising in India of a very devastating kind, but that was staved off simply because, although it was not actually a general strike or strike action, it was action of a similar character.
    The question of war was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and I think it needs to be emphasised in this Debate. During the past few years there has been a great development of peace feeling in this country, and large numbers of people to-day believe that wars can and ought to be prevented, and they are prepared to take far more drastic action today than ever they have been in the past. I suggest that on any matter where war is involved, there is likely to be a large amount of opposition in this country, and a general strike for, say, 24 hours, in which people might be able to express their attitude upon a matter of such great importance, is a matter that ought to be very seriously considered. How else can a people manifest its will in a very critical situation such as the proclaiming of a war except by some such method as a general stoppage for 24 hours? In conclusion, I am afraid we are likely to make the mistake that Governments and nations have made in the past. We are forgetting that history repeats itself, and it may be that by making our Constitution too watertight to-day we are simply, instead of preventing revolution, stimulating and causing it by causing our Labour movement to work underground instead
    1104
    of on the surface, and if it cannot ventilate itself in a reasonable way the time may come when it will burst out in ways that none of us desires to see. For these reasons, I think this part of the Clause should be deleted.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: In voting against the Second Reading of the Bill I had no doubt but that the general strike was illegal, and I assumed it would be accepted as general proposition of law, that anything that is inimical to the State is illegal and can be dealt with at common law. If I am asked to decide what is inimical and dangerous to the State, I think the obvious answer is that it is always for a jury to decide and that the ultimate decision of vexed questions between the State and its citizens rests with a jury, which is intended to express the common sense of the people of this country. To my mind, there is a danger that we may harm ourselves, as was stated by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) by too clear a definition of what is intended to be dealt with under this Bill. The advantage of a common law prosecution and of an indictment was that it was practically left to the jury to decide and not to the Judge. Incidentally, no question as to whether a strike is illegal or not should be left to the decision of a magistrate. I have had some experience of magistrates, and while I have no doubt that they intend to do what is good and just, I am equally sure, on the other hand, that by their general training they are quite unfit to decide a question of this kind, and I suggest to the Attorney-General that he should consider giving the right of appeal in each case from the decision of a magistrate to that of a jury in quarter sessions or assizes.
    I am the more concerned about this Bill after having followed the Debate very closely because, unless I am very much mistaken, the first Clause of the Bill may make practically any strike illegal, for it is not the generality of a strike which makes it illegal, but its object. It is the object of a strike that may make it illegal, and not whether it is extended or otherwise. Take the remarks made by the "Times" on the railway strike in 1919. On 1st October, 1919, the "Times" referred to
    "the attempt of the strike leaders to subvert constitutional government and to starve

    1105
    the nation into acquiescence in their revolutionary design."
    That was one strike. It was a strike of railwaymen. It was not a general strike, and it was not a sympathetic strike, and yet if the "Times" was right, that strike was illegal within the meaning of this Bill. There is also the question of a sympathetic strike. The Attorney-General has assured us that the sympathetic strike is not illegal under the Bill, but may I point out that the "Solicitors' Journal," the highest authority at any rate in one branch of the profession, pointed out in an article on 14th May that
    "Clause 1 is so framed as to make it necessary that a strike should be sympathetic in order to be illegal and the strange result may follow that an original strike may be legal whilst the subsequent sympathetic strikes would be illegal."
    and the question arose whether the sympathetic strike made the original and legal strike an illegal one. It is no good the Government or its representatives in the Committee suggesting that there is no difficulty. The difficulty does not lie merely with Labour Members. There is a serious difficulty as to what really the intention of the Government is in the words they have used. The Clause does make a sympathetic strike illegal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may differ, but I have given the best consideration I could as a Member of the profession to the construction of this particular Bill, and I am quite satisfied in my own mind that, not-withstanding the assurance of the Attorney-General, the effect of Clause 1 is to make every sympathetic strike illegal. Not only that, but if there is a sympathetic strike in connection with a strike which might be perfectly legal and the men come out, that may, as the "Solicitors' Journal" has pointed out, make the original strike, which was perfectly legal, illegal. Surely that is not intended. I do suggest that the Attorney-General might very well remember the advice given by this legal journal. Even if the ambiguity cannot be entirely removed, it would both simplify and strengthen the Clause if the words
    "has any object other than …. within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged."
    were omitted altogether. I suggest for serious consideration that if this Clause is to be drafted in a manner which can
    1106
    be understood, not merely by the laymen, who are entitled to understand it, but even by members of the legal profession, the words I have quoted should be deleted.
    Mr. ROY WILSON: I hesitate to take part in the Debate this evening, because I am neither a lawyer nor a trade union official. But as one of a large number of Members sincerely desirous of explaining to one's own constituents with the greatest degree of clarity possible, what this important Clause means, I should like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions. First of all, may I say how grateful I am to him for the extremely clear statement he gave this afternoon in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in regard to the attitude, for instance of the railwaymen, coming out in support of the miners. As I understood the position, the Attorney-General stated that if the miners were engaged in a strike to better their conditions and if the railwaymen came out, having no grievance against the railway managers, in support of the miners in their fight against the coalowners, that would be illegal under Clause 1, Sub-section (1) of the Bill. This seems to me to carry with it also not only people like the railwaymen, and I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether I am right in thinking that if, say, people engaged in the supply of water in any large town or those engaged in supplying electric light to the community, or employés engaged in keeping up the essential utility services in the country, were to strike in sympathy with the miners, that would also be illegal under this Bill? As far as I can see, it would, and I hope the Attorney-General will be able to tell us quite clearly when he replies, if my reading of the Bill is correct in that respect.
    The other question I should like to ask the Attorney-General is this. The hon. Member who has just sat down and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) both made this statement, that under Clause 1 all sympathetic strikes were in future impossible. That is not my view of the Bill, and I should like to put a question to the Attorney-General, because I think it would clear the minds of a good many of us in that respect. Let us assume again that the miners came out on strike to improve

    1107
    their own conditions, and let us assume, further, that the bricklayers or the joiners and carpenters decided that although they had no grievance against their own employers, they would come out in sympathy with the miners. Is that, or is it not, illegal under the Bill? As I read Clause 1, Sub-section (1), such a strike on the part of the bricklayers or carpenters would not be illegal under the Bill because it does not fulfil both the conditions laid down in the Clause, the first condition being that they have to be within the industry—neither of these are within the industry—and, secondly, it does not cause grievous hardship to the community if the bricklayers or joiners come out on strike. If the Attorney-General would be good enough to give me an answer on these points I think it would add greatly to clearing up certain points when talking in our own constituencies about the Bill, because I am quite convinced there are a very large number of Conservative Members like myself whose only desire when addressing meetings is to answer questions in our own constituencies to those people who ask for information on these points, and to give the very best information we can and to be as clear on this controversial Clause as we possibly can.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: It has been made amply clear that the present series of Amendments before the Committee are making the original Bill a little worse than it was before. The Attorney-General, as would befit a person of his stamp, quite clearly evaded the real issue. He himself emphatically pointed out, by paraphrasing a few words, that every sympathetic strike would become in fact illegal, though he kept putting forward an imaginary theory that in some inconceivable conditions of life, some imaginary and improbable form of sympathetic strike, could be, or might be illegal. The Attorney-General also clearly pointed out in his speech that when the employés in a particular industry came out and the product of that industry was stopped, the masters in that industry could not be further punished insofar as 100 per cent. of their output is already stopped. He knows very well that, with the development of industry at the present moment, with the develop-
    1108
    ment of capitalism as far as it has gone, and with the activity of the trade union movement, almost every strike in every industry is, and should be, a national strike, so that from the first day the employers are punished to the full 100 per cent., as far as it lies within the power of the employés to punish them.
    I should like the learned Attorney-General to give half a dozen examples of ordinary sympathetic strikes which he would describe as legal. He has dodged that all the time. He has given fantastic illustrations, but he cannot give half-a-dozen illustrations of ordinary sympathetic strikes in support of a given industry that would not fall within the new law. The whole of the Bill is really introduced to stop all strikes, and we fail to realise why the Government and their followers should mince words about it, and not openly say that they intend in future to stop all strikes, whether sympathetic or primary. That is the real intention of the Bill. All the time every speaker on the Conservative side is trying to give a false definition of the word "strike." If the community, the nation at large, of its own free will chooses to depend upon private persons for the protection of the necessities of life, then that community must hold itself responsible for the good or bad conduct of those private persons who undertake the production of the necessities of life, and when those private persons enforce untenable or undesirable conditions for labour, then labour has got a right immediately to inconvenience the whole community which permits those private persons to carry on production for the nation.
    Every strike under a capitalistic system must directly aim at bringing pressure upon the community which permits private persons to carry on important industries. It then becomes the duty of the community either to force those private persons to behave in a proper way, or to set them aside and nationalise those industries. Every strike must tend to bring pressure upon the community. It would frustrate its object if it did not bring pressure upon the community. It says that to-day, under modern conditions of industry, one set of workers could bring pressure upon the employers, is to state an unrealisable position, and it is the position of the workers in every in-

    1109
    dustry to bring direct pressure upon industry. If that position be properly understood, then the unconstitutional and inequitable nature of the present Bill can easily be seen. The Attorney-General, as well as many other speakers, have said that it is their intention, if any strike calculated to improve the wages, the working conditions, or the social conditions of the trade unions is put into force, then it is legal. It is further said that, even although some workers are themselves not in a dispute with their own employers over any question of wages or conditions of labour, but are stopping work to assist another body of workers, that is also legal. I am sorry that the first Amendment of the Government debars me from moving an Amendment standing in my name, but if the Government honestly believe that these things are legal, my Amendment clearly puts into law that any strike
    "calculated to improve the wages, working conditions, or social conditions of the trade unionists, either directly or indirectly, is legal."
    Further, the Government should point out the conditions in which sympathetic strikes are legal. Why not clearly tell us in the Bill what strikes and what sympathetic strikes are legal? I suggest seriously to the Government, that if they want "Peace in our time, O Lord," they should scrap this Bill, and accept all the 11 Amendments which stand in my name, and which describe clearly what the rights of the workers are, what strikes are legal and what strikes are illegal, and how the masters who behave illegally should be dealt with. If the master-class is immaculate, as we are told by the Government, I would urge the Government to accept my Amendments, because in that case they would never have to be operated. The masters would never violate those principles from which I am trying to bar them.
    In conclusion, let me appeal to the Government to be more candid than they have been hitherto. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) tried to analyse the minds of the Government and their followers as to the good intentions with which they are introducing this Bill. I may try to analyse their conscience, and I may not be able, perhaps, to take the same view as the right hon. Member for Derby. I think the Government ought to say quite clearly that,
    1110
    viewing the development of modern capitalism, and viewing the development of the trade union movement, they do not believe it possible to avoid for very long the leadership of the Communist movement in this country. They may be right or they may be wrong—I am not agreeing with the Government, if they do put forward the view—but there is not the slightest doubt that the Government are putting forward this Bill, not with a view to minimising disputes in trades, but with a definite conviction that within a few years the Communist leadership within the trade union movement and the Labour movement of this country is inevitable and unavoidable. It may appear ridiculous to several of my colleagues and friends on this side, but I say the Government have introduced this Bill, not in order to minimise disputes, but—they may be right or they may be wrong; I do not ask my colleagues to accept it—the Government are acting directly with the idea at the back of their minds that, watching the development of the Labour and trade union movement of this country, the leadership of the Communist school of thought is inevitable within a measure of time.
    That is the first fear at the back of their minds. The second fear, which they do not put forward so clearly, is that trade unionists will come to understand that no improvement in their conditions is possible whilst the capitalist system lasts, and, therefore, by a series of strikes or general strikes, or by a direct attack on the Government, they will seek not to improve their wages or hours of work, but to overthrow the capitalist system and to take possession of the means of production. These are the two fears which have taken a grip on the soul of the Government, and it is with those two ideas in mind that they have introduced this Bill. The guiding principle of the Bill does not seem to be one of keeping the master class on equal terms in the event of their having to meet such an attack, but of smashing up the trade union movement before is progresses further; and I appeal to the Government to be perfectly honest, and to say they are afraid of Communism going forward, afraid of the trade union movement demanding, not merely higher wages and shorter hours, but demanding to take possession of the State and to take control and possession

    1111
    of the industries. The Government must confess that it is on that account they are not taking any measures to strengthen the employers to meet that attack when it comes, but are purposely intending to smash up the trade union movement before it goes any further.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) in his prophesies of the future of Communism, and if I may get back to the words of this Sub-section, it would be to point out that a governing factor in the phrase in which it is proposed to make a strike illegal are the words
    "Designed or calculated to coerce the Government."
    I suggest to the Attorney-General that the word "Government" there is entirely out of place, and does not represent what he means to imply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Birrellism!"] As a matter of fact, an Amendment on this point was handed in by myself before Mr. Birrell or anyone else had drawn attention to this; but the support of Mr. Birrell adds strength to the argument that I want to adduce, which is, that I do not think that in law or in constitutional history there is such a thing as "the Government." [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am speaking in the constitutional sense. In the ordinary language of every day the words "the Government" are very well known, and we have never had a more sagacious or competent set of Ministers than those who now occupy the Treasury Bench; but I am speaking about words in an Act of Parliament. We frequently find in Acts of Parliament a statement that a Secretary of State can do such and such a thing, and in other Acts we find the words "the Minister," who is afterwards defined as the head of a certain Department; but I do not think there is any support for introducing the words "the Government," because the Government, after all, are an agglomeration of Secretaries of State and Ministers.
    Even if I were to grant the first premiss, that the word "Government" was the correct designation for what we are trying to get at as the body the general strike would be intended to coerce, I think I should be right in saying that the "Government," using the
    1112
    word in that sense, could not be coerced, because a Government as such, and Ministers as such, are not in a position to be coerced. The people who could be coerced are Members of Parliament, because it is only through Parliament that Ministers can act. Ministers proprio motu cannot do anything, I submit. A successful general strike would have two results, roughly speaking. One would be that some legislation would have to be passed through Parliament, or, alternatively, that a sum of money, a subsidy or something of that kind, would have to be provided to assist the industry primarily concerned. A Government qua Government could do neither of those things. To get the money the Government would have to come down to this House and Supply would have to be voted to His Majesty; and though the Government could introduce legislation they could not guarantee its passage Therefore, I invite the learned Attorney-General to consider whether he is right in using the word "Government" in this connection.
    I may be wrong in claiming that "Parliament" is the right term. Mr. Birrell has suggested that the right word would be "country," but I do not think you could imagine a general strike the object of which was to coerce a country, because country is not definite enough; and, further, to coerce it would not be any good, because we should still be up against the same proposition as if we were coercing Ministers—only it would be the other way round—in that the country cannot act except through its elected representatives in Parliament. Therefore, from whatever point of view it is considered, the ultimate body on whom pressure is to be brought is Parliament—not necessarily the House of Commons only, but Parliament. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), in a learned work on the functions of a modern State which he has published recently, frequently uses the term "the King in Parliament," but I do not think there is any authority for putting that in an Act of Parliament Besides, the use of that phrase would bring us up against the very same sort of difficulty that Mr. Birrell was envisaging when he said that much misapprehension was being caused about this Bill through people thinking it meant coercing this

