Sitting of 31 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 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Peterborough Corporation Bill [Lords].

St. Catharine's College, Cambridge (Canonship of Norwich) Bill [Lords].

Birkenhead Extension Bill [Lords].

Gainsborough Bridge Bill [Lords].

East Surrey Water Bill [Lords].

Littlehampton Harbour and Arun Drainage Outfall Bill [Lords].

Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords].

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill (King's consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
Smethwick Corporation Bill,
Swansea Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Greenock Burgh Extension, Etc., Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Rotherham Corporation Act, 1924, relating to Rotherham Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    POTTERY, TYRES AND MATCHES.
    Sir J. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has reason to believe that there was a substantial increase in the importation of pottery, tyres and matches during the weeks immediately prior to the introduction of the Budget?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

    KEY INDUSTRY DUTIES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the goods imported liable to Key Industry Duties during the first four months of the present and the previous year, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer is in tabular form, and, with the concurrence of my hon. Friend, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    The following statement shows the value of the goods upon which Key Industry Duty was paid during the periods stated:

    Description.

    January to April, 1926.

    January to April, 1927.

    £

    £

    Optical glass, optical elements and optical instruments

    95,778

    100,496*

    Scientific glassware, lamp blown ware and laboratory porcelain

    46,641

    43,899

    Scientific instruments; gauges and measuring instruments of precision.

    34,620

    48,326†

    Wireless valves and similar rectifiers and vacuum tubes

    57,488

    44,393

    Ignition magnetos‡ and permanent magnets

    16,438

    11,545

    Arc-lamp carbons

    9,343

    6,973

    Hosiery latch needles

    21,235

    22,191

    Metallic tungsten, ferro-tungsten, manufactures of metallic tungsten and rare earth compounds.

    5,760

    13,636

    Synthetic organic chemicals (other than finished and intermediate organic dyestuffs and colours), fine chemicals and fermentation chemicals.

    176,375

    187,956

    Amorphous carbon electrodes

    Not dutiable in this period.

    86

    Ferro-molybdenum; Ferro-vanadium; Molybdenum and vanadium and compounds thereof.

    3,557

    Total of above

    463,678

    483,058

    * Includes also component parts of optical instruments in this period.

    † Includes also component parts of scientific instruments in this period.

    ‡ Ignition magnetos are subject to Key Industry Duty only when the Key Industry Duty exceeds the duty leviable under Finance Acts, 1925 and 1926, on motor cars, etc.

    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to arrange for a revision of the classification of the trade and navigation Returns so as to show in the monthly Returns the imports of the goods liable to Key Industry Duties:
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will consider, in consultation with the Treasury, whether it would be possible to publish in the Trade Returns figures showing for each quarter the value of the imports on which Key Industry Duty has been paid.
    Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend consider the importance, from the point of view of the industries of this country, of having figures of that kind issued?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have said that I shall consult with the Treasury. It is a question of expense.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he cannot include in this suggested Return the whole range of articles subject to duty, instead of confining it to key industries:
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think all the other articles subject to duty are dealt with in a sufficiently complete manner in the Returns. This is a question of a particular selection out of a general class of articles.

    WOOLLEN AND WORSTED GOODS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the rates of duty on woollen and worsted goods in Australia, Holland and Denmark, respectively?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer takes the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that, thanks to Imperial Preference, Australia, with a population of 6,500,000, actually bought from us in the first four months of this year twice the value of woollen and worsted manufactures compared with the combined purchases of Denmark and the Netherlands, with a population of over 10,500,000?
    Following is the answer:

    IMPORT DUTIES ON WOOLLEN AND WORSTED GOODS.

    Australian Commonwealth:—

    Piece goods, woollen or containing wool (but not including flannel) ordinarily used in the manufacture of outer clothing for human wear and weighing more than 6½ ounces per square yard—the invoice selling price of which does not exceed 3s. 4d. per sq. yard:—

    Under the British Preferential Tariff

    1s. per sq. yd. And 30% ad valorem.

    Under the General Tariff

    2s. per sq. yd. And 45% ad valorem.

    piece goods, wollen or containing wool, not elsewhere included in the Tariff:—

    Under the British Preferential Tariff

    35% ad valorem.

    Under the General Tariff

    50% ad valorem.

    Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, not elsewhere included in the Tariff, of a class or kind not produced in Australia, as prescribed by Departmental By-laws:—

    Under the British Preferential Tariff

    15% ad valorem.

    Under the General Tariff

    25% ad valorem.

    Netherlands:—

    Woollen and worsted piece goods

    8% ad valorem.

    Denmark:—

    Woollen and worsted piece goods:—

    Weighing 750 gms. or more per sq. metre (i.e., 22¼ oz. or more Per sq. yd.)

    80 öre per kilog. (about 5d. per lb.).

    Weighing from 250 to 750 gms. per sq. metre (ie., from 7½ to 22¼ oz. or more Per sq. yd.)

    1.20 kr. Per kilog. (about 7¼d. per lb.).

    Dress goods containing silk to the extent of not more than 3% by weight, weighing 300 gms. or more per sq. metre 8¾ 0z. or more per sq. yd.)

    3 kr. Per kilog. (about 1s. 6d. per lb.).

    Pure or mixed worsted stuffs imported by cloth printers for printing muslins.

    75 öre per kilog. (about 4½d. per lb.).

    Other woollen and worsted piece goods

    1.30 öre per kilog. (7¾d. per lb.).

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    PACKING AND WRAPPING PAPER.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information on the increase in the production of packing and wrapping paper in this country since the imposition of the safeguarding duty on this commodity?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to returns I have received from the Union of Wrapping Paper Makers, which cover approximately 60 per cent. of the industry, the production of packing and wrapping paper this year has been slightly greater than during the corresponding period of last year.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Has the production of kraft paper increased proportionately?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question, but I have
    184
    had indications that new machinery has been ordered and will be brought into operation.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not the fact that at least £180,000 has been spent on new machinery in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure of the figure, but I know that very large orders have been placed for machinery.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that there has been at different periods an increase in unemployment in the industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Owing to a certain general falling off in trades using paper, there has been a falling off from what would otherwise have been ordered; but in spite of that orders have been placed for new machinery to equip

    185
    existing or new factories, and it is undoubtedly the case that the duty has had a stimulating effect.
    Mr. HARRIS: How does the right hon. Gentleman know what would otherwise have been ordered? How can he tell what is in people's minds?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Because I have been informed by the people who gave the orders.

    GAS MANTLES.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures of the imports of gas mantles for the year previous to the imposition of the safeguard duty and for the last financial year, respectively, or the most convenient comparative periods?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The safeguarding duty came into force at the end of December, 1925. The imports of gas mantles during 1925 amounted to 208,902 gross. In 1926 the imports were 47,708 gross.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for the falling-off of imports is the fact that the largest English manufacturer of these mantles has paid a bonus to the German manufacturers not to send them into this country?
    Sir. P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that there is an agreement with regard to markets. I am also aware that, but for the duty, the imports would be quite enormous and we should not be able to find a market for our own products.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the case that prices have gone up 80 per cent.?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are making speeches and giving their own views.

    IMPORTS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the figures of the value of the imports of articles subject to duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act given by the Board of Trade are given before the duties have been paid or after they have been paid?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As stated in the introductory notes to the Monthly Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation and the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom, the value of imports given in official returns represents the cost, insurance and freight. It excludes any duty which may be leviable.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that on the top of that has to be added the 33 per cent., of whatever duty there is, in order to get the value of the imports to the consumer or the user or the importer?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That entirely depends on the question of who pays the duty.

    OIL (DISCHARGE AT SEA).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the agreement sanctioned by his Department, under which British ships are given permission to discharge oil into the sea outside a 50-mile zone from our coast, he is aware that such a stipulation of 50 miles distance only delays the arrival of the oil on our beaches, driven there by the prevailing wind; and whether he will take steps to withdraw the permission to discharge oil into the sea at all?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no power apart from international agreement to control discharge outside the three-mile limit. The proposal now being considered by the various Governments is to restrict by international action the discharge of oil within limits within which it is at present perfectly legal. This Measure may or may not be completely successful, but it is the utmost for which international agreement can be secured at the present moment, and it is a Measure involving greatly increased restriction.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only solution of this grievance is to forbid altogether the discharge of oil into the sea, and to insist upon the installation of separators, as in the case of the "Majestic"? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this might be done even in this country?
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that superfluous oil from ships has to be discharged somewhere and, if it is not to be discharged in the sea, where is it to be discharged?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why not separate it?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the most modern engineering practice saves this oil from going to waste by separating it?
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the very heavy mortality among sea birds due to this cause?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In answer to all these supplementary questions, I think that separators are, in fact, a more complete protection than a large prohibited zone, even if it be 50 miles. Hon. Members must bear in mind that while we can order separators to be fitted to English ships, unless they are also fitted to the ships of all the world, the only result of compelling separators to be fitted on English ships would be that English ships would not discharge oil, whereas all other ships would be free to do so. We therefore proposed in the first instance at Washington that separators should be installed generally. We found we could not get any international agreement upon that proposal, but we found we could come to an agreement that there should be an international limit varying from 50 miles to 150 miles. We thought it much more important to get international agreement on what was perhaps a second best proposal, rather than to get no sort of agreement on the best proposal.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    EXPORTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total exports of coal during the month of April last and the corresponding figures in the month of April, 1914?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Exports of coal to all destinations registered during the month of April, 1927, amounted to 4,117,515 tons, of which 179,505 tons were
    188
    consigned to the Irish Free State. In April, 1914, the export of coal from the British Isles amounted to 5,214,018 tons.
    Mr. BATEY: In the case of which country has there been a falling off in the export of coal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I might possibly be able to tell that if I got notice and if the returns show it, but I could not reply out of my head.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the price per ton for April, 1914, and last April?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Again, if the hon. Member will give me notice, I may possibly be able to tell him.

    MINERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the growing desire of employers and workmen engaged in the mining industry for the establishment of a pension scheme for miners, he will convene a conference of the representatives of both sides to consider the establishment of such a scheme?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): If my help were asked for by both sides in the industry I should of course be glad to do anything I could, but it is not a matter in which it would be proper for me to take the initiative, and if the desire for such a scheme is general on both sides I do not think that they are likely to find any difficulty in making the necessary arrangements themselves.

    MINERS OVER 65.
    Mr. HARTSHORNasked the Secretary for Mines what number of persons over the age of 65 years are employed in the coal-mining industry and in the South Wales coalfield, respectively?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The latest information is that obtained from the Decennial Census of Population of 1921 when 2·7 per cent. of the persons employed in the coal mining industry were 65 years of age or over. The figure for South Wales was 2·3 per cent.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Education

    189
    (1) what are the conditions existing in Westphalia which make low-temperature carbonisation of even low-grade coal a commercial success which are said not to be at present applicable to this country; and, if there are none, what still hinders the commercial adoption of this process in the United Kingdom;
    (2) what countries are at present utilising processes of low-temperature carbonisation on a commercial basis and to what extent in each case?
    Lord E. PERCY: With my hon. Friend's permission I will answer these two questions together. I am not aware of any low-temperature carbonisation process being worked successfully on a large commercial scale and using the type of coal available in this country. Such plants as exist are either experimental or working under special conditions on a comparatively small scale.
    If my hon. Friend will give further particulars of the process or processes to which he refers as being a commercial success in Westphalia, I will endeavour to give him the information for which he asks.

    TORCHLIGHT TATTOO, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has seen the communication recently addressed by the War Office to the Warwickshire Territorial Army Association relating to the loss incurred in the organisation of the torchlight tattoo in Birmingham in May of last year; if he is aware that the loss of £5,000 incurred by the promoters of the tattoo was wholly due to the general strike; that the arrangements for the tattoo were in every way efficient and entailed much loss of time and energy voluntarily given by Territorial officers and men, and that in the event of the tattoo having succeeded the surplus funds would have gone to military charities; and whether, in view of the terms in which it was couched, the rebuke given by the War Office to the association was sent with his approval?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have no doubt that the General Strike was the cause of the loss on the Birmingham Tattoo; it has never been suggested that
    190
    the loss was due to any want of assiduity, energy or efficiency by the Territorial officers or men. The decision is a generous one intended to mitigate any hardship arising from the loss. Steps must, however, be taken to avoid any future losses from whatever cause. The decision was my decision and communicated to the association on my instructions.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was responsible for the text, of the letter which was sent to the Warwickshire Territorial Association; and does he approve of the terms in which the letter was couched?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The decision was my decision. As to what I said to my hon. Friend, it seems to be quite unnecessary to press the matter any further.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not of great importance to the. War Office that they should keep on the most friendly terms with the Territorial Associations?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course it is, and if I myself had been drafting the letter I might possibly have used slightly different phraseology-but there it is.
    Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as a matter of interest to a substantial section of the community, what was the economic result of the tattoo and how was it affected by the general strike?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary of State for War how many pre-war Army pensioners served under the Admiralty during the War; and how many of these obtained temporary commissions?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that to give this information would involve disproportionate labour.

    FOREIGN PRODUCTS (PURCHASE).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War the value of any foreign products or manufactures purchased

    191
    for or on behalf of his Department during the last financial year; and what percentage this bears to the total purchases?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The value of foreign products or manufactures purchased at headquarters during the last financial year was £235,594 or 3·68 per cent. of the total purchases. Included in this figure are foodstuffs to the value of £126,245 and copper and timber to the value of £93,159, representing 1·97 per cent. and 1·45 per cent. of the total purchases respectively, leaving the value of manufactured goods at ·26 per cent. The figure does not, however, include petrol and oils which are to a great extent refined in this country or coal and coke purchased from abroad on account of the coal stoppage.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman go into the matter and see if he could not get more products from the British Empire?

  CHINA.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of troops of the Shanghai Defence Force who had been admitted to hospital as a result of sickness up to the time of the latest report received by his Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am unable to state the total number of admissions to hospital, but the average weekly number of officers and men of the Shanghai Defence Force and the permanent garrison at Hong Kong, including Indian troops, who were in hospital during the four weeks ending 20th May was 15 and 860 respectively.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to withdraw all this Defence Force between now and the next General Election?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I could not possibly say.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would it be possible to get the numbers of these men if we put down another question?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think this answer gives the information. It gives the average figure of those in hospital per week.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask how the ratio compares with that of the same number of troops at home?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is higher, but there is nothing extraordinary in the figures. Of course we are watching them very carefully.

    ARMS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, according to the latest official Returns (1925) of the Chinese Government at Peking, out of a total importation of arms of the value of 7,199,438 haekwan taels, during 1925, more than half were supplied by Germany, or five times more than in 1924; whether he is aware that under Part V, Section 1, Article 170, of the Versailles Peace Treaty, Germany is prohibited from exporting arms or manufacturing arms for export; whether His Majesty's Government has brought this breach of the treaty to the notice of the Council of the League; and whether Germany is still exporting arms to China?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The figures quoted in the reply returned to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 9th March last show that arms to the value of Taels 3,813,644 were imported into China in 1925 from German ports; there is, however, nothing to show that the arms in question were not only exported from but also manufactured in Germany, contrary to the terms of Article 170 of the Treaty of Versailles. There has therefore been no occasion to refer the matter to the Council of the League of Nations. Shipments of arms from the port of Hamburg to China are, I understand, still taking place, but their real origin remains uncertain.

    NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for War when the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute paid the ground rent charged by the

    193
    War Office for the use of the theatres at the various military centres; and can he state the total amount at present due for rent?
    Captain KING: All these outstanding claims up to 31st December last were paid on 19th May. The only amounts due therefore are the portions of the annual rentals which have accrued since that date.

  SCOTLAND.

    STATE-OWNED LAND.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total acreage of State-owned land in Scotland and the acreage owned by the separate Departments, respectively, including the Board of Agriculture, the Forestry Commissioners, the Crown Land Commissioners, and the Commissioners of Works?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the reply involves a statement containing a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I am informed that the acreage of land owned by each of the Departments named in the first column of the following list is approximately as shown in the second column:

    Department

    Acreage

    Board of Agriculture for Scotland

    380,000

    Forestry Commission

    244,500

    War Office

    9,736

    Admiralty

    7,600

    His Majesty's Office of Works

    821

    Prison Commissioners for Scotland

    261

    In addition 22,630 acres of Crown lands are under the charge of the Commissioners of Crown Lands; some land also may be owned by other Departments but it is understood that the amount is not considerable.

    VALUATION ROLL, ABERDEEN (PRINTING).
    Mr. THOMAS KENNEDYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Aberdeen County Council are experiencing difficulty in carrying out their statutory duty to print the valuation roll for the county by reason of the fact that only one firm of printers tendered for the contract at a prohibitive price; and whether he can take any action to enable the county council to carry out their duty by having the valuation roll printed by His Majesty's Stationery Office?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have communicated with the county clerk on the matter referred to in the question and am informed that the county council did receive only one tender which they regarded as too high. There is no statutory obligation on the county council to print the roll and they have resolved to have it type written for the current year. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the offer made in this case was £700 above the contract price of last year and, in view of that fact does he not think that the suggestion of collusion among printers is one which should engage his attention?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of that, and I think action taken by the local authority is the best way to deal with the matter.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Could not he arrange to meet this point by the inclusion of an Amendment in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill?

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state the number of classes in the elementary schools in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow with an attendance roll of over 50 and 60, respectively, and similar figures for the Cathcart and Partick Parliamentary Divisions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer to the hon. Member's question contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    Parliamentary Division.

    Number of Primary Classes in which

    (1) the number on the roll exceeds:—

    (2) the number habitually in attendance exceeds:—

    Fifty (but not Sixty).

    Sixty.

    Fifty (but not Sixty).

    Sixty.

    Camlachie

    …

    …

    …

    …

    115

    52

    101

    2

    Cathcart

    …

    …

    …

    …

    70

    9

    37

    1

    Partick

    …

    …

    …

    …

    79

    24

    58

    6

    ABLE-BODIED RELIEF.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of men and women in receipt of able-bodied relief in Scotland during the first three months of 1927?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    The number of able-bodied in receipt of Poor Law relief in Scotland at 15th January, 1927, was:—

    Paupers.

    Dependants.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    36,415

    3,118

    79,405

    118,938

    Total figures for Scotland are not available for the months of February and March, 1927, but in 80 parishes in which unemployment was highest the numbers relieved were:—

    ——

    Paupers

    Dependants.

    Total.

    15th January

    …

    38,528

    77,303

    115,831

    15th February

    …

    37,857

    74,738

    112,595

    15th March

    …

    37,806

    75,725

    113,531

    No information as to the number of males and females chargeable in the 80 parishes is available.

    HOUSING SUBSIDIES.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of subsidy spent in Glasgow and Scotland, respectively, on account of housing schemes under the various Housing Acts since 1918?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The amounts of Exchequer subsidy paid in Glasgow and Scotland, respectively, under the various Housing Acts since 1918 to March last are £894,463 and £5,654,464.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does that include the total cost of steel houses and the money advanced to the Scottish Housing Company?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It includes all Exchequer subsidies.
    Captain STREATFEILD: How much of that sum was expended upon housing in the rural areas in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not answer without notice.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures separately under each of the Acts?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member puts down another question I may be able to get that information.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC BEACONS (WIRE SUSPENSION TYPE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he can state how many of the new traffic beacons, known as the wire suspension cross-street type, with the word caution prominently displayed, have been erected in the county of London; whether his Department have suggested the use of these beacons to various councils in the London area; and, if so, how many councils are erecting the same?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): No signs of the type indicated in the question have yet been erected in the London traffic area. I

    197
    think it is desirable, however, that experiments with this kind of sign should be tried, and at my suggestion two will be erected experimentally by the authorities concerned.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry are accepting the whole cost of maintenance?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is another question. If the hon. Member will put it down I will give him an answer.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the maintenance cost of these signs?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no, I could not possibly say that without notice.

    CHARS-A-BANC (EXAMINATION OF BRAKES).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the accidents that have occurred lately through chars-a-banc fitted with faulty brakes having failed to act in cases of emergency; and, in view of the injury to the public and loss of life, will he consider the introduction of legislation snaking it compulsory for all chars-a-bane used as public conveyances to have their braking system periodically examined by experts appointed by his Department?
    Colonel ASHLEY:The draft Road Traffic Bill which I have recently circulated contains provisions for securing that motor omnibuses and chars-a-banc are properly designed and constructed and are adequately maintained.
    Colonel DAY: Could not provision be made so that a vehicle has to be examined before the licence is renewed each year?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will read the draft Road Traffic Bill he will see that provision is made for the appointment of officers whose duty it will be to secure that these vehicles are maintained in a proper state.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the urgency of this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of when this Bill will be introduced?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member is as well able to form a judgment as I am as to the state of Government business in the House.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the officers referred to by the right hon. Gentleman be servants of his Department or of the local authorities?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The local authorities.

    MENAI SUSPENSION BRIDGE (TOLLS).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the high charges levied upon vehicles crossing the Menai suspension bridge and having regard to the fact that the national Eisteddfod of Wales is to be held at Holy Isle this year, he will consider ordering the suspension of the bridge tolls upon vehicles during the period of the Eisteddfod, namely, for the first week in August?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he is doing a grave injustice to Wales?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake as early as possible the abolition of all tolls on bridges?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is my duty to maintain the Menai bridge, and unless I impose tolls, and especially when the traffic is heaviest, I shall not have any money to maintain it.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he gave me a reply the other day showing that he was making a fabulous profit on the bridge?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, I never said anything of the sort. I said I was trying to build up a reserve fund, so that if and when the bridge requires rebuilding there shall be money for the rebuilding.
    Sir R. THOMAS: But does not the right hon. Gentleman regard £8,000 a year net profit a fabulous profit on one bridge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a, matter of opinion.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a subsidy from the Road Fund towards the expenses of the bridge?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. This

    199
    bridge has nothing to do with the Road Fund. It is not maintained by the Road Fund——
    Captain GARRO-JONES: It ought to be.
    Colonel ASHLEY:——it is maintained by tolls which are imposed on the users of the bridge.

    RAILWAY COMMUNICATION, MIDLANDS AND WEST WALES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the increasing importance of the traffic between the Midlands and West Wales, he is prepared to devote fresh consideration to the proposal to build a connecting railway from New Radnor to Crosswood with a view to improving railway communication with Mid-Wales?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It does not appear that the cost of constructing a railway between the places which the hon. Member mentions would be commercially justified, and I am not in a position to provide funds for this purpose.

    ROAD FUND (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir J. POWERasked the Minister of Transport the amount expected to be expended out of the Road Fund during the present financial year and, for comparison, the amount actually expended during each of the five previous years?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The estimated net payments from the Road Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1928, are £19,800,000, exclusive of any transfer to the Exchequer in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 11th April last.
    The net payments made during the last five years were as follow:

    Year ended 31st March:

    £

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    13,466,777

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    13,129,064

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    15,234,225

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    16,755,741

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    17,613,320*

    *Exclusive of £7,000,000 transferred to the Exchequer.

    MOTOR HORNS.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received complaints as to cases of nervous shock caused by the unnecessary use of strident motor horns; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that unnecessary noise is sometimes made by motor horns. The point has been under consideration in connection with the Draft Road Traffic Bill, but it seems to me more a question of education in the courtesies of the road than a matter for legislation, as it would obviously be extremely difficult to lay down a definite and enforceable standard of noise.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The question I asked originally was whether the Home Office have power, through the police, to take action?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is rather a matter of law, but speaking without notice, it seems to me it is rather a matter for the individual who is aggrieved to bring an action against the person who makes the noise.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of complaints that motorists do not blow their horns or that they do not blow them loud enough?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not a fact that a few years ago, the cries of news-vendors were suppressed, and this matter is comparable. Surely some action could be taken.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will go into the matter.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that there have been several cases of cyclists who have been proceeded against for making too much noise with their bells, and why cannot motorists be proceeded against?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in France electric horns are forbidden in the large towns but not in the country?
    Colonel ASHLEY: All these important points can be discussed when the Road Traffic Bill comes before the House.

  POST OFFICE.

    MAIL SERVICES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Sir ROBERT LYNNasked the Postmaster-General whether mails from England are now sent to Belfast via Holyhead and via Stranraer; and whether he can state the times when the letters from these two services are sent out for delivery in Belfast?
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Postmaster-General whether the Northern Ireland mail service has now been transferred from the Stranraer-Larne route to the Holyhead-Kingstown route; whether any improvement in the service has resulted; and whether his Department has experienced any reduction in the working costs?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I will answer these questions together. The principal mails between England and Northern Ireland other than the Belfast district have always been conveyed by the Holyhead route. The bulk of the mails to and from Belfast and the surrounding district, which have in recent years been forwarded by the Stranraer route, are now also sent via Holyhead. Those from certain parts of the North of England are still sent via Stranraer. Letters from England by whichever route received are now delivered in Belfast approximately 25 minutes earlier—the delivery commencing about 10.50 a.m. In the reverse direction the delivery in London by the Holyhead route is about two hours earlier. There has been no material alteration in Post Office expenditure.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter which was sent to me in Ulster about a month ago by the Holyhead route has not yet come to hand?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice ought to be given of that question.
    Sir W. DAVISON: But I wish to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he does not think it desirable that the mails of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be kept under the control of the British Post Office, so that these unfortunate occurrences may not arise?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend is aware, no doubt, that the
    202
    diversion of the route via Holyhead, or, rather, the reversion to that route, was made at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland.
    Sir R. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in very many cases, usually on four or five days a week, mails coming from Ulster are not delivered with the first delivery in London?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, I am not aware of that.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the fault of the Holyhead route at all, and that the reason for non-delivery in this case was because the hon. Member was away from home?

    SIBERIA (POSTAL AND CABLE ROUTES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Postmaster-General whether British mails are still to be sent via Siberia; whether he has information with regard to the British telegraph cables which pass through Russian territory; and whether they will be allowed to continue in operation?
    Sir W, MITCHELL-THOMSON: The despatch of British mails via Siberia and the transmission of telegrams from this country to Russia and countries beyond are governed by the terms of the International Conventions of the Postal and Telegraph Unions to which both His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government are parties. The obligations of the two Governments under these Conventions are not affected by the action taken by His Majesty's Government.
    One British Telegraph Company has a line across Russia which is worked under an agreement with the Soviet Government. I have no reason to believe that this agreement will be affected.

    TRANS-ATLANTIC WIRELESS TELEPHONY (SECRECY).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House if steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee which he appointed to consider the setting up of the wireless telephone service between Britain and the United States of America for the purpose of achieving complete secrecy in the use of the service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir. The problem of ensuring complete secrecy in the trans-Atlantic wireless telephone service is engaging the attention of the Post Office engineering staff in consultation with the technical staff of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that one should have to pay £5 a minute for a service which can be heard by other people?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are plenty of people who do pay it.

    ANGLO-BELGIAN TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether the new Anglo-Belgian telephone service is working satisfactorily; and whether the use being made of it conies up to his expectations?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    FOREIGN POSTAGE RATES.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that much business is lost to British traders through inattention to, and carelessness over, foreign postal requirements, he can take steps to bring to the notice of commercial houses throughout the country the fact that the foreign letter rate is 2frac12;d., and not 1½d.?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON:I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to this matter. Every effort is made to give publicity to the correct rates of foreign postage, but I fear that in most cases short-payment is due more to oversight than to ignorance of the rates. I am considering whether any further steps can be taken with advantage.

    PALESTINE (TEL AVIV HOUSING SCHEME).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Palestinian Government is prepared to help the township of Tel Aviv with part of the cost of the housing scheme needed in the northern extension?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): Considerable
    204
    financial assistance has recently been given by the Palestine Government to the local council of Tel Aviv. The question of giving further assistance is under consideration, but I cannot say what precise form such assistance, if given, would take.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgent need for housing accommodation there?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, CRANWELL.
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there is considerable overcrowding in the local schools at Cranwell, as a result of the insufficient accommodation provided for the children from the aerodrome; whether he has received any representations on this subject; and, if so, what action he has taken, or proposes to take, in this connection?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have not received any representations, but I understand that the local authority are already in communication with the aerodrome authorities on the subject.

    CONVEYANCES FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the hardship caused in Essex and elsewhere, especially in the winter months, to children who have to walk as far as three miles each way to and from school; and will he consider taking steps to require local authorities to provide suitable conveyances where the distance between the home and the school exceeds two miles?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind and will send me details I will make inquiries. Under the existing law the provision of conveyances is a matter which rests within the discretion of the authorities, who are familiar with the local conditions, and I have no reason to think that any intervention on my part is called for.

    INSPECTORS (SALARIES AND EXPENSES).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Education how many inspectors were at work under his Department in 1913, 1925, and 1926, respectively, and at what cost in salaries and expenses?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question consists of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HURD: Will the Noble Lord tell me if the number of inspectors has increased, and, if so, why?
    Lord E. PERCY: The number of inspectors has diminished.
    Following is the reply:

    Year.

    Number.

    Salaries.

    Travelling and incidental expenses.

    £

    £

    1913

    …

    384

    183,486

    45,810

    1925

    …

    387

    293,523*

    46,625

    1926

    …

    379

    287,898*

    44,802

    *Includes cost of living bonus not payable in 1913.

    COST (CIRCULAR 1388).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a, conference of extra Metropolitan education authorities objecting to general limiting standards for any part of the cost of education as proposed in Circular 1388; and whether he will indicate the nature of his reply?
    Lord E. PERCY: I cannot trace the receipt of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the number of naval and marine pre-War pensioners who served as temporary officers in the Air Force during the War; and if they received retired pay at naval rates on demobilisation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The
    206
    information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the last part, so far as I am aware no such officers received retired pay at naval rates on demobilisation unless they were eligible by virtue of service as warrant officer or commissioned warrant officer, Royal Navy, before attachment to the Royal Air Force.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the number of pre-War naval and marine pensioners who served as other ranks in the Royal Air Force during the War; and if they counted their war service for pension and received the rates of pension appropriate to the ranks they held on demobilization?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the information requested could only be obtained from the scrutiny of a very large number of official records and in the circumstances I do not think that the labour involved would be justified. As regards the last part, the pensions, if any, would have been regulated on the men's final discharge according to Navy rules and would have been assessed by the Admiralty.

    IRAQ (SALE OF SURPLUS VESSELS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air to state the total tonnage of the 48 surplus vessels sold in Iraq to Lord Inchcape for £10,000, and how many of them were fitted with steam or other motive power; whether these vessels were operated by the Inland Water Transport Service; and for what purpose were they used?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the exact tonnage of the vessels is not known, but I am having the information obtained and will communicate it to the hon. and gallant Member. As regards the second part, three small steamers, four tugs, four motor boats and a fire float are fitted with power. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth part, the vessels Were maintained primarily for use in a military emergency, but were utilised as required for transport of petrol, oil and general stores and the local conveyance of personnel by water.

    DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Prime Minister how many Chambers of Commerce have communicated with him regarding the proposed abolition of the Department of Overseas Trade; and how many of such communications express the view that the Department should be continued as hitherto?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr Baldwin): I have received representations from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in favour of the retention of the Department. The association informed me that they were expressing the views of their constituent Chambers. I have also received representations from several individual Chambers.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANI- SATION CONFERENCE.
    Mr. CRAWFURDasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention that His Majesty's Government shall be represented at the forthcoming conference of the International Labour Organisation only by civil servants and not by any Minister or Ministers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the hon. Member aware that the French Minister of Labour proposes to visit this conference, and does he not think that equal attention ought to be paid to it by our Government?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I understand that M. Fallieères, the French Minister of Labour, is paying a visit to the conference for a day or two, but not as one of the accredited representatives of France.

    SECRET SERVICE (PERSONNEL).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister whether employment in the Secret Service of this country is confined to persons of British nationality?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to previous answers on this subject, from which the hon. Member will have gathered that the essence of a secret service is secrecy.

    CURRENCY NOTES RESERVE.
    Sir EDMUND TURTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are 56,250,000 Bank of England notes in the currency notes reserve; whether the retention of these Bank of England notes constitutes any charge upon the Treasury and, if so, how much and in what account is it to be found; whether the Bank of England receives remuneration from the Treasury in respect of the deposit of these notes; and, if so, in what manner and to what extent?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Currency Note Redemption Account contains £56,250,000 in Bank of England notes. No charge upon the Treasury is involved, nor does the Bank of England receive any remuneration in connection therewith.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INCOME TAX COLLECTORS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether as he proposes to make the appointments of collectors of Income Tax appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue permanent, he will consider giving to all collectors of Income Tax the same security of tenure?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware of the new Clause to be moved in committee on the Finance Bill, which I think is similar in intention to his question. I would desire to reserve the matter for discussion in connection with that Amendment.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will this change affect the pensionable rights of these people?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have said, I should like to reserve myself for the discussion which is inevitable.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (POST OFFICE).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware that some ex-service men who succeeded in the examination held in December, 1926, to fill 50 vacancies for the establishment have not yet been placed on the establishment list; and whether

    209
    he will consider the absorption on the establishment of all the men who passed before announcing any further examination.
    Sir W. MITCHELL -THOMSON: I have been asked to reply to this question, as it apparently relates to the limited competition for appointments to the male clerical class which was held in December last among Post Office candidates under a scheme of recruitment set up as the result of an agreement reached on the Departmental Whitley Council in 1921. That agreement provided that a percentage of all the Clerical vacancies in the Post Office should be filled by limited competition among Post Office candidates; and the number of vacancies which have so far occurred has not yet sufficed to enable all the candidates successful in the last competition to be appointed. In the circumstances I am not prepared to give any undertaking to consider the absorption of unsuccessful candidate.
    Mr. MACKINDER: May I ask if there is any examination for office boys?
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that these people should get appointments before the others?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The matter is somewhat involved. The successful candidates are divided into two classes, the old candidates and the newer candidates, and I do not think I can go further than I have gone.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not the fact that the examination is a competitive one for an announced number of vacancies?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is so.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (MONTHLY LIST).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the March number of the officially published monthly list of Government publications issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office has only recently been circulated; and whether any hope can be given that in future these lists will be issued promptly at the end of each month?
    Mr. McNEILL: I find that the list in question was delayed exceptionally and that these lists normally appear towards the end of the month following the issue of the publications included therein. Although lists of publications are circulated daily as they are issued, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that there would be advantage in accelerating the publication of the monthly lists, and I am giving directions accordingly.

    GIRLS (PROBATION).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that where there is no woman probation officer appointed by the Court, girls accused of offences quite other than sex offences are sometimes placed under the supervision of the superintendent of a local rescue home, although not being required to reside in it; and whether he will take steps to secure that this practice is discontinued?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): If the hon. Member will send further particulars of the cases he has in mind my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider the matter.

    ADMIRALTY OVERSEAS TANKERS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to state what were the exceptional circumstances which prevented repair work to Admiralty overseas oil-tankers being carried out in the Royal dockyards in 1925–26?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The exceptional circumstances which led to a comparatively small amount of the repair work on Admiralty overseas tankers being carried out at home dockyards during 1925 may be summarised as follow:

    (i) The amount of repair work required to be carried out during 1925 was generally low in comparison with 1924.

    (ii) The employment of most of the vessels was overseas and led to work being done abroad or deferred.

    211

    (iii) The visits to home ports were at places or times which rendered dockyard repairs impracticable.

    (iv) Casualties which necessitated repair at the nearest port with adequate facilities.

    MILK SUPPLY (WORKINGTON).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the Report published by the medical officer of health for the Borough of Workington, in which it was stated that 79 per cent. of the milk for sale was found to contain cow dung, hairs, and dirt; and will he state what steps his Department is taking to prevent the sale of unclean milk in this district?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has seen the report to which the hon. Member refers. The samples mentioned in that report were classified as 31 per cent. clean, 31 per cent. fair and 38 per cent. dirty. In a later report which has been presented to the town council within the last few days, a marked improvement is indicated, the result of an examination of a further set of samples being given as 75 per cent, clean, 12·5 per cent. fair and 12·5 per cent. dirty. My right hon. Friend is assured that the town council, and the other authorities responsible for the administration of the Milk and Dairies Order, are taking all necessary steps to ensure a clean milk supply for the borough.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman state how many medical officers of health's reports show that unclean milk is being sold?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a general question. The matter was put to me as a specific case. That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Colonel DAY: Have there not been many complaints made by medical officers of health showing that unclean milk has been sold, as stated in this question?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is entirely a different matter.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the Minister of Health in touch with the Minister of
    212
    Agriculture in order to endeavour to improve the methods of handling milk on the farms?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I think——
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question applies to a case at Workington.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the wilful negligence which the latest inspections have proved to exist, will not the hon. Gentleman's Department insist upon requiring frequent tests being made to compel these people to supply clean milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: The last inspection shows that there is considerable improvement. I have every reason to believe that the town council in question are doing all they can in the matter.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that since the recent test there has been such a wonderful improvement over a short space of time, does not the hon. Gentleman think that that indicates wilful negligence previously, and does he not think that any possible steps which can be taken ought to be taken to ensure that we have clean milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I do, and I think that this particular council is well aware of the necessity for doing that.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the standard of purity and quality of British milk is higher than that of any other country in the world?

    GRADED MILK (LICENCE FEES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health what is the number of licensed producers of graded milk, that is to say, in the three categories of certified, Grade A (T.T.), and Grade A, respectively; the amount of the licence fee in each case and the total amount of such fees collected during the past year; and whether, in view of the deterrent effect of such fees upon the production of milk of guaranteed cleanliness, he will abolish these charges and regard the work of the Ministry's inspectors in this sphere as a public health service?
    Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of licensed producers of certified, Grade A (tuberculin tested), and Grade A milk

    213
    in England and Wales on the 31st March last were 121, 150 and (at least) 266, respectively.
    The amount of the annual licence fee in each case is:

    Certified.—£5.

    Grade A (tuberculin tested) or

    Grade A.—£1 1s. (or if the milk is bottled on the farm, £3 3s.).

    The total amount of the fees paid to my Department in respect of producers' licences for certified and Grade A (tuberculin tested) milk for the calendar year 1926 was £699 18s. 6d.
    Licences to producers of Grade A milk are granted by local authorities, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot state either the precise number of such licences in operation or the total amount of fees paid in respect thereof.
    My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the licence fees which represent only a part of the cost of inspection and bacteriological examination have had a deterrent effect on the production of clean milk, and, he does not at present propose to abolish them.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GLOVE WORKERS (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour why he refuses to pay dependant's allowance to unemployed glove workers at Yeovil if it is found that their wives receive as little as 10s. per week for our working in the glove trade?
    Mr. BETTERTON: We have been making further inquiries into this matter since the hon. Member put down his question. If he will communicate with me to-morrow, I hope to be able to give him the result.

    EXEMPT RAILWAY WORKERS.
    Mr. CRAWFURDasked the Minister of Labour whether the employeés of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, Great Eastern section, who have been compulsorily retired at the age of 65 without pension and who have been exempt persons under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Act, will be granted unemployment pay from the date of such retirement until the date
    214
    when they are entitled to old age pensions?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the employés in question have not been insured contributors during recent years I am afraid that the Acts preclude the grant of unemployment benefit to them.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Does not the hon. Member realise that this creates very great hardship on these men, and will he not, at any rate, take some steps to approach the railway company with a view to something being done in these particular cases, either, in the direction of their retirement being withdrawn or some provision being made for them?
    Mr. BETTERTON: This is entirely a question between the railway companies and their employeés. As far as I am concerned, I feel quite certain that both the unions and the railway companies would resist any proposal that these employés be no longer excepted persons under the Act of 1920.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is not this a case where the hon. Member's Department might possibly approach the Board of Trade who might approach the railway company and make some suggestion?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will consider that.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the railway company be asked, to suspend action until these men qualify for the old age pension next January?

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    Major HARVEY: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I desire to make a personal explanation. Last Wednesday night, the 25th May, in the course of Debate in this House, I read a statement from a constituent of mine, which was challenged by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). The report appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2,144. It has since come to my knowledge that in one respect, in the matter of date, that statement was incorrect. It says that until 1915 the man paid 1s. 8d. a month to the National Union of Railwaymen, and then applied for exemption from the payment of the political levy. I am now informed that he paid 1s. 8d. a month until 1925, and

    215
    it was not until that year, 1923, that he applied for exemption. I take this opportunity of making the correction, and I tender my apologies to the House for having, inadvertently, made the error.
    Mr. THOMAS: When this matter was raised the hon. and gallant Member said "He"—
    that is, the individual in question,
    "claimed exemption from the political levy, and presumably obtained it, but nevertheless he pays his trade union exactly the same sum as those who have not obtained political exemption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1927; col. 2144, Vol. 206.]
    I immediately rose and said that I had never heard of the case, that I knew nothing about it, and that I would make inquiries. I asked for the name and, most unfortunately and regrettably, someone on the other side, whom I shall not name, shouted, "I hope he will not be victimised." That was resented on this side, because I genuinely intended to inquire. The next day, I sent a telegram and a letter to Newton Abbot, and I now find that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member is not only inaccurate, but I have here the man's card. He did not join the union until 1917, and he is shown as having been expelled from the union through arrears of contribution. The same day, I wrote to the Chief Registrar. The House knows that not only is the Chief Registrar the only man who can deal with a matter of this kind, but the Conservative party have issued a statement saying that everyone should apply to the Chief Registrar. I have a letter from the Registrar which says:
    "In reply to your letter of the 26th inst., I am directed to say that there is no trace of any complaint whatever having been made to me by the man in question, Henry Powell."
    Those, briefly, are the facts. The case quoted by the hon. and gallant Member, which he has now corrected, has been restated and requoted by other hon. Members in various parts of the country. In addition, this remarkable fact emerges, that although the Act of 1914 provides that once a man agrees to pay his contribution to the political levy, from the day that he claims his exemption, obviously, the Act provides that that only operates on the 1st January. That is
    216
    not the period in this case. The case quoted by the hon. and gallant Member is one of which the Registrar knows nothing.
    Major HARVEY: On a point of Order. I made a personal statement, correcting one error. I do not know whether it is in order for the right hon. Member to make other corrections. As far as my information goes, I certainly say that some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman are not correct. I do not know whether I shall be in order in replying on his statements, or whether he is in order in making them at a time when I had made a personal statement.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going rather beyond the necessities of the occasion, but it was rather difficult for me, on a technical matter of this kind, to know what is really relevant and what is not. Certainly, a debate on the question cannot be allowed at the present time.

