Sitting of 23 November 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Consideration deferred till Wednesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT AND SUDAN (WATER SUPPLIES).
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the figures of the estimate which was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government for the purpose of controlling, by agreement with the Abyssinian Government, the water supplies of Egypt and the Sudan?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government have not procured any estimate of this kind, and I presume that what the hon. Member has in mind is the rough estimate of rather more than £2,000,000 prepared by Messrs. Grabham and Black in 19201–21. These gentlemen acted on behalf of the Egyptian and Sudan Governments, but considerably more local investigation is necessary before the most suitable type of regulator or its cost can be finally determined.

  ITALY AND YEMEN.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any advance information of the supplemental treaty to that of last year lately concluded between Italy and Yemen; how long the treaty has
  1764
  been signed; whether British interests are safeguarded; and if the treaty has been registered with the League of Nations?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Italian Government have officially denied the existence of any supplementary treaty; and my Noble Friend will not, I am sure, expect me to give information about the non-existent.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has any boundary been decided upon in the territories of the Yemen and the Hedjaz or does that remain to be done?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must give me notice of that question.

  CHINA.

    HANKOW.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire if he will take steps to set up an effective municipal administration in the late British concession at Hankow in trust for all interests concerned until conditions permit, full effect being given to the Chen-O'Malley Agreement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The course of action proposed by my hon. Friend would be tantamount to a resumption of the control of the concession, and, as stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) on the 17th November, His Majesty's Government have no intention of taking this step unless forced to do so.

    TIENTSIN.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will defer concluding an ageement for handing over the municipal administration of the British concession at Tientsin to a mixed Chinese and British administration until greater certainty exists than is the case at present that such a course will not be attended by similar results to those which have been experienced at Hankow, or, in the alternative, if he will reserve the right to re-establish. British control of the municipality if the experiment proves a failure?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite answer. The conditions of the problem do not admit of a decisive answer on matters which must be to some extent at least dependent on the uncertain course of events.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects in the British concession at Tientsin; the number of British firms engaged in business there; the total amount of municipal debentures which has been issued; and the average value of British exports and imports for 10 years prior to 1895?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no accurate information as regards the first, second and fourth parts of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the third part, the total amount of debentures outstanding on the 31st December, 1926, was taels 2,571,040. I will write to His Majesty's Minister at Peking for further information if the hon. Member desires it.

    PERSIAN GULF (SLAVE TRAFFIC).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in the course of the trial of the slavery case tried at Karachi on 10th October the prevalence of slave-dealing in the Persian Gulf was made manifest; and if he will state what steps the Government are taking in the matter?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government maintain a naval detachment in the Persian Gulf, one of whose duties is to do whatever may be possible to prevent slave-dealing in that region, but in spite of this measure it is not in their power to abolish the traffic altogether. I have no information which would lead me to suppose that there has of late been any increase in this odious traffic, but I am glad the hon. Member has called my attention to this trial, and I will make inquiries into the situation.
    Mr. HARRIS: Do other nations co-operate by naval action in controlling this traffic?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to have notice of that question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    HUNGARY AND RUMANIA.
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Hungary has applied to have the subject matter of its disputes with Rumania heard under the Treaty of Trianon by the appropriate mixed arbitral tribunal and, if so, when the application was made; whether he is aware that such tribunal declared its competency to hear and adjudicate upon such disputes and that the Rumanian Government then withdrew its arbitrator; that the Hungarian Government then applied to the Council of the League of Nations under the Treaty to appoint persons in his place and, if so, when; whether such application has been acceded to; and why the procedure for settlement of disputes under the Treaty has not been followed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No application was every made by the Hungarian Government for the claims of Hungarian nationals in regard to their property in Transylvania to be heard by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal set up by the Treaty of Trianon. The claims were brought before the Tribunal by the nationals themselves and the Rumanian Government contested the competence of the Tribunal to hear these specific cases. As regards the remaining parts of the question, the position is that the Tribunal declared itself competent on the 10th of January of the present year and Rumania brought the matter before the Council of the League on the 7th of March under Article 11 of the Covenant as a circumstance tending to affect the good understanding on which peace with Hungary depended. Hungary appealed to the Council later during the March session and asked that the Council should proceed to fill the vacancy caused by the withdrawal of the Rumanian judge from the Tribunal. The Hungarian appeal is still under the consideration of the Council. A final decision has not yet been taken.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Foreign Secretary using his good offices with the Royal Rumanian Government to prevent a defiance of the League of Nations by one of its State members?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Council did me the honour—the very arduous and invidious honour—of naming me as rapporteur on this question and associated with me to help me in my action two other members of the Council. That Committee of three have used their utmost endeavours with both parties to bring them to a friendly settlement of this unhappy dispute.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman, so long as he is connected with this dispute, consider the interests of the peasants who have got the land as well as the landlords who have lost it?
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: Arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the campaign conducted on behalf of interested parties outside this House is not doing grave injury to the good name of Great Britain in South-Eastern Europe?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If I listened to that campaign, I think I should be disgracing my country. My duty as the representative of my country on the Council of the League, when entrusted with the task of rapporteur on such questions, is to preserve impartiality and do my best to reconcile the contending parties.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (PREPARATORY COMMISSION).
    Mr. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of Resolution 5 of the recent Assembly of the League of Nations, which brings arbitration and security into the purview of the preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, and thus involves an important change in the character of its work, any special instructions are being given to the British delegates before their departure for the forthcoming meeting of the Commission
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject matter of this question is covered by the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has given notice for to-morrow, and it will be more conveniently dealt with in debate.

    MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what cases have applications been made to the Council of the League of
    1768
    Nations to fill vacancies on mixed arbitral tribunals constituted under the treaties of peace, such vacancies having been caused by the withdrawal of representatives by their respective Governments; and what has been the result of such applications?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The only cases of which I am aware in which the Council of the League was requested to appoint substitute members to mixed arbitral tribunals already working occurred in 1923. I must refer my hon. Friend to pages 242, 399, 555 and 629 of the League of Nations Journal for that year for the only official and available information on the subject.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is prepared to support the policy of referring international disputes for judicial settlement to mixed arbitral tribunals set up under treaties of peace?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The functions and competence of the mixed arbitral tribunals set up under the treaties of peace are defined by the treaties themselves. The jurisdiction of the tribunals is confined to certain classes of claims by nationals of the contracting parties, and does not extend to disputes between the States themselves. There can be no question of referring to the tribunals disputes other than those which fall within their jurisdiction as defined by the treaties which established them.

    PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are taking place between this country and foreign Governments for the further elimination of the visas of British passports and those of the nationals of the countries concerned?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope shortly to conclude an agreement with Germany for the abolition of visas. I have also approached the Czechoslovak Government with a view to the abolition of visas, and am awaiting their reply.
    Colonel DAY: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether any steps are being taken to reduce the charges on the visas?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a separate question which I cannot answer. It is totally different from the question on the Paper, and I cannot answer it without notice.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not more important to do away with the visas?

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during the Geneva Conference for the limitation of armaments, any proposals were put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government which would have entailed an increase of tonnage or a greater cost to this country as compared with the programme outlined by himself in his speech at the first plenary session, subsequently published as a White Paper [Cmd. 2964]?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The answer is in the negative.
    Sir F. MEYER: In that case can there be any justification whatever for the statement that our Government went to the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva with a programme of expansion, and is such a statement not likely to prejudice this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That problem will be dealt with in the Debate tomorrow.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PERSONNEL (NEW CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two new battleships, five new 10,000-ton cruisers, and various destroyers and submarines passing into service this year will require larger complements; and, if so, whether it is the intention of his Department to make provision in the next Navy Estimates to increase the personnel of the fleet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The complements of the vessels referred to are provided for in this year's Estimates. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    OFFICERS AND MEN (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any changes have been made governing the liberty of naval officers and men to participate in political activities, such as voting or taking part in meetings, during an election for Parliament?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand the hon. Member's question to refer to the part which it is permissible for serving officers and men to take in a Parliamentary election. No change has been made on this point by the recent Fleet Order, although the wording of the Rule has been slightly changed so as to secure uniformity in the Regulations of all three Services. The effect of the Rule is that serving officers and men are not allowed to identify themselves publicly as supporters of a particular candidate or party, either by joining an election committee, speaking or appearing on the platform at a political meeting, or canvassing on a candidate's behalf. The Rule does not, of course, prevent an officer or man from voting at an election, or attending a political meeting.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not the fact that the new Regulations, as stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, do deprive naval officers and men of a privilege which they have hitherto enjoyed when wearing mufti—that hitherto they have been allowed the right to attend and participate in political meetings in their private capacity when then were not in uniform?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the Order is capable of being differently construed, but it has certainly been held before that they were unable to take part in the political activities from which they are now precluded by the Order.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As the Fleet Order specifically mentions half-pay officers, may I ask if the Admiralty regard half-pay officers as serving officers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, that question, or something like it, was put to the Prime Minister a day or two ago, and he promised to inquire into the matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that there has been no change? There has been a change, has there not?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said there had been no change as to taking part in Parliamentary elections. The change refers to the question of sitting in either House.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the reason is for this taking away of a privilege which they have hitherto enjoyed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have not admitted that it is a privilege hitherto enjoyed, but the reason was that, in the time when the party opposite were in power—
    Mr. W. THORNE: In office.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: —they set up a Committee of Inquiry into the whole case, under Lord Blanesburgh. That Committee sat for a very long time, and made a Report, and it was in order to carry out part of that Report that this Order was promulgated. That is the history of the matter.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does participation in Parliamentary elections include the right of putting questions from the body of the hall—[Interruption]. May I not, Mr. Speaker, ask the First Lord if, during the War period, there was not a good deal of trouble among the troops because this was first of all forbidden, and the authorities of the day had to grant it?

    CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the new facts disclosed at the recent Naval Conference at Geneva which have caused the Government to decide that it is no longer necessary to proceed with the laying down of the two cruisers intended to be laid down this year?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many 10,000-ton cruisers are building and how many it is proposed to build in the next three years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Eleven 10,000-ton cruisers are building for the Royal Navy. Our published programme does not ex-
    1772
    tend beyond 1929, and provides for one 10,000-ton cruiser, in addition to two smaller cruisers to be built in each of the years 1927, 1928, and 1929. A new situation has arisen owing to the fact that at Geneva, although our proposal for the limitation of the number of 10,000-ton cruisers was not agreed to, the discussions led to the hope that a limitation may be reached, and in these circumstances His Majesty's Government are reluctant to lay down any more of these large 10,000-ton cruisers at present. Accordingly, we have dropped two ships from the 1927 programme, one of them a 10,000-ton cruiser and one a smaller ship the substitution of which in lieu of a 10,000-ton cruiser in the 1928 programme is a question still under consideration.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that the withholding of the starting of these ships will in no way imperil the protection of our trade routes and the protection of our supplies of food, of which there is only seven weeks' supply in this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.
    Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask, is anyone attacking the food supplies of the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the hon. Member will agree with me when I say that it is necessary to provide in advance for the defence of our trade routes.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the First Lord bear in mind that the country will be very well pleased if he will drop the other cruiser from his programme this year?
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am unaware what authority the hon. Member has to speak for the country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Navy Estimates Debate just now.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the inclusion of a sum of money in the coming Naval Estimates towards marriage allowance for officers of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I see no possibility of including any sum of money in the coming Naval Estimates for marriage allowance for officers of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reasons which induced him to include a sum for marriage allowances for officers of the Royal Navy in the Estimates in 1925 have not changed, and that the need for it is just as great now?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot argue that point, but I think the hon. Member will realise that we are governed in this matter by the Government decision of 1924.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what supervision is exercised by the Board over cinematograph films in the making of which assistance is given by officers and ratings of the Royal Navy and His Majesty's ships?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Assistance is only given after signature of a legal agreement with the applicant firm, which provides in great detail for supervision by the Admiralty at various stages and for censorship before final production.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps taken to ensure that the final production is historically accurate?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Of course.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether in this agreement any provision is made for the Admiralty participating in the profits?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should be very glad to send a copy of the agreement to the hon. Member, and, if he can suggest any improvements, we shall be glad to consider them.
    Colonel DAY: Will officers and ratings of the Navy receive any extra remuneration for this work?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should like notice of that question.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much money has been spent to date
    1774
    on the new naval base at Singapore; when the work is now expected to be finished; and what the total cost is now estimated to be on the completion of the base?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The expenditure to date is £422,287. It is anticipated that the work will be completed in 1937. The total estimated cost of the work is £7,750,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was the question of this base discussed at Geneva, and could not the altered circumstances which led to the abandonment of two cruisers this year lead also to the retardation of this expenditure?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir, the question was not discussed at Geneva.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not hear it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked whether, in view of the First Lord's statement a little time ago that he was hopeful of agreement and had therefore dropped out two cruisers from his programme, he could not retard this expenditure as well?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I could say as to that. As a matter of fact the work has been retarded, mainly owing to certain circumstances which have made the preliminary work take longer than we thought to carry out. I have certainly never suggested at Geneva or elsewhere that there is any reason for abandoning this proposal.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MECHANISED VEHICLES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider building in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, some of the constructions required by the mechanised Army?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. Having regard to the specialised character of much of this work, and to the limited amount of it that will be available, I regret that I see no prospect at present of offering the work to the Royal Dockyards.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that it is because of the highly specialised character of the work that the suggestion is made, and does he not consider that it would be more appropriate that this work should be done under Government supervision, rather than by private enterprise?
    Commodore KING: I can assure the hon. Member that all work carried out by the War Office is carried out under the most careful supervision.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not be much better if it were done in the dockyards?