    1113
    particular set of Ministers. If we use that other phraseology ignorant and thoughtless people might think a general strike could only be illegal because it was an attempt, in the words which would be in the Act, to coerce His Majesty in person, which, of course, would also be ridiculous. Therefore I hope the learned Attorney-General will consider this question.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Span Valley (Sir J. Simon), in an Amendment which we rejected earlier, did propose the words "Government or Parliament," showing that he had some misgivings about the use of the word "Government" but I do not think his phrase would be adequate for the reason that the one includes the other. Of course, according to our constitutional usage Ministers must be Members of one or other of the two Houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] According to our generally accepted usage. We do not have a written constitution, but it is very rare to find Ministers who for any length of time are not Members of one House or the other; excepting, of course, the period of the Great War, which, from a constitutional point of view, may be regarded as apart. Therefore I hope that as we are all aiming to make this particular Measure as clear as possible to the ordinary intelligence of the masses of the country who will be most concerned we shall avoid any constitutional inaccuracies in our desire to give completely accurate phraseology.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Far be it from me to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman into his plaintive inquiry as to whether or not we have a Government. I am glad that that spirit of inquiry is spreading on the benches opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken displayed a bewilderment in regard to this Measure which is more than excusable when we remember that three King's Counsel have risen on the Conservative benches, and have said that they did not in the least understand what this Measure was designed to promote. The Attorney-General rose in his place and said the one object of the Government was to let every worker in the land know exactly where he stood. In all these discussions surely nothing is more amazing than the denial of the Attorney-General that all sympathetic
    1114
    strikes will be rendered illegal under Clause 1 of this Bill as it is now drafted. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), the Attorney-General distinctly stated that any strike by a body of workers outside the trade which was involved in the primary dispute could have no other object than to coerce the Government or inflict hardship upon the community. The right hon. Gentleman said that when a complete cessation of work takes place the maximum pressure has already been brought to bear upon the employers in that trade. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that if another body struck in sympathy they would not be inflicting any greater pressure upon the employers, but their strike could only be directed against the Government of the day and therefore would be illegal. That definition is out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and his words will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and that statement most inevitably covers every sympathetic strike.
    10.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General, in response to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) carried that definition to a very remarkable extreme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs put two questions to the Attorney-General. First of all, he asked whether railwaymen would be committing an illegal act if they refused to carry coal from abroad, and the Attorney-General replied: "Certainly they would; it is easy to see that if the Government was importing the coal that would be regarded as evidence against the Government." The Attorney-General carried this matter a stage further, and he said even in the case of coal produced for the British market if railwaymen refused to carry it they would be committing an illegal act, although such action would be primarily directed not against the community but against the owners. It would be necessary for the owners to secure a transport and distribution of the coal in order to sell it and make such profits as were available to them. The right hon. Gentleman carried his definition of a sympathetic strike so far as to cover such cases. It is conclusive when the right hon. Gentleman has been challenged over and over again to produce one single instance of a sympathetic strike which would be legal he

    1115
    has failed to do so. I would like the Minister who is going to reply for the Government to tell us of any single case in which a sympathetic strike would be legal under this Bill. After the definition given by the Attorney-General, which will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it will be clear to the whole country that any form of sympathetic strike will be totally impossible under the Measure which we are now discussing. I would like to carry this inquiry to a point which has not been discussed very much in these Debates, and it is at what point does illegality arise, even when a strike is confined to the workers engaged in the particular trade in which the dispute originates? Supposing the miners come out on strike unsupported by the railwaymen or anyone else, at what point does that strike become illegal? I contend that it very speedily becomes illegal. The Attorney-General gave two contradictory explanations which appear to have passed unnoticed. First of all he said that if the dispute is confined to a particular trade a strike could never be illegal even if it was designed to coerce the Government. In the second place he said that if they announced that a strike was intended to force the Government to pass legislation then it would be illegal, but he said the workers would not be so foolish as to strike to bring pressure upon the Government to pass legislation for a seven-hours' day.
    The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that a strike would be illegal if the strikers announced the intention was to put pressure on the Government. The men could go out and put pressure on the owners and the object of the strike might be to secure a seven-hours' day. Some leader or worker might say, "We expect nothing from the owners, and our only chance is to keep up the struggle until the Government is forced to intervene with legislation"; then the strike becomes illegal because it is coercing the Government of the day. I want to know if one worker making a speech of that character is sufficient to illegalise the whole of the strike. It is not only the seven-hour day and legislation of that kind that is involved. If the strike is confined to a particular industry it can be represented as having the object of securing a subsidy from the Government,
    1116
    and I would like to ask if that would be an illegal strike designed to coerce the Government?
    The Government have not attempted to answer these questions. May I point out the danger which arises from these considerations? When does a subsidy become the object of a strike? Is it when the owners manage to rig the books in order to show that they cannot afford to pay the wages demanded? Is that the moment when it is said that the objective is to secure a subsidy and that the Government is being coerced? All these questions must be met because they are inquiries which go to the very root of the system under which we are living. If the argument is that industry cannot bear the rate of wages, and that the demands made are in excess of what it is considered the industry can bear, is that coercing the Government? If that is so, then we shall have to inquire at what rate of interest the capital is being remunerated. Consider the case of the Lancashire cotton trade where the capital has been so watered that it has become impossible to pay the rate of interest and at the same time to pay a decent rate of wages to the workers. These are questions to which the Government have not addressed themselves at any stage of this discussion, but which must be answered, either in this House, or in the debate in the country which is coming and which will be the real debate, since the Government have seen fit to run away from discussion. Has any more ignoble flight from the tribunal of debate ever been witnessed than the flight of the present Government, after sustaining for 18 hours the biggest hammering that any Government has ever received in the memory of anybody in Parliament, at any rate, since the War, and, I should imagine, before the War? Never have Government spokesmen so totally failed to deal with the arguments and been so contented to sit in ignoble silence until, at the end of a discussion into which they have scarcely entered, the Chief Whip or the Leader of the House moved the Closure and throttled further debate, and at the end of it all, they bring in this Guillotine Motion which has rendered entirely farcical the remainder of our proceedings. All this to carry a Bill which one of their leading supporters said this afternoon

    1117
    was deliberately left so loosely and badly drafted that the Judges in the Courts could read any interpretation into it which they cared to read.
    The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) is a very strong supporter of the Government, and he is one of those people who reveal and express the mind of his party at unfortunate moments. Last year he told us how triumphantly the coalowners had succeeded in coercing the Government. This afternoon, he told us that this Bill was left deliberately vague because it was dangerous to define it, and that lawyers and judges could express the Government's mind in safer ways than the Government could express their own. The only observation I will make about the hon. Member is that if this Bill had been in force and had been fairly administered at the time he wrote that famous article, he certainly would come under its provisions and he might now be enjoying a prolonged rest-cure from his Parliamentary labours. The fact is that the Government would like to be Fascists but have not the courage; they have not the courage to wear their black shirts. They dare not put down in an Act of Parliament what they really mean, and so they draft their Clauses so loosely that class-conscious benches of magistrates can deal as they will with any working class organisation. And they will so deal with them. I have heard the usual eulogies of the impartialities of British justice from the benches opposite.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: And from Sir Henry Slesser.
    Mr. MOSLEY: The Noble Lord's interventions in these Debates are so rare and refreshing that when he spoke, after duly pondering the topic which he is now illuminating, I was at once alert with breathless interest; but I can assure the Noble Lord that there was no necessity for him to repeat that observation. This Bill has been deliberately badly drafted in order to enable the magistrates to do the work which the Government fear to do themselves. Now it is to be rushed through the House. [Interruption.] I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Sir V. Warrender) finds his conversation more interesting than we find his speeches. The Government have run away from Debate in this House. The Government have done more
    1118
    than run away from the Debate; they have run away from the one honourable course which they could have taken, that of submitting proposals which have never yet been submitted to the verdict of the country. Our part for the remainder of this farcical Debate, made possible by the curtailment of all discussion and the refusal to make any reasoned reply, is to congratulate the most contemptible Government of modern times on having won its power by forgery and using its power for the establishment of slavery.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It may be perhaps for the convenience of the Committee that I should, for a very few minutes, endeavour to deal with one or two of the real points which have emerged in this Debate. There were, as it seems to me, two fallacies which underlay a good many of the arguments which we have heard—[Interruption.] The first mistake which, I think, underlay a good many of them, was the assumption that a strike in an essential service was prohibited by this Bill even if it were a strike for the furtherance of a trade dispute within that industry. Of course, I have said repeatedly, and I can only repeat once more, that both conditions have to be fulfilled in order to make a strike illegal, and that any strike within an industry, in furtherance of a trade dispute in that industry, is not affected by this Bill, however much it may tend to coerce the Government.
    The second fallacy, which has been repeated more than once, is the suggestion that this Bill renders all sympathetic strikes illegal. Of course, again, it does nothing of the kind. The statement ignores, first of all, the fact that there are a great many sympathetic strikes within a trade or industry. Let me give an instance. Supposing that there were a strike, let us say, in the railway industry, to take an important industry, in respect of the wages of the engine men, and supposing that other grades of railway men desired to come out in support of that strike, that would be what I understand to be a sympathetic strike—[Interruption]—that is to say, it would be a strike by people other than the engine men, who were not striking in respect of their own conditions of labour at all, but in sympathy—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no good shouting "No" to what is an

    1119
    obvious truism, namely, that the strike, in so far as the railway men who were not engine-drivers were concerned, would not be in respect of their own conditions of labour—because we are dealing with an assumed case in which only engine-drivers' wages and conditions were affected—but in sympathy with the engine-drivers and in order to assist their case. That would be purely sympathetic. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no good saying "No," because it would be sympathetic. Hon. Members will not be convinced, apparently, by argument, and I certainly shall not be convinced by clamour. Hon. Members sometimes seem to oscillate between the two alternatives of rowdyism and flight. [Interruption.] This evening we have been discussing quite amicably certain real points that need discussion, and I was giving what I intended to be a fair reply.
    Mr. SEXTON: May I put a concrete case? Take the transport trade, with 10 different industries, and 10 different kinds of employers. One separate section of that trade has a dispute with an individual employer. They all belong to one union. The places of the people who have the dispute are taken by blacklegs, and goods are sent to another set of men in the same union, employed by different employers. Would the men whose conditions are not in dispute be entitled legally to assist the men who are engaged in a legal dispute because they are members of the same union?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The fact that they were members of the same union would not be the test. The test would be, as I said before, first of all, whether the strike was in the same industry—not the same union; and, secondly, if it were not in the same industry, whether it was a strike calculated to coerce the Government. Let me give another illustration of the second sort of sympathetic strike which is not rendered illegal. I think the test was put quite accurately by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) in the speech he made earlier this evening. He took the case of miners striking in respect of some trade dispute of their own, and he asked whether, supposing other trades which related to essential services struck in
    1120
    sympathy that would be a prohibited strike. My answer is that, if that strike took place in an essential service, and if it were on such a, scale that it would inflict hardship on the community to an extent sufficient to coerce the Government, that, of course, would be prohibited. [Interruption.] On the other hand, my hon. Friend, again I think quite accurately, put the case of some workmen in non-essential services who came outin support of such a strike of miners. The answer would be, of course, that that is not prohibited, because it would not be an essential service.
    Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: We hear so much about essential service and there is nothing about it in the Bill. What is an essential service?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is a term that has been used five or six times to-day. An essential service is one the stoppage of which inflicts hardship upon the community. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) suggested—and it was an interesting suggestion—that it would be possible to schedule such services as are essential and were therefore services within which a sympathetic strike on a large scale could not be permitted. The difficulty of doing that is that the question of which services are essential may vary radically, according to the circumstances existing at the moment. Let me give an instance. In ordinary peace time if there were a strike in the chemical industry that would not be a strike in an essential service, because it would not inflict such hardship as to coerce the Government or paralyse the community. But supposing the object of the strike was to coerce the Government, let us say not to go to war with some foreign Power, and to prevent the Government getting the munitions necessary to carry on a campaign. The chemical industry might become such an essential service to the very life of the country that what in ordinary peace time would be a perfectly harmless event would become a menace to the safety of the whole country.
    Another instance was given by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) if I followed him rightly. Supposing the silk trade had a dispute and the woollen trade came out. I should say at once that was not an illegal strike because the

    1121
    coming out of the woollen trade would not inflict, such hardship on the community as to coerce the Government.
    Mr. KELLY: I said textile and chemical.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would depend on the circumstances. I can imagine circumstances under which the chemical industry might by a strike threaten the whole safety of the community. In such a case a strike in that industry, not for its own industrial purposes, but in order to coerce the Government to do something, would be prohibited. Otherwise it would not. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling) made a most persuasive speech in which he said, "Why not leave it to ourselves, and we and the employers can manage our own affairs best," and both he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that they had in their respective industries built up a very successful conciliation machinery and they said the possibility of the strike weapon is a necessary part of that conciliation machinery. I do not in the least quarrel with that, but the fallacy of that argument, of course, is to assume that when the Bill has passed, the strike weapon will be removed. It will still remain for any purpose for which the conciliation machinery could properly be used for any trade dispute within the industry. Therefore, to suggest that any such conciliation machinery is in any way jeopardised or interfered with by the operation of this Bill is a complete fallacy based upon a complete misunderstanding of the Bill.
    We have heard considerable discussion as to the rights of strikers, but one has to remember, and I hope the Committee will remember, that we are considering here, not merely the rights of the strikers but the rights of the community at large—[Interruption.]—and the question which the Committee has to ask itself is not whether or not it is legitimate to strike, which remains legitimate after this Bill has passed into law, but whether it is legitimate to use the strike weapon to coerce the State. When one remembers, as I think we all must remember from not very ancient experience, but within the last 12 months, the tremendous inconvenience and hardship and suffering of
    1122
    the use of the strike weapon for political purposes, I feel it is full time that the community should assert itself and that Parliament, as representing the nation at large, should lay down in clear and unmistakeable language that while a strike for industrial purposes is legitimate, it is wrong and illegal to strike in order to coerce the country. We have put repeatedly—and we have not yet had an answer—the question to the Opposition do they or do they not defend the legality of the strike weapon as a coercive measure against the State? We have had from the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) an answer in the affirmative that they do defend the legality of that weapon. But I doubt very much whether that answer would be endorsed by the Front Bench opposite, and unless and until they can make up their minds to answer that question, I venture to think that they cannot put themselves into the position to deal properly or fairly with the proposal put forward by the Government in this Bill.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: It is no doubt to the relief of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and his Friends, that the Guillotine is about to fall. They have proceeded from ambiguity to ambiguity. The main justification for this Bill is that it is going to clarify the law. There is not an hon. Member on that side who can deny that this Bill will make the law ten times more ambiguous. There is not a word in the Bill which is not of a comprehensive manner, and yet the meaning of every word used in the Bill is so vague that a magistrate will be able to interpret it more according to his political prejudices than to any legal definition. On the contrary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to the great relief—
    It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from, the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 157.

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES.

    [3.53p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Albery, Irvine) James

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvll)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

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

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Barclay, Harvey, C. M.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Harland, A.

    Barr, J.

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

    Harney, E. A.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnos)

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Drewe, C.

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Duckworth, John

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    England, Colonel A.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Briant, Frank

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Bromfield, William

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fanshawe, Captain G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Buchan, John

    Finburgh, S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Burman, J. B.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Jacob, A. E.

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

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gates, Percy

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Grace, John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Cope, Major William

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Couper, J. B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Looker, Herbert William

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Lougher, Lewis

    Cove, W. G.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Groves, T.

    Lumiey, L. R.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

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

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Raine, W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Ramsden, E.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    McLean, Major A.

    Remnant, Sir James

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

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Rhys, Hon. C. A, U.

    Thurtie, Ernest

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Tinne, J. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Riley, Ben

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Ropner, Major L.

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

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Salman, Major I.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham,)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Savory, S. S.

    Watson. W. M. (Duntermline)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Morris, R. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wells, S. R.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Williams, C. P. (Denhigh, Wrexham)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.,

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Storry, Deans, R.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Preston, William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Templeton. W. P.

    Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr. Clarry.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    NOES.

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Siesser, Sir Henry H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rothehithe)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snell, Harry

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Barnes, A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lee, F.

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

    Clowes, S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gillett, George M.

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

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

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

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams. Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

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

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Saklatvala, Shapurjl

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy and

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Mr. Connolly.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p. m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Finburgh, S.

    Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Albery, Irving James

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forrest, W.

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

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

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Grace, John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bethel, A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Meller, R. J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mitchell, sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Brass, captain W.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grotrian, H. Brent.

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Briggs, J Harold

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Brocklebank C. E. R.

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

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Neville, R. J.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Harland, A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Burman, J. B.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Campbell, E. T.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Oakley, T.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Charteris Brigadier-General J.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hilton, Cecil

    Plicher G.

    Clarry Reginald George

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Cobb Sir Cyril

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Preston, William

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Ralne W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Ramsden, E.

    Cope, Major William

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Daritend)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Curzon, Captain viscount

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rye, F. G.

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Duckworth, John

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sandon, Lord

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Savery, S. S.

    England, Colonel A.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

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

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

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Everard, W. Lindsav

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Skelton, A. N.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Looker, Herbert William

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lougher, Lewis

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    1124

    1125

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Storry-Deans, R

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

    Waddington, R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Withers, John James

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sykes Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Watts, Dr, T.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wells, S. R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Tinne, J. A.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Captain Lord Stanley.

    NOES.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harney, E. A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

    Briant, Frank

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

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

    Connolly, M.

    Kirkwood, D

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Fenby, T. D.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Welsh, J. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Rlley, Ben

    Grundy, T, W.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Charles Edwards.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "besides," and to insert instead thereof the words "other than or in addition to."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 129.]

    AYES.

    [10.42 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Albery, Irving James

    Forrest, W.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Alexander, E. E.(Leyton)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Galbraith. J. F. W.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ganzoni, Sir John.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Bethel, A.