    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the methods of slaughtering animals."
    If hon. Members want to enjoy their dinners, they ought to support the Bill which I ask leave to introduce. It is a Bill to regulate the methods of slaughtering animals for food. Our food is now produced too often under conditions which, if we called them to mind, would be repugnant to us. My Bill proposes to make general the by-law sanctioned by the Ministry of Health known as By-law 9B. This, I think, ought to be a Departmental Bill. We are behind the times in this matter. It is not a subject of popular knowledge or popular agitation, and it would, normally, be a matter for departmental regulation. No charge of cruelty lies on any party; the defect is purely one of the law. Occasionally, light is thrown on this subject as, for instance, the other day when some children in a Northern town were brought before the magistrates because they had obtained access to the lairs connected with a slaughter house, and had occupied themselves by chasing and wounding a number of calves. The

    217
    magistrate made certain strong reflections upon that state of things, and the Press called a good deal of attention to it. The "Manchester Guardian" said that, probably, there was a greater mass of unnecessary suffering connected with our methods of slaughter than in any other sphere. These children had, apparently, made a sport of attending slaughter houses, and it appeared that they were encouraged to do so by certain slaughter-men, and that it was a recognised practice at a very large number of slaughter houses in that town.
    My interest in this matter was aroused during my experience as Minister of Agriculture. The Ministry is responsible for the slaughter of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and the Ministry has laid it down that animals shall be slaughtered by what is known as the humane killer. If the slaughtering as it is done in England were done in public places, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that the consumption of meat for food would be reduced by 50 per cent. I have visited a great many of these places. It was, of course, unavoidable originally that rough-and-ready methods should be used in killing animals for food, but the desire of every decent person that unnecessary pain should be avoided has found a solution in these days by the improvement in firearms. There are very ingenious weapons of various kinds which are available. There are pistols with which slaughtering is now quite easily and cheaply performed, and local authorities have, very widely, adopted them.
    Consumers generally are entitled to be protected from anxiety as to whether or not decency has been observed in the slaughter of the animals. Those interested in the business, the farmers, have shown their concern in many cases, and quite lately the National Council of Agriculture passed a resolution urging on the Ministry that the method of humane slaughter should be pushed forward. We have to sacrifice animals to our use, but the animals for food are mostly animals of high development and a great deal of character, and it is incumbent on us to avoid pain as far as we can. I regret that I have to harrow the feelings of hon.
    218
    Members. I admired a few years ago a speech of the present Minister of Agriculture when introducing a Bill for the enforcement of anæsthetics in certain operations on horses, and I admired the courage with which he described the necessary details of the operation. In these cases we should remember the methods of killing which are commonly used. There is the poleaxe, which is the common method of killing big animals, and in the hands of a skilful man an extraordinary degree of regularity is obtained. I went with another Member of the House to a slaughter-house where a skilful man was brought in to show us how it was done. At the first blow he failed to fell the bullock. It bellowed and, of course, after that, being much more restive, it was much more difficult to fell.
    The matter is much more difficult in the case of bulls, where blows on the forehead cause contusion and a thickening of the skull; to kill a bull with the poleaxe becomes more difficult. What is done in that case is hardly fit to mention in this House; the skin has to be removed before killing. But all this trouble is avoided in those places where the humane killer is in use. The City of London lately obtained a report in which they carefully arrived at the average rate of blows per death, and they found that in the case of 100 bullocks it took 125 blows, but in the case of 100 bulls it took 249 blows. They then obtained exact figures for the killing of 1,255 animals with pistols, and in that case only 1,259 shots, or four more shots than the number of animals, were required to kill straight away. There is another possibility which has been adopted by the Dutch; the enforcement of stunning before blood letting. That is uncertain, but it is an advance. Then there is the knife, formerly much more used and still used very widely on sheep, calves and pigs, and it is used, of course, in all cases by the Jewish method of slaughter. I myself saw at the abattoir at Brighton a bull killed by the Jewish method of slaughter. It was heavily shackled and thrown and then the throat cut. I should certainly form the opinion that the movements of the bull trying to rise were not automatic or reflex and

    219
    they lasted more than five minutes. Then you come to the modern method of shooting. It is making progress under the revised by-law of the present Minister of Health, but still not many more than 200 local authorities, most of them not large authorities, have adopted the by-law, and some of them only partially to the exclusion of certain animals.
    The advance is slow, because authorities feel that it will put them at a disadvantage with neighbouring districts where old methods are still allowed. The Admiralty some years ago made a special Report in which they employed two well-known Fellows of the Royal Society, Sir Michael Foster and Professor Starling, to give an opinion as to the degree of pain from throat-cuffing. They held the opinion that in many cases consciousness remained for 45 seconds, and commonly anything from five seconds to 40 seconds. Again, the City of London issued an interesting report in which they urged that legislation on the matter should be general, because we have arrived at a considerable degree of public support. They said it is not fair to ask one authority to go ahead of others, and that it can only be done by general regulations. Foreign countries are ahead of us. In Switzerland killing by shooting is universal, and in Holland and Germany stunning is now laid down. Progressive authorities are entitled to support, and I urge that we ought to establish a certain standard of decency in this matter. The British are humane, and they ought to be first, and not behind in any reform. I ask leave to introduce this Bill in order that we may remove what is a certain blot on our national life.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buxton, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Riley, Sir Robert Newman, Dr. Drummond Shiels, and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair.

    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL,
    "to regulate the methods of slaughtering animals," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 15th June, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
    War Risks Associations (Distribution of Reserve Funds) Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Wallasey to construct a tramway, promenades, street improvements, and other works, and to provide and work trolley vehicles, and to acquire the undertaking of the New Brighton Pier Company; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with reference to their ferries, gas, water, electricity, tramway and omnibus undertakings, and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; to alter the boundaries of the borough; and for other purposes." [Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Croydon; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to execute street works and to extend the time for the construction of the street works authorised by The Croydon Corporation Act, 1924; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their electricity undertaking and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes."[Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords].
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Fleetwood Urban District Council to construct a sea wall and other works; to run omnibuses; to confer further powers on the council in regard to the supply of electricity; and to make further and better provision for the health, local government, finance, and improvement of the district; and for other purposes." [Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the West Cheshire Water Board to acquire further waterworks and additional lands and to construct new works; to extend their limits of supply; and for other purposes." [West Cheshire Water Board Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision for the maintenance of the Royal Albert Hall; to provide for a rate on seats therein; and for other purposes." [Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision as to the capita] of the Isle of Wight Waterworks Company; for varying the charges of the company; and for other purposes." [Isle of Wight Water Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Derby; to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of that borough in relation to their water and tramway undertakings and other matters; to make further provision in regard to the Derby Borough Court of Record; and for other purposes." [Derby Corporation Bill [Lords.]
    And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Brighton; to alter and adjust the boundary between the boroughs of Brighton and Hove; to constitute a single parish for the area of the extended borough of Brighton; and for other purposes." [Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords.]

    Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords],

    Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],

    Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

    West Cheshire Water Board Bill [Lords],

    Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords],

    Isle of Wight Water Bill [Lords],

    Derby Corporation Bill [Lords],

    Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords],

    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Sir EDMUND TURTONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had
    222
    appointed Mr. Morgan Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Mental Deficiency Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 30th, May.]
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to persons employed by local and other public authorities.)
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I understand that we are to have a general discussion on this Amendment. The Committee has now reached a stage when we are leaving the trade unions to consider the Clauses in this Bill in which the Government make an attack on the elected authorities of the country. It has been argued that the Government have no mandate for this Bill. The answer to that has been that, although it is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister stated, there is no mandate for certain parts of this Bill, the general strike of last year brought about a situation which compelled the Government to take action. That may or may not be true in regard to strikes and general strikes, but it cannot be true of the political levy, and it certainly cannot be true of the Clause we are now discussing. Whatever arguments there may have been, good, bad or indifferent, for legislation to deal with strikes and general strikes, there has been no justification whatever for the Government taking advantage of this Bill to interfere with the legitimate work entrusted to local authorities by Parliament.
    During a Debate some years ago in this House on the question of Home Rule, very strong opposition was taken to the action of the Government at that time for bringing in legislation for which it was contended they had no mandate. That legislation was to interfere with the legislative union that had been in existence for about 100 years. The establishment of local government in this country ranges over nearly the
    228
    same period, and has progressed to such an extent that local authorities throughout the country carry on work which, in my opinion, is quite as important in some ways, and I think in other ways more important, than the work carried on by this House. I think the work of administering the laws of this country is sometimes more important than the making of laws, and there has been, as far as I know—perhaps the Minister of Health will be able to tell us—no universal complaint as to the manner in which local authorities have done their work.
    It is perfectly true that the Minister of Health and his friends do not like certain boards of guardians, and certain local authorities and municipal councils, because of the policy those councils represent, but that is no reason why this legislation should be brought forward. At present there are not many hon. Members here who took part in the discussions on the Home Rule Bill—I think there is only one—otherwise I would like to have asked right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who were in the House, and took a prominent part against the Home Rule Bill how they can defend this piece of legislation which they are asking the Committee to support this afternoon? We all know that if we were as patriotic as the First Lord of the Admiralty and his friends were in 1911, 1912 and 1913, we should be trying to raise an army in the municipalities to try and prevent this Bill becoming law. That is what we should have been doing if our idea of patriotism was what theirs used to be in those days. The Committee knows that the whole argument against Home Rule was that there was no mandate. I should like to be told what mandate there is for the proposals in this Bill. It is no argument to say that municipalities do things of which the Minister of Health disapproves. I have a great respect for the father of the Minister of Health, because he was one of the men in this country who helped to found what is called "municipal Socialism," and will be remembered as the founder of what extremists like myself have dubbed "gas and water Socialism." It is strange that his son should now be the Minister to bring in and support a Measure to take from municipalities the powers which this House has given to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In this Bill you are

    229
    taking away from the local authorities the right to determine whom they shall employ, and the terms and conditions under which they shall employ.
    No amount of argument about people at Poplar, Merthyr, or Durham doing things of which the right hon. Gentleman disapproves ought to be allowed to enter into this question. I do not exist to do things in politics of which the Minister of Health approves, and he will be the last man in the world to want the approval of myself for anything which he does when we so thoroughly disagree with each other. But the right hon. Gentleman has no right, because he happens to disagree with a particular form of policy, to say that that policy is quite wrong. A kind of argument which is continually being put forward from the benches opposite is that those who are opposed to their party are opposed to the interests of the country. No such thing! We are opposed to the Government and not to the nation, and hon. Members opposite know that just as well as I do, although it suits them in this particular instance to pose as the champions of the ratepayers for those particular districts. I am certain that the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward in defence of these proposals to prove to his own satisfaction that there is some demand for the legislation, will come from the people who support the party which happens to be in power in this House at the moment.
    I deny the right of the House of Commons to take away the legitimate privileges of local authorities, merely because they carry out a different policy from that which is approved of by the Minister of Health. It is absurd to think that Parliament gave the vote, and gave what is practically universal suffrage, to all intents and purposes, to local government, and expected that there would be no change in policy, and that the workers would not want to do things differently from the way in which they have done them in the past. The idea which seems to be abroad nowadays is that, having conferred the suffrage, you expect people elected on a broader suffrage to carry out the same policy as previously. There is bound to be a difference in legislation whenever the workers get a Government which really represent them on the benches opposite.
    230
    It is exactly the some with local authorities.
    4.0 p.m.
    When I was first elected as a member of the Poplar Borough Council and the Poplar Board of Guardians, our board consisted of undertakers, doctors, jerry builders, rent collectors and that sort of people. We also had a very close corporation called the Freemasons. There were fire or six of them out of 24, and when any man was to be employed by the board, we knew perfectly well the person who would get the job. It was evident that the person who would get the job would be a member of the Freemasons. Invariably they were members or friends of the local Tory party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have said that in Bow many a time, and there everyone knows it is true. They know that 20 years ago local government in London was very largely in the hands of the gentry I have just described. So bad was the state of things at that time, that Lord Rosebery said no builder ought to be allowed to sit on a public health committee. You may say what you like about the present boards of guardians and councils, but it is true that the public health of London, and especially of the district I represent, and the health of the children in the district I represent, as attested by the education officers of the London County Council, is the best in the whole of the country. About that there is no dispute, and I maintain that even the right hon. Gentleman cannot gainsay that. I am not so stupid as to imagine that either he or his Department could not pick holes in our administration in the East End. I do not deny that. We are not supermen, but only ordinary men like those in front of me, but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman and his Department entirely on this one thing—the question of pure and simple administration, apart from the question of policy. He cannot bring a single charge against us from the point of view of administration. That is the test. If we are employing the wrong people we are carrying out our work in a wrong way. If we are carrying out our work efficiently, it shows that we are employing efficient men to carry out that work. That cannot tie gainsaid by anyone who has taken the trouble to inquire into the matter. The right hon.

    231
    Gentleman has got to prove something more than the mere question whether we have a right to do this or not. From his point of view, he has got to prove that we have injured in some way, by carrying out this policy, the interests of the district which we represent.
    There is this other point of view. I know hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will probably violently dissent from what I am going to say, but I maintain very strongly indeed that where you have Labour in power or even in control of a local authority there is practically no corruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am prepared to argue that at any time, anywhere, and I will tell you why. On the Poor Law Commission, of which I was a member, the question of corruption again and again came up, and when the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else on that bench talks about the ineptitude of these local authorities dominated by Labour, it should be remembered that when Sir James Davey, who was Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board at the time, was put in the Chair to give evidence, I raised the question of auditing because of the futility and ignorance of the auditors with whom I had come into contact. We asked him to tell us what was the principle—and I believe the same principle operates today—on which an auditor was appointed, and he answered, "Patronage, tempered by ability." That meant distinguished soldiers' sons and nephews. At that time we had the nephew of a distinguished soldier who had been pitchforked into a job for which he was about as fit as a crossing-sweeper. He knew nothing about auditing or accounts, he had no experience and no training for the position, and to this day there has been no explanation except that he was his father's son.
    I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman cannot bring forward a single case that will come up to that as having been done by any Labour-controlled municipality in the country. This was testified to by the head of the Local Government Board. I should not have mentioned that if it were the only case. But from where does the right hon. Gentleman get his inspectors, these rich young men without any experience at all who are going round to the workhouses to be trained in their jobs, a son of one
    232
    man and a nephew of another? They have no examination, Out they are lucky enough to be sons of their parents. [HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am delighted to get those cheers from hon. Members opposite, because it shows that they believe in the principle of the spoils of office. It goes to show what humbugs they are when they accuse the Labour party of corruption.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Whose sons are they?
    Mr. LANSBURY: They might be your sons for all I know. If hon. Members are anxious to know whose sons they are, I should advise them to ask the right hon. Gentlemen who have been the inspectors appointed to the Local Government Board for the last five or six years. They are men without any experience and go to the workhouses to learn their jobs, so let us have no more nonsense about that. Under this Clause in future every local authority will be restricted in its right as to whom it should appoint to do its work. The only argument to support the Clause is that we are not getting the work done properly now, because, if we are getting the work done properly, you have no right to interfere with us at all. Let us inquire into that. The local authorities to which I was elected some years ago were controlled by certain people, and we all knew where the contract would go and where the jobs would go. It is not known as well as it should be that the local authorities in London, under the Metropolis (Management) Act have these rights:
    "The board of works for every district under this Act and the vestry of every parish mentioned In Schedule A to this Act, shall respectively appoint or employ or continue for the purposes of this Act and may remove at pleasure, such clerks, treasurers, and surveyors, and such other officers and servants as may be necessary and may allow to such clerks, treasurers, surveyors, officers and servants respectively such salaries and wages as the board or vestry may think fit."
    That is the law as we understood it, and the law, apparently, is now to be changed, and I would like the Committee to consider this business. The law has been changed by a decision of the House of Lords which has decided that local authorities are not entitled to pay such wages as they may choose to pay——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what the hon. Member's argument has to do with the question of this Sub-section, which deals with the employment by local authorities of trade unionists.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think the Committee must be made aware what the present situation is with regard to local authorities. I am not sure they all understand it. I thought I was entitled to read to the Committee the terms under which local authorities are acting at present and if you will allow me, I will show you their connection with this Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member has answered the question as to how this affects trade unionists. That is the point.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is exactly to what I am coming. You must take into account the fact that there was a very long controversy in which the Minister has been concerned, and which is now beginning in another form in this Clause. It has all been round the question of wages paid and of trade unionists being employed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Committee must allow me to put forward my own argument. I can only give the Committee argument; I cannot give them anything else. The point we are discussing this afternoon is whether local authorities are to be allowed to say whether they will only employ trade unionists, and I propose to show that local authorities at present have that right, but that there has been a very considerable effort made by those who, I believe, are behind the right hon. Gentleman and forcing him to sponsor this Clause, to endeavour to get round the local authorities. A certain borough council in London is now being threatened with an injunction on this very trade union business in order to break an agreement of which the Minister himself approved.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain)The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain) indicated dissent.
    Mr. LANSBURY: He and the Minister of Labour at least helped to negotiate with the unions. The Municipal Alliance have gone to the Courts to get an injunction against the Council for paying wages. This is essentially a matter of
    234
    trade unionism because an agreement was negotiated with the trade unions in the right hon. Gentleman's presence, and I do not think that agreement would have been reached were it not for his presence and the representative of the Ministry of Labour. Now why do we want trade unions in this matter at all? The reason we want them is because it is impossible for us to fix wages and conditions unless there is someone there with whom to fix them, and we have found that during the period that we fixed our wages with the trade unions, the members of the Council have been relieved of a very considerable amount of pressure from individuals. I suppose no one who has any experience of local government will deny that very often members of local authorities are pestered by complaints from one man or another, or perhaps from a woman, of their treatment by their superior officers. When you have an ageement with a trade union, and you have your members in the trade union, you can lay down the rule that the authority, and the individual members of it, will have nothing to do with any complaints unless they come through the organised body itself, and the result of that is that you get a much fairer judgment both by the Board and by the union.
    I am certain that the fact of the Poplar authority—other people will speak for other authorities—laying down this principle that all its employés shall belong to their particular unions, whether it is a medical officer, a relieving officer or a clerk, and that the officers' remuneration and status shall be negotiated through the union, and any complaint shall only be heard through the union, has made for much better efficiency and much smoother working than anything else that has happened in that district. This has been done in some districts exactly as we are doing it. We have set up a joint body representative of the council and the unions, and the council will not settle any individual union's claim until it has gone before the joint body, and we have found, not once but several times, that the joint council has decided against the particular union's case in regard to an individual man. We could not do that, we could not carry that through, if in our employment we had some people who were not in the union—who refused to join the union—and, therefore, we claim that by making the business watertight

    235
    and by having the machinery by us by which complaints and wages and status can be settled, we have done a good service to our ratepayers, who have proved that they agreed with that by electing us over and over again by big majorities. In spite of anything the right hon. Gentleman may say, he had no complaints from our district except from our political opponents, and we expect those complaints. If I am alive and there is a majority on the other side belonging to the Tory party of Poplar, I shall always be against them, as they are against us, but I should hope no Minister would use his power to alter the whole law of the country in regard to municipalities.
    I object to this Clause, first because it is interfering with and taking away the rights which have been given to local authorities, and it is rounding-off the Bill in this respect. You have already said, "You can have trade unions if you will have nice, kind, pleasant Sunday afternoon gatherings, and never do anything of which we disapprove." The civil servants may have an organisation as long as they are good boys, too. Now, apparently, Labour is to be allowed to control municipalities if they will only do what the right hon. Gentleman wants them to do. That is the end of the whole business. This is one more step along the road for definitely taking power out of the hands of the workers which this House, apparently, has given them. You are proving to the Communists that by some means or other you are determined that the working-classes shall not use the powers they are said to possess municipally. Whether you will ever be able to prevent them from using the power they have gained in a legislative manner we do not know. In my judgment, this is the very worst proposition in the Bill, because it is definitely striking a blow at the privileges which people imagined they had won, and were firmly rooted in local government life. You are saying to the men whom the people of the locality choose, "You are not fit to settle a matter of this kind," and you are saying it to them in an issue in which the professional classes do not allow you to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman and his assistant know that they would not dare to allow a medical officer of health to be appointed of whom the British Medical Association disapproved. They know perfectly
    236
    well that the local authorities have to pay wages laid down by the British Medical Association. They know it as well as I do, but they would never attempt to bring in a Bill to deal with that. They are bringing in a Bill solely to deal with the workers, and the lowest-paid workers, the workers who sweep the streets and keep the sewers clean. That may be a matter of mirth, but I am very grateful to the men who keep the sewers and roads clean. They are doing at least as useful work as most of us in this Committee to-day. This Clause is an attack on the poorest people and is worthy of the meanest Government that ever sat on those benches.
    Mr. DIXEY: I rise to express my support of the Clause and to urge the Government to stick to it. The hon. Member has made an attack upon members of my party. Does he mean to infer, when he disagrees with the Clause, that he would support the action of a Tory town council who laid it down as a positive rule that they would employ no union labour?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I should not support them, but I should work very hard indeed, as I did at Poplar, till I got a majority to chuck them out.
    Mr. DIXEY: Does the hon. Member understand that the Government in putting this Clause into the Bill, have made it equally applicable to the councils to which the hon. Member refers, which have in the past laid down these rules as to non-employment of trade union labour? It seems to me he, as a Socialist, ought to consider this a most equitable Clause. He, as a Socialist, ought to approve of it more than anything else, because it secures the liberty of the individual. My experience is that Socialists talk a lot about liberty, and are the last to give it to other people. There is a further point on the Clause that I am strongly in favour of. We have reason to know some of the methods of the Socialist party. We have reason to know that once they get control they will go as far as to make everyone they employ a member of a trade union, and if they are allowed they will go even further, and before long, we shall have the hon. Member passing a regulation that no one but a Socialist shall be employed by the Poplar Corporation. I am not sure now that he would not even go as far as to justify that. We, on this side, are

    237
    desirous of seeing fair-play all round. There is no impartial person in the country who would not say, this is not a perfectly equitable Clause, and as I believe the Government are perfectly right in going on with it, I shall support it, and I hope most hon. Members in the Committee will support it.
    Mr. HARRIS: It will be unfortunate if the issue raised by this Clause is allowed to concentrate on the Borough of Poplar. It is a very much larger question than one part of London, or London itself, or any particular district. I have been for 20 years a member of a large local authority, and I have made it my business not only to study the methods of work of my own local authority but of local authorities up and down the country. I think the Minister will be the first to allow that local authorities on the whole are to be trusted to use their powers wisely and justly. On the whole, we can safely say we have reason to be proud of the high standard not only of local authorities but even more of the members who compose them. The more you are going to circumscribe their powers, the less attractive are you going to make it to become members of them. It is difficult even now to get citizens of the right kind to give up their time for public purposes. The only inducement is that they have very responsible duties to perform. I object to this Clause, though I admit that there is an argument for it in this or that district, because it is something very near a censure on the discretion of local authorities. You have to trust in their good sense. There may be cases where their authority has been abused, but that is no reason for bringing in legislation of this kind. As a matter of fact, the quarrel between Bethnal Green and Poplar and the Ministry of Health has not been because they have negotiated wages through the trade unions, but because they have not done that. It is because they have paid higher wages than the recognised wages negotiated between the trade unions concerned. I am open to correction, but I understood the district auditor took exception to the rates of wages paid in certain boroughs because they exceeded the rates recognised and arranged between the trade unions concerned.
    238
    A local authority is in a very difficult position in reference to engaging labour. It has to have some guiding principle, and in a great many cases the only principle to go on is the rates of wages, and conditions of labour fixed by the appropriate trade union. This Clause goes as far as to say that in no case—it does not say there may be exceptions—shall it be lawful for any local or other public authority to make it a condition of the employment or continuance of employment of a person that he shad] belong to a particular trade union. In some cases it is essential, if the local authority is to have peace and harmony in carrying out its work, that the men should belong to a recognised trade union. Take the case of the building trade. If the local authority were to import bricklayers who were not trade unionists, experience shows that it would immediately mean a strike in the building trade concerned. That question came up at the London County Council, owing to a shortage of bricklayers It was suggested that some ingenious method should be used to increase the supply of labour, but the chairman of the Housing Committee very wisely took the line that, if that were done, it would mean a stoppage on all the housing estates, which would he disastrous. If an authority is employing direct labour, common sense would dictate that they should require their bricklayers and the other people employed to belong to the recognised trade unions.
    I say this proposal is not a practicable proposition. It is bound to lead to friction, and it is against the whole spirit of local government. If we are to work through the machinery of local government, it is important to avoid centralisation and to trust as much as possible to the good sense of local authorities. I do not think that the Minister is going to help the cause of good government by trying to restrict their discretion in the exercise of their authority. If their authority is abused, there is ample power in the hands of the district auditor, and experience has proved that the district auditors are not slow to use their authority. This is singling out one class of employer and seeking to restrict their authority. There are big firms, such as engineering firms, who require in the

    239
    interests of peace that their men should belong to their appropriate trade unions, and surely public authorities should be entrusted with the same power. If you will not do so, you are saying that the members of public authorities are not as trustworthy as ordinary business men. That is a gross libel on the splendid men and women who give their time to public service. The Minister knows better than anyone that there are no men and women who deserve more respect and confidence than those who give their time and service to manning the local authorities, who do work which is entirely unpaid, which is very little recognised, for which there is no reward and very little honour, except the honour of service well done in the interests of the country. Because it circumscribes the discretion of local authorities that, because it seems to me to be against the whole spirit of local government, I cannot support this Clause.
    Mr. KIDD: I think it will appear to many Members of the Committee that the opposition to this Clause largely arises from a somewhat confused idea as to the province and functions of trade unions. Speaking as one who is an ardent supporter of trade unionism, I recognise that in the world of industry, in the world of private enterprise, private interest is bound to be a controlling interest, and that a trade union is an absolute necessity in order to prevent any possible abuse of that private interest. Within that domain, I think, and hon. Members on this side, I believe, will agree, that trade unions should have all the encouragement they can get. But, when you come to a public body, the position is entirely changed. There you have no question of private interest. The members are popularly elected to represent the ratepayers and simply and solely to look after the public interest Let me test the opposition to this Clause in this simple way. I have spoken as I have done about trade unions quite sincerely. I recognise how important they are in the industrial economy of the nation, but, important as I regard the trade union, I dare not recognise it as occupying a position in which it can dictate to the State, whether we refer to the State in the national sense or in the more local sense. The best proof of
    240
    the invalidity of the arguments in support of the Amendment is that, after all is said and done, trade unionists represent only a minority of the people. If you are to say that trade unionism is to have special consideration from local authorities, it means that you are destroying the rule which, I take it, is endorsed by hon. Members opposite as much as it is by hon. Members on this side of the House, that government by the people for the people is the only form of democratic government that can be recognised. When you oppose this Clause, you proceed upon the assumption that a minority can dictate to the majority. That is how it works out.
    I put my case even to this height, that a local authority should be as unconscious of the existence of a trade union as it is of the existence of a body of Freemasons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or of the Law Society."] Well, take the Law Society. I am not aware that this Clause proposes to do anything against a trade union which you could not do against the Law Society. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) argued, in his fine, racy fashion, "You would not dare to appoint a man as a doctor at a salary which was not approved by the British Medical Association." But this Clause does not propose that any trade unionist is going to be compelled to let one of its members serve any local authority.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We cannot employ anybody but a member of the British Medical Association, and they say that we shall pay a certain salary, and we have to pay it whether we like it or not.
    Mr. KIDD: That shows the extraordinary confusion of thought on the other side of the House. The qualification of the doctor is something entirely beyond the local authority. It is a qualification demanded on national grounds, on broad grounds of public health. Just as a medical man need not take service under a local authority on the terms they offer, so, under this Clause, no trade unionist need take service under a local authority at the salary they offer. There is no distinction between the doctor and the plumber, so far as the local authorities are concerned. The more one examines the opposition to this Clause, the more one is impressed by the fact that the Labour party are looking

    241
    at this Bill not from a national point of view, and that, with regard to this Clause, they are not looking at it from the ratepayers' standpoint; they are regarding it through other spectacles altogether. I do not wish to impute motives, but I am bound to say that, on a perfectly fair analysis of all the speeches in opposition to this Clause, and particularly the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, one cannot escape the conclusion that no national test is being applied, that no ratepayers' test is being applied to it, and that the only test that is being satisfied by the objections to the Clause is a test other than that of the nation and of the ratepayers.
    Mr. GROVES: I wish to support the Amendment and to deal with the argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd). He dealt, of course, with this proposal from the point of view that the minority should not dictate to the majority. We all support him in that. The real reason why this Amendment should be supported is because, if you analyse the effect of it in workshops and industries; if you take from the local authorities their right to impose certain conditions upon industry, there will be a tendency, in years ahead, for the nonunion element in the workshop to reassert itself. I can speak on this because I have been a workman all my life. In my early days, I worked for a municipality when our trade unions were comparatively weak and we could not speak with the same voice that we do to-day. The employers did not receive us with the same degree of authority that they do to-day, and there was a tendency in the workshop for the employer to recognise the separate existence of the non-union element. I am referring to 10, 15 or 20 years ago. It was then almost impossible to get a trade union organiser received by the employer. I worked for the London County Council as a tramway builder, which was my trade before I came here. Whatever the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) may say, it was extremely difficult to get the London County Council to receive an organising secretary. They used to come to the works before the establishment of the Conciliation Board and meet us as workpeople. The point I wish to
    242
    submit to the hon. Member for Linlithgow with, regard to his suggestion that minorities should not dictate to majorities, is that there will be a possibility that the minority of non-unionists will affect the relationships between employer and employee which will ultimately have an effect upon the rate of wages paid in the industry. That could be carried on to the extent that there would be two separate influences in industry, the non-union element and the union element. The one justification for the tolerant, not the tyrannical imposition—if I can use these two words together—of trade unionism in industry, is the effect it has in negativing the influence of non-union thought in a particular trade. I think that is perfectly justifiable.
    I speak, not with pride, but as a man who has earned his living by working all his life. I will give one or two illustrations to prove the point I have put forward. I started work on the Great Eastern Railway, as an apprentice in the coach-building shops. Apprenticeship means association with a craft, and, when one comes to the age of 20 or 21, it is the natural corollary that one becomes associated with his craft guild. At the age of 21, I became a member of my particular craft union. What does that imply My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) humorously referred to the old days of getting on in the world, not by what one knew but by those whom one knew. To put it in another way, it is not what you know, but whom you know. Membership of a craft guild has reference to that position. It is a proof of having spent five or six or seven years, trying to understand a particular craft or industry, and it is not whom one knows, but what one knows. When my fellows and myself worked for seven years in the coach-building industry, the natural corollary was that we joined our craft guild. At the time to which I am referring, it was impossible for a person to work there and become a prominent trade unionist. I well remember when I made application to join the Stratford branch of the coachbuilders, it was with difficulty that I found out who was the secretary, because, in the workshop, it was quite dangerous for it to be known that a man was a prominent trade unionist. If you think I am exaggerating——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am trying to connect the hon. Member's argument with this Sub-section.
    Mr. GROVES: So am I. These are not facetious arguments. I want to prove that the attitude of the Government, in restricting the power of the municipalities to employ trade unionists only, is not fair, in view of the fact that they have taken no action to deal with the aggressive and repressive attitude of employers generally to trade unionists. If the Government take the position that municipalities should not employ trade unionists, they should be equally unfriendly to the large private employers who will not employ trade unionists.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I read the Sub-section, it does not restrict the powers of local authorities to employ trade unionists; it only says it is not to be a condition of employment.
    Mr. GROVES: At the meeting of the West Ham Town Council, on Tuesday last, I was directed to come and read to Parliament a resolution which they passed. I will not bore the Committee with it all, but the Town Council expresses its objection to the Clause in this Bill whereby you are going to take from the West Ham County Borough its present powers. We in West Ham have proved that, by using the powers which we now possess, we have been able peacefully and efficiently to manage our workshops and to control our men—I mean to get good work from them. We have had no industrial friction, and, in the long run, it can be proved that the imposition of the regulation in the County Borough of West Ham has been justified by results. The reason I was going to the length of giving details of the contrary which existed 20 years ago, was to prove that, compared with that which existed in the industry then, that which has been introduced to-day by the Labour majority has been of great efficiency. Ten years ago, in the West Ham County Borough workshops, we had no such regulation, and, under the old regime, I suppose it is true to say that the system of task work and piecework and the system of employing men who were known to be against the trade union movement, led to a state of affairs where, instead of working for a good output and good workmanship, men were set against one
    244
    another. We had a system of piecework introduced, and it meant that, under the old régime, you had two separate con-cents in workshops. It was with difficulty that the council could treat on matters of wages. When the National Union of Vehicle Builders went to West Ham Town Council and asked for a revision of working conditions or wages, it was extremely difficult for the West Ham Council to know precisely with whom to treat, because, in those days, the West Ham Council was not favourably disposed to the recognition of the trade union movement.
    I wish to submit, for the consideration of the Committee, the change that we have effected. In our borough, for the past year or two, we have imposed this regulation, and we had our justification for imposing it. There were sinister moves to undermine the state of general esprit de corps in the workshop, and there were deliberate attempts to cut in on the understanding that had been arrived at between the societies and the managers, because it would appear that the understandings between the organised trade union movement and employers did not fit in with the caprice of those who were resisting our movement. Since we have introduced this regulation, there has been no industrial friction whatever as far as West Ham itself is concerned. I do not speak of the national industrial upheaval of last year, but, as far as the West Ham workshops have been concerned, there has been no friction whatever. The rates of pay have been observed in the craft unions generally. No Minister of Health can lay a charge against our borough of paying in excess of the trade union wage, low as it may be in the skilled trades. We have honoured the agreement, and the men have honoured the general understanding; and the degree of efficiency in our workshop is without question. All who desire industrial harmony and peace can get it if they take the trouble to investigate the conditions in the workshops of the County Borough of West Ham. What we have done is justified according to all the national circumstances. An hon. Member said we are never actuated by national views, but he is wrong.
    The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said the Government are going to circumscribe

    245
    the trade unions. The reason we have imposed this regulation at all in any borough is because we were circumscribed in our attempts to get a common and corporate understanding and an improvement of the conditions in the trade union world. We were circumscribed by the insidious work of the non-union element. They wanted to declare what the world calls the open-shop. There have been efforts in the past 10 years to get again, in this country, the open-shop. I think even the Members of the Government recognise that that would be inimical to the general industrial interests of this country, but there is a tendency in that direction. What we have done with regard to tightening up the industrial process, is in no way foreign to the general national characteristic. The membership of a trade union is not a mere industrial or political qualification; it is a craft qualification. I believe a man's membership of his craft union is the corollary of his apprenticeship. It is the proof of his abilities, and, if you were going to employ an engineer or a plumber or a mason or a coachbuilder, you would not deliberately employ an amateur. The qualification of membership of a trade union is important from my point of view. You could not join my craft union unless you could prove that you had been working at the trade and occupation for five years, and you could not get in by surreptitious methods. You would have to be nominated and seconded and agreed to, having worked for the trade for five years.
    I would submit this to the Committee, and to the members of the legal profession especially. Were a case being argued—however ready at repartee the man might be—if it could be proved that he had not the necessary qualifications of professional study and having passed the examination and been called to the Bar, no Court would allow him to plead. Is that not a restriction on the liberty of the individual? When we speak of liberty, are we not often too wide in our observations? Liberty is the expression of our own personal conduct, provided it does not transgress the conduct of our neighbours and fellow countrymen. You apply that to the attitude and power of the trade union movement generally, and I return the compliment by saying that, just as you increase the powers and the work of the
    246
    non-union element, so you are interfering with the general liberties of the greater number of industrialists in this country, because you are interfering with their right of collective bargaining. What do you mean by that? We have the right, through our trade union movement, to send representatives to meet employers, whether they be private employers or in the corporate and collective capacity of civic administrative authorities; and, if you are going to do anything to take away from the local authorities the right to lay down the conditions of employment of those they employ, then, I ask, does that not rather badly fit in with the position of the lawyers, doctors and sanitary inspectors? The Minister of Health would not allow us in West Ham to appoint an inspector of weights and measures, or an inspector under the Explosives Act, or a sanitary inspector, without he had the necessary certificate implying membership of his professional organisation.
    5.0 p.m.
    I have no objection, but the fact remains that you lay down certain conditions which you assume to be qualifications. My objection to the position taken up by the Government is that the only qualification to which they object is the qualification connected with organised labour. I do not think that is justified. I think organised labour, as far as its general conduct in the workshops is concerned, has shown conduct worthy of it. I know Members of this House—one is sitting here who was Chairman of the Conciliation Board on the London County Council—who, if they speak in this Debate, will justify that. The Member referred to knows the value of dealing direct with the representatives of organised labour, and not with indiscriminate persons who are against the trade union movement, and who desire to get certain things on their own. To where will this lead in regard to workshop life? You will have people in the workshops going out for individual things. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) talks of individualists. Most of the members of organised movement are individualists, and you get them among workmen as well as politicians. In the workshop you get an individualist who may be a good workman or otherwise. He will go after different rates of wages, and some are

    247
    prepared to do a greater share of work. Some workmen are more capable—let us be frank—and do a greater amount of work in the same time than other men. I have had the experience, and know that usually employers will use and run these men against their fellow-workers to the extent that in the long run a spirit of discord exists in the workshop, instead of a spirit of concord. The introduction of these aggregate voices instead of individual voices has led to a common understanding, and I submit to the Minister of Health that there is no evidence to prove that the work of municipalities under the present aggregate voice has been inimical to the locality or to the country any more than in organisations of large private employers who have advertised for years in the papers, "Engineers, boilermakers, wanted. No trade unionist need apply."
    Our power is conferred upon us by majority vote; otherwise we cannot sit. If we did not carry out the work desired by the local voters, they would turn us out. If we in our borough have reasonably carried out this work without any vindictiveness, we ought not to have this against us. We have not said to any man that he should not work, but that we have certain conditions in our workshop. We believe that membership of the appropriate trade union has proved, in the long run, a very useful thing. We say to a man, not that he shall not come here, but that if he does he must toe the line with the workmen generally. We do not preclude a man's employment in West Ham because he is a non-unionist. There is the difficulty which is the trouble of the Education Department—you cannot swim until you go into the water, and you will not go into the water until you can swim. The hon. Members for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) and myself have to deal with these problems in a manner which has proved in the long run beneficial to the neighbourhood and to the nation and industry. If these points can be proved by evidence, I submit to the Government that whatever reason there may be for the Bill, there is no reason for interfering with the rights of the authority for which I am speaking. Whatever right have the Government,
    248
    without any demand from the electorate or the country, to do it? My general view of legislation has always been that Governments which are always busy only legislate when there is a reasonable demand for something to be done. There has been no demand in this country for this thing. There has been no proof that what has been done by the local authorities in the respects referred to has been inimical to the general interests of the corporation or the persons engaged in the industry.
    I have expressed my opinion on this question at much greater length than usual, for, generally, I listen and do not talk, but I feel that on this point we have proved our case, and we have proved by experience this general recognition of all employeés, just like the doctors, solicitors and even schoolmasters. There is no great profession in the country but has circumscribed limits upon which membership of the profession depend. You must take certain examinations to become a member of the scholastic profession and of legal and other professions. It does not follow that because you are a nice, well-spoken man you can do things with liberty. You must prove your bona fides. A man accepts the conditions and wages in West Ham which have been obtained by collective bargaining, and if the Government are going to take it away, they should also introduce legislation to take that away from other professions. What applies to one set applies to another. If you are, going to justify the interests and rights of non-unionists to get wages and receive better conditions which have only come as the result of the combined activities of the trade unionists through collective bargaining, you ought not to oppose large boroughs like West Ham. We want good service, and we believe trade unionists will give us good service. I think it is wrong that Parliament to-day should interfere with peaceful local authorities in a provocative way. Hon. Members are laughing, but we have a splendid record of municipal authority. The right hon. Gentleman's experience at the Ministry of Health must show him that West Ham, apart from the usual political pinpricks, has played its part in this country. We have played the game, and I say to the Government that what it has done is provocative and