    Grace, John

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Birchall, Maior J. Dearman

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Brass, Captain W.

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

    Meller, R. J.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grenfell, Edward C.(City of London)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

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

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

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

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

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harland, A.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Cassels, J. D.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Neville, R. J.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Lady wood)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Oakley, T.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Percy Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Plicher, G.

    Cope, Major William

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Couper, J. B.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Preston, William

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Radford, E. A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Raine, W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ramsden, E.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Remer, J. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Drewe, C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Duckworth, John

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jacob, A. E.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Ropner, Major L.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Jephcott, A. R.

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

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Rye, F. G.

    England, Colonel A.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Salmon, Major 1.

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

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandon, Lord

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lamb, J. Q

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guttave D.

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Finburgh, S.

    Lister, Cunllffe-,Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    1128

    1129

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Withers, John James

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

    Waddington, R.

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Watts, Dr. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Captain Lord Stanley and Captain

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Bowyer.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    NOES.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harney, E. A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Briant, Frank

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, Ht. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sullivan, J.

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

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

    Connolly, M.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Fenby, T. D.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Welsh, J. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Charles Edwards.

    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words "is an illegal strike if it," and to insert instead thereof the word "and."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 130.]

    AYES.

    [10.53 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Albery, Irving James

    Forrest, W.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vare

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness).

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McLean, Major A.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Grace, John

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Bethel, A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Meller, R. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Granfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grotrian, H. Brant

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Harland, A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Campbell, E. T.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Neville, R. J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Oakley, T.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Pilcher, G.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pliditch, Sir Philip

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Couper, J. B.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Preston, William

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Radford, E. A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Raine, W.

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

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rees Sir Beddoe

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Remer, J. R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Drewe, C.

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

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Duckworth, John

    Jacob, A. E.

    Ropnar, Major L.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Ellis, R, G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Salmon, Major I

    Elveden, viscount

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    England, Colonel A.

    Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sandon, Lord

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Savery, S. S.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Finburgh, S.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Shapparson, E. W.

    1132

    1133

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Withers, John James

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Waddington, R.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Stuart, Cricton., Lord C.

    Warrender, Sir victor

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Styles, Captain H. W.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Wells, S. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

    NOES

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

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

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

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvit)

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

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Harney, E. A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Briant, Frank

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, Ernest(Leith)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James(Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

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

    Connolly, M.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Eills (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Fenby, T. D

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson. Ellen C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr J. H (Lianelly)

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colna)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. B. Smith, and Mr. Hayes.

    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Government" to the word "that" in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "either directly or by inflicting hardship
    1134
    upon the community; and it is further declared"—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 155.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES.

    [11.15p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ellis, R. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Elvedon, Viscount

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

    Albery, Irving James

    England, Colonel A.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Jephcott A. R.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fenby, T. D.

    Kidd, J. (Llnlithgow)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Fielden, E. B.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Finburgh, S.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Ford, Sir p. J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Forrest, W.

    Lane Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Foster, Sir Henry S.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Bennett, A. J.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Bethel, A.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Briant, Frank

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Grace, John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grattan-Dbyle, Sir N.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Burman, J. B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Meller, R. J.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Harland, A.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Haslam Henry C.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George

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

    Neville. R. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Henn Sir Sydney H.

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

    Cope, Major William

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Oakley, T.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hilton, Cecil

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

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

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome),

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Plicher, G

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Horiick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Preston, William

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Drewe, C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Raine, W.

    Duckworth John

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ramsden, E.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Remer, J. R.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Streatfeild Captain S. R.

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray end Nairn)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Salmon, Major I.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, C. P, (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Wilson, H. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Savery. S. S.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Withers, John James

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Waddington, R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scurr, John

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. [Burnley)

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Jenkins, W. (Giamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jones, Morgon (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromfield. William

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charieton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    March, S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davles, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maxton, James

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    Murnin, H.

    Watson W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelfty)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gardner, J. P.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Whiteley, w.

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Riley, Ben

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvaia, Shapurji

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hartshom, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.

    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
    "It is hereby declared that any lock-out is illegal if it has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the employers locking-out are en
    1138
    gaged and is a lock-out designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community; and it is further declared that it is illegal to commence or continue or to apply any sums in furtherance or support of any such illegal lock-out."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    Committee divided: Ayes, 306; 135
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "provision," and to insert instead thereof the word "provisions."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 133.]

    AYES.

    [11.26 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fielden, E. B.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Finburgh, S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Albery, Irving James

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Forrest, W.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lumley, L. R.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    McLean, Major A.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Glvn, Major R. G. C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

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

    Golf, Sir Park

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Bethel, A.

    Grace, John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Marrlott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Meller, R. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Merrlman, F. B.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Brass, Captain W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morden Col. W. Grant

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

    Harland, A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Harmsworth. Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive

    Burman, J. B.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Neville, R. J.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Nicholson O. (Westminster)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Nield Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nuttail, Ellis

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Oakley T.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Chilcott, Sir warden

    Hilton, Cecil

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Pilcher, G.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Preston, William

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Raine, W.

    Couper, J. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Ramsden, E.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rees, Sir Beddos

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

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ropner, Major L.

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

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

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

    Davies. Dr. Vernon

    Jacob, A. E.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Salmon, Major I.

    Drewe, C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)

    Duckworth, John

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandon, Lord

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Savery, S. S.

    England, Colonel A.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    1144

    1145

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Wilson, B. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Waddington, R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Withers, John James

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurjl

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

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

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Keily, W. T.

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charieton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Ciuse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Wetthoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Mitchell, E. Rossiyn Paisley

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Murnin, H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponson by, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Handerson.

    Hall, G. H. (MerthyrTydvil)

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

    Henderson

    Hamilton Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    It being after Eleven of the Clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES, 1927 (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR
  (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to

  1147
  make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th day of February last."
  This is an Address which is necessary under the Military Manœuvres Acts.
  HON. MEMBERS: Object?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): This is exempted business.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Before an Order can be presented to His Majesty in Council, it has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament for 30 days. This Order has been laid before Parliament for the necessary time, and I am now asking that an Address to His Majesty in Council be presented, so that an Order can be made bringing into operation the Military Manœuvres Acts, providing for manœuvres in Cambridgeshire and North Oxfordshire.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no objection to the Order itself, but I want to protest about the way in which it has been circulated to hon. Members. I went to the Vote Office thinking copies of the Order would be available, but I found that not a single copy was to be obtained. I was referred to the Library, and there I found one copy, which the Librarian absolutely refused to allow to be taken away. I do not offer any great opposition to the Motion, but I do protest against an Order of this kind which may or may not contain important matters not being available in the Vote Office for Members. In courtesy to the House, the Secretary for War ought to have seen that copies were provided for Members. I hear an hon. Member remark that copies were provided but that they have all been stolen. I would not make that suggestion, but I think a Government which spends large sums of money in foolish ways, ought to spend a little in seeing that documents of this kind are properly circulated among the Members of the House. As I say, I have no great objection, personally, to this Order, but I understand that certain other Members have objections to it. My own belief is that if the Secretary of State for War knew his business, as he is paid for knowing it, he would have had this document properly circulated and he would thus probably have avoided any objection being raised. [HON. MEMBERS:
  1148
  "Divide !"] If hon. Members are going to shout "Divide !" I would remind them that, while I have no wish to delay the House, I am probably the one man here who, has read this Order and there are points in it affecting the taking over of land which could be very usefully discussed by this House. It particularly affects rural areas, and if the Members for such areas were doing their duty, there are several important points which they could raise in connection with it. I do not represent a rural area, but I am entitled to make this protest, and to point out that the Secretary for War would probably have saved a Division on this question if he had taken proper steps to circulate this Order beforehand.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend does not object to this draft Order, because it relates to the counties of Oxford, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Kent, and it is not proposed to hold these manœuvres in Scotland. I am going to ask the House to divide on this Order for a different reason from that urged by my hon. Friend. I agree that it ought to have been available for Members. The copy which I have here is the only copy in the House of Commons and I only got it under strong protest from the Library, and on the undertaking that I would return it. I am sorry, therefore, I cannot trust any other hon. Member with it. I object, however, to a matter of this kind being taken now, on the ground of the lateness of the hour. This is not a time for the Government to bring forward this Motion or any other Motion. They have introduced a very drastic guillotine Motion in order, so they said, that they should not have to ask us to sit late at nights. Under cover of that Motion, they now try to force through this draft Order. We object to this expenditure on manœuvres for a number of reasons.
  In the first place, there have been no naval manœuvres since the War. The First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place and he knows that on the ground of economy no grand scale manœuvres of the Navy have taken place since the War, and therefore I object to this expenditure on Territorial manœuvres on dry land. [Laughter.] Well, some of these counties are very muddy at times. Secondly, I am not sure that the military manœuvres that we carry out now serve any useful purpose for training troops. I believe

  1149
  that the days of infantry are over, and that there will be no more going into action of naked infantrymen—naked, in the sense of men who are not armoured. The place of the infantry will be taken in future by what is now known as the one-man tank, and if you are going to have manœuvres with these, you will do immense damage to the crops. Our countryside is suffering severely from other causes already, and this is no time to present humble Addresses to His Majesty authorising these manœuvres. The county of Kent is either very enclosed and unsuitable for military manœuvres, or else it is on the coast, and it not a county where coastal combined operations should take place. Before the German War, there might have been some reason for using Kent for manœuvres, but there is no reason now, especially at a time when the French President is in the, Capital of this country. Our principal objection to this Address—and I think it is most reasonable—is that after a guillotine Motion has been put in operation, the Government have no right to bring forward so-called exempted business in this way.
  Mr. HARRIS: I think the House is entitled to know what expenditure is involved in this Address. These manœuvres must involve a very considerable sum in compensation for damage done, and at a time of great financial stringency, when our expenditure is excessive, when even hon. Members opposite are inquiring into our expenditure and pressing on the Government the need of economy, we should not blindly pass a Prayer of this character without knowing what expenditure is involved.
  Mr. BECKETT: I want to oppose this Motion, because I think it is an entirely wrong practice into which the House has got of putting down these Motions and Addresses as a matter of course, and leaving them without discussion. The Minister in charge just gets up at a late hour of the evening and gives us a perfunctory explanation, which is no explanation at all, and the House automatically passes what may be a Motion imposing considerable hardship on a section of the community, which may be an act of coercion in any number of different ways. I think that at least an important Address of this sort should be brought forward in the normal time of
  1150
  the House. If the ordinary work of the House is so unimportant that it can be perfunctorily closured at half-past ten, I suggest that an important matter of this sort might be taken at a more reasonable time.
  I hope that, before the House is called upon to register its decision, we shall have a much more detailed account of what is proposed to be done under this Order in Council. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that this only refers to four of the home counties, but those counties should be of very great use in solving our rural and food problems, if the Government were considering them as closely as they would have us believe. At present we have a population of nearly 50,000,000 people to support on a very small island, and we are only growing food for 12,000,000 or 14,000,000. With an overseas trade which is largely decreasing through the obstinate and malicious policy of the present Government it is surely time for the House to consider whether four of our most fertile counties should be used as a playground for brass-hats and the unfortunate troops they march about the country. If there were the slightest use in these manœuvres, if there were any possible enemy in the world, it would be a different matter. Some say it is China, but I do not think that even the present Government would be so foolish as to think of policing that vast country with a British Army, although they may intend to saddle the taxpayer with a needless and prolonged expenditure at Shanghai. The Chinese situation is certainly no adequate reason for this Order.
  We are often told that we on this side of the House know very little about military matters. It is true that we only supply the cannon-fodder for the ill-educated generals on the other side. Perhaps one of the military experts on the other side would say what possible use we could make of this Order. What possible use can there be in interfering with four of our best counties and inflicting upon our troops a vast amount of marching under the ridiculous burden which the Secretary for War still insists that they should carry? Our troops are practically the only troops in Europe that carry a load under which a donkey might well stagger. Our brass-hats know nothing about the possibilities of

  1151
  mechanical transport. In nearly every European country the soldiers are being relieved of their kit while marching. Apart from the human side, it stands to reason that an army whose infantry marches light must be on the spot long before our tired and exhausted troops. Yet the Secretary for War, who seems to be even less interested in these matters than the big-wigs at the War Office who, presumably, advise him, comes to the House and thinks he is going to sneak through at midnight an Order which is going to perpetuate this foolish waste.
  This is not a question of whether we believe in having an Army or not. There is a big division in the House upon that. I think it is a waste of time and money, and that we should do better to build houses. Some hon. Members think otherwise. But that is not the problem we are now discussing. The problem is not at this moment whether you are to spend money and time, and worry the King, who has enough to do with all the trouble the Government are giving him, in order to have an efficient Army, but to be able to read in the newspapers how the Pink Army chased the Blue Army over Blank-shire. Anyone who has ever had any experience at all of military matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I was learning about military matters from the bottom end when many hon. Members on the other side were wondering whether it was their job to go into the War or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you volunteer?"] Yes, on the 4th August, 1914, but I should like to know what particular merit there is in volunteering. It merely meant that I was a bigger mug than my friends who did not go.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is rather far away from the question of military manœuvres.
  12.0 m.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am very sorry, but I was answering a question which was addressed to me. I was saying when I was interrupted by a quite unnecessary question, that anyone who has any experience of military matters knows that these manœuvres do not bear any resemblance to real warfare, and are not of the slightest use in working out the problems with which we should be faced in war. If we present this humble Address to His Majesty—and I should like to know why the Address is humble;
  1152
  the House is not humble when interfering with the rights of hundreds of thousands of his subjects—if we present this Address to His Majesty, and His Majesty makes the Order in Council, and the Secretary of State uses all the powers given to him in the Order in Council, will there be a single line of useful information added to the War Book, which, we understand, the right hon. Gentleman keeps in his Department, that is, if the War Book is still here, and has not gone to Russia. As a friend of Russia, I hope it has not gone there, because if it is as foolish as the one we had before the last War, it may cost a lot of lives and money before it is finished with. I would like to enter an emphatic protest against this Motion being brought forward now after a most unscrupulous and cowardly evasion of debate during the day; against it being sneaked in by the back door, without any explanation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed it with that extraordinary air of self-sufficiency which Ministers representing the fighting Services always display in the House, indicating "The Army says we want it, and therefore we must have it." If the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the corner seat below the Gangway were here he would agree that that is the attitude of the Ministers of the fighting Services; he found it to be so, especially during the War, when one of the Ministries had a pugnacious Minister in charge. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has very swiftly absorbed the traditions of his Department. He comes to the House and says: "The people in Whitehall want this, we are going to ask the Government to give it, but as a matter of courtesy we come to you. The Army is a sacred matter. You are not supposed to know anything about it except that it is there." Many civilians got to know something of the Army and Navy during the late War, and the sooner some of the lay people begin to take a closer interest in the fighting services, instead of leaving themselves to be governed in these matters by the people who make a job of looking after the affairs of the Army—and a very bad job of it—the better it will be. In legal affairs we are governed by the lawyers; but when the House is discussing railwaymen's wages or miners' wages, hon. Members

  1153
  object to being governed by the wishes of the railwaymen or the miners, and I suggest that in Army affairs the House should go a little beyond the view that we ought always to be governed by our professional and technical advisers.
  I hope the Secretary of State for War will tell us more about this matter. We realise that he is very busy making a war of his own on the trade unions, and probably has not much time for the dull routine duties of Whitehall, but we should like to see him as stern in the War Office as he is on the subject of trade unions. Let him ask the military authorities Why they want the manœuvres and how much they will cost; how much inconvenience will be caused to farmers and whether the growing of food will be restricted. If the State get these powers over the land it would be better to use them to grow food communally for the people. We know that the War Office and the Admiralty beat every Minister who is at the head of them if he opposes their wishes, but we want the right hon. Gentleman to show his superiority complex, and we want him to find out all about this proposal and then inform the House, so that we may have a better Debate. It is far too important a matter to be discussed to-night. Hon. Members opposite are usually standing in the House in dozens when anything arises which concerns the Army or Navy. I do not see why it should be left to the rank and file to look into the matter, and I hope the lieutenants, the captains, the colonels and the generals who decorate this assembly will get up and give us the benefit of their views on these manœuvres.
  Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to answer some of these questions? [HON MEMBERS: "No !"] I want to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a full explanation at the commencement, the necessity for all these speeches would not have arisen. It is because he is trying to hide the facts that those speeches have been made. I want the right hon. Gentleman to have the courtesy to answer the questions or get up and say that he cannot answer them.
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"]—is going to respond to our very reasonable speeches. There is no
  1154
  sense in adopting the attitude of the silent, strong man at this hour of the night, when the offensive part of our business is over. That was limited to 10.30 by the Guillotine, and why carry it on now? Why not try to be a decent, humane being for 10 minutes, and let us all go to bed in a reasonable frame of mind? I know less about military manœuvres. than my hon. Friends, but I have some measure of common sense. I understand that these manœuvres do not commence for another month or two, and, therefore, this question might be brought up again when the Guillotine business is over, or else the right hon. Gentleman should explain clearly why this business has been brought forward to-night. If the manœuvres were starting to-morrow and it was a question of urgency, I could understand it. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 15th June !"] If that be so, then there is any amount of time. I ask the Secretary of State for War to be reasonable and let us know to what we are committing ourselves, and how much the agriculturists are likely to suffer in those particular counties which are affected. We want to know what expense is involved. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us a complete statement, we shall be delighted to allow this business to go through.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can only state again what I said before. I will answer two points. The hon. Member who opened the Debate seemed to think that there was some discourtesy to hon. Members because this particular document was not to be found at the Vote Office. The Paper was laid on the Table in the ordinary way, and it is to be found in the Library. Therefore, hon. Members must not blame me in this matter, and, obviously, there is no discourtesy. The other question put to me is, why has this business been brought forward to-night and what is the urgency of it? It is that three months' notice has to be given by advertisements in local newspapers that the Order in Council is made. The manœuvres do not start until September, and I have to give notice to those whose land will be passed over during the manœuvres. This is the proper procedure in regard to military manœuvres, and it safeguards the interests of those concerned in the land and of the taxpayers. I cannot go

  1155
  into the question of cost; we have gone into that already on the Estimates, and I hope hon. Members will realise that there is not the slightest discourtesy intended.
  Mr. BECKETT: May I put a further question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should allow me to be shouted down before I have asked the question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has already answered questions, and he answered only by leave of the House.
  Mr. BECKETT: I only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, while accepting his explanation that there was no discourtesy intended because of this document not being placed in the Vote
  Office, whether he could say if, in the event of his being in the same official position next year, copies will be available in the Vote Office?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not a question for me. I could only do so by departing from the Rules of the House.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that next year the Address is presented to His Majesty at a more convenient hour than a quarter-past twelve?
  Question put,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th day of February last."
  The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 82.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES.