    249
    uncalled for, and I hope that before the Division Bells ring at half-past seven, the case will be reconsidered.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have had three speeches from the Opposition benches upon this Sub-section. I have listened to those speeches with great curiosity, and to most of us it appears to be indefensible and anomalous that a local authority should impose upon its employeés a condition which has no relation whatever to the efficiency of the service. Of these three speeches the speech which was last delivered was, despite some humorous passages, the most serious. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) had at least some sort of argument in support of his case. If it was not based upon a false premise, it is one that would have weighed very much with me.
    Mr. GROVES: What was the false premise?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The argument was that it is necessary to impose this condition upon the employeés of a local authority to ensure that the standard and quality of craftsmanship among these employés shall be of a satisfactory nature. That was the argument which the hon. Member put up. His false premise arises from the fact that membership of a trade union is no guarantee of any such efficiency or craftsmanship as has been suggested in the member of the trade union. That is the fallacy in the comparison which has been made more than once between membership of a trade union and the position of solicitors or doctors or other technical officers. It is perfectly true that local authorities refuse to appoint a man to a responsible position, such as that of medical officer of health, unless he possesses those qualifications which assure them that he is able to carry out his work with proper efficiency, but they do not say that they will not appoint anybody who is not a member of the Medical Defence Union. That is the real analogy with membership of a trade union. The analogy is whether it is an organisation whose function is to maintain or improve conditions of labour or rates of wages, and which does not include among its functions any tests or examinations which would ensure to a person engaging
    250
    a trade unionist any particular quality of craftsmanship. That is the point which really destroys the argument of the hon. Member. If one had that assurance, if the fact that a man was a member of a trade union meant that he had passed an examination, that he had submitted to tests and had reached a certain standard of craftsmanship, I should certainly say that the local authority would be perfectly entitled to lay down conditions of this kind as to the men employed by them.
    Mr. GROVES: I think I did point out that with regard to skilled men, they must work a certain number of years at their craft. That is experience. That is their examination. In some trades they must work for five years before they can become members of their trade union.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept that. That a great number of members of trade unions have achieved a certain standard of craftsmanship I agree, and, as a matter of fact, the vast majority of the people employed by local authorities are members of those trade unions. I think the local authorities might be left to select these people according to their own tests, and in such a way as to fulfil their own desires, and I have not the slightest doubt it would be found that in such cases the vast majority of those engaged were members of trade unions. But, of course, the Resolutions at which this Sub-section aims go very much further than that. They do not deal only with craft unions, nor do they deal only with cases where there are many employeés. The position taken up by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was not the same as that of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), and although his speech rambled over a good many topics that did not seem to have any very direct connection with the substance of the Subsection—such as Home Rule for Ireland, and the pedigrees of General Inspectors and District Auditors—yet, I think, on the whole, I felt fairly clear as to what the hon. Member's position was when he had finished. He regards the whole system of local government as a sort of battlefield and the rewards of victory in that battlefield are the spoils which, in his idea, are the legitimate possession of the victors.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what passage in my speech I said anything which would bear that interpretation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am giving the general impression which I derived from, I will not say the hon. Member's arguments but from his dissertation. It seemed to me that he indicated that it was a perfectly natural and laudable practice that those who had achieved victory in the field of local elections should take the rewards, paid for by the general body of ratepayers, and distribute them among their own friends.
    HON. MEMBERS: That is what you are doing.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I will stand by anything I said, if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of making a general statement, will quote any sentence of my speech which will bear that construction.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rewards of which I speak are the rewards which are given to those who obtain employment under local authorities. Everybody knows that employment under a local authority is a sought-after form of employment, because it has much greater security than employment in private service, and in various ways it is what one may call the plum employment in any particular occupation. The hon. Gentleman considers it perfectly legitimate for a local authority, on which his friends have obtained a majority, to say, "We will find employment for all the people who are supporting our political party."
    HON. MEMBERS: It is not true.
    Mr. LANSBURY: None of us has accused our opponents in that way, and I think the right hon. Gentleman——
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The hon. Gentleman himself did it.
    HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
    Mr. LANSBURY: The point which the right hon. Gentleman has made is that I have said that only those who hold my particular views shall be employed by the borough council. I ask him again not to go round it, but to tell me specifically in what passage of my speech I said anything which he can show to bear that construction.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite accept the hon. Gentleman's account of what I have just said, and as hon. Members seem to be nettled at my observations, may I point out that I was not hinting at what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If hon. Members will only give me an opportunity, I think I can make good what I have said. I did not say that the hon. Member wished to confine employment to those who supported his views. What I said was those who contributed to the support of his views.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Untrue!"
    Mr. W. THORNE: There are Liberals and Tories working for local authorities—hundreds of them, and thousands of them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman still does not understand what I said. I will come to it a little further on.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any proof of his statement as to what I said?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If hon. Members will bear with me, I have not yet finished my point. I propose to bring forward an official document which I have here entitled "Unions smashed by law," being an account of the effects of this Bill—an official account published from 33, Eccleston Square. It deals with the various Clauses, and what does it say about this particular Clause? It gives the headline "Public Employés are attacked." The hon. Member says that it is the public authorities who are attacked. How are the public employee attacked under this Clause? This is what the pamphlet says:
    "The Clause enforces an absolute neutrality upon public authorities."
    I entirely accept that. That is precisely our object, and that is precisely what the hon. Gentleman Objects to, and that is why I say that he thinks it is perfectly legitimate and in order that local authorities should not exercise strict neutrality. He wants them not to exercise strict neutrality, but to exercise, as another hon. Member has said, the rights of the majority. What is the difference between that and what I said?
    Mr. R. YOUNG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if what he said was not that in the case of local authorities

    253
    where we were in the majority, employment was confined to members of our political party?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I used the words "political party," but what I said was "to people who supported out of their contributions a political party."[HON. MEMERS: "No!"] I will come to that in a moment if hon. Members will be a little more patient. I have not yet finished my speech, and I will give them proof of my observations.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You will not prove it from anything which I have said.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to quote another sentence from this pamphlet. It goes on to say, in regard to Clause 9, that
    "The Government's policy is to try by legislation to arrest the growth of Labour's power in local government affairs."
    That is not true. What we do consider it necessary to do is to arrest the abuse of Labour's power or any other party's power in local government affairs. It is because we think this abuse has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished that we have inserted this Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. W. THORNE: You did not say that 20 years ago.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not alone in my views as to the impropriety of such resolutions as those to which this Sub-section relates. I shall be very much surprised if it is found that a different view has been taken by any of my predecessors, with the possible exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I think on one occasion he made a reply in the House of Commons which was, possibly, open to the construction that he approved of this sort of thing, although I am not at all sure that he intended to be understood in that way.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind quoting that reply.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will do so. It arose out of a question in connection with the Southwark Borough Council, who refused a tender for printing on the ground that the firm in question employed people who were not members of a trade union. I believe it was the case
    254
    that the firm only employed a few people who were not members of a trade union, and these people had been in their employment for a considerable time, but the fact that they had non-unionists in their employment was the ground of refusing the tender, with a consequent loss to the ratepayers, which, I think, was £293. The members of the council were surcharged, and the right hon. Gentleman remitted the surcharge, and certain questions were asked as to the reason for his remission. The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir W. Davison) put this question to him
    "Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Does he think it fair and equitable to deprive a firm of the contract merely because one or two of its men do not belong to a trade union?"
    To that the right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "Had I not considered it fair and equitable I should not have made that decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1924; col. 1389, Vol. 170.]
    [HON. MEMBERS: "On that case!"] I only answered the right hon. Gentleman, who asked for the reference. I want to quote another predecessor of mine, namely, Dr. Addison, who, I think, is now a member of the party opposite, and who wrote on 21st January, 1920, to the Poplar Guardians on this subject, and used these words:
    "A local authority should not differentiate between the members of its staff upon any grounds other than services rendered to the local authority by the several members of their staffs. The position of members of the staff should not depend in any way upon such conditions as membership or non-membership of a trade union."
    Those, of course, are precisely the sentiments which I myself hold. As I said, I think most of my predecessors have held them. In spite of Dr. Addison's letter, the Poplar Guardians passed a resolution that all awards of increases in salaries should be conditional on membership of trade unions. Now I come to the point to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. In February of this year they passed a fresh resolution that all employés must be members of the appropriate trade union.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What is the date of that resolution?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 7th February. The appropriate unions are the only unions allowed to have persons representing them on the General Council. These are seven in number, and they have this one feautre in common: every one of them pays a political levy for the benefit of the funds of the Socialist party.
    Mr. DUNCAN: How do you know that all the persons employed pay the political levy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know, but I think investigation would show that a great many do. That is the fact to which I alluded when I said that it was regarded as only natural and laudable that there should be this practice. It is perfectly evident that if local authorities or anybody else declare that nobody shall be employed by them who is not a member of a trade union, it will not be very long before they go on to say that each person must be a member of a particular trade union, and that particular trade union always happens to be the trade union which is affiliated in some way with the party opposite.
    Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what difference there is between a private employer entering into an arrangement with a trade union only to employ trade unionists and a municipality which is also an employer doing the same thing?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come to that point a little later on. It does not arise really at this stage of my argument.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Do not try to call our people corrupt.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say anything about corruption.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Yes, you did. That was all your argument [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Do not become alarmed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Whatever may be the views of Eccleston Square about the propriety of action of that kind it is not approved of by all the genuine trade union leaders who have done so much to build up trade unionism in the past. I find another case which is of interest in this connection, namely, that of the Greenwich and Deptford Guardians. Last year the guardians passed a resolution
    256
    that all their employeés who did not belong to trade unions should join trade unions immediately or be dismissed.
    Mr. W. THORN: Hear, hear!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On 3rd June, Mr. Mosses, a member of the Board of Guardians——
    Mr. MARCH:Is Moses his right name?
    HON. MEMBERS: A Scotsman!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On 3rd June this gentleman said:
    "This resolution is the negation and the prostitution of the principles which I have always held. Is it right that this board, representing every shade of political and religious expression in Greenwich and Deptford, should act as a trade union organiser?"
    He concluded:
    "This resolution is unjust, unconstitutional, and inimical to the real interest of trade unionism."
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man in question was at one time general secretary of the pattern makers, and that no one but a pattern maker can work in a shop in that particular trade union?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite willing to accept that, but I do not know what it has to do with this point.
    Mr. THORNE: See how he has turned his coat.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He is an old trade unionist and he says this is contrary to all sound principles of trade unionism and he believes it to be against their best interests.
    Mr. THORNE: Because he has ratted on his own principles.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is never such intolerance as is to be found among hon. Members opposite towards anybody who does not agree with them. The idea that it is impossible to carry on the duties of a local authority properly unless every employeé is a trade unionist is demonstrably false. The hon. Member for Stratford himself said that very few local authorities had passed such a resolution. [HON.MEMBERS: "Twenty!"] I think a good many of them have since cancelled the resolution. If, therefore, it is a fact that all the rest can carry on their duties perfectly well, so as to earn all those wonderful encomiums which were passed

    257
    upon them by the hon. Member for Stratford and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), without any such resolution, how can anyone argue that the work of local government depends on employing trade unionists? It is obviously absurd. He takes the very high line that this is a restriction upon the independence and the autonomy of local authorities, and he went as far as to suggest that we could hardly expect to find the best class of man or woman ready to come forward to take their part in local government if they found a Subsection on the Statute Book which said they must not lay down conditions of employment for their people.
    Mr. HARRIS: I did not go as far as that. I said you are going to limit their discretion.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is limiting their indiscretion.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Only a few minutes before the hon. Member spoke we had the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) introducing a Bill which was going to impose upon local authorities the condition that they should only use the humane killer in their slaughter-houses. What is that but a limitation of the discretion of local authorities? But did the hon. Member offer any protest against the introduction of that Bill? I think he is only concerned to see that he has some reason for voting against the Government on every possible occasion. He told us about the difficulties of the London County Council, and how the fact that a single individual had been employed who was not a member of a trade union had caused a strike, or a threat of a strike, and how it was impossible to carry on unless all employeés are members of trade unions. Have the London County Council passed this resolution? No. Why not, if there are all these difficulties?
    Mr. W. THORNE: You know the reason why.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be news to the hon. Member, and it may perhaps remove some of his fears as far as the London County Council are concerned, if I read to him a letter I have here from the Association of Municipal Corporations in which they say:
    "I am instructed to inform you that the overwhelming majority"—
    258
    That is, of the borough council representatives—
    "are in favour of this Clause."
    That is the Clause we are discussing.
    The letter finishes up by saying:
    "Under those circumstances the association desires to assure the Government of its support of Clause 6, Sub-sections (1) and (2)."
    At the end of the letter there is a list of the local authorities in London which are members of the association, and first among them is the London County Council. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) asked me why we should treat local authorities differently from private employers, and I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green put the same question. It is suggested that in this Clause we are singling out one particular class of employers. We are doing that, I think, for a very obvious and sufficient reason. Local authorities are not like private employers in this matter. They represent the whole community. They are not free, as private employers are, to suit themselves. They ought not to be unfair or partial as between different sections of the community. They ought to have as their sole object efficiency and economy in the work they undertake, and to see that they always get the best service and the best value for the smallest amount of money. The whole argument of this Clause is that local authorities are in a special position, as they may be composed of any party or of all parties. Conditions as to membership or non-membership of a trade union are not a matter which can be said, in the face of the arguments I have put forward, to have any effect upon the efficiency of the services, and therefore they should not be allowed to impose them.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We have had from the Minister of Health arguments perhaps more adroit than entirely fair when dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I heard that speech. If there was one thing more than another that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley laid down perfectly clearly, it was that he was against the spoils system. He was stating quite clearly what had happened in local government in the past as regards taking on employés, and he was suggesting that the method condemned under this Clause

    259
    had been a powerful preventive of the spoils system. When tackled about it, the Minister tried to get out of it by saying that if we said that only trade unionists might be employed, we were, in fact, using the spoils system for our friends. What a remarkable argument from a right hon. Gentleman who is backing a Bill on the ground that trade unionists are being oppressed by members of this political party because they are Liberals and Conservatives! Now he turns round and says: "If you do anything for a trade unionist you are doing it for the Labour party." I might retort that the party opposite seem to have a wonderful friendship for the blackleg.
    I have been some little time in local government. I went into local government eight years ago, shortly after the War had concluded. At that time we were not quite so friendly towards people who shirked, people who would not stand in with their comrades. There was a very strong feeling that collective bargaining was the right thing, and so far from worshipping the man who stands out, the man who will take all the benefits and do nothing, leaving his comrades to fight for them, the feeling was quite the other way about. I found in local government that Whitley Councils had been set up, and that there was a tendency to work with the unions and through the unions. My own council passed this resolution that all its employeés should belong to trade unions. It has been in operation for eight years, and one can judge the amount of indignation caused by our action when I say that for three of those years the Conservatives and Liberals—it was a coalition of them—have been in power on the council but made no change.
    There is, really, a very good reason why we should have this compulsory trade unionism. It is an out-of-date idea to think we can do without collective organisation at the present day. We have got to recognise that people ought to belong to their proper professional, craft, or trade organisation. One after another professional associations come rushing to this House to try to secure privileges for themselves. The lawyers and the doctors, who already have them, have been followed by architects and Chemists, and so on, asking to be given
    260
    legal powers which will enable them, in effect, to secure a monopoly of certain positions for their members. If we ever oppose the claim of the lawyer or the doctor, asking, "What right have you to be a syndicate, to have power to organise your profession, to have power to say that this man shall belong and that man shall not, or that, this man shall be thrown out of it?" They always reply, "We keep such a high standard; we have a professional standard, and although we may be accused of acting with tyranny, we do not really do so, because we are animated by high ideals of national and social service."
    Let us accept that position frankly. That is the claim we make for all workers who are working for the community, and it is precisely what we have been endeavouring to accomplish in the sphere of local government. Everybody knows that in 1919 there was a grave difficulty over getting the best work out of people after the War. People who had been in the Army did not care much about that discipline; some people do not care about any discipline. We recognise that the best sort of discipline is self-discipline, and on my local authority we have endeavoured to work with our employeés; not having employeés eternally under the eye of the foreman but preferring to get the employeés to take a pride in their work and impose self-discipline upon themselves, and that has been attended with considerable success. Through the Whitley Councils we have had all sorts of useful suggestions brought forward, suggestions as to discipline among others, by the representatives of the workers. It is for that reason that it is desirable to have everybody in a trade union. We do not want to have separate groups, with certain men represented as being non-unionists and others as unionists. We want them all in the union.
    We ought not to go back to the unregulated conditions of the past. We have got to recognise that in a great society like the present people carry on a large number of their functions collectively. We believe in collective bargaining and we believe that people should belong to their proper organisations; and I am bound to say I have never found any complaint about it. I quite agree that it has to be done wisely. We ought not to say, "Here is a particular

    261
    union, you must join that and leave your own." I have resisted that when it was tried on. That is not fair. Employés should belong to the proper union. Of course, if bogus unions—and there are bogus unions—put forward a claim we are not going to support that. But they should join genuine unions, and I may add here that I am sure no one on our Council knows which of the unions has a political levy or whether any individual member pays. Even if, as the right hon. Gentleman maintains, the strong reason why we should not impose such a condition was that the men were our supporters he has got out of that difficulty by the earlier Clauses of this Bill.
    I think it is a perfectly sound thing to require men to belong to their unions. I reiterate what has been said by many Members on this side of the House that this Clause is only of a piece with the constant interference which local government has had from the right hon. Gentleman. I am not really surprised at it. The right hon. Gentleman has a long experience behind him, and it is the experience of Birmingham, which has always been about the most partisan town in the whole of the country. It always amuses me to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about impartiality when I think of the reputation which Birmingham had for many years of being not entirely free from partisan bias. I have always understood that it was the most highly organised political town in the Kingdom and I agree that Birmingham has done very useful things in municipal Socialism, but if the right hon. Gentleman's father were living to-day he would find himself pulled up by the right hon. Gentleman. In matters of local government it is a case of watching your step very carefully.
    This is only part of the attack which is being made on every organisation of the workers in this country. The right hon. Gentleman finds his particular sphere in local government. He has taken powers to supersede boards of guardians. He is the Poor Law Mussolini. He has at his beck and call the district auditor, another of these Mussolinis. The district auditor is an admirable little person, generally with a rather limited middle-class outlook, who is entitled to tell any municipality what they ought to pay in wages and what they ought to do about this,
    262
    that and the other. The right, hon. Gentleman is in favour of local government, but Labour must not be in power. This Bill is only part of a general campaign to take care that wherever labour gets its head up that head shall be hit. Working men can save nothing—the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks after that part of it. If they combine in the industrial field they are faced with the Trade Disputes Bill. If they have power on local authorities, then the Government take care to take away the powers of local authorities rather than let Labour go on.
    This is one of the most partisan Clauses of a very partisan Bill, and it is ridiculous in view of the small number of authorities who have taken this action. The Committee will notice how very fair the Clause is. A local authority must not make regulations that an employeé shall be a member of a trade union. For years and years employeés were victimised by local authorities for being members of a trade union——
    Mr. W. THORNE: They are now.
    Mr. ATTLEE:——but nothing was done till the boot was on the other foot. It is exactly the same in the case of the district auditor. No notice is taken if a board of guardians fail to do their duty in the interests of the poor, but they are at once suppressed if they try to do their duty by the poorer members of the community. This is sheer class legislation. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He is one of the most capable class-warriors produced by the other side. When I look at the names on the back of this Bill, I feel the Prime Minister made his selection very well. He got a man who can hit at Labour's powers in local government, he got a man who can bring them up to the Law Courts. I do not know why the name of the Minister of Labour is not there. I suppose the Minister of Labour preferred to keep out of it. This is a thoroughly vindictive Clause, and a thoroughly politically-partisan Clause, in a very partisan Bill.
    Captain MACMILLAN: I have listened to all this Debate with considerable interest, and I am bound to say that, like the Minister, I found the most interesting speech from the other side that delivered by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). On first considering

    263
    this particular Clause it appeared to me to be one of rather doubtful merit. The rest of the Bill, the Clauses dealing with intimidation, the political levy, the general strike, will not come into operation save on exceptional occasions. They are to restrict, and quite properly restrict, illegal action. But this Clause might be represented, as it first occurred to one, as reactionary in its tendencies. It certainly is the case that the tendency of modern industry for many years has been to work more and more through trade unions, and I quite appreciate the view held by many hon. Members opposite who know of the early struggles of trade unionism—I know they must judge this Clause rather in the light of that history.
    The argument of the hon. Member for Stratford as regards the character of trade unionism was perfectly sound, as the Minister reminded the House, so far as it. applied to craft unions; but the hon. Member did not tell us that the whole tendency of modern trade unionism has been—many people think regrettable—to move away from the old principle of the craft unions. The whole tendency has been to make unions the only basis of which is the mere fact of men joining them—not unions which men could only join after a period of apprenticeship or a test of skill and which were really descendants of the mediæval guilds. At the same time, it is undoubtedly true that industry, whatever form its development may take during the next generation, must be based upon the method of collective bargaining between employers and employed. It must be based upon the attempt to break down the rigid horizontal divisions that are now supposed to divide the interests of different classes and to produce a form of syndicalism, if you like, at any rate a form of recognition by vertical division of the real identity of interests between the employer, the management and the labour in each industry.
    6.0 p.m.
    Therefore, from that point of view, I think at first sight one naturally looks with some regret upon the introduction of this Clause. At the same time, after listening very carefully to the Debate, I do not feel that the arguments put forward by the Opposition have been really quite genuine when they say that they
    264
    want compulsory trade unionism for the purpose of effective bargaining, and to suit the case, presented by hon. Members interested in local government, who have told us that it is not possible to carry on effective local government without it. I quite understand that the history of trade unionism explains a certain degree of suspicion about this particular Clause. Collective bargaining has had to win its way in face of a great deal of opposition in our industrial history, but is it wise, and is it in the interest of trade unionism, that resolutions should be passed by a council which have the effect not of strengthening trade unionism but of causing a considerable amount of bitterness and opposition to it? After all, this Clause is a double-edged Clause. There is a grave danger that councils, perhaps less in touch with the growth and advance of our modern industrial organisation, in localities where these problems do not press them so hard, may begin to pass resolutions to say they will not employ trade unionists. That, at any rate, is prevented by this Clause. I think the Committee ought definitely to weigh the argument, which, I am bound to say, after listening to the Debate has weighed with me, namely, that the public authority is in the very special position that it has not only to guarantee, and have regard for, the financial interests of those whom it represents, but to do something else. It has, as far as it is able, to try to conduct municipal and local affairs without the introduction of very bitter controversy. The kind of action which has been taken—and which has been referred to by the Minister—by those bodies which have gone to the length of passing resolutions saying they will only employ trade unionists will produce reaction. It will produce on the part of many men, a sense of grievance, and I do not think in the long run, however we may be moving in our future industrial organisation, we can allow a regulation of compulsory trade unionism to be enforced by the chance decrees of local authorities here and there in the country. We may come to a time when we shall develop an organisation in which membership of employers' associations on the one hand and of trade unions on the other will be compulsory.

    265
    I perceive in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) what a fascination the Labour policy of Signor Mussolini seems to have for him—because that is really what has taken place in Italy—and we may come to it in this country. We may have a condition where collective bargaining shall be enforced on all parties by law. If we are to work for that—I do not say now whether it is right or wrong—it must come because of the decision of Parliament, and not by the chance decision of local authorities in different areas. We do not know at this stage when that development will come, but we cannot allow it to be brought about artificially by this or that local authority. That is not to say we are in any way opposed to the development of trade unionism. After all, without these regulations, hundreds of local authorities, as the Minister has pointed out, have dealt, in the ordinary way, with trade unionist representatives in order to settle wages and conditions. Industry is more and more working through this means. At the same time, great as has been the success of trade unionism in the last decade, enormous as has been the advantages which have been won, and very recently won—the recognition which has been obtained far more recently than most of us remember—there is a danger of pushing it too far. There is a danger that there may be a reaction on the part of men themselves from the principle of banding themselves together if these bodies to which they belong work in opposition to them.
    I thoroughly agree with the interesting remarks of the last speaker that our modern system demands collective action, but we must remember that the temperament of the average Englishman is all against collective bargaining. Really, temperamentally and historically he is much more in favour of individualism. Although I believe that collective action is necessary in the large problems which we have to face to-day, there is a real danger of throwing our people back into an ineffective and impossible individualism by pushing the opposite principle too far. For that reason, I say genuinely and sincerely, having listened to the Debate and having thought a great deal about this Clause,
    266
    I believe the Clause will be justified, and will do no harm to the development of trade unionism in its true and proper sphere, and that in the long run it will be found to have been in its interests.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The speech to which we have just listened is one to which no objection can be taken on this side of the House. It was as reasonable as might be safely attempted by a follower of the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the Committee to-day, and its tone was sympathetic and conciliatory. There was just one statement in it to which I would like to object, and that is that the power of stating what the conditions of employment under a local authority should be ought to be exercised by Parliament and not by the local authority. That, of course, is in line with the policy to which we have been familiarised during the past two years by the Minister of Health. It has been pointed out during the course of this discussion that every move that the right hon. Gentleman makes is a move against the whole system of local government in this country. The Minister of Health to-day appeared to be immensely satisfied with himself while addressing the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is always happiest when he is most offensive. I thought that to-day he soared to the very height of his impertinence, and from that height hurled all sorts of insults at the Members who sit on these benches. Whether he stated it in so many words or not, he undoubtedly levelled a wholesale charge of corruption, not merely against the Members who sit on the Labour benches, but against all the Labour representatives on the local councils of the country. I think that is a most unfortunate attitude for a Minister of Health to adopt. A Minister of Health is expected to rule impartially over the local government of this country. Does he think that he is strengthening the bond of fellowship in administration that ought to exist between the central authorities and the local councils when he takes every opportunity of telling his political opponents and those local authorities that they are men and women who cannot be trusted?
    I submit that charges of corruption come very badly from the right hon. Gentleman. There are many reasons

    267
    why he should not bring these charges. I think one of the strongest will be found in the history of local government in this country under his own party. I spent 10 busy years of my time on local authorities in days when Labour representation was weaker and less effective than it is to-day, and I have no hesitation in saying that the primary duty of the Labour representatives was to act as the watchdogs to safeguard the public against the members of the political party for whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks. I agree with the principle of having all workers in trade unions if for no other purpose than for facilitating negotiations between employers and employed. But I think there is another reason which can be quite well supported from the Labour point of view, and it is this. The Labour party in the country, acting to a very large extent on the teaching of the party opposite, have adopted constitutional methods, and constitutional methods only, to effect their emancipation. One of the weapons on which they have been taught to rely is trade unionism. What is more natural than that when they secure, through the majority of the electorates in any locality, control in the local council, they should exercise that control to strengthen the weapon for the abolition of poverty which they believe to be most effective? I do not think there is anything in that to which any reasonable person can object. But to throw out suggestions that Labour in local councils uses its control for the purpose of giving the spoils of office, either to those who voted for its return or to those who contribute financially to its support, is an outrageous insult coming from such a quarter.
    The right hon. Gentleman, presumably, either not understanding his own line of argument, or being anxious to get outside it for the purpose of broadcasting further his offensive remarks, quoted a reply which I gave to a question with regard to a printing contract at Southwark. It is hardly necessary to remind the Committee that you are here dealing with quite a different subject altogether. In the Sub-section you are dealing with the direct employeés of the local council. In the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman we were dealing with a contractor.
    268
    We were dealing with the product of non-union labour supplied to a local council. I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman, however ambiguous my answer may have been, that I thoroughly approved of the action of the Southwark Council. I think I could justify that point of view not merely from the employers' standpoint, but from the workers' standpoint as well. When a local authority asks for contracts, it expects the contractors to pay a decent standard of wages to its workers. In most local authorities a Clause is inserted which makes a decent standard of wages compulsory. What chance can employers of labour employing trade unionists, paying the highest trade union rates, giving the best conditions to their workers, have against another employer who does not employ trade union labour, who employs cheaper labour, who grants poorer conditions, and is therefore in a position to undercut the good employer when quoting for a council contract?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that in this particular instance it was admitted that the rates of wages paid were fully equivalent to trade union rates.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I cannot be expected to remember the particulars of the case. I have forgotten about the case. But if an employer is paying the same standard, if he is granting the same conditions to his employeés, what possible reason can he have for refusing to man his workshop with trade union labour? [HON. MEMBERS "Liberty."] Someone says "liberty." It is "liberty" which has brought us to the depths of poverty. It is to curb liberty that the present Government are spending all their time in Parliament. There is not a Bill that has been introduced during the lifetime of the present Government that has not been aimed at the curbing of liberty. Why should there be liberty in reducing the standard of wages and the living conditions of the people? No local authority ought to accept a contract for goods produced by non-union labour. We look to the trade unions of this country to establish a standard of working and living conditions. It is the duty of all local councils, particularly councils directly interested in the question of health, to see that in exercising their proper functions

    269
    in keeping up the standard of life, trade unions are supported.
    We are opposed to this Clause. I would not have taken part in the discussion merely for the purpose of opposing the Sub-section, but I did want to register my emphatic protest against the scandalously biased, offensive, insulting attitude adopted by the Minister of Health towards the local authorities of this country. I want him to remember that the time will probably come when the Government of this country and the Ministry over which he presides will be in the hands of the people he is now insulting, and he is setting a very bad example, even from his own point of view, in adopting the attitude that he has adopted this afternoon. It is he who believes in the policy of the spoils of office. One of the spoils of office to the Tory party is the liberty to insult their opponents, as is so frequently done by the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBRS: "What about yourself?"] What about myself? I can say for myself that when I was at the Ministry of Health I did not use my position for political propaganda. I do not think there is a local authority in this country, a board or a council that was under the Ministry of Health, that would say that during the Labour Government's short term of office it did not receive the same courtesy, the same consideration, the same liberty, and the same encouragement as it received from its political friends. It is not the duty of the Ministry of Health to offend the people who are giving their time gratuitously, and giving the very noblest service in the carrying on of the public life of this country. I rose for the purpose of protesting against the offensive attitude always assumed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that very little regard will be paid to it in the country.
    Captain CAZALET: The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has suggested that the Minister of Health has made insinuations of corruption against the whole Labour party, which I am certain are as foreign to his ideas as they are to the rest of hon. Members on these benches. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion brought to bear many years of public service in the remarks that he made. It appeared to me that almost his entire speech dealt with the effect which this Clause would have upon the employers, the municipal
    270
    and other local authorities, but I would like to say what effect I think this Clause may have not so much upon the employer but the employeé. I realise that any remarks made from these benches in favour of trade unionism are usually regarded by hon. Members opposite with a slight degree of humour; but I believe that everyone on these benches is strongly in favour of the policy that in all these industries where collective bargaining or collective negotiation is desirable, the employeés in those industries should belong to trade unions.
    My criticism of this Clause is that the principle which it enunciates is confined only to municipal and other local authorities. I should like to see it extended to all employers, or if not to all private employers, at any rate to those trading organisations which carry on their operations through the special privilege of Parliament. This Clause establishes in regard to certain municipal authorities a degree of individual liberty as regards the employeé. At present this liberty exists only to the employer. He can accept or refuse the services of his employeés, whether they are trade unionists or not. Theoretically, this principle extends also to the employeé, but as a matter of fact everybody knows that with unemployment what it is to-day, and with the shortage of housing, the individual workmen must necessarily accept the position which he can get in the locality in which he lives. If this principle is considered right in the case of municipal authorities then, logically, it is equally right for other employers.
    I should like to ask the Minister of Health whether it is not already illegal for employers, municipal or otherwise, to insist that their employeés shall be members of trade unions. Clause 6 of the Truck Act of 1887 lays it down that it is illegal for any employer to allocate any portion of the wages of his employeés. Surely, the fact that an employer insists upon an employeé belonging to a trade union means that thereby he has allocated a portion of his wages. I presume, for some legal reason unknown to myself, that is not so, otherwise, there would be no need for this Clause. As the law stands, it seems to me that there can exist certain hardships as regards workpeople in this country. Take, for instance, the example of a man who has

    271
    been a member of a trade union for a number of years and has subscribed to various benefits, maternity, funeral, sick and other benefits, through the trade union, and he finds himself out of employment, and the only occupation that is open to him is one in which trade unionists are refused. He is therefore faced with the alternative of giving up all these benefits for which he may have subscribed for many years or of seeking employment elsewhere, which may not, only be difficult but probably impossible.
    The CHAIRMAN: (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly justified in saying that the principle of this Clause ought to be generally extended, but I do not think he is in order in quoting instances relating to employers other than local and other public authorities. That would be outside the scope of the Clause.
    Captain CAZALET: Am I in order in referring to a situation which has arisen in my constituency, and which deals with the Wholesale Co-operative Society?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I understand the hon. and gallant Member to argue that the principle of this Clause ought to be extended. He is in order so far, but to go into details of questions between employers and employeés in cases where the employers are not a local or other public authority, is out of order.
    Captain CAZALET: My argument is that the principle of this Clause should be extended to those trading organisations which work under the special privilege of Parliament, and in which the question of the compulsory membership of a trade union or not is a very vital matter. That, it seems to me, is the principle underlying this Clause, and I hope it will be in order to refer to it in regard to the Wholesale Co-operative Society, and their recent action in my constituency.
    The CHAIRMAN: No. If I were to allow the hon. and gallant Member to go into that matter other hon. Members would want to extend the Debate in other directions. The hon. Member is justified in saying that the Clause ought to go further, but I do not think he is in order in entering into the relations of
    272
    employers and employeés where the employer is other than a local or other public authority.
    Captain CAZALET: The Co-operative Wholesale Society is not quite in the same position as a private employer.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Clause relates to persons employed by local and other public authorities.
    Captain CAZALET: When will it be in order to raise this question?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member can put down a new Clause dealing with the whole question of contracts of service. That would be in order, and he could argue the point then.
    Captain CAZALET: In view of your ruling, I will not discuss the matter further, but I hope to attract your eye later.
    Mr. MORRIS: The issue raised by this Sub-section is not whether it is desirable or otherwise to be a member of a trade union. That is beside the mark as far as this Sub-section is concerned. The issue is, in the first place, whether it is desirable or otherwise that a local authority in employing men or in offering employment should impose the test of whether or not they are members of a trade union. The one issue is whether a local authority is entitled as a condition of employment to impose tests of any kind, and, if so, what kind? The other issue, which has been raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), is how far Parliament is entitled to limit the jurisdiction of local authorities in matters of this kind, leaving aside the whole question of the desirability of being a member of a trade union or otherwise, and confining the issue strictly to whether, and if so how far, you can impose what is virtually a political test as a condition of employment. It has been said that if this be a conversion on the part of hon. Members opposite, it is a very late conversion. Be that as it may, one welcomes that conversion as a very sound conversion, even though it may be an eleventh-hour conversion, and even though it may be a limited conversion. I hope to see the day when this conversion will go a good deal further. I welcome this Subsection because it is a step forward in

    273
    the right direction. I hope that hon. Members will go a good deal further, and abolish every test as a condition of employment.
    I cannot imagine the proposition being justified that before a man can be employed by a public authority he must answer certain definite political tests, any more than it can be argued, although it is imposed in some cases, that a religious test should be imposed as a condition of employment. Political and religious tests in cases of employment belong to the same category, and neither can be justified. The Labour party seem to be in some doubt on this point, because by Amendments which they have put on the Order Paper they seek to extend the provisions of this Sub-section to employers other than public authorities. They wish to cover private employers also. Whether it is desirable to extend the principle to private employers is another matter, but I must point out that there is a distinction, and a vital distinction, between the public authority, as an employer, and a private employer. The public authority is in the position of trustees for people holding very different and divergent views, and the one test of employment, as far as a public authority is concerned, must surely be this: Is the person employed efficient for the service he is called upon to perform? [An HON. MEMBER: "For lawyers also?"] Yes, whether you employ a lawyer to advise a local authority or not, the only test should be whether he is efficient.
    The one test for the public service is whether the person is efficient for the office he is called upon to discharge. If he is efficient, then his political and religious views are quite as irrelevant as the colour of his hair. If this is not to be the one test, you will be imperilling, no matter what party is in office, what has been the high tradition of the public service of this country, namely, the purity of its administration. You will be imperilling this tradition if you say that we are only going to employ people who hold our political views. In one case you are going to employ only Conservatives, in other cases only Liberals, and in other cases only Labour. I welcome this Sub-section, and the only thing that surprises me is that it should appear in a Bill dealing with trade unions. This is a Sub-section which
    274
    should appear in a Bill for the abolition of all tests under public authorities. I welcome it because it is a small step in the right direction, and I hope the Government will make provisions for extending the principle in other directions. I think that all tests should be abolished, no matter what they are. It is only upon that limited ground that I welcome this provision, and I shall be prepared to support it as far as it goes.
    Mr. ATKINSON: I only rise to ask a question, and that is, how it is proposed to put this Sub-section into force? It is all very well to declare that certain things shall not be lawful, but supposing a local authority passes a resolution that it is going to take a certain action, notwithstanding this Sub-section, what is going to be done? No penalty is provided; and there is no sanction in the Clause. If, in fact, local authorities say they are going to employ people who are members of a trade union, it is relevant to see whether there is any means whatever of enforcing the Sub-section. I entirely approve of the principle of the Clause, but I am against passing laws which nobody can enforce. I understand that one council have already seen the weakness of this provision and realise that even if it becomes law they can ignore it.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) that in relation to all employment there should be no religious or political test, but I do not think the insistence that a man should be a trade unionists is a political test. When I. resented an expression used by the Minister of Health I understood him to infer that we on this side desired to see compulsory trade unionism to be used for the purposes of political preferment, but he afterwards referred to a resolution passed to the effect that employeés should belong to their appropriate trade unions, and if that is what is meant then a large part of my resentment goes by the board. I do not see why there should be any objection to a local authority insisting that their employeés shall be members of their appropriate organisation, whether they are lawyers, doctors or trade unionists. Hon. Members have no doubt received a resolution protesting against Clause 6 and pointing out that it over-rides two well-established constitutional principles

    275
    —namely, that the duly elected representatives of the people in local government affairs shall have full powers to determine the conditions under which their employés shall work, and, secondly, that the elected representatives shall have power to specify themselves when their employeés have attained such a standard of technical proficiency in their respective professions or trade as membership of their appropriate trade or professional organisations ensures.
    This Clause is intended to do away with the right of local authorities to say to its employeés, "You receive benefits which have accrued as the result of trade union activity." This Clause is not only an attack on trade unions, but it puts difficulties in the way of every local authority whether it is Labour or anything else. It is an attack on Labour local authorities, and on every individual elector who has returned that particular Labour majority to control local affairs for the time being. A Labour authority, if elected, is elected to carry out Labour principles, just as a Conservative authority is elected to carry out, as hon. Members opposite say, Conservative principles. The Home Secretary said once that the Conservative party would be judged by how far it had carried out Conservative principles during its administration, and consequently a Labour local authority will be judged by how far it carries out Labour principles in relation to local administration. What are those principles? They are, that those employed by a Labour local authority shall be paid at least trade union rates of wages, and perhaps something more; that they shall give their employeés trade union conditions of labour in relation to holidays, &c., and that they shall have trade union conditions in relation to working hours. Naturally we expect, if we return members of the Labour party to local authorities, that they shall carry out these principles, and if they are in a majority shall give effect to them. The only way of giving effect to them is to see that those they employ have the requisite standards of comfort and emoluments. I say, further, that those who return members of the Labour party to local authorities return them in order to see that those they employ shall help to
    276
    secure like benefits for other people, and, therefore, I have no objection to a local authority saying that its members shall belong to an appropriate organisation, whether a trade or profession, for by doing so it will help to raise the general standard of comfort and efficiency throughout the country.
    During the early discussions of this Bill it was impressed upon us that it had been introduced because of the late general strike. I am at a loss to know what this Sub-section has to do with a general strike, and why it should be introduced into this Bill, if it is not for the express purpose of attacking trade unions and labour representatives on local authorities. The Attorney-General, in dealing with this Clause during the Second Reading Debate, said it was the intention of the Government that local authorities should represent the local community as a whole. That is a very laudable sentiment, but I do not think he expects us to apply it to the present Government, for it is well known that they do not represent the community as a whole. Consequently, they have no justification for seeking to interfere with local authorities. Let me put this question to the Minister of Health. As I understand the Bill, it is perfectly legal to have a strike in order to secure that those employed in a particular workshop or industry shall be trade unionists. The miners, I believe, can go on strike for the express purpose of ensuring that the mineowners shall employ trade unionists only. If that is legal, why should it not apply to local authorities? What is going to happen? If a local authority is up against a trade union such as the builders' union——
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is nothing in this Clause which prevents a strike.
    Mr. YOUNG: What is going to happen if a local authority has to deal with a strike in relation to the building of houses? The house builders may insist that all those engaged by a local authority shall be trade unionists. What is going to happen then? This Clause will place the local authority in such a position that it will not be able to negotiate with the trade unions in order to settle such a question. Immediately they meet, the point at issue is that every builder employed by the local authority on local housing schemes shall be a trade unionist.