  [12.13 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Daikeith, Earl of

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Drewe, C.

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

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

  Duckworth, John

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Ellis, R. G.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  England, Colonel A.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Jacob, A. E.

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

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Fenby, T. D.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Finburgh, S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Forrest, W.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Burman, J. B.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Cassels, J. D.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Loder. J. de V.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Goff, Sir Park

  Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lumley, L. R.

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Grace, John

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Grattan-Doyie, Sir N.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  McLean, Major A.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Cope, Major William

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

  McNelil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Couper, J. B.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Courthope Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Harland, A.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Hasiam, Henry C.

  Meller R. J.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Merriman. F. B.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Waddington, R.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Neville, R. J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wells, S. R

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Oakley, T.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wiggins, William Martin

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Pilcher, G.

  Streatfield, Captain S. R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Withers, John James

  Preston, William

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Raine, W.

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Remer, J. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Ropner, Major L.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Captain Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Bromfield, William

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Bromley, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scurr, John

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Clowes, S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kirkwood. D.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dunnico, H.

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lee. F.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Gillett, George M.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lunn, William

  Welsh, J. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maxton, James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

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

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hardie, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Harney, E. A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock a.m.

SCOTLAND.
  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (EXPORTS).
  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (EXPORTS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  PRISON WARDER'S PENSION.
  PRISON WARDER'S PENSION.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAMS (WINDOW NOTICES).
  TELEGRAMS (WINDOW NOTICES).
  TELEGRAPH CABLE, ALDERNEY AND GUERNSEY.
  TELEGRAPH CABLE, ALDERNEY AND GUERNSEY.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  WAGES (HEWERS).
  WAGES (HEWERS).
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS.
  CO-OPERATIVE SELLING.
  CO-OPERATIVE SELLING.
  ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.
  ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.
  ZINC CONCENTRATES CONTRACT.
  ZINC CONCENTRATES CONTRACT.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  INDIA (SITUATION, LAHORE).
  INDIA (SITUATION, LAHORE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSION WORK).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSION WORK).
  HORSES (EXPORTS).
  HORSES (EXPORTS).
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEME.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE (COST OF COLLECTION).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE (COST OF COLLECTION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock. The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

BURY ESTATE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th of March last, "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 3rd of May next," be dispensed with, and that leave be given to Ralph Frederic Bury to present a Petition for leave to introduce a Bill "to vary the trusts powers and provisions of two several settlements, both dated the seventeenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, and executed on the marriage of Ralph Frederick Bury and Violet Esmé Bentley."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Petition, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read and referred to two Judges of the High Court of Justice of England.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords this Bill was promoted in place by the Imperial War Graves Commission. It was introduced by Mr. Harry Gosling, a member of the Commission, and it enjoyed the unique distinction that it was backed by three Prime Ministers, past or present—by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin. The House of Commons is not the only place where past Prime Ministers are to be found; and, if it were the practice in this House to follow the same procedure as was adopted in the House of Commons, I venture to think there would have been no difficulty in obtaining the support for this Bill of three noble Lords, past Prime members of this House.
It may be asked why it should be necessary to promote a Bill in Parliament before the War Graves Commission can proceed to erect a memorial in honour of the officers and men of the mercantile marine who fell in the War. The explanation is this. Much difficulty was experienced in finding a suitable site in London. So great were the difficulties that at one time it was thought that it might be necessary to erect the memorial in some other part of the country. I think that that would have been very regrettable. London is the first port of the Empire, and the Port of London is frequented more than any other port of the world by officers and men of the mercantile marine. Fortunately, a very suitable Site has now been found in the garden of Trinity Square, Tower Hill. But here, too, there were difficulties. There are many individuals and public bodies interested in the garden of Trinity Square; for instance, there are the trustees who control the garden. The most important of them are the Tower of London, Trinity House, and the Port of London Authority. These bodies, together with others interested in the amenities of the garden, held meetings, and arrived unanimously at a decision to offer no objection to the proposal. Other bodies interested in the garden are His Majesty's Commissioners for Crown

267
Lands, the Office of Works, and the Borough Council of Stepney, all of whom have expressed their acquiescence in the proposal. There remained the Underground Railway Companies, whose tunnel passes under the garden, and, as your Lordships will have observed, their interests are protected by a clause in the Bill.
Although there are so many different bodies connected with and interested in the garden, there is no one person and no one body who has the power legally to authorise the erection of the memorial there: hence this Bill. The memorial has been designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and it provides that the names of all the officers and men of the mercantile marine who fell during the War and have no known graves should be inscribed on the memorial, in the same way as the names of officers and men of the Royal Navy have been inscribed on memorials which have been erected at Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham. The memorial will be 64 ft. in length following the boundary of the garden. It will extend only about 25 feet inside the garden so that the amenities of the garden are not affected. All the difficulties standing in the way of the erection of a memorial, therefore, have been removed and the Commission is waiting to proceed with the work for the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am certain that no recommendation is necessary from me to your Lordships of the object of this Bill. I am sure that it will meet with universal support. Nevertheless, perhaps I may be allowed to give expression to one or two reflections that have occurred to me.
It is now just ten years since the enemy's submarine campaign was at its height. My recollection of those days is so vivid that I find it difficult to believe that so long a time has passed since I used to go down to the Port of London to see what effect the campaign was having upon our shipping. So far as numbers were concerned they were, of course, greatly reduced, but the surprising thing was to find that there were any ships there at all when one considered the dangers and difficulties that beset every ship that attempted to enter or leave the Port. They were strange-looking ships, camouflaged and
268
some of them, but by no means all, armed for defence, but what I think struck the imagination most was the knowledge that all these ships were manned by officers and crews, many of whom had already been torpedoed, some of them more than once, and not one of whom so far as I was able to learn—and I made it my business to enquire—ever refused to go to sea again. They followed their daily avocation silently, unseen, without any of the glamour that sometimes surrounded those who took a more active part in the struggle and often with no means of defence against a venomous and secret enemy.
In the pursuit of their daily avocation, so essential to the very existence of the Empire—without it indeed we must either have starved or surrendered—they faced sudden death from submarine and mine; they were shot whilst struggling in the water; they were cast adrift in open boats, and 15,000 of them perished. Of these 15,000, 3,000 have been commemorated elsewhere. There remain 12,000 with no known grave other than the sea. If your Lordships pass this Bill a memorial will be erected in their honour on a site more appropriate perhaps than could be found anywhere else in the country. On Tower Hill, where nearly all those who are accustomed to go down to the sea in ships pass sooner or later, overlooking the first Port of the Empire, within a stone's throw of the London docks, within sound of the ships' syrens, there will be inscribed the names of those 12,000 brave men as a perpetual reminder to all who go by of the sacrifice they made for the Empire in time of peril. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it would not be fitting that I should allow the eloquent words with which my noble friend has moved the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without stating on behalf of His Majesty's Government how deeply we concur with his Motion and with the sentiments which he has expressed in its support. It would not have been possible that amidst the many heroic deeds which took place in the War the deeds of these men alone should not receive their due memorial. It is a

269
matter of great satisfaction, indeed a matter of great gratitude to all of us, that as we pass through our country we see these memorials of the heroes of the War in every village. But it would not have been possible to leave out the great mercantile marine. After all, they took almost as great risks as the combatant members of His Majesty's Navy. They were essential to the conduct of the War. They were essential to the preservation of the life of the community. I cannot pretend to emulate the burning words in which my noble friend has described their deeds, but I agree with him that no more fitting place could be found for a memorial of them than the site which has been selected, near the most historic spot in London, overlooking the Port of London, where, as he said, these members of the mercantile marine passed to and fro upon their message of heroism and, very likely, upon their journey to death. We are very grateful to my noble friend for moving the Second Reading of this Bill and I need not say that I am sure it will receive the unanimous support of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

INDIAN CHURCH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the Bill to which I invite the consideration of Parliament is of an unusual character. It is an ecclesiastical Bill and the religious body with whose affairs it deals is the Anglican community in India. The initiative which has produced this Bill did not proceed from Government, but from the responsible authority of the Anglican Church in India, acting, it is understood, with the entire approval of the highest Anglican authorities in this country, and the reasons which prompted them to recommend this change have been fully explained during the past three years in the Provincial Council and the diocesan councils of the Church of England in India and the National Assembly in this country. They have been the subject of a very general discussion both in the Press in India and at home.
270
The Church authorities are the authoritative exponents of these reasons, but since Government must of necessity take its share in the proposed change it becomes my duty to attempt some brief exposition of them. The Church of England in India does not, as things are to-day, govern itself, but it is in the eyes of the law merely a portion of the Church of England, separated from the rest by six thousand miles. The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England applies to it even though it is completely unrepresented in this country in the National Assembly and the Houses of Convocation. The position of the Church of England in India is this because of its origins; because, to go back a century, English people, or their descendants—numbering well under 100,000 at that period—formed the overwhelming majority of the Church of England in India, and that majority contained a very large number of men and women whose residence in India was only temporary. To-day, however, the total number of adherents in India to the Anglican Communion is over half a million, with the number still increasing. Of those half million roughly one-fifth are British, the balance being represented by Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians.
It is urged by those who have supported this Measure that the time has come when this Indian Church should be free to organise itself and to develop along its own lines as a voluntary society legally entitled to manage its own affairs on the basis of what is termed "consensual compact," a phrase which I did not invent but can understand, and to take its place in that world-wide communion of federated Churches to which the Anglican Churches in the self-governing Dominions, Japan and China already belong. If it be asked what is the main legal impediment to the Church of England in India itself giving effect to its wishes, the answer is to be found in certain sections of that part of the Government of India Act, Part X, which is headed "Ecclesiastical Establishment."
To mention only Section 115 of the Act, it will be seen from it that the Bishops of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay exercise within their respective dioceses such episcopal functions and such ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the superintendence and good government of the ministers of the

271
Church of England therein as His Majesty may by Letters Patent direct, and, further, that the Bishop of Calcutta is the Metropolitan Bishop in India, "subject nevertheless"—to quote the words of the subsection—"to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury." The Church of England in India cannot become self-governing unless this section, as well as some others, to which I need not perhaps make reference, are repealed. Neither can it do so if the Letters Patent of the three Bishops remain in full force, since they contain instructions that the Bishops should administer their offices according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England. The Church authorities were therefore obliged to come to Government to effect the necessary changes in the law.
Besides the legal question, there is an administrative and financial one, arising out of the fact that, from the earliest times, the East India Company used regularly to supply chaplains and churches for its servants in the East. The Charter granted to the New Company by William III in 1698 definitely established this practice, and as it is of considerable historical interest a few lines of it may here be, quoted:
"And We do hereby further will and appoint, That the said Company hereby established, and their Successors, shall constantly maintain a Minister and Schoolmaster in the Island of St. Helena, when the said Island shall come into the Hands or Possession of the same Company, and also One Minister in every Garrison and superior Factory, which the same Company or their Successors shall have in the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid; and shall also in such Garrison and Factories respectively provide or set apart a decent and convenient Place for Divine Service only; and shall also take a Chaplain on board every Ship which shall be sent by the same Company to the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid, which shall be of the Burthen of Five Hundred Tons or upwards, for such Voyage; the Salary of which Chaplain shall commence from the Time that such Ship shall depart from England; And moreover, that no such Minister shall be sent by the same Company to the said East-Indies, or other the Parts within the Limits aforesaid, until he shall have been first approved of or by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of London for the Time being; all of which said Ministers to be sent shall be entertained from Time to Time with all due Respect."
It is in continuation of this practice that Government maintains to-day an estab-
272
lishment, as it is termed, of Anglican chaplains paid from Indian Revenues, of which the sanctioned strength, after a recent reduction due to the smaller number of British troops in India and considerations of economy, is 138.
These chaplains minister both to the civil and military populations within their charges, but roughly 98 are intended primarily for ministration to troops and 40 for civil duties with other British-born servants of the Crown in India. Besides supplying these chaplains, Government has continued to maintain, and to-day maintains, a number of churches in various parts of India. Therefore on this account also—the provision by Government of chaplains and churches—it was necessary that the Church authorities should invite the co-operation of Government, since the Church in India would be unable to fulfil its historical obligations towards the military and official Anglican community if at the moment of attaining self-government it were deprived of the financial and other assistance which had always been received from Government. Lord Reading's Government very fully appreciated this fact, and they disclaimed in the clearest possible terms any intention to make the aspirations of the Church of England in India to become self-governing the occasion for discontinuing or curtailing their expenditure on that Church. That was a wise and statesmanlike attitude, and one which might be expected to commend itself not merely to Indian Christians but to Indians generally, having regard to the appreciation which Indians are known to attach to the religious, as distinct from the material, side of life.
From the first, Government for their own part were anxious not simply to be spectators of a development so interesting, but to render any reasonable assistance within their power to further the change denoted by the Indian Church Measure. The only point as to which they felt it necessary to become assured was that the change towards self-government did really commend itself to the Anglican community. That assurance they received when it became known that the Provincial Council and every diocesan council of the Anglican Church in India had signified their approval of the policy, and that responsible authorities in this country, including, it need hardly

273
he said, his Grace the most reverend Primate—by whose advice on such a matter I must be so largely guided—believed that this policy was right.
The principle of a self-governing Church being once accepted, the legislation by which it is proposed to give effect to it is two-fold; and, of course, it in no wise purports to "establish," in any special sense of the term, the Anglican Church India, that land of so many religions. There is, first of all, a draft Measure which it is hoped to pass under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, commonly called the Enabling Act. This mainly concerns the self-government of the Indian Church, with provisions enabling it to bring into being its "General Council" and written "constitution" after a date when the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India is dissolved. This date will actually be such day not less than two years or more than three years after the coming into operation of the Measure as the Governor-General of India in Council, at the request of the General Council of the self-governing Church, shall fix. The draft Measure was introduced to the National Assembly by order of the House of Bishops on the 2nd March last; it will come before Parliament in due course in the same way as any other Measure under the Enabling Act, but in order that it may be available for the immediate information of Parliament it has been separately presented as a Command Paper.
Secondly, in addition to the draft Measure, there is the Parliamentary Bill now under consideration. The Bill is a necessary counterpart supplementary to the draft Measure, and Clause 2, in particular, will deserve notice, since it repeals, from the date of severance, certain sections of the Government of India Act, including the subsection already quoted, as to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The clause also clears the way for the future appointment of Bishops in accordance with the constitution of the self-governing Church, instead of after a procedure necessitating a submission to the Crown. These are important objects of the Bill, but it deals also with certain special interests of Government, the formal protection of which Govern-
274
ment is bound to secure, however clear may be the intention of the Church authorities in India themselves of their own motion to recognise and provide for them in the written "constitution" to be adopted by the self-governing Indian Church.
One of these special interests of Government is that, when the Church of England as such ceases to exist in India, British-born servants of the Crown, including the British Army, should not be deprived of the Church of England services to which they have been accustomed—in other words, that the chaplains paid for by Government, and the churches maintained or repaired by Government, should continue to be available for the purpose for which they were intended. Another is that the Government chaplains themselves, while they may reasonably be required, as they are at present required, to receive a licence from the Bishop of their diocese—a point as to which his Grace the most rev. Primate was naturally specially consulted—should be ensured equitable treatment. The third special interest is that the needs of the British troops in India should be met no less satisfactorily than heretofore; and the fourth is that, in regard to property, the beneficiaries of trusts should be protected in their rights.
The difficulty that presented itself was how to reconcile the safeguarding of all these special interests of Government with the freedom of a self-governing Church, and the manner in which it is proposed to deal with and overcome it is to be gathered from the Bill, read with the draft Indian Church Statutory Rules, included in the Command Paper, which will be issued under Clause 5 of the Bill by the Government of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council and with the concurrence of the Bishop of Calcutta. These draft Rules have been elaborated after the fullest consideration with the Church authorities and personal consultation with the Metropolitan and the Bishop of Bombay. They are intended and are believed to represent a complete and balanced scheme, though it is not of course desired to exclude any necessary minor amendments that might be decided upon before the Rules are actually issued or any changes or modifications which

275
time may show to be necessary after their issue has taken place.
It will be seen from Clause 9 of the Bill that the existing practice of appointing Government chaplains and maintaining churches at Government expense will not be affected by it, and, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the special interests to which reference has been made are fully safeguarded by the arrangements contemplated. That the British-born servants of the Crown in India, including the British Army, will not be deprived of the Church of England services to which they are accustomed is made clear by several of the draft Rules, for example by Rule 15, which lays down that the Maintained Churches, a list of which is to be kept up under the Bill, "shall be available for the services of the Church of England as contained in any Book of Common Prayer from time to time authorised in England."
As regards the Government chaplains, they are ensured equitable treatment in regard to such matters as the refusal of a licence, posting to their stations, proceedings before an Ecclesiastical Court, and so on. They were represented on the Provincial Council and the diocesan councils in India which gave approval to a draft Measure, and there is every reason to believe that as a body they will identify themselves naturally with the new arrangements if the draft Measure is passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England and endorsed by Parliament. As regards the needs of the British troops in India, they are dealt with fully in the draft Bill and Rules, and the assent of the Army Council has been obtained to the legislation. The Bill also makes suitable arrangements in regard to the rather complicated question of Church property, and secures that the beneficiaries of trusts should be protected in their rights.
Every confidence is felt by those most competent to give me advice on such matters that the draft Rules will be worked after issue smoothly and in full harmony by Government and the Indian Church, but by way of caution provision is made in the draft Rules themselves for arbitration in stated circumstances by his Grace the Primate or some person appointed by him, or, if he should fail to make such appointment, a person
276
appointed by the Government of India and the Bishop of Calcutta; and draft Rule 29 even contemplates the Archbishop's intervention in the manner, and with the consequences, therein described. Draft Rule 30 provides that Government may make special arrangements with the aid of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the military Maintained Churches, if it gives five years' notice at any time to the Bishop of Calcutta. Finally, the Bill provides, by Clause 4, that if the Indian Church at any time ceases to be in communion with the Church of England, Government shall be at liberty to resume complete control of all or any of the Maintained Churches. This is an extreme instance of the caution which has actuated Government, so that no contingency, however improbable it may be in the judgment of the Church authorities, should be unprovided for.
In regard to the whole matter of this legislation the attitude of Government has been from the first that it ought to receive their support if there was general agreement, reasonably understood, of all the authorities and persons who were concerned. The words "reasonably understood" are a qualification which I found it necessary to introduce, since absolute agreement in any religious matter of this kind is scarcely to be expected, and no doubt it does honour to men's consciences that such should be the case, but general agreement reasonably understood is held to have been attained, and His Majesty's Government commend the legislation to Parliament in the belief not merely that it is fully justified on its merits, but that Government would incur reproach if it blocked the way to a reform as to which the Anglican community—in India and in this country, Indians and Europeans—appear with few dissentients to be substantially agreed.
I need add only one observation. The Measure cannot engage the attention of the Church Assembly until July, but I have been assured by many persons qualified on behalf of the Church to give me advice upon this matter, and by others fully equipped with the practice and customs of your Lordships, that this is no sufficient reason for postponing the opportunity of our Parliamentary consideration of this matter and of eliciting the advice and opinions of your Lordships. Unless therefore your Lordships, which I do not

277
anticipate, took a different view, I should propose to the House that the Bill should pass in its ordinary course through all its stages in your Lordships' House, and it is hoped that if a peaceful lull should happily occur in the proceedings of another place, it may be possible that in the autumn the Measure may be there dealt with. I fear I have taken too much of your Lordships' time, but the Bill with which I have been dealing is one of great historical and spiritual interest, and I commend it to your Lordships' consideration. I move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, owing to the rather peculiar conditions which, as the noble Earl has just explained, surround the introduction, of this Bill—the peculiarity is indicated in the words of the Preamble—it may be right that I should at once, and in immediate supplement of the words of the noble Earl, explain a little more fully what from the Church standpoint is required and show perhaps what is the actual character of the change that this Bill proposes. It is a little different from what it might appear to be to an uninformed reader at a first glance at the printed Measure. The Bill speaks of the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India and an observer ignorant of the facts might interpret that as meaning something of the nature of a breach between the Home Church and the Indian Church. It is very important therefore to point out at once that instead of that the very contrary is the case. The change we want to bring about is one which will in the larger sense consolidate and make more natural the position of the Church in India as a part of the Anglican Communion throughout the world of which the Church of England is the home title and indeed is the popular designation in many parts of the King's Dominions overseas.
It can hardly be necessary for me to remind your Lordships that we are all impressed by the fact of the immense changes which have taken place in the constitution and the character of the whole of the Anglican Communion since
278
the days when the Church of England in India was constituted ecclesiastically and legally about a century ago. The Church of England, if we use the popular term, or if we speak more accurately the Anglican Communion, is now, of course, a great federal body divided into more or less independent and yet federated parts throughout the world. In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa and elsewhere Provinces, under an arrangement which was unknown to the Church a century ago, have come into being. The unity is complete and it is harmonious. And in addition to what has happened in our own Dominions the great Anglican Church in the United States, known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, has its own life and organisation, united in the very closest fellowship with the Church of England here at home. The Archbishopric of Canterbury is by common consent regarded as the centre of that vast organisation and in the overseas provinces I have referred to, although the Archbishop of Canterbury possesses no jurisdiction whatever, his Primacy in the large sense of the word is recognised.
It is seen in an object lesson which recurs at intervals. Once in every ten years every Bishop throughout the Communion, whether belonging to what we describe as our Colonies and Dominions overseas, or to the Church of the United States, or to the great missionary regions quite outside His Majesty's Dominions or the jurisdiction of the United States, the mission fields of the world, are invited to London. The number is large. On the last occasion, in 1920, 250 Bishops attended and in all probability the number may be greater still when, three years hence, another such gathering takes place. The attendance at these conferences marks the close fellowship which exists and which in practice presents no features of difficulty, although the ecclesiastical independence of the various Provinces is quite universally recognised.
One branch only of our Church, the Province of India and Ceylon under the headship of its Metropolitan, the Bishop of Calcutta, is at present hampered by legislative enactments which have never been changed and which are now in many respects out of date. By certain clauses of the Government of India Act and by the wording of the Letters Patent given to some of the Bishops of the older sees

279
in India who are nominated by the Crown, the Church of England in India is constituted simply as an extension of the Church of England into India and consequently the Church of England in India is technically at this moment bound by the laws and regulations of the Church of England; although, as the noble and learned Earl has just pointed out, it has no representation in the Church of England's legislative assemblies and the special conditions of India are by no means necessarily considered when we at home have handled or amended the Church of England laws. It would have been very difficult to do so. This results in real confusion. It is not a mere technical matter; it results in practical confusion.
For example, certain Bishops in India are told by their Letters Patent to administer "the Ecclesiastical Law of England," but they cannot do it. In present conditions the Ecclesiastical Law of England is quite inapplicable to many Indian facts. May I take two simple but rather patent examples. We have altered our rules in many respects as regards English parishes and the way of control and the matter of jurisdiction and many other things in the parish life, and the rules as thus altered are entirely out of touch with administrative details in India, although they professedly, too, are governed by the same existing Ecclesiastical Law. Or again, 100 years ago there was constituted in India a court of appeal for ecclesiastical causes. It was called the Court of Commissioners Delegate, but an insoluble problem would be presented did occasion arise for calling that court into action because at this moment it could not be assembled as most, if not all, of the officials who officio constituted the court have ceased to exist. There are no such persons. That kind of thing is an anomaly which ought not to continue to stand upon the record either of the Church at home or of the constitution of the Church of England in India.
There are many other respects in which the Church rules—enforceable if you like, certainly definitely prescribed at home—are technically inapplicable in India. That applies to questions of marriage. The hours within which a marriage can be celebrated in this country are inapplicable in India owing to climatic
280
reasons. It is desired that the hours should be different, and they are in practice made different; but, technically, that is a breach of the law. Or again, the condition of residence on the part of the parties to a marriage cannot be applied in India, with the constant locomotion of those concerned, in the same way as it is applicable in England. Those are prosaic and commonplace, but palpable, examples of the need of some re-statement and reconstruction of the existing law.
But there are more important things than that. The immense increase in the number of members of the Church of England in India necessitates now the appointment, if the work is to be properly done, of many more Bishops than were needed a hundred years ago, but we cannot legally divide the older dioceses because their boundaries are fixed by legal enactment, and it would require legal enactment technically to alter those boundaries, and place them in the position by which the holders of the office which governs within those areas are at present regulated. We meet that difficulty by the Bishops of Calcutta and Madras giving commissions to certain Bishops to administer portions of their wide dioceses and to do it, not as suffragans but as independent diocesan Bishops, with diocesan organisation. But that arrangement, though essential for meeting our difficulties, is extra-legal, and is not technically recognised by the Government. It is an anomalous condition which ought to come to an end as speedily as possible. It would be quite easy to multiply examples of the sort of difficulties which exist, but I do not think it is necessary.
The Bill now before your Lordships meets these difficulties by breaking through the existing legal complications and restrictions. Besides these things there are a great many more ecclesiastical details as regards Church administration which require complete remodelling if they are to correspond with modern conditions, largely changed during the century which has passed since the Church was legally established in India. To expound those details would not be difficult but it would be, I think, out of place at this stage in our proceedings with regard to the Bill. It may quite naturally be asked why, if a

281
change is so necessary, it was not made many years ago, and the answer is that apart from other considerations it was impossible to expect from Parliament sitting here in Westminster the time that would have been required for dealing in detail with ecclesiastical problems which would have required and do require now detailed, minute ecclesiastical consideration.
Eight years ago we passed here, to my great satisfaction, the Act popularly known as the Enabling Act and Parliament, though its ultimate sanction was retained and is potent to-day, was relieved of the claim upon its time for details of purely ecclesiastical legislation. These are now transacted in the National Church Assembly and ultimately, of course, submitted en bloc to Parliament. Accordingly we have in that Assembly a Measure already provided. It lies now upon the Table of your Lordships' House as a separate Paper. It was introduced into the National Assembly of the Church of England a couple of months ago or more and it came before us on the unanimous—I would ask your Lordships to note this—unanimous request of the whole Indian episcopacy who drew up the draft form which they would like the Measure to assume and submitted it to us in England for our consideration in detail. The Assembly has not yet gone over the details, but it has considered carefully the Petition and the draft Measure which was placed upon it.
Last February, as I think the noble Earl said, the Assembly passed unanimously a Resolution—not a very common thing—and it was in these terms:—
"That the Assembly, impressed by the weight and importance of the Petition presented by the Indian Bishops, is prepared to give consideration to a Measure framed upon the lines of the draft Measure referred to in that Petition."
Wisely, the Assembly did not commit itself to accept all the proposals, but practically it has gone through them and no objections were raised, at the outset at all events, to anything that it contains. Unless I am very widely mistaken we shall pass that Measure through the Assembly without the slightest difficulty and I believe it will be passed, in all probability, unanimously. I do not wish to dogmatise, but I think
282
it will certainly be passed through the Assembly without the slightest difficulty when the Assembly meets at the beginning of July. It may be asked why we could not wait until then to go forward with the Bill now on the Table. It does matter greatly that this thing should go forward, and if you were to wait until after the Assembly has done what it is quite certain to do in July, it would be practically impossible to go forward until next Session of Parliament with the Bill which ought to run concurrently with the Measure.
The Bill and the Measure take two aspects of the same question—the legal one and the technical ecclesiastical details, which, while I will not say they are quite unsuited for any Parliamentary discussion, would require a very great deal of Parliamentary time if they were to be fully discussed. They are absolutely suited for the consideration of the Assembly, which will go through in detail the Measure as drafted in India and presented unanimously to us and considered at this moment in prima facie form by the Assembly as one which ought to go forward. I do not enter into the details of the Measure. So far as they bear upon the clauses of the Bill they can be referred to and explained in Committee. What I imagine your Lordships desire to-day is to be satisfied that the change proposed is necessary, and that it will not be detrimental to the members of the Church of England or, to put it otherwise, to British members of the Indian Church, or to English men and women resident in India who desire that they should retain the privileges and the services to which they have been accustomed.
We have to take great care that no detriment comes to those interests and those desires, and the very utmost care has been taken to safeguard that principle. The really fundamental change which has occurred—the noble Earl has already referred to it—is the immense access of membership to the Church in India from among the people of India itself. That is constantly forgotten in England, or under-rated in its magnitude. In the year 1813, more than a century ago, when the legislation took place, the total members of the Church were about 73,000. Of that number 10,000 or thereabouts were natives of India. At the

283
Census taken a few years ago the members of the Church, instead of being 73,000, were, in round figures, 533,000. Of this total about 108,000 were British, 37,000 Anglo-Indians and—I beg your Lordships to notice this—not less than 387,000 were Indian Christians. The change is gigantic. The number of the Indian Christians is to-day increasing very rapidly. A few years have passed since the Census and I am assured that the Indian Christians to-day number fully 400,000. To put it in another way, of the Church in India 72·6 per cent. are now Indian, 20·4 European and 7 per cent. Anglo-Indian.
It will be obvious to everyone that this entirely changes the situation and that the work of the Church becomes different in many respects from what it used to be. We retain and desire to retain to the full the standards of doctrine which have throughout been ours both in England and in India, and emphatically we desire to retain for the benefit of English churchmen in India the services they have been accustomed to and the ministry of the chaplains appointed by the Secretary of State and licensed by the Bishops of India. The Church of India takes over the Prayer Book of the Church of England. It will be the Service Book of the Church of India. I do not believe there is the smallest fear that after the change has taken place any British member of the Church of England will find himself or herself deprived of any existing rights. It is specifically enacted that they cannot be so deprived. The details of this will be made obvious to any of your Lordships who will study the Rules that are laid upon the Table, and if discussion arises in Committee any point There can be explained. It would be, I am sure, burdensome to detail them now.
The Assembly's Measure and the Bill are now before you. The Assembly's Measure is not yet for your consideration, though ultimately it will have to be assented to by this House should the Assembly pass it, as is certain. Taking them together, they provide safeguards of every kind, and in the last resort Should anything be done by the Church in India—and there are such foreshadowings on the part of a very few people—which seems to sever it from full communion and fellowship with the Church of England at home, appeal can, and indeed must, be made to the Archbishop of
284
Canterbury, who is called upon to say whether or not such severance has taken place. If it be found that it has taken place, the Government have power to resume possession of the churches and to secure that the services carried on in them are such as the English congregations desire. That is provided, and rightly provided, but it is to suppose a state of matters the occurrence of which I believe to be absolutely out of the question.
I have given to your Lordships an outline of the matter as it presents itself from our Church standpoint and in supplement to what the Secretary of State has put before you as regards legal conditions and rights of property. In the old Act, as the Earl of Birkenhead reminded you, the Metropolitan of India was by a strange phrase placed under the "general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury." It is an odd phrase as regards an individual. What those words could have been made to mean had the question ever arisen in practice we do not know, for the power, whatever it be, has never been exercised. Anyhow, it will now come to an end. The Indian Church, if this Bill and the Measure which accompanies it pass, will become autonomous in the same sense as is the Church in Canada, or Australia, or South Africa. Within it the Government will still have patronage, so to speak, of the chaplaincies, and the Bishop cannot refuse a licence to a duly nominated chaplain except upon grounds which would justify a Bishop in England in refusing institution to a benefice. The Government have repeatedly stated that the Measure will make no difference in their usage and policy as regards chaplains. I say once more that the rights of what we may call English worshippers are carefully safeguarded, while the Church will have the power, and indeed the obligation, to consider also in the freer conditions under which it will move the needs of what are now the vast majority of its members, the Indian Christians.
I very earnestly hope that this Bill may be passed speedily into law. I am absolutely sure that it is right—right for the Church at home and in India, right for our Anglican Communion as a whole in its general administrative life, and right, abundantly right., for the people of India as well as for the English who are resi-