    277
    That is the point to be decided; and if this Sub-section is passed, the local authority has no power to negotiate in relation to that matter. You insist that they shall not take into consideration whether they are or are not trade unionists, and consequently I can see every local authority, every Tory local authority, confronted with this problem in relation to its engineering works, or its gas and electric light, and housing undertakings, the organisation will say, "We are not going to work with so-and-so, unless he becomes a member of a trade union." In that case the local authority will be helpless. All it can say is that the Government have laid it down that we are to take no cognisance as to whether a man is a member of a trade union or not. Consequently, if they decided in their favour and insisted that these men should be trade unionists, they would be breaking the law and that is a very serious matter from the point of view of the local authorities. I feel quite sure that the Minister of Health would not have got the large number of houses which have been built this year if what, is now being proposed had been the law of the land. The work of house building has been got on speedily because of the fact that the men employed on this particular work were working under trade union conditions, and because they were members of their respective trade organisations. This Clause is simply an attack on trade unionists, because you are now trying to lay down a rule which they cannot possibly carry out, and which will cause serious differences between trade unionists and local authorities as employers.
    The trade union movement in this country is a very necessary one. Many hon. Members of this House have encouraged trade unionism and the power of bargaining has become more and more appreciated all round. Employers have said to me: "Why do you not get these men into the trade union?" Other employers have said to me: "Why not get all the men into one trade union?" The local authorities are the employers of a large number of working men, and the conditions that exist between the ordinary employer and the ordinary trade union, will exist between the local authorities and their employeés. It is all very well to suggest by this Clause that you want to
    278
    prevent certain persons from being intimidated. As a matter of fact I know that Government Departments are getting rid of men because of their trade union activities. They are not only getting rid of these men, but they are putting other men in their places. I know a case where a man has been put on one side in this way and another man has been put in his place. I want to know will it be legal for the Builders' Union to intimate to any local authority that it is going to have a strike unless every builder employed is a trade unionist? What means of negotiation have the local authorities to settle that question when we lay down that they must take no cognisance of the fact that a man is a trade unionist or a non-unionist. I have no hesitation in saying that this Clause, had there only been the first four lines, would have provided all that the Government desire. The first four lines of the Clause read:
    "it shall not be lawful for any local or other public authority to make it a condition of the employment or continuance in employment of any person that he shall or shall not be a member of the trade union."
    The rest of the Clause is mere verbiage. The object is to secure that trade unionists, as such, shall not be employed. I hope I shall have an answer to my question so that I may be able to tell my local authority the exact position. If the answer is that every man shall be or shall not be a trade unionist what is the machinery by which this question is to be settled? I prefer that the local authorities should settle these matters them, selves, and not have to make representations to the Minister of Health.
    Captain O'CONNOR: The arguments in favour of this Clause are overwhelming, more especially after the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) has dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's," and this makes it quite unnecessary to have the advocacy of any back bencher on the Government side to make out a case for it. I think I could make a case for this Clause out of the mouth of the hon. Member opposite. I will take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) who, in a most admirable speech, took two entirely different and contradictory points of view. His first case was that the local authority ought always to employ trade unionists because they were the most efficient people. If that were the case, there

    279
    would be no need for this Clause, and no inclination on the part of local authorities to employ anybody but trade unionists.
    The hon. Member's second point was that local authorities ought to be entitled, and were in fact entitled, to say to their workmen, "You must toe the line." It is precisely that attitude which is inconsistent with the first point of view, and we say that that is not a proper weapon in the hands of local authorities at all, because it adopts a coercive spirit, and it is a negation of liberty to which the hon. Member for Cardigan referred. To carry the arguments of the hon. Member for Stratford a little bit further, I would like to ask what is he going to do if there is a local authority employing non-unionists and that authority suddenly conies under the control of the Socialist party. We have been told candidly and in definite terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) what will happen.
    Mr. GROVES: We shall apply the same custom which we apply to our new members and new entrants.
    Captain O'CONNOR: Then what becomes of the argument of efficiency. The argument has been that you employ trade unionists because they are the most efficient workmen.
    Mr. GROVES: We take this course because we do not believe in forcing our own opinions on other people, and therefore in such cases we should raise no objection to the employment of non-unionists.
    Captain O'CONNOR: If that attitude is adopted, then you are not making efficiency the test of membership of a trade union, which is the only test that a local authority is entitled to employ because they are the trustees for the ratepayers. They have not to consider any particular types of political philosophy, and you cannot have local authorities in this country forcing a particular kind of trade unionism on particular people. The whole argument is against the trade unionism which it is sought at the present time to foist on industry. That is the real criticism of the attitude of those local authorities which seem to make that the test of employment. If trade unionism is what I have no doubt it was in the days of old trade unionism, and
    280
    still is in the case referred to, this Clause would not have been brought forward at all. It is because it means something entirely different that it is necessary to limit the powers of local authorities in order to secure efficiency, and a particular standard which the ratepayers have a right to insist upon.
    The only other point I wish to make is that I think that argument applies equally to employers' organisations. I think, however desirable concerted action may be, and however much we may be moving towards that development about which the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) spoke, we should not allow it to be made a condition of the acceptance of a tender that the tendering firm should belong to a ring of employers. I notice there is down on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the Attorney-General which is supposed to meet that point. May I point out that those words do not really meet the point at all, and what we desire, is only met by the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—No. 213 and 214 on the Order Paper. I submit that there could be no possible objection to those Amendments because they do preserve the balance of the Clause as between associations of employers on the one hand and associations of trade unionists on the other.
    If it is not right for a local authority to impose a condition that persons employed should belong to a trade union, then it is equally unfair to lay down that persons tendering should belong to a ring of employers. If it is said that such a case has never been known, then I do not agree, because I know that is not so. The point is that it is a contingency that might be contemplated, and certainly within my own experience I have known a certain firm which did not belong to a combine for the supply of a certain type of article finding it difficult to get tenders from another large corporation. That point ought certainly to be met, and the Amendments I have suggested would strengthen the Clause in this respect. Such Amendments follow out the principle rightly enunciated in the earlier Clauses, and I hope the Government will see their way to balance those principles by inserting a provision of the kind I have suggested.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It appears to me that this Clause stands out prominently as showing how drastic is the policy of the Government in dealing with the Bill as a whole. This Clause in reality had no warrant for its appearance in this Bill. The whole object of this Bill is safeguarded by the Clauses which have been dealt with. Trade unionism is acknowledged by the Government in these very restrictions and in the operations within those restrictions there is a safeguard, according to the view of the Government, that nothing shall materially result which would adversely affect the community. If that be so, why is it that where legitimate trade unionism has been specifically acknowledged by the local authorities—the officials of which have given ready testimony to the value of that trade unionism, particularly on the point of collective bargaining—such a blow should be struck by the Government at that legitimate trade unionism within the conditions applicable only to those public authorities?
    An hon. and learned Member on the Liberal Benches took up the position of objecting to anything in the way of tests, either religious or political. We maintain that to become a member of a trade union is not a political test. One of the arguments which have been put up to their satisfaction by the other side, is that within those trade unions are large bodies of Conservatives. It is the strength of their case against the political levy. As a matter of fact, apart from the paying of the political levy, we all know that there are numbers of people who are in these trade unions and not voting with the. Labour party, but many of whom are voting with the Liberal party and many have voted and do vote with the Conservative party. That claim is frequently made by representatives on the other side, not only as regard trade union representation, but also regarding working-class people who are voting for them as Conservative Members of this House. A case like that is presented by their own side as the strength of their appeal, particularly in the case of the political levy. How then can you drive home the idea that the sustaining of Clause 6 is the essential and real purport of your Bill, when you not only have legitimate trade unionism, but ready
    282
    acknowledgment has been made of the value of that trade unionism in the matter of collective bargaining apart from anything else?
    Reference has been made to a point concerning the medical body. That body does not make it a matter of collective bargaining; they lay it down by a definite command. They say, "You are not going to get a medical man to give the value of public service in regard to the physical needs of the people in the charge of that public authority, unless under our definite conditions." It is not a matter of bargaining at all. The local authority may say that they may be able to get a perfectly good man or perhaps a lady as medical officer at a considerably less salary, but they cannot, for they are not allowed to do so. This Bill is not straightforwardly facing that. Then you come to what has been said by the Minister of Health about the spoils of office. What does it really come to? Whether men who are representatives in the public authorities happen to be Conservative, Liberal or Labour, those men, or women, will be asked after they have been returned to that public authority by some of their supporters to see what they can do to get them a job. That is quite a reasonable thing, if they can find positions of the kind. As a general rule, they are very small appointments as far as wages are concerned. That is not considered to be anything to do with spoils of office, but the natural outcome of our local representation.
    You are not dealing here with corruption. This is not honestly getting down to the question of undermining public authorities and the public interest. You know perfectly well that you could not introduce a Bill into the House which would fully meet the necessities of that case. You know where special influence is brought to bear, as in my own city of Dundee, where we had to deal with members of the legal fraternity. What were they able to do? To elect, first of all, colleagues in their own public authority to the magisterial bench and then, as legal men, appearing before that bench in application for certain kinds of licence certificates. Feeling arose in the community that that sort of thing was not meeting the requirements of real public service, but all the length you could go in that public authority was to declare by resolution a recommendation

    283
    that no such legal member of the council should appear before the bench and be an advocate in that way. You know very well that it is quite a common thing for men in business to get into public authorities and they do not need to canvass for orders, for orders come pouring in upon them. If the Conservative party is really out to deal with corruption in regard to public representation, it will be a sight worth seeing. If the Conservative party tackle the job we should see some outstanding results in the constituencies. This is not a square deal on the subject. What does it really involve? Trade unionism has made a substantial advance, and has secured its position to the extent which has been testified to in this House. Representative employers have said that trade unionism is of real advantage to them as employers as well as to the employed, and that we should so conduct our business as to bring about results which would be advantageous to the general interest of the community.
    Over and above that, what has been in the main—and this has never been challenged on the other side of the House—the object of the trade union movement? It has been to say to the employers, unquestionably, "Any number of our honest, hardworking men and women have not been getting a square deal in the matter of provision for their every day life." That is the simple central point and the vital factor in the operation of the trade union movement. It is clear that the general workers of the country have achieved an advantage which, strangely enough, stands out in remarkable contrast to, for instance, the engineering industry, which used to hold the prime position as far as its employés were concerned. Now general labour has been brought up to something like that standard. It has been said by the Conservative party, "Yes, that is part of our case." I quite admit it is part of their case, but was it not the legitimate right of the trade union movement? Was it not the warrant for that movement that they should tackle these conditions and help to bring up the workers to that standard? Was it not most natural, as a logical consequence, that the public authority should become permeated with that great movement and that now,
    284
    having permeated the local authorities and sending their representatives by honest declarations to their constituencies, one of the things they thought advisable to place before the community was that our workers under our public authorities should be brought up to a standard of wages and conditions of labour that would be exemplary to those who were employers in the community generally? That is the strength of the case which has been put forward. You are not going to deal with the private employer who is at present pushing down the employeé. The private employer in our great journalistic enterprises——
    The CHAIRMAN: I stopped the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on that point.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Then I will stop, too. I will leave that. Perhaps I shall get a turn later on. You are not going to touch the private employer, and hon. Members can easily fill in the blanks I have left out in recognition of the Chairman's ruling. You are going surely to face this position. The body of toilers have secured in a fair and reasonable fashion, not only a grip on the employers in the various parts of the country, but upon the local authority. They have gained that position and held it honourably and now they are pressing forward for the application of their ideas of what is essential. Local authorities, as we know, are in need, not of restriction but of expansion. Their duties have increased. The duties that are being placed on local authorities are now making tremendous demands on the men and women who are giving their spare time and instead of any reward, they are told, "You are not going to do this although you have got the consent of the community to do so."
    The right hon. Gentleman said the difference between these local authorities and the private employer was that the private employer represented himself. That is a very fine distinction and a particularly important distinction for the right hon. Gentleman to make as the representative of the Tory party, as representing the beau ideal of the Conservative party. We believe that the broader ideal in the interest of the people generally, is to represent the common weal in some companies it is not a

    285
    matter of one man acting but it is a question of the majority of the directors or the management deciding what is to be the policy. You might have a majority saying that they are going to have no trade unionism and on the other hand you might have them saying they were going to have trade unionism. Therefore the comparison does not fit in with the situation. The local authority is constituted by those who have gone to the electors and said that one of the strongest assets for representation on our public bodies is the question of advancing towards the ideal position for the toiler. To carry through that policy has been the vital work that those trade unions have done, and to bring to bear such influence as has been brought in the country politically as well. I think it is very clear that it does not show a magnanimous spirit and is not what is put from Conservative platforms when it is said that they are trying to do that which is fair and just to the body of the people as a whole. It is rather a mean sort of lowering of your standard to say "After this struggle, now that you have gone on so well and you have got a good hold of the employers and the public authorities and such a hold on Parliament, we must drag that down." The Minister of Health has taken his own course, backed by the Government as to where, in his view and in the view of the Government, there is real corruption, as he thinks it, and where actually wrong has been done, but he is taking his own particular stand. He has imposed on certain authorities the basis of the Mussolini system, who, however, meets a case like this by saying you are not going to prohibit this kind of thing but you are going to prohibit public trusts, you are going to prohibit any kind of public company or private management concern that is going to restrict production. He is going to settle the business according to what he thinks individually. That would not suit the Conservative party at all. Their bias is against the worker.
    The CHAIRMAN: Are they putting it in this Bill?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: They are putting it into this Clause, anyway. To me it seems a matter of getting at the worker at every possible point. I was particularly impressed by Clause 6, which seems to me
    286
    to stand out pre-eminent with this glaring condemnation of the Tory party. They are not going to allow democratic action on the part of the authorities. However fairly and squarely they may secure their majority, they are not going to get leave to impose any condition which would in itself be an advancement of the best interests of the working class. That, to my mind, is one of the strongest condemnations which could be possibly brought about, and that by your own particular party.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I should like to take the few minutes that are left to reply to one or two questions which have been raised during the Debate. The best reply I can make to the speech we have just heard, which I am sorry the rules of order curtailed, is contained in a pamphlet issued by the Trade Union Defence Committee which says this Clause is to enforce an absolute neutrality upon public authorities.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I do not agree with the neutrality. It is prohibitory.
    Sir K. WOOD: One important question put in the course of the discussion was with regard to enforcing the conditions of this Clause. I have heard that various people are already stating that they intend to carry out their present practice whether the Bill is passed or not. If, for instance, a local authority has passed a resolution that it will only employ trade unionists, they intend to go on doing that, whatever this Act of Parliament may enact. In such a case, of course, the remedy is obvious. Any single ratepayer could apply to the Courts for an injunction restraining members of local authorities carrying out such a resolution, and if they still went on and carried it out against the terms of the injunction they would be liable to contempt of court and imprisonment. Therefore the position is clear enough. Then if a council still persisted, notwithstanding the decision of Parliament that such terms in future should not be imposed, and proceeded to dismiss him because he was a trade unionist, the remedy of the dismissed workman is perfectly clear. It is open to him—and I have no doubt he would get considerable support in any action he took—to commence an action against

    287
    the local authority for wrongful dismissal, and I have no doubt in a suitable case he would obtain very substantial damages.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I do not think those are practical points. They are lawyers' points. The practical point is this. Is there any means under this Clause of preventing a local authority from dismissing or refusing to engage a man, really because he is a non-unionist but ostensibly for some different reason? There is nothing to compel them to say the reason they will not employ them is that he is not a trade unionist.
    Sir K. WOOD: During the last few days proceedings have been taken against the Poplar Council by a body of ratepayers in order to enforce their remedy in the Courts. Therefore, that is not a lawyer's reason but a perfectly proper reason, and in other cases recently, so much have ratepayers resented the action of certain authorities that they have already taken action. With regard to the point the hon. Member for Mossley puts, there is always a difficulty but it is not so easy for a local authority to act as he thinks because discussions have to take place in the General Purposes Committee or the Tramways Committee with regard to the employment of the authority's employeés. A local authority is in a different position from a private employer. At any rate I hope my hon. Friend will agree that this is a step in the right direction. It is difficult to realise, having heard the Debate, that it is only some 20 local authorities that are acting in this way at all. When one hears file arguments which have been addressed from the benches opposite that you san only carry out proper trade union terms and conditions if you adopt the measures against which this Clause is directed, the obvious reply is that it is a foolish suggestion, because the great majority of local authorities, many of them Labour authorities, are carrying out their duties and responsibilities with proper trade union terms and conditions without employing any such sort of tyranny as we are aiming at in this Clause.
    The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) put a case to me with regard to a strike in the building trade and the building union going on strike because
    288
    of the imposition of this Clause. It is very dangerous to reply to a supposititious case of that kind, because it may be quoted afterwards in connection with a totally different set of facts; but so far as I have been able to understand the hon. Member, I know nothing in this Bill which would make such a strike illegal. On the other hand I should expect, as I have no doubt he would, the local authority to resist to the utmost in its power any attempt to coerce it in the way he has indicated. Subject to that reservation, I do not know of anything in the Bill which makes that kind of thing illegal. My hon. Friend raised the question of the position of employers under this Clause, and suggested that it might be improved if the prohibition was extended to include local authorities stipulating that tendering firms must belong to a ring. I congratulate him on his imagination. I have never heard of such a condition being imposed, and I doubt very much if it is ever likely to be imposed. I am by no means assenting to the view that in other cases and in respect to other tenders, that might or might not be a bad thing. In some cases they might be able to make a better bargain for their ratepayers and on the other hand they might not, but I do not think that would be an improvement upon this Clause. The hon. Member for Newton said he only paid attention to the first part of the Clause and the rest was mere verbiage. I base myself more on this part of the Clause which prohibits a local authority putting any employé at a disadvantage as compared with other employeés of the local authority if they do not belong to a trade union. The hon. Member immediately answers me by saying they do not. He ought to consult the hon. Member who sits next to him, because the very thing the Poplar Guardians did in 1920 was to pass a resolution, which I believe the hon. Member himself would be the first to resent, that all increases of salary or wages should be conditional upon membership of trade unions. In other words, the only people who are to receive any increase in salary or any award, so far as the Poplar Council is concerned, are those who are trade unionists. I can conceive nothing more unfair and unjust than that resolution. I am not surprised that the hon. Member said he never

    289
    heard of such a thing. I hope he will consult his hon. Friend and get him to explain how this came about. Therefore, there should be some importance attached to that part of the Clause. Again, I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee) say it was utterly unfair for a local authority to impose upon their employeés that they should join a particular trade union. He said he would never allow such a thing. But one well knows that the Poplar Council imposed such terms and conditions as practically compelled their employeés to belong to particular trade unions, and the curious thing about it was that those trade unions that were chosen were those which contributed to the political funds of the trade union party.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. THURTLE: The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal with the point that membership of a trade union is a test of efficiency. He cannot deny that it is, and councils are perfectly entitled to impose that test in order to get the best possible workmen. If he would agree to insert a Clause which would exempt the craft unions from its operation, be would be doing something to meet that point.
    It being half-past Seven 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 the words of the Clause down to the word "to" in line 34, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 116.

    Division No. 165.]

    AYES.

    [7. 30p. m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Finburgh, S.

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Forrest, W.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Apsley, Lord

    Christie, J. A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Gates, Percy

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Atkinson, C.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Grace, John

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Cope, Major William

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

    Bennett, A. J.

    Couper, J. B.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Berry, Sir George

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Bethel, A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Briant, Frank

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hanbury, C.

    Bridgeman, Rt, Hon. William Clive

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Harland, A.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Haslam, Henry C.

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Drewe, C.

    Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Duckworth, John

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Elveden, Viscount

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Campbell, E. T.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Morris, R. H.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Neville, R. J.

    Storry Deans, R.

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Oakley, T.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Jacob, A. E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    pennefather, Sir John

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Waddington, R.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Radford, E. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R.

    Raine, W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Ramsden, E.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Remer, J. R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Lougher, Lewis

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wells, S. R.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Mc Donnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Macintyre, Ian

    Ropner, Major L.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    McLean, Major A.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rye, F. G.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Withers, John James

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Sandon, Lord

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lowth, T.

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

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

    Lunn, William

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mackinder, W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Groves, T.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grundy, T. W.

    March, S.

    Barnes, A.

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

    Maxton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Bromley, J.

    Hardle, George D.

    Murnin, H.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harney, E. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Buchanan, G.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    palin, John Henry

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Paling, W.

    Clowes, S.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Riley, Ben

    Connolly, M.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Ritson, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kennedy, T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Sexton, James

    Duncan, C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Dunnico, H.

    Lansbury, George

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Smillie, Robert

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lawson, John James.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lee, F.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Gosling, Harry

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Snell, Harry

    292

    293

    Stamford, T. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Townend, A. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)

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

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Westwood, J

    Charles Edwards.

    THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Clause to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 41, to leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the words,
    "(2) It shall not be lawful for any local or other public authority to make it a condition of any contract made or proposed to
    be made with the authority, or of the consideration or acceptance of any tender in connection with such a contract, that any person to be employed by any party to the contract shall or shall not be a member of a trade union.
    (3)."—[The Attorney-Gebera1.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 118.

    Division No. 166.]

    AYES.

    [7. 41p. m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Golf Sir Park

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Grace, John

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Apsley, Lord

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Cope, Major William

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Couper, J. B.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Harland, A.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Berry, Sir George

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Bethel, A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

    Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Davies, Sir Thomas(Cirencester)

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

    Briant, Frank

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Dixey, A. C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Drewe, C.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Duckworth, John

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

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

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Finburgh, S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Forrest, W.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Cassels. J. D.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony.

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gates, Percy

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Perring, Sir William George

    Thomas, Sir Robert John(Anglesey)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Looker, Herbert William

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Lougher, Lewis

    Radford, E. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Raine, W.

    Waddington, R.

    Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ramsden, E.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Remer, J. R.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Remnant, Sir James

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    McLean, Major A.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wells, S. R.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Rye, F. G.

    White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Salmon, Major.I.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Samuel Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh Wrexham)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sandon, Lord

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Savery, S. S.

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

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

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

    Sheffield Sir Berkeley

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Withers, John James

    Morris, R. H.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wood, B. C.(Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

    Neville, R. J.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Steel, Major' Samuel Strang

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Oakley, T.

    Storry-Deans. R.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.

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

    Strauss, E. A.

    F. C. Thomson.

    NOES.

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

    Groves, T.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palin, John Henry

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harney, E. A.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Barnes, A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Pethick Lawrence, F. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Potts, John S.

    Bromley, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Riley, Ben

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ritson, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Clowes, S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji.

    Cluse, W. S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sexton, James

    Cove, W. G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, T.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Smillie, Robert

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

    Dennison, R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Duncan, C.

    Lawson, John James

    Stamford, T. W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Taylor, R. A

    Gosling, Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mac Neill-Weir, L.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

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

    March, S.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Maxton, James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Grenfell, D. R.(Glamorgan)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    296

    297

    Townend, A. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Viant, S. P.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Westwood, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out Subsection (2).
    If I had any misgivings as to whether I ought to move this Amendment, the reception given by the Government to the previous Amendments has removed them. By the passing of the previous Subsection, it is now definitely laid down that a public authority may employ a man for a specific task, that that man may work at that task for months or for years, and then suddenly be called on to undertake work for which he was never engaged. If he refuses to do that work, he is liable to be dragged before a bench of magistrates, many of whom may have given the order, and to be fined or imprisoned. I submit that Sub-section really indicates that this Bill is a gross outrage on the liberty of the employé. As a broad, general principle I would agree that in normal conditions it is neither wise, expedient, nor discrect for any person under any conditions to break a contract without notice. I think, however, that even the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree that there are occasions when a contract entered into may be broken without notice. We have had an amazing illustration of that in the recent action of the Government in regard to Russia. There a solemn trading agreement has been entered into and, if I understand its terms aright, it was quite clearly laid down that if either side had occasion to break the contract, six months notice should be given by that side. Yet the Government, without notice at all, broke that contract. I am not arguing to-night whether the Government were right or wrong in breaking the contract, I am simply pointing out that they recognise, and have admitted by their action, that there are occasions when a contract entered into may be suddenly terminated without notice. Yet, by the Sub-section passed a few minutes ago, it is quite possible for a local authority to employ a man who may be engaged on certain work and may continue on that work for years, and then, suddenly, owing to some outside pressure, ask him to do work which he really ought not to do.
    298
    He may be required to work alongside of people beside whom, when he entered the employ of that authority, he never dreamt that he would be asked to work. Yet, if that man terminates his employment without notice and in such a way as may be thought to hinder the authority in carrying out its work, he will be liable to be treated as a criminal, dragged before a Court of Justice and fined or imprisoned.
    I have spent 21 years on local authorities, such as boards of guardians, town councils, and county councils. Some years ago, a local authority of which I was a member had a very serious dispute with a section of its workpeople en the interpretation of an agreement to which both parties had subscribed. Negotiations took place, and attempts were made to reach a settlement, but they failed. Then the men handed in a legal notice. It was discovered that if that legal notice operated it would terminate a few days before the Christmas holidays. A number of members of the local Chamber of Commerce interviewed the men and prevailed on them to withdraw their notice. In the following January the local authority met and the men again pressed their claims. By a majority of one, the council refused to grant the men what they asked. The result was that that very night, without notice, the men stopped work. The Ministry of Labour intervened and held conferences with both parties. Dr. Macnamara came down personally, with members of his staff, and interviewed the council in committee. Ultimately, the council settled with the men on exactly the terms which the men had been willing to accept before the dispute took place. Under this Clause those men would have rendered themselves liable to be dragged before the magistrates and fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the bench. Again, to use an illustration which may appear grotesque—I only use a, grotesque illustration to show the grotesqueness of this Clause—one of the functions of a local authority is education. Take a non-provided school. The caretaker of a non-provided school is an employeé of the

    299
    municipality. He may, on some occasion, come into conflict with the vicar, who is the chairman of the committee. Because of that, in a tiff overnight, he may throw down his keys and refuse to carry on his duties. By doing that he may interfere with the local authority in the fulfilment of its functions. Under this Clause that man can be brought before the magistrates, and fined or imprisoned. This particular Clause indicates more clearly than any other Clause indicates—if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will give me his attention, I will proceed with the subject. I seldom speak in this House, and if——
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was only a momentary lapse. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not think that for one second I had ceased to attend to what he was saying.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. DUNNICO: The moment seemed very long. I was trying to emphasise the fact that this Clause really indicates the real purpose of the Bill. If the Bill had been an honest and sincere attempt to safeguard national and public interests, I would not have been a party to opposing it. I really do see, however, that under this Bill there is a subtle, sinister and determined attempt on the part of this Government to use its huge majority, not to protect public interests but to penalise a section of the people of this country who are common workers and who are simply demanding their rights. If I may say so, I oppose this Clause, not because of its sinister purpose only; but because it is absolutely unnecessary. Public authorities to-day have all the protection that they require. Even under the existing law it is a criminal offence for any employeé of a public authority to cease work if he knows that by so doing he is going to injure persons or property, or interfere with the supply of either gas, water or electricity. That, I submit, covers the whole situation, yet, under this Clause, the ordinary workman—the school caretaker who downs tools, the charwoman who downs her brushes, soap and bucket—these people would be liable to be brought up and to have criminal proceedings taken against them. There is no Clause in this Bill which
    300
    shows the utter interference of the Bill more than this particular Clause. The local authority may break its contract, and the only result is a conviction in a civil Court. A contractor may have a contract with his local authority; he may hold that contract up, he may interfere with that authority fulfilling its functions, but the only action against him is a civil action. The common worker, on the other hand, the school caretaker, the ordinary employeé who, acting on some momentary outraged sense of injustice, ceases his work and against whom it can be construed that he is going to interfere with the authority fulfilling its functions, comes within the scope of this Bill. Moreover, we have been told by members of the Conservative party, who are conspicuous by their absence to-night, on platforms throughout the length and breadth of the country, that the primary purpose of this Bill was to prevent general strikes.
    This particular Clause, however, says nothing about any general strike, or any strike at all or any dispute of any kind except a dispute of a single workman. A single workman who avails himself of the right to terminate without notice his agreement does so now subject always to the fact that he can be proceeded against in the Civil Courts. If by so doing he is going to hinder the local authority fulfilling its functions that workman can under this Bill be dragged before the Courts. The working men of this country, many of whom have supported Members of the either side, when they see that there is one law for the employers and the big authorities and another for the poor workmen, will know what Tory justice is, and I have sufficient confidence to think and believe that when the next election takes place it will be the Tory party who will be on the Opposition side of the House and we shall be on the other side.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: Committee counted: and 40 Members being present——
    Mr. GARDNER: I beg to support this Amendment. In the first place, I oppose the Clause upon the ground that the local authorities of this country have never made any request for legislation of this kind. I have yet to learn that the Association of Municipal Corporations have even considered such a thing, and I

    301
    thought it was a sound tradition of the Tory party never to legislate or put Acts upon the Statute Book unless there were something in the nature of a demand for that particular legislation in respect of local authorities. The second ground upon which I am opposed to the Clause is of necessity because of its phraseology. When I read in a, Sub-section of an Act of Parliament that a man shall be placed in the position of determining whether he has reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his actions shall or shall not inconvenience or hinder local authorities, I say that that is asking a great deal of the average working man. It is placing him in a position that is absolutely intolerable and beyond reason. If any difference of opinion arises between any employeé of a local authority, in many cases without this law the employeé has to go to the Courts for the Courts to determine whether or not there has been a breach of contract, but in this case the responsibility is to be placed upon the man and that is asking rather too much. The Government seem to have forgotten that these people are liable under the ordinary law for breach of contract. They also seem to have forgotten that if a man does anything of this kind he is liable to dismissal as well. That, in all conscience, is a big enough penalty to apply to the average worker who may never get another job. But, in addition to that dismissal, a man may lose his pension rights of 30 or 40 years, and on top of that the Government propose to give a man who, in a hasty moment, may do something which he ought not to do, three months' imprisonment, or to give the right to a magistrate to give him three months' imprisonment. A local authority has the right to give a man a week's notice to terminate his employment, without any reason, so that a public authority is to have that higher privilege while the man himself, even if he desires to get a better job and terminates his contract without giving notice, is to be liable to these serious consequences of his action.
    The previous speaker dealt with one or two cases that might arise, and the way in which this Sub-section is framed shows that it is not related to or qualified by any other Sub-section. The position is that a man in an electricity works might suddenly take it into his head to go home. He would lose his job, and, in addition,
    302
    he would be liable to three months' imprisonment. A tram driver at the terminus or the end of his journey might take a notion into his head to go home. That would undoubtedly hinder a public service. In addition to dismissal and the loss of pension rights that man would be liable to three months' imprisonment, in addition to which the local authority would still have the right to sue for breach of contract. Are the Government really serious in bringing forward a Clause of this sort? There is one other very important point. This Clause is going to place employeés of public authorities in a less favourable position than the employeés of private people. I understand that a large number of people would like to have an army of Robots, and the first section of the Robots is to be recruited from the municipal workers. There is no reasonable argument, arising out of the events of last year, to be put forward in favour of this Sub-section, because in every instance where such action occurred, either alone or in concert, if it were in a case of an electricity station, naval ratings were brought in so that the public were not allowed to suffer. In the case of my own council 13 men were discharged and they have lost all their pension rights. I think the Government are ill-advised to press this Clause. The last Clause, in all conscience, was bad enough. If, after giving to private people the right to decide whether they will or will not have trade unionists in their employ, and after having taken that right away from local authorities, the Government add a Clause of this kind they are asking for trouble, which will come. If that trouble comes in a sufficiently large degree, so far from bringing unity of purpose, the outraged opinion of local people will become so high that the Government will get what they deserve soon.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I really cannot understand the attitude of certain hon. Members on the other side in regard to breach of contracts. Contracts ought to be regarded as inviolate, whether they are made by the men or by the employers. During the last 30 years there has been a series of lightning strikes, and the danger of a lightning strike was shown during the War. Men of all parties are agreed that if sufficient notice be given there is nearly always time for a settlement of a dispute to be brought about. The employer who has received notice

    303
    from his men may realise that he is asking too much from his men, and his men may come back working on notices from day to day, and they may realise that they are asking too much of their employers. Whenever there is time to negotiate there is a much better chance of settlement than there is when an instantaneous strike takes place. But the employers under this Clause are not private employers at all; they are the elected representatives of the people, representative of all parties in the community, representative of trade unionists themselves. They represent even the community of West Ham, about which we have heard so much to-night. Surely, a man who is acting in that fiduciary capacity, and has the privilege of being the employeé of a public authority, belongs to a most favoured class of the community. The miners and the engineers are having a very thin time as compared with the municipal workers.
    Mr. DUNNICO: The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. I said quite distinctly and plainly that I objected to the breaking of a contract. What I was protesting against, however, was not so much the idea of breaking a contract, but I deprecated making the breaking of a contract a criminal offence for the worker and only a civil offence for the employer.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: That may be, and perhaps there should be legislation to deal with the employer. That may come in time, if breaches of contract are common among employers, but they are not common among employers. It is a rare thing to see such breaches, the civil penalties involved are so great. Nobody ever hears of a workman being prosecuted for breach of contract, or, at least, it is exceedingly rare; but I doubt if this proposal would not involve the abandonment of any civil claim in a case of that kind. Any legislation is desirable that will bring home the realities of the position to that preferential section of the community, the municipal and public employeés, who, like civil servants, have gilt-edged jobs and are getting higher pay than the skilled technical workers in our shipyards and engineering firms. They have a much more substantial standard of life than those engaged in the technical trades, and that makes things much harder for those in the technical trades.
    304
    It is not too much to ask that a breach of contract contemplated by such employeés should be recognised as one directed not against an individual employer, but against the whole community. The last speaker mentioned the case of a man who suddenly took a notion and went home, leaving his tramcar at the end of a line—perhaps blocking up a whole service of cars. The man who does so commits a wrong against the community, and he ought to be dealt with more drastically than by the ordinary civil law.
    Mr. GARDNER: What would be the result if an omnibus company locked out its employeés against the interests of the community?
    Mr. MACQUISTENIf it was a municipal omnibus concern there would be serious trouble, but I never heard of a municipal authority doing that. If it was a private firm, the men would have a right to sue for breach of contract, and could recover damages if they were turned out without notice. But one never heard of an instance of that kind—of men being turned out without due notice. If you are going to do a wrong to the general body of the community, and put the public to serious inconvenience, the community is going to penalise you for it. If this Clause is passed, even if it never comes into operation, it will have a beneficial effect in bringing to the minds of a vast number of workers that lightning strikes and breaches of contract are inexpedient and inadvisable.
    Mr. FENBY: A good many lawyers' points have been raised concerning the Clauses of this Bill. I am not capable, either by training or ability, of dealing with the legal side of the question, but this particular Sub-section affects administration by local authorities. Having some experience of the workmen and officials employed by local authorities, I am disturbed by the wideness of the net spread by the Sub-section. What have the servants of public authorities done to warrant a sweeping Clause like this? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no set of employeés next to the Civil Service, who render more service to his Department than the employeés of local authorities, who are worthy of better treatment than this at the hands of the Government. The returning officer

    305
    who assists at the election of the right hon. Gentleman to this House, the sanitary inspector who carries out the instructions of his Department, and all the employeés of local authorities are helping the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the duties of his Ministry, and it is difficult to know why these employeés should be singled out from all other classes of employeés in the country. I do not think it can be said that they have been unduly political in their actions. A large number of the officials have an organisation but it has no political alliance and no political object, and their sole business is to see the public services carried out efficiently, expeditiously and economically. The Sub-section seems to go a long way in relation to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875. There is hardly a charwoman or a school-cleaner who will not be liable to come under the Subsection.
    I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept an Amendment which appears elsewhere on the Paper proposing to insert the words "essential services." That would simplify the matter and give us a better line of demarcation. It is true that the Act of 1875 has been amended by the Electricity Act, 1919, which has made it more direct and understandable, but the present Clause is altogether too sweeping. Some people have argued that there is no need to interfere with the discretion of local authorities. I do not quite agree with that view. I have yet to learn that human nature is altered by membership either of the House of Commons or any local authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Worsened!"] That interjection, like this Clause, is too sweeping, and I would not be prepared to endorse it. I was a member of a local authority some years ago, and an official of that authority made a certain remark which was not political and was not offensive, but the chairman of a committee took exception to it, and the official was called upon to apologise. He refused to do so, and he was dismissed. He had no appeal, and for several months, until the next elections came round, he existed on his own resources. The only way of getting the man back to his position was by putting him up as a candidate. We did so, and he won, because public opinion was with him. He was returned as a member of
    306
    the local authority, and the local authority immediately reinstated him as an official, when, of course, he resigned his membership of the body.
    That condition of things ought not to be allowed to continue, but. I think it will be intensified by this Sub-section. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider an Amendment on the Paper by which it is proposed that some machinery should be provided for a right of appeal. Apart from the issue of an industrial dispute, there should be some appeal for these individuals, and they ought to have some protection from any local authorities who may be inclined to act arbitrarily. The right hon. Gentleman has a good precedent in the fact that his colleague the Home Secretary has presented a Police Appeals Bill, which provides a right of appeal for police officers. The right hon. Gentleman should similarly recognise the position of the workers and officials employed by local authorities. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the great services which they render and the great loyalty which they exhibit. I ask him to imagine the case of an official at the head of a department who, in case of a dispute, is given instructions to go out and conduct a tramcar. If he says it is no part of his contract, the authority may be entitled to dismiss or prosecute him under this Clause.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the hon. Member is going far from the Clause.
    Mr. FENBY: I was putting it that they could dismiss him or prosecute him.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the hon. Member is proceeding on the hypothesis that it would not be in the terms of the contract, but this Clause only applies where the terms of the contract have been broken.
    Mr. FENBY: That may be so. However, there is the other side of the question which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind. What is really needed is a court of appeal, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic towards that point of view. If he will not consider the Amendment which I have suggested to him, perhaps he will consider the point generally, and, at any rate, if some private Member introduces legislation on the subject, I hope he will

    307
    not show it any opposition. The Subsection will create a new and serious state of affairs. Though the right hon. Gentleman seems to smile at my remarks, but though he himself is an old local administrator, I think he does not realise the effects of the Sub-section. A person should feel the confidence of the person who employs him, confident that so long as he gives fair service he is going to have fair treatment. But occasions do arise when after he has given fair service he does not receive fair treatment, and this Clause is a case in point where, after the loyal service which public officials have given to local authorities for many years they are receiving treatment which is not merited by anything they have done. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept any of the Amendments referred to, he will at any rate go so far as to say he will introduce some kind of court of appeal to which an official can appeal against the decision of the authority, as his right hon. colleague has done in the case of the police, so that at least there may be some security against arbitrary dismissal.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly evident to me from the speeches made by hon. Members opposite that they have not taken the trouble even to look up their references. If they had done so they would not have used the language which they have used. To say the least of it, it has been extravagant. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was, I think, the least extravagant, but he began by saying there were occasions when contracts might be broken without notice. I do not know what was the logical conclusion to be drawn from his remarks, but I think he drew the conclusion that a contract might be broken under certain circumstances.
    Mr. DUNNICO: The conclusion which I wished to convey was this, that whilst, under normal conditions it is unwise and and not right to break a contract, circumstances may arise where a contract can be broken without subjecting the person who broke it to criminal proceedings. That was my point.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presumed the hon. Member was going on to instance one of those cases where the contract
    308
    might be broken in spite of the fact that the result would be to hinder or prevent a local authority from discharging its functions.
    Mr. DUNNICO: That was my point.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the hon. Member does take up exactly the same position as the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, and it is hard to understand why he should say that a person who had wilfully broken his contract of service with the local authority knowing that the result of his action might be to prevent that authority from discharging its functions was placed in a position which was absolutely intolerable by this Clause. One wonders whether words have any meaning at all for some hon. Members when they use such phrases to describe circumstances which, in cold blood, none of them would, I am certain, elect to defend. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded it both seemed to think we were introducing a new condition into local government, and prophesied that this Bill would break us down at the next General Election, and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Fenby) has apparently taken the same view.
    Mr. FENBY: I have never mentioned it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But the hon. Member took the view that we were creating a new condition of affairs. Those were his words. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) instanced the case of a man in an electricity station who broke his contract of service, threw down his tools, and did so knowing that he might prevent a local authority from discharging its function. Did he think it was absolutely beyond reason, and an altogether new condition of affairs, that the Government should seek to put such a man in the position provided by this Sub-section? He has been in that position for the last eight years. Have hon. Members not realised that what this Clause does is to make a small extension of the existing provision of an Act of Parliament, a provision which, as far as gas and water employeés are concerned, has existed for 52 years, and as far as employeés in electricity stations are concerned, for eight years. All we

    309
    are doing is to apply the same provision to workers in other local services which are quite as important to the community. Take the case of a lightning strike on the part of the employeés responsible for the removal of house refuse, for the cleansing of the streets or the treatment of sewage. A sudden stoppage of those services might have the most disastrous results on the health, or even on the lives, of the community. It might be much more serious than depriving them of gas or water. It may be said that water is a necessity, but I think one could do without gas. All we are doing is to apply to other services of a local authority the same conditions as have previously applied to one or two particular services.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Is this to apply only where there is a definite contract of service? A number of people have been put into gaol who had no contract.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If they have not got a contract they cannot break it, and this Clause does not apply. There is no new problem. If the hon. Member will look at Section 4 of the Act referred to in this Clause, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, he will see that the same words are used there as are used here. We are not introducing a new provision, but only extending it to other services. In these circumstances I think hon. Members opposite will feel that they have been making much ado about nothing, that there is no revolutionary proposal here nor one which should give rise to the fantastic suggestions made by some hon. Members.
    Mr. DUNNICO: I gave one or two illustrations in order to try to ascertain whether, for example, the Bill covered the case of a caretaker who suddenly ceased work or of a charwoman who suddenly ceased work. It might be construed that their action had hindered the local authority. Does the Clause apply to them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I call fantastic instances. [Interruption.] To my mind they appear to be fantastic. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member is not sincerely putting forward a point to which he attaches importance, but it is fantastic, to my mind, to suggest that the action of a single charwoman or a single caretaker in ceasing work without
    310
    notice could hinder the functions of a local authority. What function of a local authority could be hindered by such a proceeding?
    Mr. DUNNICO: A school session could not be held the following morning because the charwoman had not swept out the It is not fair to misrepresent school what I have said. I gave an illustration of a non-provided school, which may be a Church school or a Nonconformist school. The caretaker of the school is in the employ of the local council. That school may be used overnight for some function for which the furniture has been disarranged and everything upset. If the caretaker ceased work at 11 or 12 o'clock that night it might be that no school session could be held the following morning.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It seems to me it is quite impossible to sustain the contention that no session could be held the next morning. It is obvious that some inconvenience might be caused. The hon. Member suggested that the fact that that charwoman, apparently at a moment when it was to be assumed that she was not thinking at all, had thrown down her tools and refused to carry out her contract of service—even if it entered her head that it might hinder the authority—would be liable. I must call his attention to the actual words of the Clause which says:
    "If any person … knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences."
    Those words exclude the unreasonable imaginary case which the hon. Member has in mind.
    I come now to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, who suggested that there should be a right of appeal. Why should there be a right of appeal now, when there has been no right of appeal in the last 52 years for employeés of other undertakings? To put forward as analogous the Bill introduced by the Home Secretary to deal with the case of the police forces is to overlook what the terms of the Bill are. The appeal given there is an appeal against the action of a Committee of a Council which has dismissed an employeé. We are not talking here about the action of a local authority at all. We are dealing here with the case of a man who has broken his contract