285
dent there. I look forward myself with hope and expectation to a strengthening thereby of the Church's life in India and to preparation for the day when the advance of Christianity in India may put to shame even the great advance which is taking place to-day. I ask your Lordships with hope and confidence to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am entirely in accord with what has been said by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill and also with what has been said by his Grace the Archbishop. I had some knowledge in former days about these matters and I think it is from every point of view desirable that a Bill of this kind should be introduced, a Bill which, in effect, carries out disestablishment, as we should call it, or the separation of State and Church in India. I want, however, to say a word on a particular point. The statutory forms and Rules which have been referred to bath by the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate are all such as could be and must be dealt with in an ordinary Act of Parliament, dealing as it would have to deal with the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1910: I think that is the date. In regard to all other cases where similar questions have arisen they have been dealt with in the same way either by Acts of Parliament or Ordinances, both as regards conditions of disestablishment and also as regards the maintenance of these various churches as part of the Anglican Church or the Church of England. For instance, in 1845 in Ceylon, the Ordinance passed at that date carries out all the purposes which are now proposed to be carried out by this Act of Parliament.
But at that time, of course, there was no Enabling Act and the point which I think requires further consideration is this: Has the Enabling Act really anything to do with the conditions of the Chinch of England in India? I was present at all the discussions which took place in the preliminary stages of the Enabling Bill but it never occurred to me that it did not contain the same territorial limit as applies to all Acts of Parliament, unless there is something in the text or something special which gives an extra-territorial authority. When I was still a member of the Church
286
Assembly—and indeed Chairman, as I was, of the House of Laity—this very point was submitted to me. Of course I could do no more than express my own opinion, but that was a very decided one, that when a Church such as the Church in India is disestablished it should be entirely independent of any power which could be exercised over it by the Enabling Act and should be a voluntary association. That has been the case, I think, whenever a Church has been disestablished.
I do not want to give any decisive opinion upon this point, although the noble Earl referred to it, but your Lordships will be aware that the point is of great general importance. It is a point which will have to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Committee, because the Ecclesiastical Committee have to give their views as to the expediency of a Measure and especially its relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. The question here is: Are His Majesty's subjects in India subject to the provisions of the Enabling Act? I should have thought certainly not. They have no representation in the Assembly, which comes from our parochial councils and our diocesan conferences so far as the laity are concerned. The Bishops, of course, will be an independent body, entirely independent from the Bishops here. So will the clergy be in every way entirely independent of the clergy here. I do not mean to suggest that there will be any breach of continuity, but what I do suggest is that the Enabling Act has not interfered, and was not intended to interfere, with complete liberty on all those matters to which the most rev. Primate has referred as regards future arrangements in this particular Church. I do not desire to do more than to indicate the doubt which I feel and which will have to be solved by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
So far as the Bill is concerned it is complete in itself. It will leave the Church in India in the position of a voluntary association, which, to my mind, is the right relationship. It ought to have absolute freedom, and there is no risk of breaking communion with the Anglican Church in this country, as the most rev. Primate has shown in the case of other Churches which were constituted or disestablished

287
long before the Enabling Act was passed. As the noble Earl will know, the general principle is that an Act only operates within what was the United Kingdom, because Wales is already outside for this purpose and Scotland was never included. I hope that this matter will be very closely considered from the point of view of freedom. I regard complete freedom of organisation as a great blessing for a religious body and I do not like the idea that it can be interfered with, either in the first instance or at any later stage, by another organisation on which it is not represented and before which it has no power of expressing its view. I heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill, and hope that it may pass into law, subject to the view of the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the particular matter to which I have called attention.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt any noble Lord who wishes to speak, but perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the point that the noble and learned Lord has raised. I agree that it is just debatable—I do not think that I share his impression—whether the ambit of the Act covers a case of this kind. I think that I take a different view from the noble and learned Lord, but, after all, a very competent Committee has to decide upon this matter, and my only reason for not troubling your Lordships with it was that it is in very good hands.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am sure that Your Lordships will have listened with enormous interest to the full statements of the noble Earl and of the most rev. Primate and that there will be no question regarding the substance of the Bill. But, having been trained in assemblies perhaps less liberal in their procedure than your Lordships' House, I have been thrown into some consternation by the proposal to recite in the Preamble of this Bill that something has happened which has not happened and to refer to a Measure as having been passed which, as the most rev. Primate has told us, has not even been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee or the National Assembly. I should like to put it to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether it is in accordance with the traditions of this House, and whether it is expedient that it should
288
be a tradition of this House, that we should pass Acts referring to Measures which have not been passed and as to which we have no absolute demonstration that they will be passed, but only an assurance from a very good authority that he believes that they will be passed. My point is clear and is quite a small one. I wish to put it to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in these matters it does not do to be too technical. The real object is to get the business through, so long as we are quite sure of the agreement and the knowledge of both Houses of Parliament, and I would like to remind the noble Lord that the Measure itself is subject to the control of Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Not to alteration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not pass except with the consent of Parliament, and therefore your Lordships' House retains in its power complete control as to what the Measure will ultimately be. I do not think that any difficulty will arise but, if the noble Lord presses me, I will take care to consider the matter carefully before the Bill passes out of your Lordships' hands.
LORD OLIVIER: Before the Bill passes, I think it should be considered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill I would venture to state that it is an agreed Bill which has the full consent of the parties concerned. The Bill aims at putting in statutory form an agreement which was arrived at by the Imperial Conference of 1927. This Bill is necessary to consolidate with certain amending clauses the previous law on this subject and to bring together agreements for Pacific cables that are spread over something like thirty years. Your Lordships will be

289
aware that the scheme for the Pacific cable was considered as early as 1879. The first cable was opened in 1902. At the outset it was not a successful enterprise and some £700,000 was lost before the cable began to pay. In 1914 and onwards the venture became a successful one, and by 1924 there were £2,000,000 undivided profits. The question of duplicating the line has been clamant since 1920 and, although matters were delayed on account of certain disagreements with other partners, it was decided to proceed with the cable in 1925 and, as your Lordships will be aware, the second duplicating line was opened this year. The cost of £2,750,000 was defrayed out of the profits made and a certain residue in hand.
This Bill is a very simple one. It deals in the first place with the board of management, with the method of election, representation, and salaries. It also provides for the disposal of profits and for the procedure to be adopted in the case of loss. These points are covered in the three Schedules. This matter has been considered in conjunction with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who have given their consent to the Bill in the form in which it now stands. I would urge upon your Lordships not only that it should be passed in its present form but that it should be passed without delay. Some of the financial clauses refer to the year 1927, and the Bill should really have been passéd before Easter and the beginning of the new financial year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lovat.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can give me some explanation of subsection (2) of Clause 8. That subsection says:
"The Board shall, so long as they undertake work in connection with telegraphic communication in the West Indies, have power to provide and supply to the West Indies a news service similar to the news service supplied by telegraph companies at the commencement of the Pacific Cable Act, 1924."
I should like to know if that subsection empowers the Governments working the Pacific cable to interfere with private enterprise.
LORD LOVAT: I can answer the noble Lord's question in a word. This sub-
290
section leaves the matter in exactly the same position as under the provision of the old Act, which, I need hardly remind the House, was inserted on the noble Lord's Motion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to certain statements made by members of His Majesty's Government regarding the obligation to ratify International Labour Conventions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion deals with a problem of great importance. The Government have taken up a position in the matter, as I shall indicate to your Lordships, which is, in my submission, quite untenable. The point at issue turns upon the degree of obligation which rests upon a country the Government of which have signified by vote their agreement with an International Labour Convention, at Geneva or elsewhere as the case may be. I think it will be remembered that in the recent debate upon the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill, which has now become an Act, we complained strongly from this side of the House that the Convention which was agreed to by Great Britain at Geneva in 1921 had not been ratified. The Government instead of ratifying the Convention and prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work only enacted in the Bill of last year that the use of lead paint as regards interior work should be regulated. That is a totally different matter, and in the opinion of those best qualified to judge regulation will be of little or no use in stopping the terrible sufferings coming from lead paint poisoning. However, I am not going into that matter to-day in any detail. I only mention it as part of the case which I wish to put before your Lordships.
I must emphasise, however, that it is surely indefensible for this country, or any bother country, actually to propose the terms of an agreement which becomes a Convention and then for the country which took the initiative in proposing the terms and bringing about the agreement to refuse itself to ratify that which

291
it proposed. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that Sir Thomas Legge, the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories at the Home Office, felt so keenly what had been done, or rather not been done, by the Government that he resigned his position in the Government service. The Government had no adequate defence to offer, but in the debate which took place in this House on February 23 last, with a view to trying to help matters, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, intervened with a contention that the only obligation undertaken was to bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament and Lord Desborough, and also Captain King, speaking for the Government in another place, said in effect the same thing. I have the quotations here, but I need not trouble your Lordships with them in detail, beyond referring to some words of Lord Desborough, uttered on November 18 last, when the Lead Paint (Protection Against Poisoning) Bill was being discussed.
In seeking to defend the Government for not having ratified the Convention, which was really brought about, as I have said, at their instance, he used these words:—
"There is nothing signed and there is no question, therefore, of going back on a signature. No engagement whatever is entered into."
That is an astonishing statement. It is quite true that in the procedure at Geneva there is nothing signed, but there is a vote, and are we to assume that there is sanctity in a signature and no sanctity in a vote? Any such position is quite untenable. Why, every day in this country enormous financial and commercial transactions are effected simply by word of mouth, which is never repudiated, save in the case, which is very rare, of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding.
Let me look at the matter in more detail, although it is not necessary I should detain the House at any great length. I begin by pointing out that even as defined in these statements by the noble Viscount opposite and Lord Desborough, this country has not done its duty. So far as the Lead Paint Convention is concerned the Government has not brought the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament, and neither did the Conservative Government of 1923. In 1923 a Motion dealing with
292
several Conventions was brought before Parliament, and in the course of his speech on that occasion Sir Montague Barlow included certain observations about the Lead Paint Convention. His statement, however, in relation to that Convention was inconclusive, although it seemed pretty clear that even already the Conservative Government did not want to ratify the 1921 Convention. In any event, it cannot be contended that the Government brought before Parliament the recommendation or Draft Convention, because what was put before Parliament in 1923 certainly did not amount to that.
Now we come to the present Government, the second Baldwin Government. They have not carried out the duty of bringing the recommendation or Draft Convention before Parliament. On the contrary, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill of last year, which they recommended to Parliament, was precisely the opposite of what was agreed to at Geneva. That cannot be denied. Therefore I submit that the duty laid down under Article 405, and quoted by the noble Viscount opposite and other Government speakers on this matter, has not been carried out. Let me consider what was the position taken up by the Government on February 23. I think it is not putting it wrongly to say that the position comes to this, that even if the recommendation or Draft Convention of 1921 had been laid before Parliament a Government is perfectly at liberty to advise Parliament to do exactly the opposite. That is what this Government did. That is what it comes to. In short, you may have an International Labour Convention at Geneva, weeks of discussion and negotiation, a large number of countries represented (in this case about thirty and in one case forty), various delegates meeting at great expense and devoting much and valuable time, agreement may be reached, all the countries present may vote for that agreement—and that in this case is practically what has happened—and yet we are told there is no real obligation to ratify, no obligation upon this country to honour its vote, we are told by Lord Desborough.
All the Government has to do, according to the noble Viscount opposite, is to bring the recommendation before Parliament. As I have pointed out, that has

293
not been done, but even if it had been done the Government, according to the theory laid down by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, is not under any obligation to support the recommendation or Draft Convention for which its delegate voted. In the debate on February 23 my noble and learned Leader, Lord Haldane, intervened and said: "Why does not the Government make a recommendation? That is what we complain of." Then the noble Viscount opposite used these remarkable words: He said:
"The Government are entitled to present and have presented to Parliament their views on the subject. It is for Parliament to judge whether their views are right and also to take whatever action it likes."
This is an extraordinary way of putting it. It suggests that on an issue like this there is a perfectly free vote: the Whips are taken off and the Conservative members vote without allegiance to the Government; but, the facts are quite different.
In a matter like this the supporters of a Government will, with possibly one or two exceptions, vote for the Government policy. Of course they will, because, if they do not, the Government will be defeated, and it will resign if it has a majority, if it is a majority Government, and the present is a majority Government. It has a majority of about two hundred in another place, and a majority of about seventy to one in your Lordships' House. The idea that Parliament is free to vote as it likes quite independently of the Government, and of the consequences to the Government of its votes, is something quite new in Parliamentary history, and it is opposed to the facts. It really will not do to suggest that the majority of Parliament in a matter like this will vote in any other way than that which the Government of the day recommends, provided it is a majority Government. So I say, and I say emphatically, that the obligation of a Government in respect of a recommendation or Draft Convention for which its delegate or delegates have voted at Geneva is not discharged by bringing the Convention or recommendation before Parliament and then advising Parliament to do exactly the opposite—for that is what this Government did in this case. It is only discharged by bringing the Convention before Parliament and advising Parliament to vote for it. That is the point at issue.
I put this Motion down because I am really very anxious to get a more satisfactory statement from the Government in regard to the obligation to ratify International Labour Conventions. When it is said that a vote for a Draft Convention is not constitutionally binding until the Convention has been ratified by Parliament, that is true. But, of course, there is a moral obligation upon the Government to honour the vote given by its delegates, unless possibly circumstances alter very materially after the vote has been given. In the case of the lead paint issue I have on two separate occasions at great length and in great detail demonstrated to your Lordships that nothing of sufficient importance has occurred since 1921 to justify the Government of Great Britain in going back upon the vote which its delegates gave in 1921. I am not, to-day, going again through those matters, but the position which I have taken up really remains unshaken, and no real attempt has been made by the Government to controvert what I have said. I have pointed out in regard to this Lead Paint Convention, which is a good illustration for my purpose, that even so influential a supporter of the Government in another place as Major Hills, in a very impressive letter in The Times, said that the Government might be technically free not to ratify, morally it was not free.
Then I should like, in support of the case which I am submitting, to quote a few words from the White Paper, Command Paper No. 2465 of 1925. This is the Report by the British Government delegates to the Minister of Labour in that Year with regard to the International Labour Conference. On page 8 these words appear, and they have added weight owing to the fact that one of the delegates whose signature is at the end of this White Paper was Mr. Betterton himself, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour. These words were used in reference to workmen's compensation for industrial accidents:—
"While the effect of these amendments, as the British Government delegates recognised, was to eliminate the greater part of the more obnoxious features in the Draft convention, there remained various points of difficulty which appeared to them to require further consideration and inquiry and, no opportunity having been given for a thorough examination of the obligations involved, they felt it impossible to undertake

295
any responsibility in regard to the Convention on behalf of the Government. They could not, therefore, vote in favour of the Draft Convention."
Those words show that Mr. Betterton and his colleagues did not vote for the Convention because of the obligation which a vote imposes. I do not think there can be any dispute about that. That is the clear sense of the words which I have quoted.
Then again, let me point out that the British Government has, from the very start of these International Labour Conventions, admitted that the Conventions are serious matters involving obligations, because the voting power of the International Labour Conference is two Government votes to one employer and one worker. That balance was a British proposal. Its specific purpose was to prevent the decisions of the Conference from being mere pious resolutions, owing to Conventions being adopted contrary to the wishes of Governments. Therefore, as I say, it has from the start been not merely admitted, but laid down, that these Conventions are serious matters, and that they do involve obligations.
The noble Viscount opposite intervened in the speech to which I have referred, and he made the point—and it has been made two or three times in the course of these debates—that after all the procedure under the International Labour Office for the ratification of Conventions is different from the procedure under the League itself. That is true. But that is not a good point for the noble Viscount to make: it really is a point against him rather than a point for him, the truth being that the procedure in regard to the ratification of International Labour Conventions is much more definite and precise than in the case of the ratification of a League Treaty or Convention. As your Lordships are aware, there is really no precise procedure under the Covenant at all. But here there is a definite procedure laid down under Article 405, and so forth. Therefore, I submit that that point does not help the noble Viscount in the least; it rather has the reverse effect.
The point I wish to put to the noble Viscount quite definitely is this: What degree of obligation does he consider attaches to a vote given at Geneva in favour of an International Labour Con-
296
vention? The position which the noble Viscount and other Ministers have taken really comes to this, when it is analysed, that there is no obligation in the last resort to do anything except to make a speech about the matter in Parliament. According to the theory laid down by the noble Viscount on February 23, that speech, when it is made, can be dead against the Convention in favour of which the vote of the Government has been given at Geneva. The only obligation, according to this theory, is to lay the matter before Parliament, and in so doing the Government is quite free to recommend precisely the opposite to that for which its own delegates have voted at Geneva. I cannot think that that really represents the view of the Government. I should be sorry to think it did. And therefore I have felt it my duty to put down this Motion in order to get, as I hope I may do, a more satisfactory statement from the Government.
I am extremely concerned, and a great many other people are extremely concerned, about recent events, and about the position in which this vital matter of the ratification of International Labour Conventions now stands. I say, and say deliberately, that if the Government view stated on February 23 were to be the last word on the subject, then it will not be very long before no more International Labour Conventions will be agreed to at Geneva, or anywhere else. Countries will say and properly say: "What is the good of sending delegates to Geneva, what is the good of having all this anxious discussion and negotiation, finally ending in an agreement—what is the good of it all, if after agreement is voted the vote really carries no obligation at all?" I say clearly that things cannot go on like this and that before long these International Labour Conventions, with all their enormous potentialities for raising the standard of the workers in almost all parts of the civilised world, will cease to be held and this great instrument for good will have proved to be of no effect.
Unfortunately, the responsibility for that state of things if it comes about will rest largely with the Government. I know the noble Viscount does not like things like that to be said, but I do not think the argument he used in the last debate is one which ought to carry

297
any weight. The argument he used against my noble friend Lord Parmoor was that he was talking against his own country. It may be all very well to argue like that in some places, but I do not think you can pay any attention to it in this House. We want the facts and I say the truth is that the present position in regard to this matter is in large measure due to the action of this country under the present Conservative Government. That is a simple statement of fact. This matter of the Lead Paint Convention does not stand alone. There is also the Washington Convention. I am not going into that to-day. There have been debates here and in another place upon it. My noble friend Lord Parmoor brought it up here only a few days ago. Certainly, until recently, the position in regard to that has been profoundly unsatisfactory. I do not say it is satisfactory now, but it has been profoundly unsatisfactory. The attitude of the Government and the record of the Government in regard to that was too much even for The Times. The Times criticised it, and the debate which took place in another place on that Convention was one of the most damaging debates which has ever taken place in regard to the action of any Government. Words to that effect were used by one of their own supporters in another place in describing, what had occurred.
Finally, there is one consideration which I think is of supreme importance arising out of this whole question of ratification—I am afraid I must put it non-ratification—of International Labour Conventions and that is the adverse effect which the breakdown of the hope and expectation in regard to International Labour Conventions would be bound to have upon the future of the League itself. I am hopeful that that is a point which will appeal strongly to the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil of Chelwood). I am afraid it is only too clear that if a vote for an International Labour Convention is treated as of little or no account, then also the signature to a League Treaty will come to be regarded lightly. Indeed, if International Labour Conventions cease to be held—and it may come to that—and, if under the procedure which I have described there is a definite system of ratification laid down for votes given for International Labour
298
Conventions and those votes are not being honoured and are treated as of little or no account, then you have struck a blow at the sanctity of League Treaties. Thus you furnish an almost unanswerable excuse for not ratifying them and treating signatures to them lightly also. I have already emphasised that the procedure for ratification of League Treaties and Conventions has never been laid down as in the case of Labour Conventions. I submit that the issues are of great gravity and they might have very grave results if no more satisfactory reply is given than we have had hitherto in regard to this matter. I very much hope that the Government and the noble Viscount Opposite will give a reassuring reply which will be encouraging to those who believe that the International Labour Conventions offer the best hope of raising the standard of life of the workers almost throughout the civilised world. I beg to move.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a question which I think all your Lordships will agree is one of some importance and has built on what he conceives to have been the conduct of His Majesty's Government anticipations of a very grave and serious character. I hope before I conclude the very few observations that I am going to make that shall be able to convince him that he takes altogether a too gloomy and melancholy view of what has occurred. There are really two points, quite separate, to be considered. There is the question of what is the strict Treaty obligation of the Government in respect of a Convention which is adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the International Labour Office, and there is the second quite distinct question—which has nothing really to do with the first, as I think I shall show your Lordships by looking at the Treaty—what is the moral obligation that rests upon any Government whose representative has accepted either by his signature or by public and official statement a particular view which afterwards the Government for various reasons is not prepared fully to endorse? Those are two quite separate questions.
I do not propose to go into the particular cases and the noble Lord, I hope, will forgive me if I do not once again

299
discuss the exact iniquity or propriety of the Government's action with regard to the Lead Paint Convention or even with regard to the Washington Hours Convention. I understand him to raise the question in a much more general way than that and I propose, if I may, to confine myself to a reply on the general aspects of the question. In order to make plain the observations which I desire to make, may I remind the House how the matter really stands with regard to these Labour Conventions? Under the normal practice of International Conventions quite a number of steps have to be taken before you get to the stage of ratification. Normally there is a considerable negotiation. It may take place by the ordinary diplomatic channels, it may take place at Geneva in the discussions in the Assembly or the Council of the League. That is the first stage.
Secondly, you have a Conference called to consider the possibility of entering into—I am talking of the normal procedure apart from the Labour Conventions—a Convention, or it may be a designated meeting of the Assembly of the League, at which the actual Convention that is proposed to be agreed upon shall be discussed and if possible accepted, and that Conference or Assembly does not generally meet until the prior negotiations have shown there is a reasonable prospect of agreement. If that conference stage is successful, there comes a third stage—namely, the signature of the Convention, and that, of course, is a very formal official act by the representative of the Government who is specially empowered to affix his signature to the Convention. Then, after all those stages, comes the ratification of the Convention, which is the formal act by which the Government agree to be internationally bound by this particular Convention and, necessarily, after all these stages have been taken the Government have had plenty of time to consider the matter. They have had the whole thing brought before them, first on the preliminary discussions, then in the Conference, and then before the signature has taken place, and therefore they may be supposed to have made up their minds, and generally have made up their minds, to ratify the Convention in its final form and the ratification is almost always a formal stage.
300
But in these Labour Conventions matters are different, because in order to facilitate the making of them a very special procedure was adopted at Versailles. The preliminary negotiations and Conference and signature were all telescoped together into one proceeding—namely, the proceeding at the Conference, I think it is called, of the Labour Bureau or the Labour Office, and the vote of that Conference—supposing there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the Convention—brings the Convention to the same stage as it would have been brought by the negotiations, Conference and signature under the ordinary procedure.
LORD PARMOOR: It must go to the Bureau before the Conference.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is so. In that sense that takes the place of preliminary negotiations and the Conference takes the place of the special Assembly or special Conference and signature. The point is that you do not have to sign these Conventions. The mere vote of a two-thirds majority, as far as the international aspect of these Conventions is concerned, has the same effect as if signature has taken place. It is quite plain that under that procedure ratification becomes a much more important stage. The Government have not had the opportunity really of considering the Conventions at all in their final stage. They have not the opportunity of considering the Conventions agreed upon in the Labour Office until they have been actually adopted. They are brought before the Conference, discussed, changed and modified, and it is only after that that the Government have any opportunity of considering them. Therefore ratification is necessarily a much more substantial stage than it is in the case of an ordinary Convention.
This becomes the more obvious when it is considered that, as far as the Treaty is concerned, a Government that has voted against the Convention is in precisely the same position as a Government that has voted in its favour. The obligations under the Treaty as far as ratification is concerned rest upon all the Governments who were present whether they have voted for or against the final draft, if it has been passed by a two-thirds majority. With regard to Labour Con-

301
ventions all that depends on Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles. The important clause in that Article is this:—
"Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference. …"
or at a later period, if necessary—
"bring the recommendation or Draft Convention"—
that is what they undertake to do, the absolute undertaking whether they had voted against it or for it—
"before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action."
I admit that "the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies" is rather a vague phrase. It may mean the ratifying authority, it may mean not only the ratifying authority but the legislative authority if legislation is required to bring the Convention into force, as in these cases it usually would be. But in any case they undertake to bring it before the competent authority and they have to do it whether they voted for it or against it.
I think if one looks at it from that point of view, one must admit that it cannot be a Treaty obligation—I am coming to the moral obligation later—if they voted against it that they should none the less recommend that Parliament should pass it. They voted against it, they did their best to prevent its being enacted, and it cannot be true that they are forced to recommend it to their Parliament. The obligation is to present it to Parliament, if Parliament is the proper authority, or it may be to present it only to the Cabinet if we take the view that it is only the ratifying authority to which it has to be presented. But, whatever authority is meant by the words competent authority, they have to present it and give that authority full opportunity of accepting or rejecting, but they are not bound, as far as the Treaty is concerned, to do more than that.
EARL RUSSELL: Where legislation is required it must surely be the legislative authority.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have always taken that view myself, and therefore I will not argue with the noble Earl whether it is so or not. But what
302
ever view you take—and for the purpose of my present argument it does not matter which authority it is—the obligation is to present it. That is made quite clear, because the Article says in a paragraph further on:—
"If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the Draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon the Member."
So it is quite plain that what is meant is that the matter must be presented to the competent authority as far as the Treaty is concerned, and that is the whole of the obligation which rests upon the Member.
That is the contention I was trying to support in February this year, I think, when the matter was being discussed between Lord Parmoor and myself across the Table. I had not then in my mind, and I was not then considering, the question of moral obligation which I think is important but is really quite distinct from the question of the obligation under the Treaty. I have stated the Treaty position as I understand it. What about the moral obligation? Here, I quite agree that the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so, is on much stronger ground. He says it is not right that a Government at home should ignore altogether the action which its representative has taken in an International Assembly and treat his vote as representing the Government as of no account at all. I should agree with that most fully. I think it a very unfortunate thing, personally, when it becomes necessary not only in this case but in any case for a Government to take a different view from that which is taken by its representative in an International Assembly.
It happened more or less in the case of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. The representative of the British Government, who happened to be myself, took a view in 1923 in favour of that Treaty. It is quite true that I guarded myself very strictly by saying that I was only undertaking to bring it before my Government and that I was not pretending to bind the Government. What happened in fact when it did come before the Government? The Labour Government—perfectly legitimately from their point of view, though, as I individually think, very mistakenly—

303
rejected it. They were quite obviously entitled to do so. The same thing happened with regard to the Protocol in the next year. The noble Lord who represented the Labour Government more or less undertook to accept the Protocol, but when it came to be considered a change of Government had taken place, as your Lordships will recollect. The Government did not agree with him and decided that they could not accept the Protocol. They rejected it.
I am not going into the question whether in these two cases, or in similar cases, they were right or wrong. They may have been perfectly right in both cases, but, of course, I quite admit, and I am sure the Government of the day would admit, that it is in itself an unfortunate thing. It gives an impression of infirmity of purpose and vacillation. No one who has had, as I have, to discuss similar topics before international Assemblies since these events took place can have failed to feel that the unfortunate circumstance of a measure that has been accepted by the representatives of this country in an international Assembly being afterwards rejected, it may be quite rightly, by the Government at home does to some extent weaken the position of the British representatives who are discussing similar matters before international Assemblies. It is obvious that it does. I think that these things are inevitable, unless you are to say that the British Government is always to be bound absolutely by everything that its representative does abroad. I am not able to say that. I think that each case must be judged on its merits.
I really have nothing more to say on this point than that which was said by my right hon. friend the Minister of Labour as long ago as 1925. He was challenged on this very point—not on the question of the date, but merely on the moral obligation arising from the British representative having voted in favour of a Labour Convention. He said:—
"I say for myself—and here I agree entirely with my right hon. friend—"
that was Mr. Fisher, I think—
"that if a Convention is adopted at Geneva by the country it ought to be on the understanding that the Government of the country intends to ratify and will do its very hest to ratify it, but that it should consider itself absolutely bound without some loophole, I think he will himself recognise is not practical politics."
304
I dare say that the phraseology might be improved, but in substance it seems to me to be the true view. Undoubtedly there is a moral obligation to support that which the representative of this country has done abroad, but it is not an absolute obligation. It is a moral obligation subject to this consideration: that the Government, when they have on their own responsibility to consider it, must say what on the whole they think is in the interests of the country. They must not merely say that because their representative has given a certain vote abroad, although they now think that it would be deleterious to the country, they are the none the less going to support his view in defiance of what they consider right and judicious in the matter. I must say that this seems to me to be the common sense of the matter.
The noble Lord opposite suggests that the effect of any such doctrine as I have tried to put before your Lordships would be that the vote carries no obligation. I do not think that this is true. I am sure that I do not intend it to be so, and I do not think that it has been so in the past. I do not think that it is in the least true to say that British Governments have ignored altogether the obligation imposed upon them by the action of their representatives.
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I understood the noble Lord to say that.
LORD ARNOLD: I said that this Government's record was a bad one.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Even so far as this Government is concerned, it is not so. This Government has accepted by far the greater number of Conventions that have been accepted at Geneva.
LORD ARNOLD: Not the Labour ones.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord suggests that this Government is entirely responsible. I am not saying whether what was done about the Hours Convention was right or wrong, but he forgets that this Convention was agreed upon in 1920.
LORD PARMOOR: In 1921.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think I am right in saying that it was agreed in 1920, but I may be wrong. At

305
any rate, whenever it was agreed upon, there has since been a Coalition Government, for which I at any rate have no responsibility, there have been a Conservative Government, a Labour Government and another Conservative Government. To say that this Government is responsible for all that has taken place since 1920 seems to me a most fantastic statement.
LORD ARNOLD: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is what I understood the noble Lord to say.
LORD ARNOLD: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord certainly made a great attack upon the attitude of the present Government with regard to the Hours Convention.
LORD ARNOLD: So have many of their own supporters.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It may be that there is a difference of opinion as to what ought to have been done about the Hours Convention. I quite recognise that. But to say that the present Government is solely responsible is absurd. As to the Lead Paint Bill, I am not going into that now. It has been discussed very fully and it is the only one as to which any charge is brought against the Government. There are two other Conventions which this Government or previous Governments have rejected or have not ratified, on technical grounds that everybody admits were, perfectly adequate and proper.
What are the actual facts in regard to the British Government? Since the Labour Office came into being they have agreed upon 23 Conventions. Three of these were agreed upon so recently that the period for ratification has not yet come to an end. That leaves 20, and of these two were voted against by the British Government and two were not voted upon. That brings it down to 16, and of these 16 they have ratified 12 and have failed to ratify only four. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think it is ridiculous to say that these figures show that the British Government have treated their obligations to Geneva as of no importance. The case becomes still stronger if you compare our record
306
with that of other Governments. I do not want to say a word to prejudice them, but I have here a list showing in the case of each country the number of Conventions voted for by the Government delegations that have not so far been ratified. It is a very long list, but I take some of the principal countries. In the case of Germany, 11 Conventions were voted for but not ratified; in the case of France there were 12 in the case of Italy, 9; and in the case of Great Britain the comparable figure is 4.
It seems to me that in these circumstances the noble Lord takes altogether too gloomy a view of what has occurred. In substance I do not disagree with him that there does rest upon the Government a moral obligation to support, if possible, the vote of its representative at Geneva. That moral obligation must depend to some extent on the circumstances in which the vote was given, and it must also depend upon the honest and considered view of the Government as to what is necessary for the good of the country. Subject to this, I think that the Government must do what it thinks right, and I cannot admit for a moment that there is anything in the record of the British Government of which it needs to be ashamed.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, I should be the last person to complain of the noble Lord returning to what has become a well-worn theme in this House. I can tell him at once that he will have the gratitude of the International Labour organisation for raising these matters in debate, because the International Labour Office complains most that it is working in the dark. What it most desires is to have public discussion and Parliamentary criticism, and, so far as the noble Lord enables it to secure that discussion in this House, I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of the International Labour organisation in saying that it will appreciate his efforts. On the other hand, I think, if I may say so, that he goes much too far in his exaltation of dogma and in his insistence upon cast-iron regulations. What has been proved in the history of the International Labour organisation is that what it most requires is practical elasticity and general understanding.
The noble Lord spoke as if that was not recognised by the International