    311
    of service and who is brought—or dragged, to use the phrase of the hon. Member—before the magistrate. If he is convicted he has the ordinary right of appeal to quarter sessions, and there is no case for setting up a further court of appeal. We are not dealing with some arbitrary act on, the part of a committee of a council but with the action of a magistrate.
    Mr. MORRIS: May I put a question with regard to the suggestion that in line 10 we should insert the word "essential" before the word "functions"? The right hon. Gentleman said the illustrations given by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) were fantastic. I agree that the language of this Clause has not gone much beyond the language of the Act of 1875, but it has gone beyond it in one particular point. The Act of 1875 deals with "essential functions." This Clause omits the word "essential," and I assume it was deliberately omitted. To bring a man under this Clause there must first be a breach of contract and, secondly, the person should know or have reasonable cause to believe that his act will hinder—not merely prevent, but hinder—the discharge of the functions of the authority. If in the illustration given the headmaster of the school were substituted for the caretaker, the illustration would be complete. Will the right hon. Gentleman insert the word "essential"?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I omitted to reply to that point. But I think the effect of adding the word "essential" would be to create a new problem. One would then have to consider what are "essential" functions. Some hon. Members opposite might easily differ from other hon. Members as to what are essential functions. There are one or two functions about which everyone would be agreed, but if we range over the whole activities of local authorities there are certain to be some which would be regarded as very essential by some people and as non-essential by others. If that word were to be inserted, it would be necessary to have a definition which could only take the form of a long list of services, which would require to be
    312
    added to from time to time, and it is very doubtful whether it would be worth while to incur that obligation.
    Mr. FENBY: May I ask the Minister, if he does not think it will be much better than some of the things he is out to do under this particular Clause?
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The Minister of Health, in defending this Clause, argued that it is no more than a mere extension of Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and he made light of some of the cases which have been cited on this side of the Committee. I think the reply he has given, in the circumstances, if I may say so quite frankly, is inadequate, arid he charges us here with having failed to go back to our references for the purposes of this Debate. With regard to the passages in the Act of 1875, we find that they refer to the exposing of human life to danger, the exposing of persons to the risk of bodily injury, the destruction, or even the serious waste or abuse of property, and above all to the malicious and wilful breaking of a contract. All these terms are perfectly clear, and they have been well understood during the years which have elapsed since 1875. Most of us have recognised that some kind of provision of that description is necessary in the vital services of the community such as gas, water, electricity, and others.
    The Minister now rests his case on the argument that it is a mere extension of the spirit and the purpose of the Act of 1875, but we have only got to look at the Clause before us in this Bill to see that it is drawn in very wide and very general terms. It is perfectly true that this Clause, and the Section in the Act of 1875 both begin by specifying a breaking of the contract, but whereas on the one side, in the Act of 1875, we have the serious consequences described, we have in this Bill nothing more than the reference to a hindrance or interference with the functions of the local authority. When the Minister of Health is challenged by one of my hon. Friends behind to say whether that will include the charwomen or any of the other minor employeés of local authorities he affects to regard the case as fantastic. The point before the Committee is not what the Minister of Health believes to be the interpretation of the meaning of this Clause. What we

    313
    have to consider is the construction that may be placed upon a Clause of this kind in the average court of law in this country, where men or women, as the case may be, are in conflict with a local authority. Of course, it is in no way unfair to suggest that the local authority starts with a position of very great advantage as regards resources and everything else. Under this Clause, if any individual can be held to be merely hindering the work of the local authority, that, for all we know, may come within the Clause. It is perfectly true that it always depends upon the wilful breaking of the contract.
    I wish, personally, to be perfectly frank with the Committee on this point. You may have a clearer case when dealing with a man who is immediately and directly involved where a contract has been broken, but when you pass to some dispute which arises, and men adjacent to this employment who wish to protect themselves or some individual take what may amount to strike action, or withdraw their labour, or commit some interference with the discharge of the functions of the local authority, they will be held to have committed a breach of contract, and, as I understand this Clause, will be immediately exposed to the summary penalties described. We have only got to exercise not our imagination but a little common sense to see that if this be rigorously applied, it is going to be impossible for large numbers of people employed by the local authorities to take a perfectly legitimate step in what may be circumstances of great provocation to defend themselves at the hands of the local authority, which may, perhaps, be an exception to the general run of local authorities, but which, nevertheless, does exist.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state a little more clearly what he means?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am referring here to what may be called sympatnetic action.
    Sir K. WOOD: Sympathetic strike?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Sympathetic action of men or employeés surrounding a particular case of an employée whose circumstances were in dispute, and who, themselves, if they took the step of threatening or
    314
    withdrawing their labour, would be held to be committing a breach of contract.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an illustration of what he means?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There are many illustrations where men employed by a local authority might feel a grievance of a colleague so keenly that they might even consider it their duty to come out in support of that man.
    Sir K. WOOD: Without notice?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I agree that the point of notice is important. The hon. Gentleman opposite emphasised the point of contract, but I am only describing circumstances which I believe to be possible.
    Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman realises that it is a vital consideration, whether it is with, or without notice.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, it is vital to the consideration of the Clause, but when you have circumstances and conditions in which large numbers employed by local authorities in terms which you cannot point to as a contract exposed to risk, I say these circumstances should be safeguarded in this Bill. It is quite impossible to give chapter and verse in defence of a Clause of this kind, which is a wide extension of the provisions of the Act of 1875. My hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) says that before you expose employeés in a local authority to that risk, you should set up some kind of machinery for the purpose of arbitration or conciliation. The reply of the Minister to that was that for all practical purposes that would not come within the scope of this Bill. He makes no particular pledge as to their attitude towards it in further legislation. It is undeniable that in this particular Sub-section you are placing employeés of the local authority in this country in a peculiar position, because they are unlike others in not possessing machinery for dealing with what would be, in most cases, an urgent problem of this kind. The Minister, therefore, extends the provision of the Act of 1875, and he gives no opportunity for arbitration or conciliation by recognising machinery to enable these employeés to

    315
    protect themselves. I think the Clause which appears later on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and the hon. Member for East Bradford is a Clause,which should certainly be favourably considered in connection with a provision of this description. For my part, when the Minister of Health and the Government refuse to make a concession of that kind, there is no option but to resist this, as we resist all other parts of the Bill.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: Hon. Members will be interested to hear a note from this side in sympathy with the last speaker. As a member of the ruling party in this House, I must claim to have some right of independent judgment, and it does seem to me that there is absolutely no justification for sweeping within the terms of a penal Statute a large body of men, from the town clerk of the most important borough in the Kingdom down to the scavengers who are employed in sanitary duties; sweeping them within an Act which is called the Law of Conspiracy Act, and which contains penal provisions for a breach of the conditions of that Act. There is a difference—the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) referred to it, although I do not think he made it perfectly clear—between this proposal and the Act of 1875, and it is a difference against the men, because under the Act of 1875 it was not only necessary to prove the breaking of a contract but it had to be maliciously done. Now, no malice is necessary. Apparently, all that is necessary is to show that the employeé had a reasonable expectation that his acts would prevent the discharge of the functions of the authority.
    I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, whose ability in his office no one in this House questions, whether he can state what acts have been committed by municipal servants during the 52 years that the Act of 1875 has been upon the Statute Book which would justify sweeping them in at the present moment. Why should municipal servants be help up outside all the other classes, except those that are already covered in the Statutes
    316
    which deal with gas, electricity and water, to be singled out? The very Clause is an opprobrium. It is a suggestion that they are a lawless body who break their contracts. I think I am right in saying that no example can be found. A strike because there is a difference on a question of pay cannot be cited as an illustration. What we want is justification for proving that these people have at one time or another over the long range of years that this Act has been upon the Statute Book, been guilty of such conduct that in these times, after the experience of last year, it is necessary to include them in legislation of this sort. Unless such evidence can be given, it is unfair to single out a, distinguished service like this.
    I have been pretty closely associated, ever since I was fortunate enough to get passed the Superannuation Bill, for municipal servants, in 1922, with the National Association of Local Government Servants, which largely comprises local government services throughout the Kingdom, and an association of that sort has done, and is doing, incalculably valuable work to raise the status of municipal servants as a whole. Of course, when one refers to municipal servants, one's mind generally carries one to the administrative staff and those immediately in touch with them, and I do think that they have a right to complain that, without any cause, they have been singled out by this legislation as if they were a body of people who ought to be looked upon as potential criminals, to be dealt with in this Statute. It is a very unhandsome thing for the Government to have done.
    9.0 p.m.
    I have supported the Government throughout, and under the conditions in which we are working it is very difficult to refuse to support them on this Sub-section, merely because this one particular point has been disregarded by the Minister of Health. I think the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside the argument far too lightly. The Government must consider that there are other persons to be consulted, whose views must have respect in matters of this sort. They may be perfectly sure that it is not a welcome thing to take part in the Debate on the line which I am taking now; but the test of all these things is, what is just? If you cannot justify this Clause by reference

    317
    to acts in the past, I think we ought to have some special saving Clause, such as the one on the Paper, to provide that these people are not to be looked upon as if they had a bad history. Suppose that the tramway employeés of a borough were to come out on strike, without notice: an illegal lightning strike; and suppose the borough council were to say to the chief officers or to the clerks and the engineering staff: "You must go to run the tramways. You shall take part in this work. Suppose they objected to do that. Would that be an illegal breaking of contract? I assume from general experience that an agreement for service would be probably in general terms, so that, technically, it might be said that any duty might be imposed upon them in their employment; but I think the Courts would say that the scope was the scope of the employment in which they were engaged. My main protest is that you should slur a body of servants as loyal as any servants in the Kingdom, who are doing a great work, and whose capabilities are as great as those of any servants in a Government Department The aristocracy of the municipal service is every bit as great as the aristocracy of the Civil Service, and they are rapidly improving their position. I contend that before we pass this Clause there ought to be evidence of such conduct in the past as to justify such a proposal.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not wish to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) in all his points, but he said that the Government were singling out the municipal employeés. I do not agree with him. They have not singled them Out any more than they have singled out the whole of the working class. The municipal employeé, as far as the Government are concerned, including the town clerks, are members of the working class, although the town clerk and the fraternity of which the right hon. Member for Ealing spoke, the "Algy" class, do not think that they are members of the working class. They think that they are something superior. I know a number of them, and I tell them here publicly that they are simply members of the working class; they have to work for wages. The working class is
    318
    that part of society which renders useful service to society, and it is that part of society that this Government, this Bill and this Clause have set out to cripple. The Government are seeking to cripple the power of the worker to say "no." This Clause, like the whole of the Bill, is a result of the workers stopping work in defence of the miners. That is why this Bill has been introduced. It is to keep individuals like myself from going to tramwaymen, as I have done, and appeal to them to stop work in sympathy with their fellows. This Clause would take away that right. It is the same thing in the case of the gas workers and the producers of electricity.
    The ruling classes of this country got the fright of their life during the general strike. I was one of those who was in favour of the general strike, and I shall do all I can to further the interests of the workers in having the power to stop work when they like. Just think of the position. Supposing I wish to assist my fellows who are on strike in the Clyde dockyards—and I am speaking now as an engineer working for the Glasgow Corporation—I am to be denied the right of stopping work in order to assist them. Summed up in a few words the position is this. It has been the policy of the Attorney-General, of the ruling classes of this country, right from Rome's imperial days down to the present moment, to divide and conquer. It has been the policy of the ruling classes of this country to divide the working classes, There is nothing which the ruling classes fear more than unity in the working class movement, and this Bill and this Clause are designed for the express purpose of keeping the workers from uniting. That has been the policy in every strike we have had. Take the engineers. They were divided when the boilermakers came out on strike. I can remember it 40 years ago. The
    boilermakers came out, but the engineers were working, and the boilermakers were defeated. Take a more concrete case; take the mining industry. The miners in South Wales were on strike, but the miners in Lanarkshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire were working. It is even worse than that. When the Lanarkshire miners were on strike——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular Sub-section deals with the employeés of a local authority, not with miners, who break their contracts. That is the whole substance of this Subsection.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree, but the effect of this Clause is to keep the individuals who come under this ban from assisting their fellows, and I think I am entitled to make that point if you will allow me to do so. When the Lanarkshire miners were on strike the Fifeshire miners were working. Those were the days when the employers were able to smash the miners, but the day came when the workers of this country had sense and banded themselves together as an industry. Now they are going further, and last year they not only fought as an industry but the working classes spontaneously stopped work in defence of the miners, and because the miners were supported in this way we have this Bill and this Clause. It is introduced in order to keep the workers from calling a sympathetic strike in defence of the rest of their fellows. The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) put it very aptly in the course of his speech. He was speaking for a section of the working classes which is fairly comfortable, but I am speaking for the working classes which at the moment are anything but comfortable, that is the large mass of the workers who to-day, in this the greatest Empire upon which the sun has ever shone, are starving.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Subsection only refers to the particular class of employeés who are in the service of local authorities.
    Mr. KELLY: May I respectfully suggest that it applies to more than that one class, and that it applies to more than municipalities? I suggest that it applies to more than local authorities.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We were informed in your absence, Captain FitzRoy, that we could deal with the whole Clause, and that my Amendments on the Order Paper would not be called.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question we are dealing with now is the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, which only deals with the employeés of a local or other public authority.
    Mr. KELLY: "Or other public authority."
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I gather that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) is giving the miners' case as an illustration. Is it not the fact that a number of municipalities who are large consumers of coal are seriously considering becoming the owners of their own collieries, and therefore the miners may come under the future administration of this Sub-section?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If miners are employed by a local authority they will come under the provisions of this Sub-section.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I believe that the Glasgow Corporation does own a coal mine of its own, and it might be conceivable, if the miners come out on strike, that the employeés of the Glasgow Corporation might be called upon to help to do their work.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see why they should not, so long as they do not break their contracts, under this Clause.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I understood the point was that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) should not refer to the miners in opposing this Subsection. We are opposing the whole principle of the Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If miners are employed by a local authority then the hon. Member would be in order.
    Mr. KELLY: I suggest that the words "or other public authority" will include such bodies as the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and all those electricity authorities which were set up by the Act of last year. In some cases these authorities do own coal mines.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that if they employ miners they will come under this Sub-section.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing in the course of his remarks said that one would think that the individuals who run municipalities were criminals. That is what he said.
    Sir H. NIELD: There is a limit to human endurance. This afternoon I have

    321
    made no such sweeping statement. I said we were bringing them within the terms of a penal Statute.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when he gets the OFFICIAL REPORT of his speech he will see that he said that they were being treated as if they were criminals.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was "potential criminals."
    Mr KIRKWOOD: I am one of those who believe that there is to be a battle-royal, and that it should be fought as a battle-royal. This Bill should be fought line by line. The Bill in general treats the working class as if they were an army of criminals, and not working people at all. Surely it is better to treat them with justice and respect, and not as an army of criminals. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health tried to follow up the argument about individuals coming out on strike who were working on contracts. I will state distinctly what is the Socialist position, and what I have done time and time again, and what I will do again independently of all the Acts on the Statute Book. I shall urge the workers to stop work whether there is a contract or not when they feel that these things are being put up against them. There will not be any dubiety in that connection. You may rush some people, but you will not rush us. We will stand up to the business, and we have as good a reputation as you have.
    This is a damnable Bill. It is said that this Clause and this Bill have been loosely framed. I have listened for days to the lawyers—"Oh, ye lawyers!" I have heard lawyer after lawyer on all sides of the Committee, even down to the Liberal party, telling us how this Clause and this Bill have been loosely framed. They have told us that there has not been enough thought given to it, that it has been brought on suddenly, and that the Government had to rush into the breach. This Clause proves to me, as an ordinary layman, that it was not only loosely drafted but cunningly drafted. What is the use of trying to camouflage a Clause like this, which is going to affect men and women in regard to the only thing they have got? It is all right to talk about this and that person being patriotic, what they
    322
    have sacrified, and what they are prepared to do. Think what this involves! Here is a man who has probably made many sacrifices, and so have his parents before him, in order that he may get into a decent job, and because he has got into that job and happens to be under a municipality, or local authority or another authority, and that other authority may be the Government—it may be an engineer working in Portsmouth or in Devonport—you are going to tie him up in this way. Is this the recompense that the Attorney-General is going to give to my fellow-countrymen after the sacrifices they made during the War? Is this what is going to happen after the engineers have surrendered all their trade rights and given up everything at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? They gave up the rights of their craft when their country was in danger, and they were then promised all manner of things. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said it was an engineers' war. What do we find to-day? We find those same engineers or their labourers working for 36s. a week, and even a fully-skilled man is only getting £2 15s.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We really must get back to the Sub-section. The hon. Members is now talking about something that has nothing to do with the Sub-section.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Sub-section deals with municipal authorities, local authorities, and other authorities, and I am dealing with the other authorities. The engineers work under many of those authorities. I do not wish to take any advantage or say anything that does not come within the rules of order as far as it is humanly possible, but I am going to express my feelings and the views of the man in the shop. The engineer is up against all these things. Not long ago the engineers put in an application for an increase of £1 a week in their wages, and the employers offered them 2s. a week. Have we no rights?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All that has nothing to do with this Sub-section.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: These are engineers. I have got to excuse hon. Gentlemen opposite because they know nothing

    323
    about this business of having to work as an engineer.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member quite understands. I find no fault in his referring to engineers; I do not want him to refer to engineers in general, but only to those who are employed by local or public authorities.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was explaining what was happening to the engineers who work under the municipalities with whom I am acquainted, namely, the Glasgow Corporation. The engineers were working for them and the Government, in the electricity department, the gas department, the water department and practically in every department.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Not at that rate.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: My hon. Friend says, "Not at that rate." I cannot speak for your corporation. If you had listened you would have heard what I said. I had no idea I had descended so low down as Grimsby. But this is a serious business, as far as the municipal employeés are concerned, very serious indeed and it is one of the Clauses of this Bill that will be defied if it gets on the Statute Book. Just fancy a Clause in a Bill of a character like this which calls for statements made by statesmen of the very highest character in the world! [An HON. MEMBER: "Kingsley Wood!"] He is in the No. 3 class, and I was referring to the top-notchers. I am referring to our Leader, the Leader of the Labour Parliamentary party. [HON. MEMBERS "Which one?"] The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), who is not an extremist in any sense of the term. The Attorney-General has not yet realised the depth and degradation to which he has sunk in introducing a Clause like this that calls for a reprimand such as our Leader has passed on this Bill when he said that as soon as we come into power— because we are coming into power—this will be removed off the Statute Book. If the present statesmen were in earnest about the welfare of my native land, and if the present Government had been anxious for the welfare of our country and anxious to look after the welfare of the municipalities
    324
    on which this Clause has a bearing, they never would have tied up men in this fashion. It is again a case of
    "Oh Liberty! what deeds are done in thy name!"
    Madame Roland said that, and we have to say it many times as long as this Government hold sway in this country. If the present rulers—Oh! the ruler that we have in Israel to-day; look at the rulers!—if your rulers had been anxious for the interest of Birmingham or Glasgow you would never have put in a Clause like this to deny men their liberty and their rights, when you say because men and women come to work under a municipality that they will be set as a thing apart, and will not be allowed to have any contact with their fellows. You should go further and build barracks and house them the same as the soldiers! Do the Attorney-General and the rogues that drafted this Clause think by this method of procedure they will divide the municipal employeés from the general body of the working class? There is no other intention in this Clause than dividing the workers and taking the municipal employeés and placing them apart from the rest of the working class. What harm have the municipal employeés done? What is the trouble? Why this attack on the municipal employeés? Is there any town or municipality where the employeés let the town down even during the general strike? You cannot show a single instance. It is perfectly true there were certain individuals in Woolwich who would come under this Clause. We had a rate-fixer in Woolwich who stopped work on that occasion, and because he stopped work, and because he was rate-fixer, he never was allowed to go back again. This Government stopped him. They not only stopped him from working, but the action they took at that time killed that man. They broke his heart. Do you think that is the action which any respectable body of men could he brought to take?
    The Leader of our party condemned this Clause when he was far removed from the scene of conflict, when he was away in another land, unbiased, without any heat, his calm, considered judgment, not an extremist like me but the responsible head of the next Government of this country. He said that as soon as they came into power they would remove

    325
    this Clause from the Statute Book. If this Government had the welfare of the municipal employeé at heart, they would never have put forward this Clause. Had it not been that they feared the black-coated gentlemen in municipal employment they would never have brought forward this Bill. It is evident that we were perfectly right at the first meeting of our party when we decided that we were not going to amend the Bill one iota.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a little beyond the particular subject about municipal employeés breaking their contract.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Captain FitzRoy ruled out all my Amendments and said we should be at liberty to bring in the whole range of the Clause. That is the reason we are on it now. You will find it says not only a municipal authority but other authorities. That is the reason I am covering the whole field. We decided as a party that we would not bring forward anything that was going to improve this Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now talking about the whole Bill. The particular question before the Committee is the omission of Sub-section (2). Since I have occupied the Chair for the last eight or nine minutes, the hon. Member has gone on in the most exemplary way. Now I think he is getting over the line.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Sub-section (2) comes under the same category as the Bill in what I was going to say. That was that we decided unanimously that we were not going to improve this Clause in any way, nor any Sub-section of it, but we were going to oppose it and draw the attention of our class in the country to the despicable action of this Government. Even municipal employeés have to be set apart and treated in this way when they cannot produce a single municipality that was hampered in a general sense by the general strike, so-called. They can pass all the Bills and Clauses they like. It was not the trade unoin leaders that called the strike. It has been stated from the Front Bench by more than one trade union leader that they had advised the opposite line of action, but that the workers stopped work themselves. This Government can pass all the Bills and put in all the Clauses they like, but there is one thing
    326
    they cannot do. You may lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member's argument referring to some municipal waterworks?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You will find, without going out of London, any number of water-tanks for horses to get a drink. I was only using that as an illustration to lighten the somewhat darkened minds of England, that you can pass all these Rules and Regulations, but you cannot make men work when they make up their mind that they are not going to do it. You talk about municipal employeés. I can remember during the War, when a certain section of municipal employeés had a just grievance, but it was a terrible crime to strike. In fact we on the Clyde were worse than the Germans. I said to myself, "They would shoot me before they would shoot the Germans." But this detachment of municipal employeés took a new line. They did not go on strike. They did not go out and walk the streets and imperil their lives like the ordinary, common working man. They went to the works and did no work. That was what you call the "stay-in" strike and it is the whole combination of all these things that has caused this Government to have a Clause of this character.
    It has at last dawned on the minds of the ruling class, the power behind the present throne, that the workers of this country are realising their power and all that they require to do to exercise their power is simply to stay at home. Stay at home, do no work, instead of going against soldiers and policemen. Have a week in bed. I am simply here to fight to the best of my ability preaching, in the opinion of the Government, sedition. I want my class to be ready whenever the time comes to stop work and never mind whether they have a contract or not. A contract! Why should we make any contract with the enemies of our class who live on our flesh and blood, who dine and wine and wax fat every day, who
    "toil not, neither do they spin, yet … Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
    I oppose it with all the power I have, and I shall oppose it. I will do all I can to rouse my class against men who

    327
    at the moment are not only plotting against the workers of this country, but against the workers of the world in order to have a war to try and destroy the great working-class movement the world over.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) and his attitude on this Clause, which is not to try to amend a line of it, as he has stated; but, on looking down the Amendment Paper, I find a lot of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: They were only put in as a means to an end, in order that I might make a speech.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: The Opposition have changed their mind on every point, and they have come to the conclusion that it would be wise to amend the Bill. I was also interested in the remarks he made in respect of the engineers, and he included the engineers who were employed by the municipal authorities. I will say, quite candidly, that I agree with him that the wages paid to engineers are a scandal to the nation, but I am going to point out that there are municipalities which have not stuck to the scale of wages fixed by the national associations connected with the engineering trade, and pay a reasonable rate of wages. I want to speak on this Sub-section as one with 16 years' experience of municipal work, as chairman of a works committee for many years and representative on the general industrial council. I welcome this Clause. I consider it wise and necessary that the local authorities should have to maintain the essential services of this country, and I am going to submit to my hon. Friend below the Gangway that it is going to be in the best interests of the trade unions themselves. Some few years ago we had a strike of engineers in my district and the people were in sympathy with the men who came out in the strike. But the leaders persuaded the men who worked at an electricity undertaking to come out in sympathy with them, not because the men had any complaint about wages or hours and conditions, but simply as a sympathetic strike with their so-called brother engineers to get for them what they wanted. The result was
    328
    that immediately public sympathy went wholly against the engineers of that district, and instead of getting the terms they might have got if they had fought the battle on their own, the action created an atmosphere which was not in their favour at all.
    I am going to suggest to trade unionists that it is as well that these workmen in the employment of local authorities who have to maintain the essential services of this country should be apart in this question of trade disputes. In most local authorities to-day we have the general industrial council in operation, and in many cases wages are higher than in similar occupations that are not under local authorities, and it is not in the interests of local authorities that they should come out in sympathy with those outside. You must also bear in mind that when it is a question of a contract among employés of local authorities, it is the poorer people of the town who suffer most. They are the people who are going to have the hardships brought upon them by the action of the men. Undoubtedly it is a protection to the local authorities and the employeés and the community that such a Clause should be placed on the Statute Book. I welcome it, and I hope the Government will not accede to any Amendment unless it be framed in the proper light.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: I have been brought to my feet by the speeches which have just been delivered. I am not going to follow the example of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). He explained to us, in the course of his few remarks, his desire to do nothing to the Bill. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this particular Clause if he will not consider carefully that there might be an Amendment made to the Sub-section which will improve the Bill and do something in a little less time than it has taken the hon. Member to do nothing. The hon. Member who has just sat down used, in the course of his remarks, three times the words "essential services." Now if this Sub-section dealt with essential services only, that is to say, those services upon which the health and safety of the community depend, I would not have had a word to say against it, but this Sub-section

    329
    uses language of the widest possible scope. I cannot imagine that any Subsection dealing with this point could use language capable of a wider interpretation. It says:
    "If any person employed by a local or other public authority wilfully breaks a contract of service with that authority, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequence of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to hinder or prevent the discharge of the functions of the authority …"
    Surely, to "hinder or prevent the discharge of the functions of the authority" can only be interpreted to include all the possible functions of an authority, the simplest, least essential function. Do the Government really desire to make criminals of men who break a contract, when breaking that contract may not have the slightest effect on the health, life or convenience of the community? That seems to be going a very long way. If the Government could see their way to introduce some words, either the word "essential," as has been suggested from these benches, or something of a similar effect, it would do two things. It would enlist in support of this Sub-section a very large number of people who now would not support it, and—what is worth doing—it would not possibly create any large number of criminals out of men who really might be doing an action which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be called criminal.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. POTTS: I support the proposal to delete this Sub-section. Anyone who reads the Sub-section must come to the conclusion that it is one-sided and does not act equally between the authority and the employeé. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said that workmen working for a corporation would not come out in sympathy with other people who were on strike or were locked out, as the case might be. The hon. Member could not have read this Sub-section. It does not deal alone with people who come out in sympathy; it deals with a single individual. I hope that the Government, and the Minister of Health in particular, will take note of their own draft of this Sub-section. The last speaker read the Sub-section up to a given point, but he stopped short
    330
    just where its actual importance comes in. Let me carry it a little further:—
    "If any person employed by a local or other public authority wilfully breaks a contract of service with that authority, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequence of his so doing, either alone"—
    those are the words—
    "or in combination with others"—
    He can do it individually. An individual stopping under any conditions is creating an offence, and is stopping in contravention of his contract. I happen to be one of those people who have all my life believed that where a contract exists, whether under private enterprise or under corporations it should be carried out as far as one possibly can and that if it were terminated, it should be done in accordance with law. While, on the one side, this Sub-section imposes penalties on workmen for breach of contract, it lays no penalties on the corporation which breaks a contract with the employé. More than that, if the Bill becomes law, a person working for a public authority who breaks his contract can not only be dealt with under this Sub-section, but he can be had up before the Civil Court and sued for damages. He can be doubly prosecuted. I have been in Court hundreds of times, in various capacities, and I have listened to magistrates trying cases for breaches of contract, and imposing penalties where such breaches have taken place. In addition, if an individual is convicted under this Sub-section, he can be fined anything up to £10 or given three months' imprisonment. Is not that a severe penalty? Are there no reasons why a man should break his contract? Let me come to that point. I am not speaking without knowing exactly what I am talking about. I have been on the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have been on other public authorities, I have occupied the chair; and I have been in all kinds of public life in this country. I have known men, under the authority of which I was Chair-man, to break their contract; I have also known the surveyor of a corporation break his side of the contract. If this Sub-section had been law at that time, in this particular case those people could have been had up; but there would have been nothing to bring the surveyor of the

    331
    corporation to book because he happened, by reducing wages and altering conditions without notice, to break the contract.
    Therefore, I say that this is a one-sided condition which never ought to exist. Supposing a surveyor altered a contract of service, either by reducing wages or altering conditions, would the employeé, if he stopped work and resisted a reduction of wages, be had up in accordance with the law? Possibly he would, and he would be liable to a fine of anything up to £10 or three months' imprisonment. Let us make a comparison and assume, for argument's sake, as an hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that the corporation clerk or the surveyor, who are important officials of the corporation, have 25 per cent. of their wages cut off without notification by the corporation, would either of those officials stop? Would they work? I question whether they would go on working. You would find that even those officials would go on strike if there had been a large reduction of their wages, as was the case with the workmen. I want to come nearer than that and bring it home to Ministers, and particularly to the Attorney-General, who has very largely drawn this Bill. Supposing Parliament itself, by a majority of this House, decided to reduce the wages of the Cabinet from £6,000 to £1,000 a year, would the Cabinet work? There you have it at once. Would they carry on the work of the Government? I say that they would not. Let this House, by a Resolution, reduce their salaries as from next week by £4,000 a year, and you would find that the Cabinet would go on strike equally as the workmen did. There is no law to punish the Cabinet for refusing to carry on the Government; they can resign at any time they like; but the workpeople cannot do that.
    I say that the two things are very much identical. I hope the Attorney-General even now will undertake to withdraw this Clause. The Clause is too one-sided. It is drawn in favour of the corporations and it is unworkable. The Government cannot work it. We have in our various corporations and in our public authorities a large amount of work which is carried on on what are called day-to-day contracts, but really they are no contracts at all, but they are understandings between the two parties. They last for
    332
    the time that the particular job may last. Such a job may last until next Tuesday if it is taking place now, and when it is finished the working-people stop. They have no written contracts in any shape or form. It is a mere understanding between them, but under this Clause they may be taken to a Court of Law and prosecuted even although no written contract exists. I have never known, or very rarely known, any written contracts in regard to corporations. It is merely a common understanding.
    Therefore, I suggest that the Clause is one-sided. There are no penalties imposed on the corporations and on the authorities where they reduce people's wages, and cause people to take some action because they cannot live. I hope that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health in this matter will consider what they are doing. They will find that the corporations and the county councils and the local authorities will in due course tell the Government that they cannot possibly work this Bill. They cannot work this Clause, and I hope that common sense will prevail and that the restrictive conditions proposed in this Clause will not be imposed upon employés. This Clause is ridiculous; it is impossible, and it is driving the working people who are employed by public authorities to resist. They will come out on strike, I do not say illegally, but they will combine and give notice to terminate their contracts. I hope the Attorney-General will take another view altogether and that he will think about himself. If he had any reduction imposed upon him he would resist equally as anyone in this country working for a living. To fine a man £10 for a single offence, which is only illegal for one or two days, means that he will have to find four or five weeks' wages to pay for that fine. The Attorney-General receives about £96 a week apart from expenses.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Attorney-General can have a contract of service with any local authority, or a contract of service at all.
    Mr. POTTS: No, he has no contract with any public authority, but he has drafted a Bill which seeks to impose upon people who work for corporations conditions that cannot be carried out. He is responsible for it and he is in the service of the Government. He and his

    333
    party are returned by the people to pass laws in this House. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite have the consolation of knowing that though they number two to one against this side they have not a majority vote in the country. If they went to the country on this Bill they would find that when they came back there would be not more than half of them in this House. I hope that hon. Members on the other side will think this matter out. A contract should be on different lines from this, and there should be equality. There is no equality in this Clause; it is one-sided. It is entirely devised, construed, and constructed for the purpose of preventing combination among working men and preventing employés going out. That is the real meaning of it, and that is the real intention of this Clause as it is drafted and inserted in this Bill. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us that he is going to withdraw this Clause and that he is going to let the working men who are working for corporations and other public bodies, who are getting on very well and who are on very friendly terms, continue as they are doing at present, and that he is not going to disturb the relationship which now exists. I hope he will withdraw the Clause and will allow the friendly conditions that have prevailed in the past to continue between public authorities and the working people employed by them.
    Commander WILLIAMS: One would almost imagine, from the last speech and from some of the other speeches that we have heard this evening, that the Government, under this Clause, were performing some monstrous and wicked act that enabled hon. Members opposite to pour forth on the unhappy heads of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting in front of me the not very violent but very wordy speeches to which we have listened this evening. If we look at this very harmless Sub-section of a very excellent Clause, in probably one of the best Bills ever introduced, we find that not for one minute does it prevent any sort or kind of dispute between the local authority and those whom they employ. It does not take away any of the rights of the employeés of a local authority. It enables them to enter into the usual negotiations as far as their wages are
    334
    concerned in the future as they have been doing in the past. It enables them to carry on those negotiations through the usual channels in the future as in the past, and if, at the end of those negotiations, they cannot come to agreement, they are perfectly welcome and able, under this Sub-section of the Bill, to leave their work and to go on strike. There is nothing in the world in this Sub-section to prevent them from doing that.
    What, then, is the good of getting up and saying that the Government are taking away the rights of the working men; that they are depriving them of the means of getting better wages or better conditions? Surely, hon. Gentlemen opposite who take that point, of view, who bring it forward on every occasion in the House, either on this Sub-section or other Sub-sections, do not they think that sooner or later the average individual in this country who, can read and who can understand, when hereads this Clause, and sees how simple it is and how plain it is, do not they really imagine that, when that individual sees what it is, he will want to know what all this back-chat is about? I really
    believe that that is the whole trouble of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They cannot quite see how they can get out of the very unfortunate statements which were made by odds and ends of their leaders in the early discussions on the Bill. They take the view that they must be up and busy doing something. But what actually happens under this Clause? The only thing that happens is that the municipal employés have to keep their contracts. The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that he, like other Britishers, believes in the value of contracts. I believe that members of every party, or most members of every party, would like to keep their contracts as far as possible. This enables them to keep their contracts. It enables, them to live up to that high standard of moral honesty which we—English people, Welsh people and Scottish people alike—understand and feel. I rather wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would cheer that sentiment. In their hearts they are a long way better than they make them-selves out to be. They believe in a very high standard indeed and, in saying so, I am not even excepting the

    335
    Communist party, if they should happen to be anywhere about.
    This Sub-section simply says that municipal employeés cannot suddenly "down tools" and go off in breach of their agreements. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they want to encourage municipal work; they say that gas, electricity and all these services should be run by municipal enterprise, in the interests of the community, and they bring in Bills to that effect. Yet in this case, they seem to forget the interests of the community and of the corporations, in their desire that a certain select body of individuals should be allowed suddenly to go on strike and break their contracts. I believe that in the interests of the whole community it is worth while to lay down simply and clearly, once and for all, the position in this respect of municipal workers. We know that these workers give the best possible service they can to the community. Most of us will agree with that, although we may not agree very much with the extension of municipal enterprise. But if the municipalities and the nation are dependent on this section of workers, the municipalities and the nation have a right to the protection of the law against sudden strikes which may endanger the health of particular towns or of the country at large. For that reason we believe that the contract which the municipal workers make with their employers, who are the electors of the municipality, is one which ought to be kept on both sides.
    Mr. PALING: I wish the matter were as simple as the last speaker has made it out to be, but I cannot take it in that spirit and I rise to ask the Attorney-General to make the position a little plainer. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts). It is quite plain that a man who breaks his contract either alone or in combination with others, is at present liable to proceedings. Is it possible that this Clause makes him liable to a double punishment? I have been connected with mines the managers of which have summoned men for leaving without notice and things of that kind, and they have got damages. I presume the same law applies to municipal employeés and that if one man breaks his
    336
    contract or a dozen men or 20 men break their contracts, provision is already made for dealing with such a case. Are these people to be penalised in a double sense? Can the municipality proceed against these men for damages under the ordinary civil law and also proceed against them under this Clause and secure fines or imprisonment against them? An answer on that point is due to hon. Members on this side from the Attorney-General. Further, it is desirable that we should know if a man who left a job connected with the public authority in breach of contract would be regarded as injuring the carrying on of the functions of that authority or if this provision is intended to mean that he must leave in connection with a strike or anticipated strike or dispute I am anxious to know what this means because I think the Clause is capable of double meanings.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to answer the questions which have been put. The question which the last speaker has just put as regards a double legal remedy does not arise under this Bill. Many hon. Members seem to have forgotten that as regards the general law on the subject, especially in connection with gas and water undertakings, there is nothing new in the provisions of the Bill. In fact they have been in operation in this country for over 50 years and in regard to electricity undertakings they have been on the Statute Book for seven or eight years. Therefore with regard to these three great classes of municipal employés there is nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing alarming about this Clause at all. In regard to the legal remedies it is perfectly open to a municipal authority whose contract has been deliberately broken by one of its employés to pursue both remedies if they so desire. It would be for the Civil Court to determine the amount, if any, of the damages to be awarded to the local authority in the civil proceedings, and it would be for the Criminal Court to decide whether any offence had been committed under this Clause, and, if so, what was the right and proper penalty to be imposed. I should have thought that was a perfectly reasonable and proper proposition.
    Mr. PALING: They are punished twice.
    HON. MEMBERS: It is persecution.
    Sir K. WOOD: There is not the slightest persecution. If an employeé deliberately breaks his contract he must take the consequences. He must be prepared, like every other citizen, to abide by the decision of the Courts of the land, and if they find that he has caused any considerable damage to a local authority he must not complain, and no hon. Member has the right to say it is persecution, if damages are awarded against him.
    The other point put to me was whether one man acting alone would be liable under the Clause. The language of the Clause is perfectly plain. It says:
    "either alone or in combination … hinder or prevent the discharge of the functions."
    It might very well lie in the hands of one man, by deliberately breaking his contract, to hinder or prevent the discharge of the functions of a local authority, and if by his action the local community were plunged into some peril or danger, as can quite reasonably be conceived, I cannot understand why any hon. Member should complain that that man should not be subject to penalties under the law. Every person who comes under the provisions of this Clause will have the right to put his case before the appropriate authority, and if there are any extenuating circumstances they will have to be considered; but how any hon. Member can defend people who deliberately break their contract in this way, and regard them as being victimised or penalised, I cannot understand. As I said just now, so far as three bodies of employeés are concerned, the proposals in this Clause have been the law for the last 50 years, and I am not aware of any injustice, and I suggest that the extension we are proposing is a perfectly proper one.
    Mr. KELLY: What is the extension? How far are you extending it? Are you extending it beyond municipalities?
    Sir K. WOOD: I was just going to deal with that. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd), asked why we had not put the word "essential" in front of the word "functions," so as to make the Clause apply to anyone who broke his contract with regard to the discharge of the "essential functions" of the authority. I very much doubt whether that would be any improvement.
    338
    If we put in the word "essential" we should be in trouble as to what was an essential function and what was not. To my mind any employeé who breaks his contract with regard to any of the functions of an authority has no cause of complaint if proceedings are taken. The Committee will observe that the Clause says that the employé must be guilty of "wilfully" breaking his contract. Suppose he broke his contract in connection with the provision of maternity home accommodation. I say it is just as essential that that man should be liable to a penalty for breaking his contract in connection with the provision of services of that kind as for these other services; although I doubt very much whether we should get complete agreement on that point. It might be said that it was not an absolutely essential service, because not so many years ago it was not a service provided by a local authority at all. I have followed the opposition to this Bill in Committee day by day, but to-night I was unable to follow even the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham), who is usually most plain in the statements he makes, in his opposition to the Bill. The fact of the matter is that there can be no proper and reasonable opposition to a Clause which says that if an employé of a local authority wilfully breaks his contract in connection with the functions of that authority he should become liable to a penalty under the law. If any Clause in this Bill is justified it is this Clause and I ask the Committee to pass it tonight.
    Mr. KELLY: The hon. Member has not told the House to what authorities it is proposed to extend the provisions of this Clause. He has not told us that it is the intention of the Government to extend the Clause to all public authorities, which will bring in docks and harbour boards and other authorities of that kind. It is the intention of the Government to interfere with every effort that is made to improve the conditions of the workers, and it is only want of courage on the part of the occupants of the Treasury Bench which prevents them explaining all that is in their mind.
    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 the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'employed' in line 4, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 120

    Division No. 167.]

    AYES.

    [10. 30 p. m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hunter-Weston, Lt. -Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Jacob, A. E.

    Apsley, Lord

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Astbury, Lieut. -Commander F. W.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Jones, Henry Raydn (Merioneth)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Drewe, C.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Duckworth, John

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Atkinson, C.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Balniel, Lord

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Elveden, Viscount

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    England, Colonel A.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Bethel, A.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lougher, Lewis

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Finburgh, S.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Forrest, W.

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macintyre, Ian

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gadie Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Briant, Frank

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gates, Percy

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Grace, John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Buchan, John

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Burman, J. B.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Morrison, H. (Witts, Salisbury)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cassels, J. D.

    Harland, A.

    Neville, R. J.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Oakley, T.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Christie, J. A.

    Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Cope, Major William

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Raine, W.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ramsden, E.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Robert, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Rye, F. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Wilson, H. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Savery, S. S.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Withers, John James

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

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

    Waddington, R.

    Wood Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Captain Lord Stanley.

    NOES.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sexton, James

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barnes, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sullivan, J.

    Clowes, S.

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Taylor, R A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Connolly, M.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dunnico, H.

    Morris, R. H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Fenby, T. D.

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

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Glbbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Paling, W.

    Whitetey, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hardle, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Charles Edwards.

    The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 125.

    Division No. 168.]

    AYES.

    [10. 42p. m.

    Acland- Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Apsley, Lord

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Astbury, Lieut. -Commander F. W.

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macintyre, Ian

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fielden, E. B.

    McLean, Major A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Finburgh, S.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Forrest, W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gates, Percy

    Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.

    Bethel, A.

    Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grace, John

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Neville, R. J.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

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

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Buchan, John

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Oakley, T

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Hanbury, C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Harland, A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Radford, E. A.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Raine, W

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ramsden, E.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Remnant, Sir James

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. J.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rye, F. G.

    Cope, Major William

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Salmon, Major I.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt. -Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Savery, S. S.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Smithers, Waldron

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Duckworth, John

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lougher, Lewis

    Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)

    344

    345

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Watson, Sir. F (Pudsey and Otley)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)

    Withers, John James

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

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wells, S. R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)

    Tinne, J. A.

    White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Waddington, R.

    Williams, C.P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Captain Lord Stanley.

    NOES.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, south)

    Smille, Robert

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Wallhead Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dennison, R.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Whiteley, W.

    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.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rlley, Ben

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Ritson, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardle, George D.

    Rose. Frank H.

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

    Harney, E. A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurjl

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Restraint of application of funds of trade unions, etc., in contra- vention of Act.)
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is this the Law of Libel Amendment Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee has rejected the Motion to report Progress, therefore we proceed to Clause 7.
    Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Could you give us some indication as to how you are proposing to take the Amendments?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think enough for the evening are the Amendments thereof. The first Amendment—in page 7, line 15, to leave out the words "Without prejudice to the right of any," and to insert instead thereof the words, "No person other than a"—would really negative the Clause. I call on the Second, No. 21.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to submit in connection with this Amendment

    347
    of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) and myself, that it might be of service to allow a short discussion on it.
    The CHAIRMAN: If it were adopted, there would really be nothing left of the Clause. Therefore, I call the next Amendment that is in order.
    Mr. STEPHEN: My Amendment would have the effect of making the position the same as it is at present.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is precisely the case and that is why it negatives the Clause.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I submit that it would be a very suitable Amendment for a general discussion.
    The CHAIRMAN: With the consent of the Committee, I should be prepared to allow a general discussion on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones).
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand your ruling is that you cannot call the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but that you are proposing to call that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney, and to allow the fullest and widest possible discussion on that?
    The CHAIRMAN: With the consent of the Committee, certainly.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that we are discussing this Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are not!"]
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  INDIAN SUBJECTS (EDINBURGH).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to draw the attention of the House to a matter of which I have given private notice, in regard to what we now know as the
  348
  notorious colour bar question introduced into Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. I do not wish to detain the House long, as some of my colleagues may have a word or two to say. It is not my intention to call upon the Ministers to account for any of their own misdeeds. It is really my intention to ask the House to help the Ministers to put an end to a practice which is extremely obnoxious. The last time I raised this question there was some doubt as to the powers of the Ministers, or of any of the authorities, to interfere in what looked like an absolutely private affair, but, since then, certain points have arisen which make me hopeful that, with the expressed opinion of this House, and with the representation of the India Office an the matter, the authorities can take some kind of action which may at least stifle this new evil which is growing up in this country. The last time I raised this question, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a reply, and, following on that reply, the Under-Secretary of State for India wrote to me to say he had nothing to add. When I approached him again to discuss some possible suggestion, he wrote to me again to point out that he still felt he was equally helpless.
  Following that correspondence, my attention was drawn to a paragraph in the "Manchester Guardian." It was not an editorial opinion, but some responsible person was writing to say that, on the authority of the police officials, no restaurant had power to refuse admission to customers, unless, of course, they were objectionable when seeking entrance. There never had been a single complaint of such a nature. The restaurants, both licensed and unlicensed, according to this police official, never attempted to impose a colour bar. As regards licensed premises in the City, the position is similar. No premises had the right to exclude customers on account of racial origin, and the police themselves would be the first to pursue inquiries if any fact, showing that such was being done, came to light. Before I raised this question last time, there was evidence that at least two restaurants in the city of Edinburgh were guilty of what we may term this indiscretion. I have also sought legal advice from competent lawyers in Edinburgh, and they mention four dance places and two restaurants. They say those restaurants are also licensed for

  349
  dancing purposes. None of the above is licensed for intoxicating liquor. The dancing licences are issued by the corporation under local Acts, and the legal point is whether the licence is such that they are bound to admit all comers. There can be no doubt that the licensees will have the right to refuse admission to any individual, but it is quite another point when they endeavour to exclude a community. This, however, depends upon the power of the local authority under their Acts, and so on. The same firm of lawyers wrote that they had investigated these licences. They say:
  "In our view, the licences are granted by the Corporation to the licensee for the benefit of the public, and the licensee has no right, therefore, to exclude the public. No doubt he could exclude any individual member but certainly not a whole community."
  I have a further letter, received the day before yesterday, in which I am informed—but I have no time to verify it, so I give it subject to correction—that the same nefarious practice is being imitated in some other places such as Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow. We have heard of these colour distinctions very often in the Colonies, and I quite admit, with all my sentimental sympathy for my own racial people, that I have always had considerable sympathy with those who express themselves in that way. It is a kind of economic grievance, where the right colonials leave their motherland to improve their social and economic condition and go and settle abroad. They certainly do not like men of other races coming in to undercut and undermine their position. But this practice, which has been introduced in Scotland, is that obnoxious practice of the same kind that we hear about in America, in the lynching of negroes and so on. I appeal to the House to put it down with as strong a hand as possible, because, otherwise, it would be imaginable that the people of India, Africa and the West Indies might persecute the white populations in those countries. There is one other point I wish to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary for India, not that I hold him responsible for it. An Edinburgh newspaper makes rather a dubious kind of suggestion. This is not only an Edinburgh City question, but one of national and Imperial importance. I submitted it to my colleagues for the City of Edinburgh, and they give it their sympathy.
  350
  The people of India are cognisant of the fact that all the best elements in this country, the leading ecclesiastics, and Members of this House of all parties are supporting the contention which I put forward. The London correspondent of this newspaper writes:
  "I understand that some members have rushed in with questions in the Commons regarding the action of certain proprietors of dance halls and restaurants in Edinburgh. I believe that this matter was communicated to Edinburgh members, but, with greater experience of Parliamentary work, they decided that the sound course was to approach Lord Winterton, M.P., at present the Parliamentary Secretary to the India Office. I understand that in acknowledging the letters he had promised to see what could be done. How far he will be prejudiced by the questions which have been fired at the Secretary for Scotland is difficult to see."
  I hope for the honour of the House as well as of the India Office it will be publicly denied that the Secretary of State for India or the Under-Secretary would feel offended if the question was raised in Parliament——
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The only correspondence I have had with any hon. Member has been with the hon. Member himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I told the right hon. Gentle man that I would look into the matter at once and communicate with him again.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I should like to be correctly understood. I do not blame the Noble Lord at all, and I am only drawing his attention to this very stupid criticism, which is offensive to this House and possibly unjust to the Noble Lord himself. I do not for a moment associate myself with this suggestion, and I am only drawing his attention to it. My sole object in bringing this question before the House, and not bringing it up in private correspondence is to satisfy the people of India, Africa and the West Indies, that this House does not encourage such an idea and that all the best elements of Scottish life do not encourage it. Now that it is possible to have the position tackled by some authority, Parliamentary or municipal, I should like both the Under-Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland to give their assistance to this House in suppressing the evil.
  Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: As an Edinburgh Member I should like to say a word before the Secretary of State for Scotland replies. I have no complaint to make about the hon. Member for North Battersea raising this subject, but Edinburgh as a result has had an imputation cast upon it which it hardly deserves. I regret the action of these proprietors of dancing halls and restaurants. They are, however, private people and, in the first place, they are running their establishments for commercial purposes. If they find that those commercial purposes are advanced by excluding or placing restrictions on certain patrons, they doubtless consider that they have a right to do so, from the commercial point of view. It will be noticed that these cases always have reference to establishments where dancing takes place; but this is really part of the larger question of the relations of the sexes in this country with those of other races. Whatever may be our opinions upon that, the question of inferiority does not necessarily arise, and I think the hon. Member will agree that there are members of other races who would have the same scruples and the same reservations as a number of people have in this country in regard to these matters.
  I would like to point out however that as regards Edinburgh as a whole, that the attitude of these people does not represent the feeling of the citizens. Edinburgh has been, both as a city and especially in its university, cosmopolitan, and has welcomed students and visitors from every part of the Empire and from every part of the world. As regards the university there is perfect academic and social equality between all races. The Edinburgh Indian Association is actively supported by some of the chief citizens of Edinburgh who give lectures in their rooms and engage in social life with the members. The Indian Association of Edinburgh has recently given a number of dramatic entertainments which have been largely attended by Edinburgh people and which were much applauded both by the Edinburgh Press and public.
  The Indians of Edinburgh also run a cricket team which has regular fixtures with the most prominent cricket teams in Edinburgh, and there is no inequality of any kind in that connection. While, as I have said, this question forms part
  352
  of a larger question which we as an Empire will need to go into at no distant date, I say that there is no city in the Empire which shows a better feeling in regard to our fellow-subjects of other races than does Edinburgh. I only desire to say this because imputations have been made, not by the hon. Member for North Battersea himself, but as a result of his raising of this question, which in my opinion are undeserved.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I be allowed, so far as Dundee is concerned, to point out that there was a reference made of this kind more than a year ago to that city, but that, as far as I understand, was applicable only to dance establishments, and I do not know that any difficulty arose at all in regard to restaurants. The representations made to me in this case related purely to dancing, and since then the interferences have been desisted from and there has been nothing more of the kind as far as I know.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member who raised this question put a question to me not long ago, when I told him that I really saw no way in which I could officially intervene in this problem. I cannot say that to-night I have learned either from what the hon. Member has said or from, such inquiries as I have been able to make, that there is any official action which I can take. I pointed out that, however much one may regret what has been done, it is really a matter for those who run these particular places. The hon. Member has said it is clear that of the six places which are in question, four are dance halls pure and simple and two are restaurants in which dancing takes place. I understand from the hon. Member that there is no question of a licence for intoxicants being concerned. Under these circumstances, the question of the right of exclusion could not come in. What I would say to the hon. Member and those who are interested in this question is that, when the question of licensing these places by the local authority arises, they should represent to the authority the views which have been expressed and no doubt the authority may take them into consideration. I do not know what are the actual powers which are in their hands. On that point I am not expressing an

  353
  opinion, but I think we may rest assured that throughout the country, as a whole, there is none of that extreme racial antipathy which has been suggested. I hope we may find that such expression as has been given to this matter in this House may have an ameliorating effect upon the problem.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know the local government of Edinburgh, but in Glasgow the body responsible for licensing is the magistrate, and I assume it is the same in Edinburgh. It is always competent for any group of citizens to make representations to the licensing authorities, but is it not possible for the Secretary of State to make representations to them? I have known cases where an individual might be banned from entering a place, and that might be desirable from the public point of view, but this is the first time this has been done to a race, and, therefore, a totally different question is raised. This is an insult to a Colony of ours, and in my opinion it is the duty of the Secretary of State to act. This business can go much further. It is all very well to say that in this case only dance halls and restaurants are concerned, and for the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) to say that they are privately owned and that their owners have a right to do it. Are we to assume that he would say the same of trams if they are privately owned. The railways, too, are privately owned. Would it be correct in that case? It appears to me that the Secretary of State ought to make representations. There is nothing to hinder him doing so, as the chief officer of Scotland. Representations by two or three isolated individuals
  354
  would not have any great weight, but if the Secretary of State were to take up this matter with the magistrates and let it be known that in his opinion this was an insult to India, it would have a bad effect upon our prestige, it would be very helpful.
  The Presbyters at their annual meetings asked that something similar should be done, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider the point, and not only consider it, but make, if possible, joint representations with the Under-Secretary of State for India. If that were done the whole thing would be wiped out quite easily. We often hear in this House about things which have been done to Britishers abroad, of so-called insults, and in those cases a representative of this country always makes representations to the authorities concerned. In this case it would be a becoming act and one which would raise the credit of the Secretary of State. The licensing authorities are his particular friends. Three-fourths of them are Conservatives. They are not likely to pay the same attention to their opponents. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will, for the sake of his own party-because it is his party who are doing this—see that their good name is cleared.
  Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said he could not do anything officially. Are we to understand from that that he is proposing to do something unofficially to remedy this awkward state of affairs?
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND.
  SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.
  ROAD WIDENING, EAST LOTHIAN.
  ROAD WIDENING, EAST LOTHIAN.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  LOSS OF S.S. "EASTWAY."
  LOSS OF S.S. "EASTWAY."
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  PROBATION OFFICERS.
  PROBATION OFFICERS.
  BROADCASTING (NEWS BULLETINS).
  BROADCASTING (NEWS BULLETINS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  WOMEN CLERICAL OFFICERS.
  WOMEN CLERICAL OFFICERS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  SUPER-TAX AND INCOME TAX (ARREARS).
  SUPER-TAX AND INCOME TAX (ARREARS).
  MINES (MECHANICAL HAULAGE).
  MINES (MECHANICAL HAULAGE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 12) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District, and Ware; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Earl of Strafford appointed to take the Chair in the Committee on unopposed Private Bills this day.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a.
Clause 55:
Power to contribute to entertainments.
(2) The net amount of any payments or expenses made or incurred by the Corporation under the provisions of this section after deducting any moneys received by them under the provisions thereof shall not in any one year exceed a sum equivalent to that which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound levied on property in the borough assessable in that year to the borough rate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) Provided that if the Corporation themselves provide stage plays or cinematograph performances in any pavilion or other building on the pier under the provisions of this section they shall (unless otherwise authorised by Act of Parliament) either—

(a) let the pavilion or other building in consideration of the payment to them of a sum or sums of money; or

(b) enter into an arrangement under which a share in the gross or net receipts in respect of the production of
640
such stage plays or cinematograph performances shall be credited to them;

and the Corporation shall not under the provisions of this section undertake any liability for any loss that may be occasioned in the production of any such stage plays or cinematograph performances."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subsection which I propose to leave out was inserted by the Committee to limit the liability of the Corporation to a penny rate. I notice that the Corporation have issued a statement to your Lordships directed against my Amendment. They say that it is understood "that Lord Banbury is acting in the interests of certain associations of entertainment producers." As a matter of fact, that is not correct. I am not acting in the interests of any particular section of the community. It is quite true that I have on one or two occasions seen a gentleman who, I believe, is connected with some theatrical association, but I am acting in what I believe to be the interests of the whole country. I have always opposed municipal trading, because I believe: (1), that the money of the ratepayer should not be used to interfere with private enterprise; and (2), that as a rule the only result of municipal trading is that the municipalities lose money. I object to both these results. So far as theatrical people are concerned, I have been in a theatre only once in the last thirty-five years, so that your Lordships will see that I have no great interest in or knowledge of the theatrical profession.
The authors of this petition also say that the only precedent for this proposal is the Buxton Corporation Bill of the present Session. There again they are mistaken, because a similar clause was inserted this Session in the Fleetwood Corporation Bill. One of the reasons advanced by the Wallasey Corporation against my Amendment is that Wallasey is a pleasure resort. I do not see what that has to do with it, and I do not see why the money of the ratepayers, either in a pleasure resort or anywhere else, should be used to compete with private enterprise. I have not been there, but I am informed by a very high authority that Fleetwood also is a pleasure resort, and therefore, since your Lordships have agreed to a similar clause being inserted in the Fleetwood Bill. I think that this argument falls to the ground.
I have nothing more to add, except that those of your Lordships who are against municipal trading should, I venture to say, stand firm against any small attempt to introduce the thin end of the wedge. It is quite easy to say that this is only a matter of a few performances on a pier, but once this sort of thing is done it will be held as a precedent for going on and for authorising future and larger enterprises in the shape of municipal trading. If I am right in believing that it is not advisable to use the ratepayers' money against private enterprise, I hope that your Lordships will agree to pass the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 55, page 49, leave out lines 13 to 19, and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, you are, of course, aware that there are precedents for and precedents against this clause. The matter starts with the clause of the Public Health Act, 1925. This clause, which was very much discussed in this House, laid down a model clause which I think I am right in saying very nearly all authorities were entitled to follow. To that clause your Lordships have repeatedly recognised that there should be exceptions and there are, I am informed, about thirty authorities which have the powers for which Wallasey, in this clause as printed in the Bill, now asks. My noble friend quoted the Buxton Corporation clause of this Session, but I am sure that many of your Lordships will recognise that the situation in Buxton is quite different from that in Wallasey. In fact, if you look at it in any detail and not cursorily you will see that Buxton presented a very special problem which had to be dealt with in a very special way by Parliament.
I think I can state the matter in about three sentences. It related to the purchase of the Buxton Gardens, one of the oldest enterprises in the country. I believe that your Lordships' ancestors have played bowls there for the last hundred years. The Gardens had fallen into bad ways, but the Corporation recognised that as they were an essential part of the prosperity of Buxton they must purchase the Gardens; but the
642
Gardens included an opera house and the purchase of an opera house by a municipality is one of those things always regarded by Parliament with disfavour. Therefore this new and special clause was thought out and inserted in the Buxton Corporation Bill. It says, in effect, that they may own the opera house but may only let it either for rent or on the basis of a share in the profits; they are not allowed to finance a loss out of the rates. The situation is very different in Wallasey, where they merely ask to give entertainments on the pier, such as are given in about thirty other seaside resorts, many of which are well known to your Lordships. My noble friend was too modest in quoting the Fleetwood precedent. It is true that this Amendment was put into the Fleetwood Bill by the promoters, but it was at the suggestion of my noble friend himself and he must have the credit for having caused that alteration in the law. I ought, perhaps, to tell your Lordships that this Bill has had a very lengthy progress through Committee. It was I do not know how many days before Lord Younger's Committee.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Thirteen days.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: But this clause was not actually raised in any Petition before the Committee. It was therefore unopposed in Committee. I am glad that my noble friend has called attention to it, but in leaving the clause in the Bill as now printed I think your Lordships will be doing nothing unusual or improper. I therefore hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, as a rule I like to divide, but I feel quite certain that after Lord Donoughmore's speech it would be absolutely useless to take a Division, and I therefore shall not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WAR RISKS ASSOCIATIONS (DISTRIBUTION OF RESERVE FUNDS) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, with reference to this Bill I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BURY ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HOVE EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

INDIAN CHURCH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

TITLE AND PREAMBLE.
An Act to make provision incidental to and consequential on the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India.
WHEREAS by the Indian Church Measure, 1927, provision is made for the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India:
And whereas for the purpose of giving effect to certain changes consequential on the said Measure it is expedient that the provisions hereinafter contained should be enacted by Parliament:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Moved, That the Title and Preamble be postponed.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD OLIVIER, who had given Notice to move in the Preamble to leave out "by the Indian Church Measure 1927, provision is made," and to insert "there has been presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty the Draft of a Measure entitled 'The Indian Church Measure' (Cmd. 2860) intended to make provision," said: Would it be convenient for the noble and learned Earl in charge of the Bill to indicate to me whether he sees any difficulty in accepting the Amendment I have put down to the Preamble because on that Amendment there are two consequential Amendments to later clauses.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have very carefully considered the Amendment of the noble Lord and the difficulty which has occurred to his mind and upon which his Amendment has been founded, and I have reached the conclusion, after very carefully considering the advice which I have received from Parliamentary Counsel of great experience, that the objection is not really one of substance. I am advised—and it appears to me to be a sound opinion—that the wording of the Preamble as it stands is correct and the reason for the opinion which is given to me may be expressed somewhat in this way.
It has always been the practice, I believe, to draft a Bill so that its language is correct at the moment when the Royal Assent is given to it or when the Measure with which we are concerned has been similarly assented to. I am informed—and there are abundant precedents upon this point—that it has never been the view of the draftsman that you should make the language correct in the contemporary sense at the moment when the Bill is still before Parliament, and, indeed, a moment's reflection will show that this is almost a necessary course to adopt. When you draft a Bill the whole conception of that which you are doing is that inasmuch as you are legislating you naturally use language which only
646
becomes effective when that which you are attempting has in fact developed by fruition into legislation; in other words, you must project your mind into the period when the Bill reaches the Royal Assent, and when it has so obtained the Royal Assent what is important and of substance is that your language should be technically correct then, and not that your language should be technically correct at the moment when that which you are proposing is, from the very nature of the case, inoperative, because it is making a legislative proposal and cannot therefore become operative until the legislation has followed.
I am most anxious, in dealing with a measure upon which so many earnest men both in this country and in India have concentrated so much thought, that no step should be taken which could even excite a technical opposition; and if the noble Lord, who has every right to speak with authority upon this point—after all, he held the position which I occupy to-day—feels, or if any substantial body of opinion in this House feels, that there is any real ground of complaint—because we are not upon a technicality, we are upon a point of substance—that this House should be asked to pass a Bill when the counterpart, the Measure, is in an inchoate form, that is a point of view which certainly I do not wish to treat with disrespect. The noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, who has not put down an Amendment, has been kind enough to write to me a reasoned argument upon an analogous though not an identical matter and I believe that the Amendments put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, proceed from similar apprehension. I am not without the hope that in the spirit of reasonableness and accommodation upon which a measure of this kind must necessarily depend I shall allay the apprehensions of all noble Lords if I say at this early point in limine of the whole discussion that I shall not ask your Lordships to take the Third Reading of the Bill until the Measure has passed the Assembly in the beginning of July. I greatly hope that that will satisfy all noble Lords.
LORD OLIVIER: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the very careful consideration he has given and, having regard to the fact that he has taken the advice he has and that he speaks as a constitutional lawyer on this

647
point, I think I should be bound not to stand further in the way of the Preamble and shall act accordingly.
On Question, Title and Preamble postponed.
Clause 1:
Interpretation
1. In this Act—
The expression "date of severance" means such day as may be fixed under the said Measure as the date for the dissolution of such union as aforesaid.
LORD PARMOOR,who had given Notice to move, in the definition of "date of severance," to leave out "the said Measure" and insert "this Act," said: I think it will pave the way for a quiet settlement of the questions raised in connection with this Bill to follow what has been said by the noble and learned Earl. On the Second Reading I stated two matters. First, I said that so far as I knew (and I think I said I was present at most or nearly all of the discussions before the Enabling Act was passed) I thought that the question of the extension of that Act outside England, for instance to India, had not been discussed. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, undoubtedly has a larger knowledge than I have—I think he is the only person who has—of all those discussions, and he has drawn my attention to this, that when this Bill was in the House of Commons before the Standing Committee, this matter was raised and discussed by Lord Wolmer. Therefore I wish to withdraw the general statement I made that it had never been discussed, and I accept at once what the noble Earl has told me.
On the other question which arises, I think also, after what the noble Earl has said, that I should like the Third Reading of the Bill postponed in the hope that a quiet settlement may be arrived at. I cannot myself interpret the words "the Church of England" as other than the Church of England as comprised within the two Provinces of Canterbury and York, and particularly in the matter dealt with in the Enabling Act which, I think, was thus expressed by Lord Robert Cecil in very admirable language when he said:—
"The object is to facilitate legislation affecting the Church of England by allowing it to pass through Parliament without all the forms of Parliament now insisted on."
648
I think that very ably and fully expresses the purport of the Enabling Act, but what you had to deal with in the Enabling Act were the powers of Convocation and the powers of the House of Laity, which appear to me to be the powers that are inapplicable to places where the representative principle of the Act does not apply at all.
Take, for instance, the House of Laity. It seems to me an extraordinary proposition that they should have any authority given them as a representative body in this country over matters which affect the laity in India or in any outside country, but I do not want to discuss that further. I am told that the Law Officers have given an opinion in another direction. I have looked through all the cases I could find and I do not find any case in which the Church of England has the larger meaning which is now to be attached to it. But if the Third Reading of the Bill is not to be taken—I understand that to be what the noble Earl has said—until after the Measure has gone through the National Assembly (which, I assume, it will do) and has been discussed in this House, I certainly do not desire to promote any further discussion at the present moment. Opportunity will arise at a later date and, on that understanding, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: May I say this? The Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has not moved would not, I think, be an agreeable or relevant subject of discussion but, inasmuch as these matters will arise elsewhere, I might perhaps be permitted to say that I did reinforce myself in this matter by the opinion of the Law Officers. There was a time when I had to apply my own mind, adequately or inadequately, to legal matters and I have been at special pains never to do so since any emolument for such mental activities ceased. I now fortify myself either by the opinion of the Law Officers or by the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Such advice in this particular matter I am bound to accept and it was certainly given in a sense contrary to and destructive of the apprehensions of the noble and learned Lord. As to the assurance I gave in relation to the Third Reading I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding. I

649
do not think there is any misunderstanding. The statement that I made and which satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Olivier—and I am sure satisfied Lord Parmoor—was this. I will make it again plainly. The Third Reading of this Bill will not be taken until the Measure has passed the Assembly in the beginning of July. I unders and that to be satisfactory to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought the noble Earl had gone a little further. I thought what he said included until the Measure had gone before the Legislative Assembly.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I did not in fact say so and let me put that plainly. If it does not involve any risk to the fortunes during the present parliamentary year of the Bill, that is a matter which might receive consideration, but it would, of course, be asking too much—and more than I am sure the noble and learned Lord would himself desire—to risk the fortunes for the year of the Bill if some delay was involved.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want that.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am sure of that. If the noble Lord will leave it in my hands, I will attend to it as far as I can.
Clause 1 agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As Lord Olivier does not move his Amendment to Clause 2, I suggest that in the interest of your Lordships' time I might put the Question that Clauses 2 to 12 stand part of the Bill.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
LIST OF MAINTAINED CHURCHES.
PART I.
  CHURCHES VESTED IN THE CROWN.
  A. Military Churches.

DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.
Station and Dedication.

Barrackpore.—St. Bartholomew.

Calcutta (the Fort).—St. Peter.

Dinapore.—St. Luke.

Dum Dum.—St. Stephen.

Jallapahar.—St. Luke.

Muzaffarpore.—Christ Church.

DIOCESE OF MADRAS.
Station and Dedication.

Bangalore.—St. Mark.

Bangalore.—Holy Trinity.

Bolarum.—Holy Trinity.

Calicut.—St. Mary.

Madras Fort St. George.—St. Mary.

Malappuram.—Christ Church.

Secunderabad.—St. John.

St. Thomas' Mount.—St. Thomas.

Trimulgherry.—All Saints.

Wellington.—St. George.

DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.

Aden Crater.—St. Mary.

Aden Steamer Point.—Christ Church.

Ahmedabad.—St. George.

Ahmednagar.—Christ Church.

Belgaum.—St. Mary.

Bombay, Colaba.—St. John the Evangelist.

Deesa.—Christ Church.

Deolali.

Ghorpuri.

Kirkee.—All Saints.

Poona.—St. Mary.

Purandhar.—Holy Trinity.

Satara.—St. Thomas.

DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

Abbottabad.—St. Luke.

Ambala.—St. Paul.

Attock.—St. Peter.

Bakloh.—St. Oswald.

Bannu.—St. George.

Campbellpore.—All Saints.

Cherat.—St. Saviour.

Dagshai.—St. Saviour.

Dalhousie (Garrison Church).

Dera Ismail Khan.—St. Thomas.

Ferozepur.—St. Andrew.

Gharial (Murree Hills).—Holy Trinity.

Hyderabad (Sind).—St. Thomas.

Jhelum.—St. John.

Jullundur.—St. Luke.

Jutogh.—St. Michael.

Karachi.—Holy Trinity.

Kasauli.—Christ Church.

Kohat.—St. Augustine.

Lahore Cantonment.—St. Mary Magdalene.

Manora.—St. Paul.

Mardan.—St. Alban.

Multan.—St. Mary.

Nowshera.—Christ Church.

Peshawar.—St. John.

Quetta.—St. Mary of Bethany.

Rawalpindi.—Christ Church.

Rawalpindi West Ridge.—St. Mary.

Risalpur.

Sabathu.

Sanawar.—Holy Trinity.

Sialkot.—Holy Trinity.

Sheik Budin.—St. David.

Solon.

DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW

Agra.—St. George.

Agra Fort.—St. Matthew.

Allahabad.—St. David.

Allahabad.—The Fort Church.

Almora.—St. Mark.

Bareilly.—St. Stephen.

Bareilly.—Christ Church.

Benares.—St. Mary.

Station and Dedication.

Cawnpore.—All Souls.

Cawnpore.—St. John.

Chakrata.—St. Hugh.

Chaubattia.—Garrison Church.

Fatehgarh.—All Souls.

Fyzabad.—St. Andrew.

Jhansi.—St. Martin.

Landour.—St. Paul.

Lansdowne.—St. Mary.

Lucknow.—All Saints.

Meerut.—St. John.

Muttra.—Christ Church.

Ranikhet.—St. Peter.

Ranikhet.—St. Michael.

Roorkee.—St. John.

Shahjahanpur.—St. Mary.

Sitapur.—All Souls.

DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

Indore.—St. Ann.

Jubbulpore.—St. Michael and All Angels.

Kamptee.—Christ Church.

Mhow.—Christ Church.

Nasirabad.—St. Paul.

Nowgong.—St. Peter.

Pachmarhi.—Christ Church.

Saugor.—St. Peter.

DIOCESE OF RANGOON.

Mandalay Hill.

Port Blair.

Rangoon.—Christ Church.

B. Civil Churches.
DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.

Arrah.—The Holy Saviour.

Asansol.—St. Paul.

Bankipore.—Christ Church.

Barisal.—St. Peter.

Berhampore.

Bhagalpur.—Christ Church.

Calcutta.—St. John.

Calcutta.—St. Stephen.

Chandernagore.—St. John the Evangelist.

Chinsurah.

Chupra.—Christ Church.

Cuttack.—The Epiphany.

Dacca.—St. Thomas.

Darjeeling.—St. Andrew.

Dumka.—St. Andrew.

Gulzarbagh.—St. John.

Gaya.—St. David.

Hope Town.—St. John the Baptist.

Howrah.—St. Thomas.

Howrah.—St. Peter.

Jalpaiguri.—St. Michael and All Angels.

Jessore.—Christ Church.

Khurda Road.—St. John's Church.

Kurseong.

Midnapore.—St. John.

Monghyr.—St. John.

Motihari.—St. Andrew.

Mymensingh.—Christ Church.

Puri.—St. Thomas.

Purnea.—Emmanuel.

Saidpur.—Christ Church.

Serampore.—St. Olave.

DIOCESE OF CHOTA NAGPUR.
Station and Dedication.

Hazaribagh.—St. Stephen.

DIOCESE OF ASSAM.

Comilla.—Christ Church.

Dhubri.—All Saints.

Dibrugarh.—St. Paul's.

Gauhati.—Christ Church.

Shillong.—All Saints.

Silchar.—St. Andrews.

Sylhet.—St. Michael.

Tezpur.—Church of the Epiphany.

DIOCESE OF MADRAS.

Bangalore.—Fort Church.

Bangalore.—St. John.

Bellary.—Holy Trinity.

Bellary Garrison Church.

Berhampore.—St. Stephen.

Bimlipatam.—St. Peter.

Cannanore.—St. John.

Chittoor.—St. Luke.

Coconada.—St. Thomas.

Coimbatore.—All Souls.

Coonoor.—All Saints.

Cuddapah.—Christ Church.

Dowlaishwaram.—Church of the Good Shepherd.

Gudalpur.—St. John.

Kotagiri.—Christ Church.

Kumbakonam.—Christ Church.

Lovedale.—Church of the Ascension.

Madras, Vepry.—St. Mathias.

Madras, N. George Town.—St. Mark.

Madras, S. George Town.—Holy Emanuel.

Mangalore.—St. Paul.

Mercara.—St. Mark.

Mysore.—St. Bartholomew.

Negapatam.—St. Peter.

Nellore.—Christ Church.

Ootacamund.—St. Stephen.

Ootacamund.—St. Thomas.

Palghat.—Holy Trinity.

Palamcottah.—Christ Church.

Pallavaram.—St. Stephen.

Poonamallee.—St. Mary Magdalene.

Rajamundry.—Holy Trinity.

Ramandrug.

Ranipet.—St. Mary.

Salem.—Christ Church.

Tellicherry.—St. John.

Tranquebar.—Zion Church.

Trichinopoly.—St. John.

Vellore.—St. John.

Vizagapatam.—St. John.

Vizianagram.—St. Mary.

Waltair.—St. Paul.

DIOCESE OF TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN.

Cochin (Cochin State).—St. Francis.

Quilon (Travancore State).—St. Thomas.

Trivandrum (Travancore State).—Christ Church.

DIOCESE OF TINNEVELLY.

Madura.—St. George.

Tuticorin.

DIOCESE OF DORNAKAL.

Kurnool.—Christ Church.

Masulipatam.—St. Mary.

DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.
Station and Dedication.

Ahmedabad.—Christ Church.

Aurangabad.—Holy Trinity.

Bandra.—St. Stephen.

Baroda.—St. James.

Belgaum.—Christ Church.

Bijapur.—All Saints.

Broach.—St. Mathias.

Dharwar.—All Saints.

Kaira.—St. George.

Kharwar.

Mahableshwar.—Christ Church.

Mount Abu.—St. Saviour.

Poona.—St. Paul.

Rajkot.—Christ Church.

Sholapur.—Christ Church.

Surat.—Christ Church.

Thana.—St. James.

DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

Amritsar.—St. Paul.

Bhatinda.

Dalhousie.—St. John.

Delhi.—St. James' Church.

Dharmsala.—St. John in the Wilderness.

Gujranwala.—Christ Church.

Gujrat.—St. Saviour.

Gurdaspur.—All Saints.

Gurgaon.—Epiphany.

Gulmarg.—St. Mary.

Hissar.—St. Thomas.

Hoshiarpur.—Christ Church.

Jhang.—St. John in the Wilderness.

Jhelum.—St. John.

Kalka.—St. John.

Kangra.—St. James.

Karnal.—Emanuel.

Khewra.—St. James.

Kotri.—Christ Church.

Lahore.—St. Andrew.

Ludhiana.—Christ Church.

Lyallpur.—St. Peter.

Madhupur.—All Saints.

Moghalpura.—St. Oswald.

Montgomery.—St. Patrick.

Multan.—Christ Church.

Murree.—Holy Trinity.

Muzaffargarh.—St. Mary.

Rohtak.—All Saints.

Shahpur.—St. Andrews.

Simla.—All Saints.

Simla.—Christ Church.

Sirsa.—St. John in the Wilderness.

Srinagar.—All Saints.

Sukkur.—St. Saviour.

DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW.

Agra.—St. Paul.

Aligarh.—Christ Church.

Allahabad.—Holy Trinity.

Azamgarh.—Holy Trinity.

Badaon.—St. Saviour.

Banda.—St. George.

Bara Banki.—St. Mary.

Basti.—St. James.

Bulandshahr.—All Saints.

Chanbattia.—St. Michael.

Chunar.—Holy Trinity.

Dehra Dun.—St. Thomas.

Etwah.—Christ Church.

Ghaziabad.—Holy Trinity.

Ghazipur.—St. Thomas.

Station and Dedication.

Gonda.—St. Thomas.

Gorakhpur.—Christ Church.

Hardoi.—Christ Church.

Jaunpur.—Holy Trinity.

Lakhimpur.—Christ Church.

Lalitpur.—St. John.

Lucknow.—Christ Church.

Lucknow.—St. Peter.

Mainpuri.—St. Paul.

Mirzapore.—St. John.

Moradabad.—St. Paul.

Mussoorie.—Christ Church.

Muzaffarnagar.—St. John.

Naini Tal.—St. John in the Wilderness.

Partabgarh.—St. John.

Rai Bareilly.—St. James.

Saharanpur.—St. Thomas.

Sultanpur.—Christ Church.

Tundla.—Christ Church.

DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

Ajmer.—St. Mary.

Akola.—All Saints.

Amraoti.—St. Thomas.

Bandi Kui.—St. John the Baptist.

Betul.—St. Andrew.

Bhandara.—St. Paul.

Chanda.—St. Jude.

Chhindwara.—St. Mark.

Damoh.—St. Paul.

Deoli.

Ellichpur.—St. Andrew.

Hoshangabad.—St. George.

Jaipur.—All Saints.

Jubbulpore.—Christ Church.

Khandwa.—St. Andrew and St. Catharine.

Morar, Gwalior.—Christ Church.

Narsinghpur.—St. Catherine.

Nasirabad.—St. Paul.

Raipur.—St. John.

Sambalpore.—St. James' Church.

Sehore.—All Saints.

Seoni.—Christ Church.

Wardha.—St. Thomas.

DIOCESE OF RANGOON.

Akyab.—St. Mark.

Bassein.—St. John the Evangelist.

Meiktila.—Holy Trinity.

Minbu.—Church of the Good Shepherd.

Myingyan.—St. Peter.

Pegu.—Holy Trinity.

Prome.—St. Mark.

Thayetmyo.—St. John Baptist.

Toungoo.—St. John Baptist.

PART II.

  CHURCHES NOT VESTED IN THE CROWN.
  DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.

  Calcutta.—St. James.

  Calcutta.—St. Paul.

  DIOCESE OF MADRAS.

  Madras.—Christ Church.

  Madras.—St. George.

  DIOCESE OF TINNEVELLY.

  Kodaikanal.—St. Peter.

  DIOCESE OF DORNAKAL.

  Bezwada.—St. Paul.

  Guntur.—St. John.

  DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.
  Station and Dedication.

  Bombay, Byculla.—Christ Church.

  Bombay.—St. Thomas.

  Matheran.—St. Paul.

  DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

  Dungagali.—St. Simon and Jude.

  Lahore.—The Cathedral Church of the Resurrection.

  Nathiagali.—St. Matthew.

  DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW.

  Allahabad.—All Saints.

  DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

  Mandla.—St. Luke.

  Nagpur.—All Saints.

  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved to leave out the Second Schedule and to insert the following:—

  LIST OF MAINTAINED CHURCHES.
    PART I.
      CHURCHES VESTED IN THE CROWN.
      A. Military Churches.

  DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.
  Station and Dedication.

  Balasore.—St. John the Baptist.

  Barrackpore.—St. Bartholomew.

  Calcutta.—St. Peter.

  Dinapore.—St. Luke.

  Dum Dum.—St. Stephen.

  Muzaffarpur.—Christ Church.

  DIOCESE OF MADRAS.

  Bangalore.—St. Mark.

  Bangalore.—Holy Trinity.

  Bolarum.—Holy Trinity.

  Calicut.—St. Mary.

  Madras.—St. Mary.

  Malappuram.—Christ Church.

  Secunderabad.—St. John.

  St. Thomas' Mount.—St. Thomas.

  Trimulgherry.—All Saints.

  Wellington.—St. George.

  DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.

  Aden.—St. Mary.

  Aden.—Christ Church.

  Ahmedabad.—St. George.

  Ahmednagar.—Christ Church.

  Belgaum.—St. Mary.

  Bombay.—St. John the Evangelist.

  Deesa.—Christ Church.

  Ghorpuri.

  Kirkee.—All Saints.

  Poona.—St. Mary.

  Purandhar.—Holy Trinity.

  Satara.—St. Thomas.

  DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

  Abbottabad.—St. Luke.

  Ambala.—St. Paul.

  Attock.—St. Peter.

  Bakloh.—St. Oswald.

  Bannu.—St. George.

  Campbellpore.—All Saints.

  Cherat.—St. Saviour.

  Dagshai.—St. Saviour.

  Station and Dedication.

  Dalhousie.—St. John.

  Dera Ismail Khan.—St. Thomas.

  Ferozepur.—St. Andrew.

  Hyderabad (Sind).—St. Thomas.

  Jhelum.—St. John.

  Jullundur.—St. Luke.

  Jutogh.—St. Michael.

  Karachi.—Holy Trinity.

  Kasauli.—Christ Church.

  Kohat.—St. Augustine.

  Lahore.—St. Mary Magdalene.

  Manora.—St. Paul.

  Mardan.—St. Alban.

  Multan.—St. Mary.

  Nowshera.—Christ Church.

  Peshawar.—St. John.

  Quetta.—St. Mary of Bethany.

  Rawalpindi.—Christ Church.

  Rawalpindi.—St. Mary.

  Sabathu.

  Sanawar.—Holy Trinity.

  Sialkot.—Holy Trinity.

  Sheik Budin.—St. David.

  Solon.

  DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW.

  Agra.—St. George.

  Agra.—St. Matthew.

  Allahabad.—St. David.

  Almora.—St. Mark.

  Bareilly.—St. Stephen.

  Bareilly.—Christ Church.

  Benares.—St. Mary.

  Cawnpore.—All Souls.

  Cawnpore.—St. John.

  Chakrata.—St. Hugh.

  Chaubattia.—St. Michael.

  Fatehgarh.—All Souls.

  Fyzabad.—St. Andrew.

  Jhansi.—St. Martin.

  Landour.—St. Paul.

  Lansdowne.—St. Mary.

  Lucknow.—All Saints.

  Meerut.—St. John.

  Muttra.—Christ Church.

  Ranikhet.—St. Peter.

  Roorkee.—St. John.

  Shahjahanpur.—St. Mary.

  Sitapur.—All Souls.

  DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

  Jubbulpore.—St. Michael and All Angels.

  Kamptee.—Christ Church.

  Mhow.—Christ Church.

  Nasirabad.—St. Paul.

  Nowgong.—St. Peter.

  Pachmarhi.—Christ Church.

  Saugor.—St. Peter.

  DIOCESE OF RANGOON.

  Port Blair.—Christ Church.

  Rangoon.—Christ Church.

  B. Civil Churches.
  DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.

  Arrah.—The Holy Saviour.

  Bankipore.—Christ Church.

  Barisal.—St. Peter.

  Bhagalpur.—Christ Church.

  Calcutta.—St. John.

  Calcutta.—St. Stephen.

  Chinsurah.

  Chupra.

  Station and Dedication.

  Cuttack.—The Epiphany.

  Dacca.—St. Thomas.

  Darjeeling.—St. Andrew.

  Dumka.—St. Andrew.

  Gulzarbagh.—St. John.

  Gaya.—St. David.

  Howrah.—St. Thomas.

  Howrah.—St. Peter.

  Jalpaiguri.—St. Michael and All Angels.

  Jessore.—Christ Church.

  Khagole.—Christ Church.

  Khurda Road.—St. John.

  Kurseong.—Christ Church.

  Midnapore.—St. John.

  Monghyr.—St. John.

  Motihari.—St. Andrew.

  Mymensingh.—Christ Church.

  Puri.—St. Thomas.

  Purnea.—Emmanuel.

  Serampore.—St. Olave.

  DIOCESE OF CHOTA NAGPUR.

  Hazaribagh.—St. Stephen.

  DIOCESE OF ASSAM.

  Comilla.—Christ Church.

  Dhubri.—All Saints.

  Dibrugarh.—St. Paul.

  Gauhati.—Christ Church.

  Shillong.—All Saints.

  Silchar.—St. Andrews.