307
Labour Office. On the contrary, they have now remodelled the procedure of the International Labour organisation on those lines. As the noble Lord knows, the present procedure is laid down in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. Before a subject is submitted for discussion at the International Labour Conference, a resolution has to be adopted in regard to it by the governing body. Then there is a long inquiry by means of questionnaires, and consideration within itself, before the Draft Convention is submitted to the Conference, which is, so to speak, the Parliamentary incarnation of the League on the industrial side. After the Second Reading discussion these Conventions are referred to Commissions, as they are called abroad, and then a Draft Convention is brought up at the end of the Conference and may or may not be adopted by the two-thirds majority. In working that was found to produce a great deal of confusion, or rather, perhaps I might put it, of neglect on the part of the authorities to whom the Convention stands referred. They need not necessarily have been aware of the form that the Convention was to take, or been able to instruct their delegates as to how exactly they were to vote in regard to it. That very thing happened in regard to the White Lead Convention to which the noble Lord has several times alluded. I was in the chair at that Conference, and well recollect it. Sir Montague Barlow, the British representative, who was then Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, himself agreed only subject to the reservation that he had not got the assent of his Government. I had his assurance on the point.
LORD ARNOLD: Those are not the words he used.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I prefer that assurance to the secondhand testimony of the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so.
LORD ARNOLD: Those are not the words he used.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: He said he was voting in his individual capacity, and he agreed in that sense. That seems to me to carry still further the argument used by the noble Viscount in front of me. But the result has been that the organisation has thought it wise to remodel its own
308
procedure. In future in the first year a proposal under discussion by way of Convention will not be finally adopted and in draft form will stand referred back to the competent authorities mentioned in the Treaty of Peace. Then, of course, the Governments concerned may be able to formulate their views more exactly, or, if necessary, to suggest amendments, which can be debated in the next session, and will form part of the Convention when submitted to the Conference. Surely, as the noble Viscount says, that is an admission that the procedure was not elastic enough, and that certain amendments had to be made in order that it might work more smoothly. I cannot conceive anything wiser or more expedient. The noble Lord opposite interrupted the noble Viscount when he dealt with the question of Parliamentary assent. He knows as well as any of us that in many of the countries concerned the assent of Parliamentary action is not necessarily needed: Conventions can be carried out by administrative action and by way of official Order. That varies with the constitutional arrangements of the country concerned. The main point that I want to urge is this: considering that a new procedure has been adopted, the disadvantages which were inevitable under the unduly rigid articles of the Treaty as they have been applied are not likely to occur again. It is of no use, I think, belittling the work of the Conference or of the Office, having that in view.
I repeat that had it not been for the steady sympathy and support of this country throughout its whole existence it is very doubtful whether the international Labour Office would be in existence to-day. In every way we have contributed to uphold it, and I am bound to say that on all the Commissions that sat there during the sessions which I have spent at Geneva the British representatives have played a very worthy part, and as often as not have been nominated to the chairs of the Committees. That is a proof of the confidence which is reposed in them by their fellow delegates. By all means let us debate these matters, but the noble Lord himself will see that he is not called upon to defend arrangements that have already been abandoned, but rather to point out the necessity which existed for allowing latitude,

309
if necessary, for amendment of the functions under which contracts were entered into and approved at the Sessions of the International Labour Conference.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not for a moment desire to controvert what the noble Viscount has just said in regard to amendments in procedure in connection with this International Labour Conference at Geneva. On the contrary, I think my noble friend Lord Arnold, as well as myself, would only be too willing to welcome any alteration in procedure which might improve the condition and authority of these International Labour Conference suggestions, after experience has been gained as to the working of the system. Also I desire to recognise the importance of the opinion of the noble Viscount, because, as we know, he has on more than one important occasion—I think on three occasions—himself been the Chairman of the Conference. May I bring the debate back to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood? I think that the answer which he gave to Lord Arnold was certainly not satisfactory. We are glad to see the noble Viscount again in the House, particularly on occasions of tins kind. I know how much the House often is indebted to his advice upon these matters, but there are one or two points in the statement which he made this afternoon to which I take exception.
In the first place he brought back to my memory the objection which he took himself to dealing with ratification of Conventions in the Assembly in the same way as ratifications of Conventions adopted by the National Labour Office. I am still of opinion that the view which I expressed was accurate, but that does not matter. He expressed an entirely different view. He said you must not have regard to the procedure in the Assembly when you are dealing with the ratification of a Convention of the independent Labour Office. The noble Viscount pointed out that on two important occasions the views expressed by this country to the Assembly were altered with an alteration of Government. I do not quite agree with the way in which he put it, but that does not matter.
310
What I want to ask the noble Viscount is this: Having regard to that risk—which is not an advantage, of course, to international meetings—might we not consider the much less political character of the representatives sent to the Assembly at Geneva by some of the other countries? Take France for example. The representatives of France are not changed every time there is a change of Government. Several of them, to my knowledge and to the knowledge of the noble Viscount, have been there for a large number of years, quite irrespective of the particular Government in power. I do hope that this matter will be very carefully considered. It is a very important matter. It gives an influence both to continuity and to knowledge which you cannot get if you change the complexion of your representation each time there is a change in the political Party Government in our country. That is a point which wants great consideration. But I do not think that it has much to do with the matter which was raised by the noble Lord. Nor do I wish to question what the noble Viscount has said. I agree that there, too, continuity is of great importance; it gives a status and a consideration, an influence and an authority which you really cannot get in any other way
Now let me deal with the particular point which the noble Lord raised. In reference to that I think that in substance the noble Viscount agrees with what the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said. He perhaps puts it in somewhat different language, but in substance there is agreement, and it is very important that on these international questions we should, if possible, get agreement on both sides of the House. I am one of those who think that political Party conflicts are carried to an extreme in this country, but at any rate in international matters it is as well, as far as we can, to understand one another, and, if we can, to agree with one another.
What were the two points which the noble Viscount took? There is no difference between him and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, that the Treaty obligation comes from the two-thirds majority, and, as the noble Viscount has said, supposing that your representative has not been in the two-thirds majority, there is no moral

311
obligation upon the Government of this country to carry out what the Conference has decided. That is quite clear. But that was not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. His point was this. Supposing your representative did vote in favour—and even, as the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, has said, after communication and further consideration, and when the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out—is there not something of a moral obligation upon the competent authority, which would be the Government of this country for the time being, to proceed to ratification? Do not let us get troubled about the competent authority point. I believe in every country the competent authority for ratification is the Government.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Oh no, it is very often the Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, the Parliament, as here, gives its assent, but Parliament is not generally the ratifying authority. However, I will not go into that discussion. My view of what is meant by the competent authority is that it is the ratifying authority, and the ratifying authority in this country is undoubtedly the Government. Parliament has not got the ratifying authority. Parliament considers the matter, and it is very unusual to ratify without Parliamentary assent; but, as a matter of fact, ratification is a question for the Executive, and not for the Legislature. What does the noble Viscount say? He says that in such a case there is a moral obligation, and he goes further and thinks that the moral obligation is a wide one—that it is a moral obligation which ought to be observed unless you leave a loophole for what he calls exceptional cases. That is really going the whole length of the argument of Lord Arnold. The loophole in exceptional cases, of course, must not be extended to a reconsideration of a matter which has already been adopted, and to which the representatives of this country have already given their assent. I do not think any one would suggest that that is right. If you get all those considerations concurring then there is a very strong moral obligation on this country to go forward to ratification. I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, would for a moment differ from that. And the more the noble Viscount
312
presses the view of improved machinery, improved mechanism and procedure, the stronger does he make the case, because he takes away the possibility—I will not say the probability—of what might be called a snatch vote or a snatch idea in a particular case. Therefore I welcome what has been said.
Reference has been made to the number of these International Labour Conventions ratified in this country and in other countries. I had the statistics the other day, and stated them; I do not wish to go into them again. But take one important illustration—the Hours Convention. I do not quite know how it stands now, but, as it did stand, all these important countries—Germany, Italy, France, among others—ratified subject to this, that their ratification would not become binding unless and until this country had also ratified. I do not want to go into matters of controversy, but that was the form of their ratification. Personally, I am grateful for the discussion which has taken place, and I think that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has been amply justified, and to a large extent accepted in what the noble Viscount has said.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, there are exceptions to every rule. First of all, let me bring before your Lordships, with reference to this lead paint question, the instance of the Forth Bridge. When they finish painting the Forth Bridge at one end it is time enough to think about painting the other end. I have crossed that bridge very often, and I have seen the workmen washing their hands with soap and water, which is provided, before they begin to eat their luncheon. I will give another instance. I am an early riser, and at present Claridge's Hotel is being painted with the very strongest lead paint. The workmen who are doing that are allowed to go to the washing basins down below, before they take their food, and I have been down there myself and have seen these men washing their hands most carefully before they eat their early morning breakfast. Those are two exceptions that I wish to mention. There are facilities to workmen to wash their hands, and if they wash their hands properly, as they ought to do, they will not suffer from lead paint poisoning with their food.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, because these matters, I think it will be agreed, are of great importance, and probably will not be raised again in your Lordships' House for some time. Before I come to them, perhaps I might be permitted to say in reply to the noble Earl who has just spoken that the views which he has expressed as to the salutary effect of washing the hands are not shared by Sir Thomas Legge, who probably knows much more about this matter than anybody else in this country. He has pointed out all the regulations which would be essential in order to make it reasonably certain—and even then there would be much doubt—that no harm would come from lead paint if they were all conformed to, but there are so many that they would not be carried out. Therefore the regulations—which, after all, are more for interior work than exterior work—are, I am afraid, likely to prove of little or no avail to prevent suffering from lead paint poisoning.
I would like to say at once that I am truly grateful to the noble Viscount. I consider his speech was a great advance, if he will allow me to say so, on the previous position taken up by certain members of the Government and is in pleasant contrast to some of the statements that have been made. For that I thank him very much. He has stressed strongly that there is, generally speaking, a very great moral obligation in regard to a vote given at Geneva for an International Labour Convention, and that is all to the good. Taking two or three of the points in detail, which I think are of sufficient importance, I would like to point out first, with regard to the competent authority, that whatever the position may be in respect to the ratification of League Treaties or League Conventions, I think it is perfectly clear that in reference to International Labour Conventions the competent authority which was intended must, at any rate in the vast majority of cases, be Parliament, because most of these Conventions require legislation. Indeed, the noble Viscount himself did not take up the position that it was not an obligation upon the Government to put the recommendation before Parliament. He said he had some doubt what the words meant.
314
I think it has become increasingly recognised that Parliament is the body, intended and that is being recognised in all countries where there is a Parliament. That was the intention in regard to the special Commission on the, Peace Conference and, so far as this Government are concerned, their own speakers, particularly in reference to the Lead Paint Bill, have on more than one occasion indicated in fact that the competent authority was Parliament. It seems to me that otherwise the matter really is reduced almost to absurdity; for it surely cannot be laid down that the delegates are to come back and merely report to the Governments who send them what has happened. That, it seems to me, would come to little or nothing. The noble Viscount, in quoting from Article 405 said that if on a recommendation no action is taken then the obligation is at an end, or words to that effect. I think what was intended there was that if, on a recommendation, the maority of Parliament, having been advised by their own Government to do that for which the delegates voted, should reject the recommendation there is then no further obligation. I think it must mean that: otherwise it seems to me you are getting into a position almost of absurdity. The clear intention was that in the ordinary case the Convention would be held at Geneva, the recommendation would come back to the home Government, the home Government would advise Parliament to ratify in the ordinary course, and there would be an end.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am sure he agrees with me. This is a very important matter and we must not get wrong about it. The Treaty obligation, whatever it is, rests on those who take part in the Conference, whether they voted for or whether they voted against the Convention. I think that is quite clear, as long as there is a two-third majority in favour of the Convention.
LORD ARNOLD: That is so, but that is not the point with which I was dealing. Strange though it may appear, it may be held there is an obligation on a country whose delegates actually voted against the Convention of still bringing it before Parliament. I understood the noble Viscount to argue that in case

315
a country voted for the Convention, and the matter was brought before Parliament and was defeated, even after recommendation of the Government, that then nothing more would be done—that nothing more would be done if a Convention has been adopted and the country definitely refuses to ratify it. That is not my case. My case is that the Government has recommended Parliament to do precisely the opposite to that for which its delegates voted.
In regard to the records of other countries the noble and learned Lord behind me, Lord Parmoor, has spoken about them, and I do not want to go into the figures now. After all, in Great Britain, we have rather prided ourselves upon the fact that we are more or less the pioneers in these movements for raising the standard of life and, therefore, our record should be better than that of other countries. It may be better than the record of some countries, but there are, I believe, one or two countries whose record is better than ours. I do not want to go into those matters again. I do think the record lately in regard to the two very important Conventions which have been mainly at issue has been anything but satisfactory. As regards the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which the noble Viscount quoted more than once, of course the procedure there is a different one. That is a League matter: it is not under the International Labour Office procedure and, therefore, the analogy with anything that I have said is not really a complete one.
I now come in conclusion to the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham. He said that Sir Montague Barlow had made certain qualifications. I have dealt with that at great length before. It is true that at the time when he gave his vote Sir Montague Barlow said he did so on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all. Those are the words he used. It would take me a long time to go through that matter again. I have done it twice and have never been replied to. I pointed out that it was a general qualification and that Sir Montague Barlow, at the same time that he gave the vote, made a speech most enthusiastically in favour of the Convention, that when he came back to this country he attended a dinner at the
316
Savoy Hotel where he was again most enthusiastic, and that there was no question there of any qualification or of any possibility or likelihood of non-ratification. When Sir Montague Barlow himself came into the House of Commons in 1923 for the long discussion on this matter he did refer to that qualification, I admit, but he did not turn the Convention down; on the contrary, his main basis in regard to the qualification was the Norman Committee. But the Norman Committee, whatever else it said, did really recommend ratification. It cannot now be brought up that that seriously affects the vote which Sir Montague Barlow gave in 1921. To do the Government justice they have not on the last two or three occasions on which this matter has been debated brought up the qualification. They have realised there was no substance in it and have said nothing about it. It has been left to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Burnham) to bring it up.
Finally, I would say this. Surely a vote is a vote. You cannot do business at Geneva or anywhere else by the qualification of a vote. That is the main point. Whatever the noble Viscount may say, it does not alter the fact that the proposal was made by this country itself. That is where I think the seriousness of the position in regard to lead paint is so strongly emphasised. It will not avail a Member of Parliament when an Election comes to explain upon the platform in regard to a certain vote he had given that he had much doubt about it and that he should not really be held responsible for the vote. I am trying to get a better realisation of the sanctity of the votes given at Geneva and it is because I think that has been achieved to a considerable extent to-day that I thank the noble Viscount. In the circumstances I will not press for Papers. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres

317
Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th February last. It has been arranged that in August and September next manŒuvres will be carried out by way of training—not regular manŒuvres but training between Divisions. It will be necessary to put the ManŒuvres Act into force in South Oxfordshire for the First and Second Aldershot Divisions and in East Kent for the Fourth Division. The draft Order has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House for the requisite time, and if your Lordships agree to the Motion which I venture to lay before you it will be submitted
318
to His Majesty in Council as soon as possible after His Majesty's reply to the Address has been received.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military ManŒuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th February last.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at Seven o'Clock.

Preamble
The Earl Amherst—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    WAR RISKS ASSOCIATIONS (DISTRIBUTION OF RESERVE FUNDS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Newcastle - under-Lyme Extension) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wokingham Extension) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hove Extension) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (New Sarum Extension) [H.L].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Conway Extension) [H.L.]
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EAST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Meston be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss), and that the Lord Meston be Chairman of the said Committee: Read, and agreed to.
ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Redesdale be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Clarendon, and that the Lord Redesdale be Chairman of the said Committee: Read, and agreed to.
MERSEY TUNNEL (BIRKENHEAD ENTRANCE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
  GAINSBOROUGH BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
    LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.
MATLOCKS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
AXMINSTER, CHARD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.

    PETERHEAD ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
    TILBURY ELECTRICTY ORDER, 1927.
    BURNHAM-ON-CROUGH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICTY ORDER, 1927
    DARLINGTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.