  Sylhet.—St. Michael.

  Tezpur.—Church of the Epiphany.

  DIOCESE OF MADRAS.

  Bangalore (Fort).

  Bangalore.—St. John.

  Bellary.—Holy Trinity.

  Bellary.—Christ Church.

  Berhampore.—St. Stephen.

  Bimlipatam.—St. Peter.

  Cannanore.—St. John.

  Chittoor.—St. Luke.

  Coconada.—St. Thomas.

  Coimbatore.—All Souls.

  Coonoor.—All Saints.

  Cuddapah.—Christ Church.

  Dowlaishwaram.—Church of the Good Shepherd.

  Gudalur.—St. John.

  Kotagiri.—Christ Church.

  Kumbakonam.—Christ Church.

  Lovedale.—Church of the Ascension.

  Madras.—St. Mathias.

  Madras.—St. Mark.

  Madras.—Holy Emmanuel.

  Mangalore.—St. Paul.

  Mercara.—St. Mark.

  Mysore.—St. Bartholomew.

  Negapatam.—St. Peter.

  Nellore.—Christ Church.

  Ootacamund.—St. Stephen.

  Ootacamund.—St. Thomas.

  Palghat.—Holy Trinity.

  Palamcottah.—Christ Church.

  Pallavaram.—St. Stephen.

  Poonamallee.—St. Mary Magdalene.

  Rajamundry.—Holy Trinity.

  Ramandrug.

  Ranipet.—St. Mary.

  Salem.—Christ Church.

  Tellicherry.—St. John.

  Tranquebar.—Zion Church.

  Trichinopoly.—St. John

  Station and Dedication.

  Vellore.—St. John.

  Vizagapatam.—St. John.

  Vizianagram.—St. Mary.

  Waltair.—St. Paul.

  DIOCESE OF TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN.

  Cochin (Cochin State).—St. Francis.

  Quilon (Travancore State).—St. Thomas.

  Trivandrum (Travancore State).—Christ Church.

  DIOCESE OE TINNEVELLY.

  Madura.—St. George.

  Tuticorin.

  DIOCESE OF DORNAKAL.

  Kurnool.—Christ Church.

  Masulipatam.—St. Mary.

  DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.

  Ahmedabad.—Christ Church.

  Aurangabad.—Holy Trinity.

  Bandra.—St. Stephen.

  Baroda.—St. James.

  Balgaum.—Christ Church.

  Bijapur.—All Saints.

  Broach.—St. Mathias.

  Dharwar.—All Saints.

  Igatpuri.—St. Matthias.

  Kaira.—St. George.

  Karwar.

  Lonavla.—All Saints.

  Mahableshwar.—Christ Church.

  Mount Abu.—St. Saviour.

  Poona.—St. Paul.

  Rajkot.—Christ Church.

  Sholapur.—Christ Church.

  Surat.—Christ Church.

  Thana.—St. James.

  DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

  Amritsar.—St. Paul.

  Bhatinda.

  Dalhousie.—St. John.

  Delhi.—St. James.

  Dharmsala.—St. John in the Wilderness.

  Gujranwala.—Christ Church.

  Gujrat.—St. Saviour.

  Gurdaspur.—All Saints.

  Gurgaon.—Epiphany.

  Gulmarg.—St. Mary.

  Hissar.—St. Thomas.

  Hoshiarpur.—Christ Church.

  Jhang.—St. John in the Wilderness.

  Kalka.—St. John.

  Karnal.—Emmanuel.

  Khewra.—St. James.

  Kotri.—Christ Church.

  Lahore.—St. Andrew.

  Ludhiana.—Christ Church.

  Lyallpur.—St. Peter.

  Madhupur.—All Saints.

  Moghalpura.—St. Oswald.

  Montgomery.—St. Patrick.

  Multan.—Christ Church.

  Murree.—Holy Trinity.

  Muzaffargarh.—St. Mary.

  Rohtak.—All Saints.

  Shahpur.—St. Andrews.

  Simla.—All Saints.

  Simla.—Christ Church.

  Sirsa.—St. John in the Wilderness.

  Srinagar.—All Saints.

  Sukkur.—St. Saviour.

  DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW.
  Station and Dedication.

  Agra.—St. Paul.

  Aligarh.—Christ Church.

  Allahabad.—Holy Trinity.

  Azamgarh.—Holy Trinity.

  Badaon.—St. Saviour.

  Banda.—St. George.

  Bara Banki.—St. Mary.

  Basti.—St. James.

  Bulandshahr.—All Saints.

  Chunar.—Holy Trinity.

  Dehra Dun.—St. Thomas.

  Etwah.—Christ Church.

  Ghaziabad.—Holy Trinity.

  Ghazipur.—St. Thomas.

  Gonda.—St. Thomas.

  Gorakhpur.—Christ Church.

  Hardoi.—Christ Church.

  Jaunpur.—Holy Trinity.

  Lakhimpur.—Christ Church.

  Lalitpur.—St. John.

  Lucknow.—Christ Church.

  Mainpuri.—St. Paul.

  Mirzapur.—St. John.

  Moradabad.—St. Paul.

  Mussoorie.—Christ Church.

  Muzaffarnagar.—St. John.

  Naini Tal.—St. John in the Wilderness.

  Partabgarh.—St. John.

  Rai Bareilly.—St. James.

  Saharanpur.—St. Thomas.

  Sultanpur.—Christ Church.

  DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

  Ajmer.—St. Mary.

  Akola.—All Saints.

  Amraoti.—St. Thomas.

  Bandi Kui.—St. John the Baptist.

  Betul.—St. Andrew.

  Bhandara.—St. Paul.

  Chanda.—St. Jude.

  Chhindwara.—St. Mark.

  Damoh.—St. Paul.

  Deoli.

  Ellichpur.—St. Andrew.

  Hoshangabad.—St. George.

  Indore.—St. Anne.

  Jaipur.—All Saints.

  Jubbulpore.—Christ Church.

  Khandwa.—St. Andrew with St. Catharine.

  Mandla.—St. Luke.

  Morar, Gwalior.—Christ Church.

  Narsinghpur.—St. Catherine.

  Nagpur.—All Saints.

  Raipur.—St. John.

  Sambalpur.—St. James.

  Sehore.—All Saints.

  Seoni.—Christ Church.

  Sutna.—St. Mary.

  Wardha.—St. Thomas.

  DIOCESE OF RANGOON.

  Akyab.—St. Mark.

  Bessein.—St. John the Evangelist.

  Meiktila.—Holy Trinity.

  Minbu.—Church of the Good Shepherd.

  Myingyan.—St. Peter.

  Pegu.—Holy Trinity.

  Prome.—St. Mark.

  Thayetmyo.—St. John the Baptist.

  Toungoo.—St. John the Baptist.

  Yamethin.—All Saints.

PART II.
  CHURCHES NOT VESTED IN THE CROWN.

    DIOCESE OF CALCUTTA.
    Station and Dedication.

    Asansol.—St. Paul.

    Calcutta.—St. James.

    Calcutta.—St. Paul.

    Saidpur.—Christ Church.

    DIOCESE OF CHOTA NAGPUR.

    Dhanbad.—St. Mary.

    DIOCESE OF MADRAS.

    Madras.—Christ Church.

    Madras.—St. George.

    DIOCESE OF TINNEVELLY.

    Kodaikanal.—St. Peter.

    DIOCESE OF DORNAKAL.

    Bezwada.—St. Paul.

    Guntur.—St. John.

    DIOCESE OF BOMBAY.

    Bombay.—Christ Church.

    Bombay.—St. Thomas.

    Matheran.—St. Paul.

    DIOCESE OF LAHORE.

    Dungagali.—St. Simon and St. Jude.

    Kangra.—St. James.

    Lahore.—The Church of the Resurrection.

    Nathiagali.—St. Matthew.

    DIOCESE OF LUCKNOW.

    Allahabad.—All Saints.

    Tundla.—Christ Church.

    DIOCESE OF NAGPUR.

    Badnera.—St. George.

    Bhopal.—The Holy Redeemer.

    Bina.—St. John the Baptist.

    Harda.—St. Matthew.

    Katni.—St. Philip and St. James.

    Sohagpur.

    The noble Earl said: A word of explanation of a very brief kind is required upon this point. The original Schedule of maintained churches received from India was, and was expressed to be, provisional. I received the revised list only after I had introduced the Bill. The object of this Amendment is merely to substitute the revised list in the Schedule instead of the original provisional list. The difference between the two lists is quite immaterial. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Pages 12 to 17, leave out the Second Schedule and insert the said new Second Schedule.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Title and Preamble agreed to.

PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.
Order of the day read for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I have to move that the Report of the Select Committee on Peerages in Abeyance be received and adopted. Your Lordships will remember that in the year 1923 my noble friend Lord Askwith moved for a Return, and that Return being made a Committee was appointed who were to consider and report upon the matter. Upon that matter they have now reported. Special attention was called in this House and before the Committee to certain changes in recent years in the practice of dealing with Peerages in abeyance and especially to two features of those changes. One is that in recent years abeyances have been terminated that had lasted for centuries; one for 350 years, another for 440, another even for 547. Some of them date to the time of the Wars of the Roses and even to earlier dates. The second feature was that Peerages have been called out of abeyance in favour of the holder of a mere fraction of the original Peerage. In one case it was one-twenty-fourth of the Peerage.
Those matters gave rise to complaint, and the Committee have therefore gone very carefully into the matter. They have called attention to the fact that there has been lately expressed some doubt as to whether the summonses to this House by Writ were really intended to confer an hereditary right, and though perhaps it is too late to negative that view, which rests on the great authority of Sir Edward Coke, yet the doubt does afford a reason for requiring full proof in those cases. I need not go through all the Report but the Committee have recommended certain changes which they characterise, and I think rightly characterise, as temperate, and I will only mention three of the most important.
They recommend that the following recommendations be submitted to His Majesty:—
"In the absence of special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary"—
I call attention to these words because they meet some criticisms—
"(1) No abeyance should be terminated, the first commencement of which occurred more than one hundred years before the presentation of the Petition.
662
"(2) No Petition should be allowed to proceed, where the Petitioner represents less than one-third of the entire dignity."
I leave out the third and fourth recommendations, because they are of less importance. The fifth recommendation is this:—
"(5) In considering whether or not the Sovereign should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred."
Those are the chief recommendations. They limit the practice by requiring that, except in special circumstances, an abeyance should not be more than 100 years old and that a Petitioner should claim a right in not less than one-third of the dignity. Those, I think, are reasonable limitations of the practice which had grown somewhat anomalous, and I hope your Lordships will adopt them.
It has been suggested to me that there are some cases which might be hit by these rules, such as the case of a Peer who leaves four daughters so that no one of them can claim one-third of the original Peerage. That would be a special circumstance which could be taken into account. I feel bound to express the gratitude which I feel, and which I think all the members of your Lordships' House will feel, to my noble and learned friend Viscount Sumner and the Committee for the care with which they have investigated this matter. They have produced an admirable Report and one which will be of great service to the House. If your Lordships will adopt the Motion to-day it will be my duty to submit to the House on a future occasion a formal Resolution. I beg to move that the Report be received and adopted.
Moved, That the Report be now received and adopted.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, some other noble Lords besides myself who are interested in these old Baronies by Writ are placed at rather a disadvantage owing to the fact that we did not know exactly what form the Lord Chancellor's Motion would take and exactly what our proper procedure would

663
be. I had hoped that the Lord Chancellor, by his speech to-day, would have raised only a general debate on the subject and that later, after mature reflection, he would have placed a formal Motion on the paper for your Lordships to consider. All that is down on the Paper to-day is that the Lord Chancellor would move a Resolution. The Resolution which he has moved is that the Report of the Committee be received and adopted. I am afraid that if your Lordships take that line it will not be open for us at any later stage to raise the objections which some of us feel to some of the recommendations in the Report. I think this is the only occasion therefore on which we can make those objections. Though, of course, I do not for a moment anticipate that we should think of dividing your Lordships' House—if we did we should probably be heavily defeated—at the same time I do hope that what some of us may say on this subject to-day may have some weight with the Lord Chancellor, and that when at a later period he puts upon the Paper the formal Resolution to which he referred he will take into consideration a few of the objections which some of us feel to this Report.
May I say that I have read this Report most carefully and that I have also read, I think, the whole of the evidence? I do not say for one moment that the Committee have not carried out their work in the most fair and impartial manner. I have not one word to say suggesting against them any bias in any direction. But after reading the Report and the evidence, the general impression left on my mind was that among all the witnesses—though they were not all openly hostile to these ancient Baronies by Writ—there was not, I think, one who was a friendly witness. The great thing that most of them dwelt upon was the fact that it could not be proved historically that these Peerages ever had an hereditary nature. But though we had no witness who would appear to be in favour of these Baronies we had, at all events, one very valuable ally and that was a man who, I believe, was the greatest constitutional lawyer who ever lived in this country, Sir Edward Coke. I am glad to say that Sir Edward Coke, some 300 years ago, took a different view from that of those gentlemen who were
664
called as witnesses and that he was strongly of opinion that these ancient Baronies were of an hereditary nature.
I think that the Committee fully realised the importance of Sir Edward Coke's opinion on the subject. I will read the paragraph in which they refer to it. They say:—
"Whether the conclusions of modern historical research are or are not correct we are neither concerned nor competent to decide. We have been assured, and we believe it to be the case, that they are now accepted by the great majority of historical scholars. The law, however, if settled, cannot be unsettled in this way. It is not for us to discuss what material Sir Edward Coke conceived himself to have had for the opinion, which his great name has made so authoritative. If it was inadequate, abundant excuse can be found, for when issues arise the law has to be laid down, and when laid down has to be followed in other cases, and it cannot wait for better historical enlightenment and for the rise of future generations of scholars. Whatever view the Committee for Privileges may on any future occasion think itself free to take on any part of this subject, we can only accept the rules as they stand, nor have we any authority or desire to criticise any of the reports that have been made in recent cases. We accept them, and recognise that the claims established by them now stand beyond challenge."
I think that shows that the Committee formed a very high estimate of the opinion that Sir Edward Coke gave some 300 years ago and I do not think it is an opinion which your Lordships ought lightly to throw over.
The recommendations made by the Committee undoubtedly do strike at the hereditary principle, and I respectfully urge upon your Lordships that if an alteration is to be made these recommendations should not apply to those Peerages which have already been called out of abeyance. I find after reading through the Report that at the present moment there are a total of thirty-nine Baronies which have been called out of abeyance, and therefore the number, if omitted from the application of the recommendations of this Committee, would not be very large. Of those thirty-nine Peerages already called out of abeyance there are twenty-one Peers who sit in this House as possessors of Baronies by Writ, seven Peers of higher rank who hold Baronies by Writ, and there are eleven ladies who hold Baronies by Writ and who, if they were able, would sit in your Lordship's House under that

665
title. I respectfully ask the Lord Chancellor if he cannot see his way, in any formal Resolution which he puts down in future, to make Recommendations 2 and 5 not apply to those Baronies which have already been called out of abeyance.
The Lord Chancellor did refer to Recommendation 2, which states:—
"No Petition should be allowed to proceed where the Petitioner represents less than one-third of the entire dignity."
He assured us that the preamble—if I may so call it—of the recommendations would allow special cases to be considered on their merits. Of that I am rather doubtful, but I do think it is rather hard, if a Peer holding a Barony by Writ should die leaving four daughters, that then that Barony should ipso facto expire, that the Committee for Privileges should turn down any application, and that none of those daughters should be able to petition that the Barony should be called out of abeyance; whereas, on the other hand, if the Peer had been less successful in rearing offspring and had only three daughters instead of four, then one of those daughters would have been entitled to petition that the Barony should be called out of abeyance. It is rather hard that that should be the rule and it is a matter that should have first consideration.
The other recommendation, which I ask should not apply to Baronies called out of abeyance, is Recommendation 5:—
"In considering whether or not the Sovereign should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred."
That recommendation must eventually have the effect of ending these Baronies by Writ altogether. The simplest case I can take is that of a Baron by Writ dying and leaving two young girls, one of whom petitions that the Barony should be called out of abeyance. Nobody could possibly show that that young girl was qualified. She might be qualified by character and by position, but she could not be qualified by services or fitness to be made a Peer, and it is rather hard therefore that, unless these Barons by Writ produce super-women, these young girls can never be in a position to have their case favourably heard and considered. I consider that
666
that fifth recommendation strikes very deeply at the whole hereditary system in the House of Lords and it seems to me that, once you have begun to consider who is to be a Peer by his fitness and his services, you very largely do away with the hereditary principle in your Lordships' House.
I do not wish to press the question unduly, but the Lord Chancellor in his speech referred to certain cases to which attention has been called by the Committee where the Baronies have been in abeyance for a very long time and have practically been forgotten altogether, and where, in many cases, there were a very large number of co-heirs. He said, very rightly, that he agreed with the Committee that something should be done towards checking the calling out of abeyance of these Peerages and I thoroughly agree with him. Though a case can be made out it seems rather ridiculous that these Baronies should be called out of abeyance, but, on the other hand, there are cases where undoubtedly the working of this recommendation would act very harshly and unfairly. Among those old Baronies by Writ are several which have been held for 600 years and which have only been in abeyance for one or two years—just sufficient time for the usual procedure to be gone through to call them out of abeyance.
In those cases the holder of the old Barony by Writ possessed the very manor or land from which it takes its name, even possessed the chancel in which the Barons lie buried. Yet you say, forsooth, that a Barony held for 600 years in a family such as this, a Barony which has only been in abeyance for one or two years, is to cease altogether because there happen to be four daughters, or because there are only two daughters and neither of them by services or fitness is qualified to be made a Peer of the realm. If there is anything in the hereditary principle of this House, if there is something still in the old historical association of many of these ancient Peerages, then your Lordships should consider carefully, before you come to a decision, whether you could not make an exception in the case of those old Baronies already called out of abeyance, the holders of which have not disgraced their country, but have on many occasions, they and their forefathers, rendered it admirable service.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I do not know whether I may take it that the noble Lord has been speaking not only for himself but for the other Peers interested in the matter like himself whom he mentioned at the beginning of his remarks. If there are any other noble Lords who wish to speak on the same kind of point, I would gladly give way, because, having had the honour to be Chairman of the Committee, I think I ought to assist the House as well as I can by endeavouring to expound our views comprehensively. Unless there is any noble Lord who has any further point of view to put forward, perhaps I might be allowed to deal with the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down.
I can assure him we were all of us not only free from those revolutionary and destructive tendencies which he finds in our Report but actually in sympathy with the class of Baronies of which he speaks. So far is it from being the case that we failed to call any friendly witness and only called before us persons who expressed a marked hostility to this class of Barony, that I think he will find that the Garter King-at-Arms, who was good enough to assist us, expressed the view, of which I myself certainly had full comprehension if I had not full sympathy with it, that these Baronies were such interesting curiosities that it would be a pity to inferfere with them at all. We really had both sides of the question before us, and I think I am speaking for all the members of the Committee when I say that they had no antagonism to the institution at all, but really desired to get rid of what have been pointed out as drawbacks in the practice with regard to the termination of abeyances, to restore Baronies by Writ to the position which they ought to occupy and which had been somewhat compromised of late years, and to remove what we thought a very serious matter for the Peerage generally—namely, any anomaly which might tend to make the institution somewhat open to criticism. Such criticism has been excited in connection with the termination of some recent abeyances, as was mentioned in the former discussion in your Lordships' House, and we thought, and it was our desire, that some recommendations of a safeguarding character might be timely and would tend to
668
secure the permanence of these Baronies, and not in the least to bring them to an end.
The noble Earl has been under the impression that the effect of the recommendations to which he draws attention is to strike at the hereditary principle by lopping off and bringing to a summary end Baronies by Writ, in which it so happened that upon the death of the Peer who had held the Barony there were more than three daughters living, or fewer than three daughters living but of such a tender age that they could not be said to have any particular recommendation of character, position or service at their back. I think the noble Earl has failed to realise that they have a hundred years before them in which to rectify that situation and, if time and other chances do not come to their rescue, they have always the refuge that is to be found in the advice tendered to the Crown with regard to the exercise of this part of the Royal Prerogative by the Minister who is responsible for that advice.
As we were careful to say, the freedom and the responsibility with which that advice must be tendered was a matter with which we neither could nor desired to interfere, and, as the Lord Chancellor stated in his remarks, in the last resort there can be no doubt that, in such a case as haunts and troubles the mind of the noble Earl, there would be a refuge, if none other could be found, in the responsibility of the Prime Minister to decide whether there were special circumstances in the case and whether he could advise that the general rule should not be rigorously adhered to. You must consider that the four daughters among whom, at the moment, the Peerage falls into abeyance might in the course of human events be reduced presently to three, and the difficulty would be over. Each represents then a line which is equally entitled, as a line, with the others, and the whole difficulty about abeyances rests in the fact that no one co-heiress is in herself preferable over another.
With regard to the fifth recommendation, why should it be overlooked that in these days services to the country, not necessarily of the same kind but of the highest possible value, are constantly

669
rendered by women and, in the social changes that we seem to have before us, are likely to be rendered more commonly and in greater measure than at present? The recommendation must of course be construed according to the person who is the subject of it, and the services which are appropriate to be considered in the case of a woman Petitioner may well be different in character from those that may be expected in the case of a male Petitioner.
It may very well be that the woman who petitions that the abeyance may be terminated in her favour cannot claim either to have won an election or to have lost a battle, but there may be other ways in which she may be properly recommended to the Royal favour and, if you construe the recommendation as it was certainly intended by the Committee to be construed, reading it as referable to the personality with which you are dealing on that occasion, I think that there can be no possible difficulty in saying that before 100 years have elapsed some on among the female descendants of the hypothetical four daughters may be found in whose favour a recommendation to terminate the abeyance may properly be made. It is hardly worth while to labour the point, but the noble Earl is really under a misapprehension when he supposes that there can under these recommendations be no termination of an abeyance in the case of four co-heiresses, but only when the Peerage falls into abeyance among three or fewer daughters. The most prolific and the most prudent parent need not be apprehensive about the future of his Barony if he will only in his last moments reflect that a century is given in which things may right themselves.
The noble Earl was desirous of excluding from the operations of these two recommendations Peerages that had already been called out of abeyance. I think he failed to appreciate that abeyance is an incident which may happen from time to time, and does happen over and over again, in the history of any Barony by Writ, and that, if the course were pursed which he suggests, there would be two classes of Baronies by Writ—those which have been already called out of abeyance once, and those which have never been called out of abeyance at all. In the case of the former, his suggestion would have the
670
result that in such a family, however long the abeyance lasted, it would still be possible to terminate it in the same way as before, and in circumstances exciting as much criticism as were excited by some of these instances in the last 100 years where extremely long abeyances have been brought to a termination. They not only go back to a venerable antiquity, but doubtless will endure to a very distant future and, if you endeavour to set up a second class of Peerages in which you can have an abeyance of 500 years in futuro and still get it terminated in favour of some one, if you can find any one, you preserve sedulously all the opportunities for criticism and mischief to which the attention of the House was directed on the previous occasion.
We thought that it was impossible for us to endeavour to discriminate between classes of Peers and to recommend that there should be two classes of Barons by Writ, some of whom would be subject to restrictive recommendations and others of whom would be free from them. Speaking for myself, I still think that, whatever change is made, it should be applicable to all of them, and it must be the circumstances and not the past history of the Barony in question that should determine whether the Royal favour should be exercised in favour of the termination of an abeyance or not. It should be borne in mind that there is this crucial difference between the Barony by Patent and the Barony by Writ, that the Barony by Patent descends to the heir male, if there be one, in the course of law and as of right, but that the Barony by writ, when it falls into abeyance among co-heiresses, must remain in abeyance unless and until the Royal favour is exercised for the purpose of terminating the abeyance, and that this termination is not a matter of right at all but a matter of grace. It is only when you realise this that you see the need for having one uniform practice applicable to the termination of abeyances, calculated to avoid all future difficulties of this kind.
With the wording of the ultimate recommendations which will be presented to your Lordships in the form of Resolutions, I have nothing to do, nor are the Resolutions before your Lordships, but with regard to the adoption of these recommendations, which of

671
course speak generally and can only deal with separate heads in a broad manner, I hope on behalf of the Committee that they will commend themselves to your Lordships. They were the subject of much consideration. They were, I am glad to say, framed and carried with entire unanimity. So far as we knew we were certainly free from any desire unjustly or unfairly to impinge upon the rights of those who hold such Baronies at present. We spoke of Sir Edward Coke with the greatest possible respect and expressly said of the Baronies recently called out of abeyance that they were, so far as we were concerned, established beyond all question, and our sole desire was to frame such recommendations as, in the flexible administration of these regulations on the advice tendered by the responsible Minister of the Crown, would work justice in future and protect these Baronies from the comments to which they have previously been exposed.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount who spoke last quite fairly represented the argument of the noble Earl who spoke first on the subject, as representing Peerages by Writ. The noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down said you could not differentiate between Peerages in abeyance at the present time and Peerages which might go into I abeyance in the future, because he said a Peerage may go into abeyance to-morrow between four daughters, and so cannot be called out, and the abeyance may go on, if Great Britain and this House go on, for four or five hundred years, and then the Peerage will be like one of the others, much too old to call out. I should like to point out, however, that Lord Ancaster did not suggest any amendment at all except to recommendations 2 and 5. He never proposed to alter the recommendation that a hundred years in abeyance should keep a Peerage in abeyance. What the noble Earl suggested was an amendment as regards recommendations 2 and 5.
I rather gathered that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack himself thought that the recommendation which would involve that when there were more than three daughters a Peerage should not be called out, was rather drastic, because he said it was one of the cases which a Prime Minister would
672
naturally consider on its merits. If these recommendations are adopted as a whole, how is a Prime Minister to deal with such a case? The Prime Minister will go, as other Prime Ministers would go, to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General will say: "Oh, there is a recommendation of the House of Lords adopted by the House of Lords, which vetoes this case," and he will tell the Prime Minister that he cannot go further. He is the only adviser that the Prime Minister would have, and if you stop the Law Officer of the Crown from giving him advice I do not see how you get any further. In order to make clear what I think should be the law I should beg leave to move, as an addition to the Motion that the Report be now received and adopted:—
"provided that neither of the Recommendations of the Committee, numbered 2 and 5, shall be taken as extending to Peerages with descent to heirs general that are not in abeyance at the present time."
I suggest that between to-day and the day when these recommendations are put to us in a semi-legal form the lines of my Amendment should be taken up and considered.
I should like to say a word or two on the whole subject. The Committee, to my mind, and I think to the mind of anybody who reads the whole Report, as I have done, started with a very strong prejudice against Peerages by Writ, and they built up this hypothesis. They took a very marked case. They took the case of a man who was summoned to Parliament by Edward I or Edward II, and who came and sat in Parliament. He was never summoned again in his lifetime, nor was his son, nor his grandson, nor any of his family, ever summoned again, and then, 500 years afterwards, it was argued successfully before a Committee for Privileges that this should be recognised as a Peerage. The Committee asked, and I think quite fairly, whether any one could suppose that Edward I or Edward II, when they called up a man once and never called him up again, or any of his family, intended to create an hereditary Peerage. I should say most distinctly that he never did; but in the great number of Peerages by Writ the thing is quite different. I have been looking through a number, and the number in which only one or two or three of the family have ever sat is very few indeed.

673
In the great bulk of these Peerages by Writ the people have sat almost continuously. There has been son succeeding son, daughter succeeding father when there was only one daughter, and there has been a case, when a daughter succeeded her father, of her husband being called up to this House in right of his wife. There have been many such cases, and I have always wondered why the husband of a Peeress in her own right has not come up and claimed the Peerage. If he did, it would not be a very easy claim to argue against. But the bulk of these Peerages by Writ have gone from father to son, and from father to daughter for generation after generation, continuously represented in this House, and they have only been out some of them for a very short time—six months or one or two years, while the claim of the new heir was being made good. They have practically sat continuously. I should like to point out that these Peers by Writ are not in a strong position in this House, because there are very few of them. I should not call them all Peerages by Writ but Peers with remainders to heirs general. They are very few in number. Over a quarter of them are ladies and not allowed to be claimants in this House. Others are very aged, and so their Peerages are not represented here. One or two of them have written to me saying that they thought that these proposals were to them and their Peerages great grievances, but that they were not able to come to the House themselves.
I hardly think that it was a fair thing, considering all the proposals of this Committee, that on that Committee there was not put a single Peer whose Peerage goes to heirs general. I think one representative of such Peerages should have been on the Committee, in order that their interests might have had a chance of being represented. Then the case has been prejudiced by the noble and learned Viscount; the Chairman of the Committee, and his Committee pointing out that it might be that Monarchs who called Peers up never intended to create hereditary Peerages at all. I do not know what their intention was, but when a Monarch calls a father, and then a son, and then a grandson, and it goes on for ten or fifteen generations, I should say that the claim of those Peers by Writ has grown
674
up as the position of this House has grown up—not by Statute, but by precedent after precedent. The members of the Committee tried to prejudice the House against the claims of the Peers by Writ by saying that, after all, their legal position was not very strong.
The Lord Chancellor thanked them for the great trouble they had given to the matter. I do not know what trouble they gave to it. I am going to give an instance. Does the noble Viscount the Chairman of the Committee, know that there are Peers in this House who do not sit by Writ, who sit by Patent? My noble friend beside me, Lord Saye and Sele, allows me to mention his case. It is a Peerage by Patent in the reign of James I, going to heirs general. Here again it is not a Peerage by Writ which, you say, may never have been intended to be created by the Monarch who summoned the original person. Here is a Peer by Patent—a Patent just as valid as any other Peerage in this House. No allusion is made to Peerages by Patent which go to heirs general. I do not know how many there are of them, though the Committee might have found that out. But I do think it is a pretty strong order that by these recommendations to-day, if you carry them, you should endanger the existence of a Peerage by Patent which, at any rate, is just as lawful and legitimate a Peerage as any other Peerage in this House.
There are only two of the recommendations of the Committee that I am not myself perfectly ready to support. I think it is very hard lines, as the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, pointed out, that if a Peer to-day, whose ancestors have sat in this House for many, many generations, dies, leaving four daughters, on these recommendations as they stand not one of those daughters can be called up to this House, because she does not hold a third of the original Barony. The Lord Chancellor thought that was a hard case which might be put right by the Prime Minister of the day. I would much rather have it put in the recommendations; I would rather, when the noble and learned Viscount himself comes to propose the Resolutions that he put that in the Resolutions—that if a man has any number of daughters and no son, the Monarch shall not be advised not to call up any of them because they have not a third

675
of the Barony. If that were put in the new Regulations it would do away with half my objections.
Then there is Recommendation 5. In the case of a Peerage by Writ that goes to a heir male, the son succeeds his father, whoever and whatever he is. He certainly need not be a man of remarkable ability. If a Peer by Writ dies to-morrow his son succeeds as a matter of course; and if he has one daughter she succeeds by law—the Committee could not stop that. But if he has four daughters they are not to be called up because they have not got a third of the Barony. If he has two or three daughters they are not to be called up necessarily, but
"regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness, as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred."
If we took the case of some people who are sent here because they are reputed at any rate not to have been in other conditions of life a success, you might assume that there would not be very much demand made on the daughter who is claiming a Peerage; but what it states is that no daughter is to be called up unless she is, in effect, of such character, and possesses such brain power, that in the ordinary course an initial Peerage might have been conferred upon her. I ask: Is it fair that the Peers by Patent, who are in a great majority in this House—there are over 600 of them—should ask of the Peers by Writ and the Peers by Patent whose Peerages go to heirs general that they should have so much higher a standard of position and ability in their descendants than the Peers whose Peerages go by heirs male? I beg to move the addition that I have read, in order that I may put my own opinion upon record.
Amendment moved—
At end of Motion to add ("provided that neither of the recommendations of the Committee numbered 2 and 5 shall be taken as extending to Peerages with descent to heirs general that are not in abeyance at the present time").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in answer to the noble Viscount. First he complained that no Peer sitting by Writ and no Peer under a Patent with descent to heirs general was a member of this Select Committee. I confess that
676
the distinction never occurred to me. I am afraid I was responsible for selecting those who should be proposed to the House as members of the Committee. I tried to select Peers who had special knowledge in the matter, and who sat on all sides of the House, whether they sat by one kind of title or by the other. If the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and his friends had suggested when the Committee was appointed the names of some Peers representing their point of view I should not have objected. But I think the House is satisfied that the Peers who were summoned have done their best, and they have been quite impartial between the two classes. With regard to Recommendation 2, I think the noble Viscount, Lord St. David's, is under a misapprehension. He seems to treat these rules as hard and fast rules, and to think that the Law Officers of the day would have to tell the Prime Minister that these rules were being infringed, and thereupon the matter could not go any further. I think he is quite mistaken about that.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It is in evidence given before the Committee that that is what would happen. There were questions put to that effect, and it was said in the Committee that the Attorney-General of the day would stop the case and not let it go further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept that. Whatever was said in the Committee by any one there does not alter my view; nor is it the effect of the recommendations of the Committee. If the noble Viscount will read the Report he will see that all the rules proposed are preceded and governed by these words at the beginning of paragraph 21:
"In the absence of special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary"
Those words govern all six recommendations and the Law Officer will have to have regard to those words in advising the Prime Minister, and to call attention to any special circumstance which is brought to his notice, and to which he may consider that regard should be had. I think that takes away a great part of the point which was made. In regard to Recommendation 5 I want to make an observation which I hope will tend to satisfy my noble friend Lord Ancaster.

677
He seems to read the rule as meaning that a Peerage cannot be called out of abeyance in favour of any person who does not satisfy all the four qualifications mentioned in the rule.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Or one of them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl referred to the words "character, position, service and fitness," and he appeared to think that under the rule a Peerage could not be revived except in favour of a person possessing all those qualifications. I want to say this quite definitely. The rule simply says that regard shall be had to those four matters. That means they should all be considered and investigated; but if it were found that any particular Petitioner for the revival of a Peerage satisfied some but not all of those qualifications, it would be quite open to the Prime Minister of the day to recommend to His Majesty that the Peerage should be called out in favour of that Petitioner. I think my noble friend Lord Sumner will agree that that is the intention of the Committee.
I hope the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, will not press this Amendment to-day. I am quite willing that the House, in receiving and adopting the Report, should do so on the footing that it will still be open to any member of the House to move an Amendment to the formal Resolutions when they are moved. If that view is taken and this Amendment is now withdrawn, I will think over what the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, have said and will consider whether I can see my way to deal with any of their objections in my proposed form of Resolution. If I do not do so it will, I think, still be open to them to raise their points on the Resolution.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: MY Lords, I do not know whether, with the permission of the House, I may say a few words in order to elicit information. It seems to me that it would be better, if the learned Lord Chancellor would agree to it, to frame his Motion so as to include only the words "that the Report be received." He moves that we should also adopt it. If, on mature consideration, he found that he could meet either myself or the noble Viscount in some way it might be difficult for him, in framing formal Resolutions, materially or even in
678
a small degree to alter the recommendations of the Committee if once your Lordships have decided to adopt as well as to receive the Report.
The other point which I wish to put is this. I am not quite clear what the procedure would be when somebody petitions that one of the Baronies should be called out of abeyance. I know the Petition goes before the Attorney-General at some period, but what I wish to know is this: If we adopt this Resolution and the learned Viscount on the Woolsack formally places before us proposals at some later date which are accepted by us, those proposals, I understand, would be practically instructions to the Committee for Privileges. Is not that so? As I understand the matter, the moment somebody petitions to call a Barony out of abeyance of which there are four co-heirs the Committee for Privileges would act on the instructions of this House and at once turn the Petition down. That I imagine would be the procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so. I think that if, under those conditions, the attention of the Committee for Privileges were called to the special conditions and special reasons, it would be their duty to consider them.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has asked me if I would be ready to withdraw my Amendment. Most certainly I would be. I moved it in order to make it clear that I was pointing out the grievances of the Peerages actually in existence and was not proposing a remedy for the ancient past. The speech of the noble and learned Viscount has been sympathetic to most of the points that I raised and if he will put in his Resolutions what is in his mind and is in his speech when he actually draws them up and finally settles this matter, I should be quite satisfied. I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will consider the question of how in a future Petition any one of, say, four daughters of a Peer, is going to get past the Attorney-General. The noble and learned Viscount thinks she would. If he can make it clear or point out a method by which it could be done, and by which any claim in the future would not be turned down by the Attorney-General but would go before

679
the Prime Minister to be dealt with on its merits, then I should be amply satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia:—
1. RE-APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES.
The Sub-Committee on the Library was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Earl of Ilchester.

The Viscount Haldane.

The Viscount Finlay.

The Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford).

The Lord Hylton.

The Lord Colebrooke.

The Lord Ernle.

The Lord Darling.

The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Marquess of Lincolnshire.

The Earl of Clarendon.

The Lord Muir Mackenzie.

The Lord Lambourne.

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

2. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The following Report from the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was laid before the Committee:—

(1) The Refreshment Committee have renewed the contract with Mr. Vaughan, their caterer, for the ensuing year on the same terms as were arranged last year. Peers later in the year will be asked to contribute towards the expenses of the Refreshment Department as in former years.

(2) An unfortunate case of food poisoning has occurred during the year. The Committee immediately took steps to have the matter inquired into, and took care that every facility should be given for the purpose.

The Ministry of Health have made bacteriological and chemical examinations in connection with every article to which suspicion could attach, and have also made experiments. They have been unable to identify the poison. They also examined the kitchen and the kitchen utensils, and found that they were well kept and that there was nothing to which they could take exception. The report of the Ministry of Health is, therefore, inconclusive as
680
to the origin of the trouble, but may be said to show that no fault attaches to the caterer or his arrangements.
The same was read, and agreed to.
3. ACCESS TO LIBRARY (SOUTH ROOM).
The Committee sanctioned the proposal for making a separate means of access to the South Room of the Library from the corridor.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the first Report from the Select Committee of your Lordships' Offices be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government can give any information on the questions which have arisen in connection with Arcos and the Trade Delegation of Russia. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has been no opportunity of considering in this House the very important matters which arise in connection with Arcos and the Trade Delegation of Russia. The noble Earl will recollect that Lord Clinton, on the adjournment a day or two ago, asked why it was the matter had not been brought forward simultaneously in this House with the other place. After all, we are as much a portion of Parliament as the other House. I do not want to go back into that question except to emphasise the fact that a matter of this kind ought to be discussed, and should be discussed in your Lordships' House, before a final decision has been arrived at. That is not possible now and we have to discuss matters as they stand.
The importance of this question is that, except for an actual declaration of war, there is no more serious step in international affairs than the breaking off of diplomatic relations. As the noble Earl himself has pointed out more than once, it is quite a different matter not to enter into diplomatic relations and to break them off after they have been entered into. The latter is in many cases the immediate and direct cause of a declaration of war itself. I do not think there is any mystery in the relations which have led up to what I may call the Arcos and the Trade Delegation raid.
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I will not be led away by that "Hear, hear." I cannot imagine any one not understanding what the conditions were before that date. Whether we draw the same conclusions as regards the policy to be followed is an entirely different question. The Labour Party policy was stated quite clearly by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in the Labour Government, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as long ago I think as April, 1924. I have never heard any politician in this House or in any other place finding any fault with the statement of the principles of policy which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald then laid down. As I see in the House Lord Newton, who on more than one occasion has interested himself in this matter, I will remind him of the words he used in regard to that. He said that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's statement of policy was unimpeachable. I noted the words at the time and I have refreshed my memory, and I rejoice that that expression should have been used by an authority like Lord Newton. I think that terror-stricken people—here probably I should differ from the noble Earl—should take courage in the knowledge that in this country the Labour Party stands a stalwart barrier against Communist propaganda.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Mr. Cook does not.
LORD PARMOOR: He is not a member of the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But he is a trade unionist.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to discuss that with the noble Earl, but the mention of one name——
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is a great name.
LORD PARMOOR:—thoroughly substantiates my argument that the fact that the Labour Party is a stalwart barrier against Communist propaganda is a real safeguard as regards the future of this country. Sometimes I fancy, although probably noble Lords opposite may not agree with me, that the danger, if any, consists in the attempt which is sometimes made on this question to weaken the power and cohesion of the Labour Party. It was curious to note when a raid was made on the Communist
682
headquarters in this country and certain papers were published—I think in the form of a White Paper—that at that time the recommendation from Russia was that they should adopt merciless measures to fight the Labour Party in this country and in a special manner to destroy the influence of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.
I want to make it quite clear—I think it is a matter of first importance—that there is no chance whatever of the stability of this country being in any way affected adversely so long as the Labour Party maintain the strictly constitutional position which they have held and are now holding. In confirmation of that I should like to quote a passage from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, opposite. I think that if the noble Earl's statements in this House had been followed we should not be in the position in which we stand at the present moment. These are the words used by the noble Earl in this House and I quote them with absolute agreement:—
"On our part, we are confident that, with this nation behind us, with its traditions, its common sense, its love of law, its power of seeing to the essentials of a question through all the mists of arguments by which it may be surrounded, we have nothing to fear from the contrivances and intrigues of any nation under Heaven."
I cannot sympathise with those people who, because of Russian espionage or some Russian documents, seem to tremble. I cannot think that a country like this, with an overwhelming sense of order and law, supported practically unanimously by the Labour Party, should have occasion for the slightest fear either that Russia or any other country under Heaven could in any way substantially affect our security and development. In the same speech the noble Earl said that the Government were under no illusion as to what was going on. That was what I meant when the noble Earl—I will not say interrupted me but made a remark. It is quite true, as the Earl of Balfour said, that the Government was under no illusion as to what was going on. When the noble Earl said that it was in a speech in which he expressed his opinion that it would be folly to interfere or to take such action as has been taken at the present time.
I do not want to delay your Lordships longer than I need, and I come now to my

683
point that the only new factor since the Earl of Balfour made this notable statement in this House is the raid on Arcos and the raid on the Russian Trade Delegation. This raid, if I understand it aright, was carried out under a warrant obtained under the Official Secrets Act. I have not got the date, but I think that Act was passed in 1911. The document in regard to which the warrant was granted was said to be some document from the War Office. It was never found and never traced. If, however, incriminating documents had been found the Courts were open to the ordinary course of criminal procedure and any one implicated would have been liable both to punishment and deportation. In my opinion it is absolutely essential owing to the great interests involved that police action and diplomatic action should be kept wholly distinct. Not to do this may in my opinion undermine a foreign policy carefully built up on the lines indicated by the noble Earl and adopted by successive Foreign Ministers, on the basis of patient conciliation—I am quoting again, if not the actual words, the sense of the speech made by the noble Earl—which is essential if world peace is to be assured. A Home Secretary acting from the police point of view is nothing but a cuckoo in the Foreign Secretary's nest and may be a very dangerous cuckoo, as I think he has been on the present occasion.
The documents published in the absence of inquiry and investigation, although I have carefully read them, bring to my mind no conviction. At least we ought to have adhered to the principle of hearing the other side and considering what their explanations might be. We are not told the source of the documents published by the Foreign Office, but I am afraid there is more than a suspicion that they are due to that worst of all sources, the spy source. The documents published as found during the raid are in themselves wholly inconclusive. What is there in the documents? Perhaps those which have been most referred to are those relating to British seamen, which are practically stories of a few drunken men who either deserted or were discharged almost on the morrow of their engagement. This is a summary I take from the document itself:
"The few satisfactory British seamen, Communists, who are rarely found, never
684
dream of darkening the threshold of the Communist Party on the score of work, and a good sailor has always so far been sure of finding work."
That is not an alarming statement. It is a testimony to the good sense and right action of the whole mass of our sailors, foremost as they are in discipline and courage among all the nations of the world. There is no class less likely to be led astray by these will o'the wisp notions that come from the Communists and any attempt to deal with them is shown, on the face of the documents themselves, to be utterly illusory.
The consequences of the Government policy may be far-reaching and disastrous. It is a matter of extreme regret at the present moment in the history of the world that a great country like ours should take such an attitude upon this matter. It will not stop propaganda unless it is followed by war, and that may God forbid! It is a futile gesture, if it is not to be followed by practical action, and a gesture unworthy of our great country, which has an overwhelming influence which ought to be exercised in all cases for good in the world at the present time. Secondly, it will not stabilise the general peace outlook in Europe. The only chance of a stabilised peace is not that we should break off diplomatic relations with Russia, but that we should use all our influence to bring Russia within the area and influence of the friendly atmosphere of the League of Nations at Geneva. They did come there for the purposes of the Economic Conference. I believe that by kindly and friendly treatment they may be brought into the community of the European nations for the great benefit of all.
I may quote once more what was said by a leading Minister of the Government, speaking against any breach of diplomatic relations:—
"Look where you will, at the condition of what country you will, on this side of the Atlantic, and you will feel that the last course which any responsible Minister would like to take is one which, without adequate object, will add a new source of disturbance to this over-disturbed world."
That was a considered opinion stated in this House by the noble Earl opposite. We on the Opposition Benches at once expresed our agreement with everything the noble Earl had said, and there has been no change from that time to this

685
except what appears to me to be the futile outcome of the raid on Arcos and the Trade Delegation. It is quite certain that, since that statement was made on behalf of the Government in this House, the atmosphere has not become clearer nor have the clouds disappeared in Europe, or in China, or in Egypt.
Then there is the trade question, which is a question of infinite importance to our great industrial working-class population. I wonder how many of your Lordships who are now present were present some time ago to hear the speech of Lord Emmott. I am not sure that it was not one of the last speeches which that noble Lord made in this House. Lord Emmott in a special sense had a knowledge of Lancashire interests and was the representative both of Lancashire producers and Lancashire workers, of views on the capitalist side and on the side of the workers. There could be no greater authority and no one could indicate more clearly than he did how a breach with Russia, closing to a great extent the Russian market as it will, was likely to affect the great industries of this country and especially of Lancashire. He expressed his profound satisfaction with the speech of the noble Earl and with the fact that His Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion not to break with Russia. I do not want to quote at any length, but I do feel that if any member of this House wants an unbiased judgment, carefully stated by a man of full authority and full knowledge, he should read the speech of Lord Emmott on that occasion.
The statement made by Sir E. Turton in another place confirmed in all essential particulars the report of a credit arrangement with one of the great banks to assist Russian trade to the extent of £10,000,000. It is quite immaterial, and it does not affect the question for trade purposes, whether the security was found by the manufacturers or by the Soviet Government. The fact was that arrangements had been made and that that credit could be found, and to that extent further Russian orders were assured. Then we had the statement of the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester. We had quoted in another place the same figures which I have quoted in your Lordships' House—namely, that the inter-
686
change of trade between this country and Russia had amounted to about £180,000,000. A director of Platts' great machine works at Oldham, employing 10,000 workers, has stated that the breach may deprive 50,000 workers of employment in the course of a year. That estimate is based on the credit of £10,000,000. Is that a matter we can contemplate without great anxiety, having regard to the conditions of employment in this country and to the acknowledged necessity of cultivating markets wherever we can in order to find a sale for the produce of our workers at home?
We should revert to the policy of the Labour Party in 1924, not a policy of pinpricks—nothing is worse than that, especially when they are not followed up by resolute action—but it policy of bringing about the outlawry of all forms of aggressive war. It is a good hope that the other day M. Briand, promoting, as he always has done, this policy, suggested that it should be furthered in association with America. There is no other way of exterminating once for all the spy curse which now, in peace, contaminates the whole atmosphere of international intercourse. It is on the grounds that I have shortly stated that I base my Question, and I earnestly hope that the noble Earl, in dealing with matters of principle, will be able to confirm and re-state the principles to which I have referred and which, in my opinion, are of the utmost importance to the future of this country as a great power for peace and the greatest industrial country in the world.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I think your Lordships will desire me to rise without delay in reply to the speech which the noble and learned Lord has just delivered. He began by criticising, as I understood him, the silence of the Government on this subject in your Lordships' House, when in another place there was a statement made by the Prime Minister and a debate arose two days afterwards on the Motion of Mr. Clynes. On the facts there is no dispute. There was no statement made in this House, and there was a statement, followed by a debate, in the other House. But who is to blame for that, if there be blame? I am not criticising

687
noble Lords opposite, but they had only to ask a Question to get a reply, and if they refrained from asking a Question in this House when their colleagues in another place took all the Parliamentary steps that they could take to have a full discussion on this subject—if they refrained from following a similar policy in this House, surely it is not those who sit on this Bench who are to blame, but those who sit on the other Bench.
Upon that branch of the noble Lord's speech I can only repeat what I said to your Lordships a few days ago, and say that the last thing that His Majesty's Government desire is to pass any slight on this House or to withdraw from consideration and debate in this House any question that is of interest either here or in another place. However, the noble Lord, who refrained from asking for information when information was sought elsewhere, thinks—and perhaps he is right—that we ought not to separate for the holidays without a debate in this House. But observe that there is a great distinction between a debate taking place to-day and the debate that might have taken place a week ago. All the facts have now been brought before the public; there has been an extremely full discussion of a Parliamentary character, every newspaper in this country and in every other country has been occupied with this subject, and it is, of course, impossible that I should have anything new to say to your Lordships or any fresh facts to bring to your notice.
The second part of the noble and learned Lord's speech seemed to me not very closely relevant to the topic which he first raised. He explained to your Lordships with great emphasis that the Party to which he belongs (and of which he is an ornament) has nothing whatever to do with Communism. I do not for a moment suspect the noble Lord of Communism. There is not any noble Lord in the distinguished row of politicians whom I see opposite to me whom I should think in my wildest moments of describing as a Communist. But the noble Lord and his friends will allow me to say that, while I rejoice, as I think everybody rejoices, that the great bulk of the Party to which he belongs formally repudiate Communism, and while nobody would, I think, undervalue
688
that statement, it is true when it comes to the point—we have had experience of it in the last two years—that in the great occasions of opposition in which not noble Lords opposite but their Party in the other House took a share, in the General Strike, in the coal strike, in all the disturbances that have threatened the commerce of this country in a way in which it is certainly not going to be threatened by anything that we have done with regard to Russia, in these crises in our domestic history there has been a nearer approach between members of the Party of noble Lords opposite—I do not mean to say the individual members whom I am now addressing, but honoured members of their Party—and the Communists than those who feel the importance of real agreement on the fundamentals of social stability between all the great Parties in the State can look at without feeling some legitimate anxiety.
I do not in the least suggest that the great body of working men in this country are Communists. I know perfectly well that they are not. Broadly speaking, I have a profound confidence in the common sense, honesty and directness of vision of the people of this country. But let not noble Lords opposite flatter themselves that the Left Wing of their Party is wholly untouched and uncontaminated by some of the Russian heresies. I am afraid that is not so, and, though I do not wish in the least to exaggerate it, we have too many examples in history of a great Party being swayed by its extreme wing to look without some uneasiness at the intimate relations which exist between the Left Wing of the Party of the noble Lords opposite and those who claim their assistance when they are carrying out some of the doctrines that are preached and paid for in Russia.
I leave that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech and I come to what is, I suppose, the immediate subject of our debate. The noble Lord, rather hesitatingly, I think, and with considerable diffidence, indicated in one part of his speech that, after all, nothing had been found by the investigation at the Arcos premises and that we were acting from documents of doubtful value and on information coming from doubtful sources. I am sorry that the noble Lord

689
lapsed from the general moderation of his statement to make that insinuation, because he knows perfectly well, and every noble Lord whom I am addressing at this moment knows perfectly well, that there cannot be a more certain fact in history than the fact that the Soviet Government and those parts of the administration of Russia which, whatever they may call themselves, are an integral part of that Government, have systematically promised not to interfere in the affairs of this country, and have systematically broken that promise on every possible occasion. That is the broad fact of the matter, and it would really be folly at this time of day to endeavour to argue the point, seeing that I am certain there is not a noble Lord sitting on that Bench opposite who does not wholly agree with what I say. They have themselves, as Ministers, had experience of it.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not argue it, and I said there was no mystery about it.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: If the noble Lord did not want to discredit the evidence on which the Government acted I am unable to understand the purpose of one passage of his speech. If I misunderstood what the noble Lord desired to say I regret it. We are all agreed on the broad facts of the case; that is to say, upon the broad fact that year after year, ever since the Trade Agreement, ever since diplomatic relations were re-knit with Russia, down to the present moment, the British Government, to whatever Party it belonged, has been constantly offering remonstrances to the Russian Government as to the way in which it was behaving, and that steadily and throughout every Russian Government, and every Russian statement, has been lavish in promises of amendment, and not a single one of those promises has ever been kept. I am confident that nobody is going to rise after me and throw doubt upon the accuracy of that statement.
The only question therefore between us is: Ought this long period of toleration under increasing provocation to have been allowed to go on indefinitely? I have always been, as the House knows and as the noble Lord has been very careful to remind us, one of those who
690
have been most desirous of not breaking the situation until further tolerance became absolutely impossible. It is, after all, a question of degree. Is there in history—in our history or in the history of any other great country—an example of such continuous and untiring toleration of promises made and steadily broken as we have tolerated, not we on this side only but noble Lords opposite—the Coalition Government, the Conservative Government, the Labour Government and the Conservative Government again—is there any parallel of the toleration which all those Governments have successively shown under this provocation, throughout all these years? Observe that in all these cases it is a question of the cumulative effect. A thing which might be tolerated one year, if it goes on to two years becomes more difficult to tolerate, but if it goes on three years and longer at last it becomes quite impossible of toleration.
You can always argue as to whether the exact moment has come when toleration is impossible. Noble Lords opposite evidently think that the moment had not come. I cannot show—of course you never can show in these cases of gradual effect and cumulative provocation—the exact point at which further provocation is not to be borne. Whether it is seven times or seventy-seven times—I think we have reached seventy-seven times myself—there is a point at which a steady course of deliberate and authorised perfidy is intolerable in international relations, and the point is whether we have reached that stage or not. The noble Lord appears to think that things are exactly as they were last year, and that last year they were exactly as they were when he and his friends were responsible for public affairs. They are not just the same. They are worse, and they are worse in part because they are the result of this accumulating mass of false professions. The noble Lord regrets the rupture of diplomatic relations. I also regret the breaking off of diplomatic relations, but he will allow me to observe that diplomacy which consists of nothing but false promises is diplomacy which leads to very little good.
Can he point to a single case in which the Russian Government kept its word with regard to interference in our affairs? Can he point to a single effort of their

691
public and international policy which has been in the direction of maintaining and augmenting the feelings of international security? Can he deny that all their most eminent statesmen have made no secret of their hatred of the British Empire, and not merely a general aversion but a particular effort in different districts to do everything in their power to destroy the country of which the noble Lord ended his speech with an eloquent laudation? The noble Lord thinks, as I think, that this country is the home of freedom and the best hope of peace and world security. The Russian Government is never tired of talking nonsense about Imperialism and aggression, and using all the catchwords which unscrupulous people use in order to take in foolish people.
Does the noble Lord forget, or allow himself to forget, what infinite injury, to our knowledge, Russia has done and is doing in China? I do not for a moment accuse the Soviet Government of being responsible for all the miseries of the warring and contending factions now tearing that unhappy country to pieces—the Chinese must bear their fair share of the responsibility—but the Russian Government have done everything they can to promote and augment the trouble. They have done it because they thought that through China they could strike at Great Britain, and leading members of their Government have openly said that not merely through China do they desire to strike at this country, but through India and all the far-reaching parts of our widespread Dominions. I quite agree with the noble Lord that I share the faith that all these efforts are going to be foiled, but they are serious efforts, and in the meantime they do infinite harm in all those areas where they are exercised, and surely the noble Lord, when he talks of gradually shepherding the Soviet Government into the peaceable circuit of the League of Nations, was expressing not what he thought would happen but what he hoped might happen—not an end which he would recommend to practical men in a practical world, but an aspiration, which may sound very well in a debate, but which has very little value in the council chamber or in the chancelleries of diplomacy.
We have had six years to watch the progress of this Trade Agreement. We have watched it with unfailing patience.
692
The position has not got better; it has got steadily worse so far as Russia is concerned—not the slightest symptom of any diminution in their theoretical or practical hostility, not the slightest suggestion that they were going to relax their efforts, whether in China or elsewhere, to effect the destruction of this country. The broad issue is so clear that I do not think anybody can have the slightest doubt, I will not say as to the wisdom of the moment chosen—we take one view, it is legitimate, if noble Lords think so, to take another view as to the moment; but they cannot suggest any alternative policy if they came into office to-morrow and they were to be consistently treated as we have been treated by the Soviet Government—if they were to go on remonstrating, as they themselves did remonstrate when they were in office, and as we have remonstrated since they left office, and every time their remonstrances were met by professions, every time those professions were broken, and the total result of this accumulated mass of diplomatic falsehood left the general situation worse than it found it. That is not a situation that can go on for ever. It is a situation which I suspect will sooner come to an end after what has happened than if we had gone on in our course.
I do not for a moment suppose that this is going to lead to war. That was suggested by the noble Lord, I think, in the early part of his speech as a possibility. I do not think it is a possibility. If it is, it is not our fault. For what is our position now? It is exactly the position of many other States with whom nobody suggests that there is going to be war. We have given no provocation to the Soviet Government, we have not interfered in Russian affairs: all the provocation is from the Soviet Government to us, all the interference is by the Soviet Government in our affairs; and I see no reason why that should end in any different international relations from those which now prevail between the Soviet Government and, let us say, the United States. I quite agree that it is a more serious thing to break off relations than not to enter into them. I expressed that doctrine last year, and I repeat it. But, although that doctrine be true, now that relations are broken off there is no conceivable reason why the

693
Russian Government and ourselves should not be as the Russian Government and the Government of Washington are. I therefore put that entirely on one side.
As for trade, on which the noble Lord dwelt a great deal, I regret as much as he does anything which may diminish trade. It is not the Party to which I belong which has contributed to the immense industrial and economic difficulty under which this country has been labouring during the last twelve months. That responsibility rests elsewhere. But as regards the trade with Russia that need not be and, so far as we are concerned, will not be interrupted by what has occurred. If the Russians, against their own interests, refuse to trade with us, that is their affair. No doubt we shall suffer, probably they will suffer more; but I should imagine, and I should hope, that they will have the sense to do with Great Britain what they have done with other countries—to trade with them as far as they think their interests are concerned, not to trade with them so far as their interests are not concerned. If they follow their interests, the trade lost will not be of a very serious kind, and in any case it sinks into insignificance by the side of the broader considerations which I have laid before your Lordships.
The noble Lord, quite rightly in my opinion, dwelt upon the possible international effect of a diplomatic action such as that which we have taken. I think that at one time there was a danger that the condition of Europe was of so doubtful and uncomfortable a character that the smallest diplomatic incident might lead to serious results, but the efforts in favour of peace, the efforts in favour of mutual international confidence, the feeling of security that has been growing up in Europe have, I believe, changed the situation, and a, diplomatic step which might have frightened all the world a year and a half ago has, as far as I can observe, produced no deleterious consequences whatever; nor does it carry within itself the seeds of any deleterious consequences. That is a consideration which, I am sure, ought to be present to the minds of all those who are in any way inclined to doubt the wisdom of the course which the Government have taken. We have taken it under the greatest provocation. We have taken it at a
694
moment when, so far as we can judge, no international ill-consequences will follow.
And I would say as my last word that if the state of Europe is better than it was when noble Lords opposite were responsible for the conduct of our foreign affairs, if men are less nervously anxious about the military, the international, and the economic position of Europe than they then were, that is largely due to systematic efforts of successive British Governments, and not least of the Government to which I have the honour to belong, and there is not, one single step that we have taken in the direction of mutual peace, mutual confidence and the general security of the world but has been hampered as far as possible by the Government whom the noble Lord opposite thinks we ought to treat with even greater tolerance than he and we have been able to do. I do not imagine the noble Lord means to divide the House.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not put down any Motion.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought there was a Motion on the Paper. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure he is right. I am equally sure he is not right in thinking that we have shown reckless indifference in our conduct of international affairs in this case. It is only under circumstances which no Government could continue to tolerate that we have taken the course which he has criticised this evening. I think that is all I have to say to your Lordships and I hope it meets with your approval.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Lords, no one can doubt the importance of the subject under discussion, involving as it does action taken by His Majesty's Government which must affect our relations with the whole world. I have found myself, as I think have all those who are associated with me in political views, in almost complete agreement with the noble Earl who has just spoken. I have some feeling of regret that I cannot go all the way with him. Since I have been in this House after my return from India I have had the opportunity of hearing the noble Earl on foreign and international affairs, and, listening, as I always do, with the greatest respect and, may I add, admiration to the

695
observations made by the Lord President of the Council, I have found myself generally in agreement with him.
What I would desire your Lordships to keep clearly in mind is that in any observations I may make I am not seeking in the slightest degree to palliate or minimise the actions of the Russian Government or of those associated with it. There is not one word that has fallen from the noble Earl from which I would dissent and, if I may be permitted to say so, I think he was studiously moderate in the description he gave of the action of the Russian Government and of those associated with it. My difficulty is of another character. Since March, 1921, when the Trade Agreement was made, every Government, of whatever political Party it was composed has always adopted the same line, that of suffering what was happening while knowing that Russia was committing acts which were a breach of faith, that statements were being made which were quite untrue, and that action was being taken in order to penetrate this country by means of propaganda for the purpose of disseminating the notions at the root of the Soviet system of government.
We have known that all along. I do not pause to go into detail, neither do I wish to analyse in the slightest degree the material that was placed before another House or before your Lordships. I am unable to take the view put forward by my noble and learned friend (Lord Parmoor) in some remarks which seemed to indicate that the disclosures were not really of important consequence. I only agree with him in one respect and that is that they are of no real consequence so far as any effect they will have upon the people of this country is concerned. But for the rest I disagree with him entirely. I may be pressing what he said too far when I say that he stated that the disclosures that have been made are really not matters of serious weight and that we could afford to pass them over. I am not of that opinion, and yet I am not fully in accord with the observations made by the noble Earl and the action taken by the Government. I may therefore venture to express my views upon the situation and to give reasons for
696
saying that I do not go all the way with the noble Earl.
I doubt whether we shall find anywhere expressions so well rendered and yet so terse as those used by the noble Earl in June of last year when dealing with this very subject in debate. I am sure he will accept it from me that I am not seeking to make any mere dialectical point. If I were to attempt at this moment to put before your Lordships all I think on this subject and the reasons why I am so impressed with the undesirability of going the full length of rupturing all diplomatic relations, I could give your Lordships no better argument than is afforded by the language of the noble Earl on that occasion in June, 1926. I agree that that is not to be pressed too far and am not suggesting that it should be. There does come a point at which you must take action. For a long time the noble Earl's Government and other Governments have been extraordinarily tolerant. No reproach can be made against any of the Governments of this country, since the Trade Agreement came into force and since diplomatic relations were more formally established with Russia, that they have been guilty of a want of tolerance or forbearance. There can be no argument based upon that, as I think your Lordships will agree.
But what puzzles me—and I confess I have tried to find an answer from all such means as are open to me—is: What is it that has made the noble Earl, to whose views I pay so much deference, change his opinion from that of June, 1926? I will go further: What has made him change his opinion since March 3 of this year, when there was a debate in your Lordships' House? Although the noble Earl was not present himself, much to our loss, nevertheless the Government made a reply based upon the noble Earl's views, for he generally speaks, I understand, for the Government on Foreign Affairs in your Lordships' House. What has happened to change him? I will not trouble your Lordships by reverting to what was said then but I will recall to your memories that at the beginning of March a very similar kind of discussion arose and opinions were expressed by His Majesty's Government. The Government had addressed another Note, a formidable Note, to Russia, and had made

697
it quite clear that they could not tolerate repetition of the actions disclosed. We were dealing then with the disclosures of the Soviet or at any rate of those associated with the Soviet Government in China.
I have asked myself why, and I would ask your Lordships why, such a change has been made. I am not suggesting that some action should not have been taken. On the contrary, I would go all the way with His Majesty's Government that it was necessary to take action. I do not stop for a moment to argue that nothing should be done. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord and his Party in that view. I would go the full length of taking away all diplomatic privileges granted under the Trade Agreement of 1921, because again and again gross breaches of faith have been proved against the conditions upon which the Trade Agreement was made. I would go further. Do everything that you can for the purpose of enforcing the view upon the Russian Government that we will not tolerate this kind of action of which we have complained, but will take steps to vindicate our position if it does take place. We have not done it hitherto.
It may be asked: How could you stop it? What would you do? Well, I am not in the Government, but I say quite frankly that I would not hesitate. This Trading Agreement, made in 1921, gave under Clauses 4, 5 and 6, diplomatic privileges which never before existed under a Trading Agreement. The reason for that was obvious. We were not in diplomatic relations with Russia, and we were anxious to trade with Russia and so gain the advantages of trade with a country of from 140 to 150 million people. Consequently, rightly or wrongly—I will not pause to inquire into that—the Trading Agreement was concluded, and in order that it should be made easier for proper relations to exist and because there were no diplomatic relations, we granted the diplomatic privileges conferred under Clauses 4, 5 and 6. I would, without hesitation, withdraw them, as the Government have withdrawn them. I would give Arcos liberty to go on trading so long as it trades legitimately, but without the diplomatic privileges, putting it in the same position as any other trading concern and leaving it to do the best it can in the circumstances without the
698
advantages which hitherto it has had. Thus our position would have been most definitely marked, having regard to the disclosures made.
I do not think we should even have stopped at that. Those who have taken part should be deported. "Deportation" may be too strong an expression; they should be asked to remove themselves from this country because they had so deliberately broken faith with us. And if it were proved that the Chargé d'Affaires, who has represented the Soviet Government in the diplomatic relations which have existed since 1924, had taken part in and had been responsible for these activities, he also should be asked to go, and if the Russian Government wished to continue relations with us they must appoint someone with regard to whom we had not proved breach of faith. Even prosecution could be instituted under the law of the country against those who dealt with official secrets. You could proceed against them and it would be a very effective measure if you could prove the case. I agree that it could not operate in regard to those who actually get the benefit of diplomatic privileges, but it was not they who did the mischief. I have only given this indication because I might properly be asked: What would you have done after all the forbearance of the Government? which, I quite agree, will stand the test of every examination. My answer is that I think the time has come, as the noble Earl said, when something had to be done.
But why should you—this is the part that has puzzled me and I confess puzzles me still—at this stage not only have taken the steps which I have indicated and withdrawn the privileges under the Trade Agreement, but also have gone the full length of severing all diplomatic relations? I certainly hope, as the noble Earl said, that breach of diplomatic relations does not necessarily mean war. It is idle to pretend that it does. But it is true that when you have broken off diplomatic relations you have no other means open of compelling a Government or a people to follow you, because you have stopped all intercourse and there is nothing left. I would not urge for one moment that in no circumstances and under no provocation should you ever

699
break off diplomatic relations, even with a country of 140,000,000 people, with its great development still waiting and with all the opportunities of trade and advantage that may come if you can get into proper relations with her. All I am doubting is the wisdom of proceeding as far as the Government have gone, and I am wondering whether perhaps the action is not a little precipitate, whether it might not have been sufficient to have withdrawn the concession of diplomatic privileges under the Trading Agreement, removed those who were responsible, however high they were placed, and left a Trading Agreement which no longer gave special privileges but was subject to the law of the land as any other trading concern—and kept other diplomatic relations as they were.
It would have been difficult, no doubt, very difficult, but one more opportunity might have been given. The Government have given many. My criticism is that when they have followed this policy of forbearance not merely this Government but every one of our Governments—and have pursued it up to this moment, it is difficult to understand why, because of what has happened, it was necessary to take every possible step open to them instead of proceeding as I have indicated.
May I put another question which I have addressed to myself? What is to be gained by the rupture of diplomatic relations? That is the test. There is no other in my view, and I have high authority for that as it is what the noble Earl himself said last year. He was then against breaking off diplomatic relations. He explained why, and he said, in effect: "You must never do it unless you see real advantage. You must see that you will get benefits from it. You must not do it merely as a gesture." I am paraphrasing, but in substance that is what the noble Earl said. The reason is that we are not attempting to punish. It is not as if you are trying a person. When you sever diplomatic relations it is really in vindication of your own position, partly, it may be, because you think your own dignity and honour demand it, partly also because you have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances it would be better and more advantageous to you if you had no diplomatic relations. I trust, our
700
honour and dignity will never be judged by whether or not we withdraw diplomatic privileges under a Trading Agreement and content ourselves with that, or whether we break off relations.
What do we gain by the decision of the Government? I wish I could see the advantage. Trade? Again I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl. I say trade will not stop, but it will be very much hindered. Trade will go on through individuals, as we know, but they will not have the same security. Now that we have severed diplomatic relations, no one will come forward and advance £10,000,000 sterling on the credit of orders of the Russian Government. I do not hesitate to say of the banks and big financial institutions, although many noble Lords know them better than I, that no one of them will enter into business relations or give credit to Russia once it has become clear that the Government will have nothing to do with Russia. They will refuse partly because of their business acumen and also—I speak with some slight knowledge of the City—because in the City the mere fact that the Government have taken this step would cause men to refuse to take action even though it might be profitable. Those of whom I am thinking are the heads of great concerns. We cannot afford to lose trade, though I am not forgetting the case of the United States.
I find myself once more quoting the noble Earl. He said, that there is all the difference between not entering into relations with a Government and, having entered into them and carried them on for some time, breaking them off with a deliberate accusation of breach of faith. No one has expressed it better than the noble Earl, and again I paraphrase him. He said: "One of the reasons why you must not do it is that, when you rupture relations which have existed between you as distinct from a refusal to enter into relations, you cannot calculate the consequences of your action." It is difficult to foresee the result, the effect upon the peace of Asia, the effect, generally speaking, upon the world's peace. Then I ask myself again: Why are things so changed? What is the reason? Arcos no doubt gave the information, but information of that character was already in the possession of the Government—not only of this

701
Government but of previous Governments. I do not mean in so much detail, but they knew it. They were content to let it go on, and why? Because they knew perfectly well that it would be more mischievous to break off relations than to let things continue, feeling assured that no great injury would be done to this country.
Finally, I come to the other question. Trade certainly will suffer as a result of this action of the Government. Nevertheless, I agree with the Government in withdrawing the privileges under the Trade Agreement even if trade does suffer. Trade would not suffer much if diplomatic relations were continued at the same time. Again I ask myself why has the Government changed. Arcos disclosed certain things, but the position with Russia is not worse to-day than it was. The only element of doubt I had when the noble Lord spoke was that he probably knows the facts better. It has been my impression throughout that, although Russia has maintained this system of propaganda and has continued these various regrettable actions, the position is no worse now than it has been all these years; indeed, if I can accept what has been told me—I admit not officially—it was much worse in the first two or three years than it is at the present time. China? What has happened there? Borodin, who must be taken as the hero of Sovietism, has been proved an utter failure for the time being. What else is there that Russia is doing?
Therefore, I come back to the question I was putting. It is really the foundation of the opinion I have formed, acting upon the tests which the noble Earl himself, with all his vast experience and wisdom, laid down in this House, that "before you break off diplomatic relations be sure you are getting an adequate gain; be sure of the advantages you will obtain." In spite of all attempts to answer that question—and I should have liked to be able to follow the noble Earl on this occasion—I have come to the conclusion that the Government have taken one step which they should have omitted, and that it would have been more statesmanlike, have shown greater wisdom and higher appreciation of the difficulties of the situation, both in Europe and in
702
Asia, had they been content to mark their displeasure and their distrust, legitimate as those were, by requesting the removal of those who have taken part in those actions, withdrawing privileges, and leaving the future to determine whether or not it would become necessary to sever diplomatic relations.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, it is only out of respect for the noble Marquess and lest it should be supposed that no answer was forthcoming to the point of view to which he has given such interesting expression, that I rise for a very few brief moments. Let me be one of the first of those who dissent entirely from the form in which he presented more than once the question whether or not we should actually gain from the step which we have taken. I think that, if he reads more carefully the interesting speech which my noble friend Lord Balfour made some months ago, he will perceive that it was not quite so baldly exhibited for it must be quite plain that you cannot examine every situation and decide upon your action by simply asking the question: What do we gain for the simple reason that there are some situations which do not present the possibility of gain. You must also ask yourselves, if you cannot gain from any treatment of the situation: Are we avoiding mischiefs by the course we adopt? If you are avoiding mischiefs, which you are certain otherwise to incur, then, in a kind of obscure and metaphysical sense, you may be said to be obtaining a gain because the avoidance of mischief and calamity is itself a gain.
The main thesis of the noble Marquess can be exhibited almost in a sentence. He is of opinion that we should have brought to an end the diplomatic privileges of the trading company known as Arcos, but that we should have retained our diplomatic relations with the Union of the Soviet Republics. I was greatly puzzled, while he was speaking, to know whether, in his opinion, there is any degree of provocation which would render it expedient to suspend diplomatic relationship. Suspension of such relationship, as both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess pointed out, is an act falling short of war, and therefore the provocations which in history have produced such a suspension have been on

703
the whole provocations naturally less than those which have led to the outbreak of war. The question which I should have liked to hear answered, either by the noble Marquess or by somebody, is: What conceivable provocation in the whole history of the world has a civilised nation ever sustained that we have not sustained from the Union of Soviet Republics? I affirm, having given some slight attention to history, that on no occasion in history have there been provocations of the sort that have not been held sufficient to render necessary or expedient an outbreak of war comparable to those which this country has sustained from the Union of Soviet Republics.
The noble Marquess has asked further what new thing has happened. Several things have happened which, in my judgment, are entirely new. In the first place, we now enjoy fairly complete knowledge of the activities of the Soviet in China. We had none of that knowledge when my noble friend made his speech some months ago. The raiding of the Soviet premises at the headquarters of the Northern Government in China, as the noble Marquess is probably aware, produced and published to the world a series of documents of a very remarkable character which were quite unknown to this Government, and indeed to the world, until they were discovered and photographed. In the second place we know that the injuries that were sustained, not only to the property of British nationals but also to British lives, were the direct result of the incitements directed from Moscow to the agents whom they had falsely disavowed, but who nevertheless were proved clearly to represent them. In the third place, we have the events which followed upon the raiding of these premises in London.
I imagine that your Lordships will think that these events in themselves have introduced a change in the situation. My colleague, the Home Secretary, informed the House of Commons a day or two ago that there had been discovered a photograph of a secret document—a photograph that had been taken in the Arcos premises. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, says: "Where is the document?" I assure him that it is not the habit of Soviet agents to keep these documents. If it was photo-
704
graphed, it was photographed for a purpose.
LORD OLIVIER: Can the noble Earl give us some indication of the evidence that it was photographed?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord asks me to give him the evidence. I will only assure him that, in the opinion both of myself and of those of my colleagues who were engaged in the matter, the evidence was conclusive. The noble Lord understands as well as I that to give the name of the witness would be as destructive to that witness as it would be destructive to the political position of the noble Lord. No Government has ever made such revelations, nor did the Government to which the noble Lord belonged ever give the names or disclose the identities of those from whom they in their turn, as the noble Lord very well knows, derived information. That of itself, again, is a new point.
I confess that my difficulty in fully appreciating the attitude of the noble Marquess is this. Surely you cannot strike at the subordinates only in a matter of this kind. Arcos and the trading body who are to lose their diplomatic position were the tools who were obeying the instructions of the Soviet Government. It would surely be an impossible act on our part to send away from this country men who had been obeying orders, while at the same time maintaining an appearance, an outward semblance, of friendly relations with the men who gave those orders. The noble Marquess does not even exclude the hypothesis of prosecutions, though the diplomatic difficulties which occurred to him are evident, and the difficulties of finding evidence and of producing and publishing it are equally plain. He does not exclude this course in relation to the men whom I call the agents; but this Government which has outraged every diplomatic rule, every principle of morality, this Government we are to continue to receive! Its representatives are to be present at those ceremonial occasions which in the past have contributed much to the genuineness of spontaneous friendship among the diplomatic representatives of the different Powers. The representatives of this nation, which is plotting disturbance all

705
over the world, are to be retained here while at the same time we are depriving its tools and those who must take its orders of such privileges as they have possessed.
I do not believe for a moment—although I do not count myself an authority on such matters, but found myself on the experience and belief of those who know more about them—that there will be any trading disadvantage as the result of the step that we have taken. Does any one really suppose that the Soviet Government traded with us and our nationals because they wished to benefit us? They traded only because they wished to benefit themselves. The motive of benefiting themselves will continue. And on which side was the trading balance? We have paid so much gold to the Soviet in the course of the last five years on a balance of exchange as has assisted enormously to sustain their currency. But for their trade with us, I doubt whether their currency could have been sustained. Are they going to cease from carrying on that trade, which is indispensable to them and comparatively trivial to us, in order to punish us, if by doing so they punish themselves more? It is well worth noticing that the United States Government, which has always refused to recognise them, does a great deal more trade with them than we do.
The noble Marquess said, and I am not sure that my noble friend did not say also, that there is a difference between never entering upon diplomatic relations and suspending those relations when once they have been formed. Of course, in one sense, there is a difference; but in my judgment there is no difference in regard to the relevant matters now under discussion. There is no difference for this reason. The question is one of irritation and of the results produced by irritation. Is the Union of Soviet Republics likely to be more irritated with the United States than with us? We have seen that the results of its irritation with the United States have not in the least interfered with its business with American citizens. Why should the Soviet Government be more irritated with us than with the United States? The United States told them from the very start: "You are people so dead to all civilised principles, you have so little conception of the
706
decencies of international life or the meaning of International Law, that we will not even attempt diplomatic relations with you." We were at least less crude than that. We have given them four years of it, we have enjoyed of their best, and if, at the end of it, we find that the more we know of them the less we like them, why should they be annoyed with us because we tell them that we should be very glad if they would go back to their own country and stay there? Why should they be more annoyed with us than with a country which never gave them a chance? I cannot take that view. They will trade with whatever country it pays them to trade with. They will injure us in any part of the world in which they see an opportunity of injuring us.
With all his great experience of Asia—it is far greater than my own—I cannot assent to the view taken by the noble Marquess that the course adopted by His Majesty's Government will react unfavourably to British interests in Asia. I claim confidently on the other hand that British prestige, not only in Europe but all over the world, will be immensely increased by the certainty that we have torn aside this veil of imposture, that we have told the whole world, as the United States of America told the world years ago: "Until this people has reformed its fundamental conceptions of international morality it is not possible for nations which hold other views to continue the pretence of diplomatic relations." If there was the slightest prospect of any word I said reaching those quarters whose activities have so much inconvenienced us in the last few years, I would say to them that there is small prospect indeed for a future in that school of revolutionary doctrine which has now antagonised not only Great Britain, not only the British Empire, but also the whole of the vast North American Continent. They have indeed a great field for their revolutionary propaganda. Let us at least rejoice that the agents of that revolution are no longer forced upon us with the appearance of friendship.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think a word or two must be said from this Bench on the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, began the debate in a very conciliatory speech, with

707
much of which we were agreed until he got to his main point, which was to show that some advantage had been got from the step which has just been taken. In that I do not think he quite succeeded. The noble Earl who has just sat down has taken a very different line. He has mounted, as he is fond of mounting, on his battle-charger and galloped about. He has been doing that all over the country for many weeks past, and has made himself a valuable asset of the extreme wing of the Labour Party. I am not myself much concerned with the fortunes of the extreme wing of the Labour Party, but I do grudge them the asset which they are securing in the noble Earl, who stirs up people to antagonism with himself at every turn by his speeches, and I grudge very much that the extreme people should have the advantage of that asset any longer. I regret very much some of the phrases which the noble Earl has used on this occasion. I turn, therefore, to the real point.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I hope the noble Viscount will not turn so suddenly. I should like him to tell me the expressions to which he takes exception in my speech.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Certainly I will tell him.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But you said you would turn to another point.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Earl, to-night, used strong expressions about Russia, stronger than it is usual to use about a nation even when you have broken off diplomatic relations but are not at war with her.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What expressions? The noble Viscount is not entitled to make the charge unless he tells me the expressions to which he takes exception.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Earl spoke of Russia, through her agents, as going all over the world up and down, and as identifying herself with crimes of violence.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I never used any such expression. I said that Russia was going about, through her agents, stimulating revolution all over
708
the world. Does the noble Viscount deny that?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That depends upon what you mean by revolution. It is not customary when dealing with another nation, with which you are not at war, to use expressions so violent, such as have been used by the noble Earl in the course of his speech. He will see to-morrow, when he gets the OFFICIAL REPORT, the sort of language that he has been using.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I know now, and I shall repeat it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: So do we. I will turn to what is the real and only point in this debate. What advantage have we got, or have we any prospect of getting, from the step which has been taken? To that the noble Earl, the President of the Council, who is a very careful dialectician and does not unnecessarily give an advantage to his adversaries, addressed himself. The noble Earl had a difficult task, which was more difficult because only a very short time ago he had laid down what unquestionably was a wise principle in these matters. It was: Be sure you know when you leap where you are leaping to. Therefore, the noble Earl had refused to identify himself with the very kind of step which has now been taken, and my noble friend Lord Parmoor pressed him for an answer to the question: What has happened that is fresh? What materials are there which are new? I waited in vain for an answer to that point from either the noble Earl, the President of the Council, or from the noble Earl who sits beside him. There was none.
We have known all along what Russia was doing. If you like, it was very wrong. If you like, I make you a present of this, that you were justified in taking any ordinary means to stop it; but when you take the kind of step that you have now taken you have taken a step the consequences of which you cannot foresee. It is childish to go and break into offices and look for papers when you have no certain knowledge of what you will get. We have now the papers before us, and I listened to the tale which the noble Earl told about the secret paper photographed. I have had long experience of these matters, and have heard so much about secret military documents that I

709
absolutely distrust them. If they amounted to anything great we should have heard about it already. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that the Government have gone too far. Their proper course was to have been patient, to have been tolerant, and to have pursued what is a sure method with the great conservative democracy of this country—of leaving it to be appealed to, if possible exercising a little pressure on the Secretary of State for War to moderate some of his expressions on the platform, and at the same time letting the people hear what the Russians or anybody else have to say to them, and judge for themselves.
That is not the course which has been taken. The course taken was a resort to violence and a sudden suspension of diplomatic relations on no new or fresh materials that we have heard of, and with results which have not so far been of
710
a character to compensate for the disturbance which has taken place. We are in a minority of seventy to one in this House and you must take your own course, but do not let it be said hereafter that we did not point out as early as we could the danger of the step you have taken, the importance of seeing the ultimate consequences, and the mischief of departing from the sane and sound principle which the Lord President of the Council himself laid down a year ago.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until Thursday, June 16.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

BOLTON AND KINGSTON-UPONHULL PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.

    SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL.
    SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
    TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

NORTH BRITISH AND MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  MATLOCKS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments:
The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
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 (No. 4).
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) [H.L.].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) [H.L.].
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Derwent Valley Water Board.
Grimsby Corporation.
Metropolitan Water Board.
West Bridgford Urban District Council.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIN (NEWCASTLE-UPONTYNE) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
COVENTRY CORPORATION (BOUNDARY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  The King's consents signified, and Bills reported with Amendments.
ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of Evidence (with the Proceedings of the Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

BURY ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of committees, appointed Charles Randal Bradburne, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature as Guardian of the infant Rachel Arden Bury, to represent such infant before the Committee on the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House, That in pursuance of Standing Order No. 159 he has directed that any Petition against the Bill shall be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office before three o'clock in the afternoon of Thursday, June 16 next.

CHELTENHAM ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Winchcomb, in the County of Gloucester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRAMTION (No.6) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRAMTION (NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME EXTENSION)BILL.[H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISTIONAL ORDERE CONFIRAMTION (WOKINGHAM EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRAMTION (NEW SARUM EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRAMTION (CONWAY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, June 21 next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRAMTION (NO.7) BILL. [H.L.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRAMTION (NO.8) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, June 21 next.