    EVIDENCE OF ATTESTATION.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that a certain number of men served in whose case there is no special documentary evidence of attestation; whether any appeal in cases in which the sole issue is whether or not a claimant served in pursuance of a voluntary enlistment can be allowed; and, if so, up to what date?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am aware that there are such cases. Notice has been given in Admiralty Fleet Orders that employés who wish to appeal against the rejection of their claims must do so not later than 30th November.
    Sir B. FALLE: Seeing that the date is so close upon us, would it not be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to extend it for a fortnight?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The date has been fixed for some long time past and applies to a great many cases. It has been fixed for all three service Departments, and it is not within the power of the Admiralty, even if it so wished, to alter the date.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What steps are being taken to acquaint those concerned that 30th November is the last date on which they can apply?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has been published, and everyone is supposed to have an opportunity of seeing published notices.

    UNITED STATES (CRUISERS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of 10,000-ton cruisers built, building, or proposed to be built by the United States Government; and what additional sums of money are being put forward in their Naval Estimates?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is:

    Built

    None.

    Building

    8

    I have no information in regard to the number of cruisers proposed to be built. As regards the second part of the question, the Naval Estimates proposed for 1928–1929 have not yet been published.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the increased naval programme which is suggested in the papers is the answer to our gesture for disarmament in not laying down these two cruisers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think a great deal was written in the papers before they knew what our programme in regard to the cruisers was. I should be very sorry to base any argument on anything that appeared in the papers on this subject.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that an increase in the American Navy adds to the risks of this country, or is an additional safeguard to us in time of trouble?

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRY (GAS MANTLES).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether there is any information available as to the number of persons at present employed in the production of gas mantles in this country, as compared with the number employed immediately prior to the imposition of the Safeguarding Duty in December, 1925?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. From such information as is available, it would appear that the number of persons employed in the British gas mantle industry in the second and third quarters

    1777
    of the present year was about the same as the number in the corresponding periods of 1925.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour if resident domestic service is classified as a skilled or unskilled occupation.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): There is no official classification of this sort; and the variety of occupations covered is such that I do not think it would be possible to describe resident domestic service, as a whole, as either skilled or unskilled.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Does not the hon. Gentleman see that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Are not these people being trained for service?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Quite obviously, it is not possible to classify them in the way that the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. For instance, a cook may be a highly skilled person or a very unskilled one.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Labour if he can give any estimate of the number of men employed as a result of the subsidies paid to the refiners of sugar beet under the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act, and the number of men unemployed as a result of the depression in the factories for the refining of imported raw sugar?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that there are about 8,400 workers at present employed in the beet sugar factories, but the additional number engaged on the land or in industries ancillary to the sugar beet factories, owing to the operation of the subsidy, cannot be stated. As regards the last part of the question, separate statistics of the numbers unemployed in the sugar refining industry are not available.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: How is it that the Ministry can supply figures for gas mantles and other safeguarded industries and cannot supply figures for beet sugar?
    Mr. MARCH: Is the sugar refining industry an insured trade?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I should like notice of that question, but I am pretty certain that it is.
    Mr. MARCH: Then you will be able to get the figures.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman supply figures of the number of people who are thrown out of work owing to the reduced purchasing power of the taxpayers who have to provide the subsidy?
    Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), the answer was given by my right hon. Friend the other day. We have a general classification for food industries, but there is no separate classification for sugar refining.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I repeat my question. How is it that the Ministry are able to supply figures for every other industry except beet sugar?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have just answered that question. We have a general classification for food industries, but no separate classification for sugar refining.

    SHIPPING RATES.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any associations have been formed to protect the interests of British exporters in dealing with the shipping conferences as recommended by the Imperial Shipping Committee's Report, 1922; and, if such associations have not been formed, will he ask the Imperial Shipping Committee to further consider the complaints of the disparities in freight rates between exports from Continental and British ports?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I understand that no such associations have been formed other than those mentioned in the Report referred to. If in any trade shippers can establish a general case for inquiry, I shall be prepared to consider whether it can properly be submitted to the Imperial Shipping Committee.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shipping freight on cotton goods from Liverpool to Alexandria is 50s. per measurement ton and from Antwerp to Alexandria is only 15s. per measurement ton; and will he take steps, through the Imperial Shipping Committee or otherwise, to secure the removal of this handicap to British producers?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: With the hon. Member's special knowledge, is he satisfied with the present position in regard to these freights?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I rely upon my own experience and the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was supported by the Imperial Committee in their Report in 1922, which said that this is an inter-trade matter, and it would not be proper for a Government Department to intervene.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: Is it not a fact that in the Report to which the hon. Member has alluded it was specially stated that this was the first method to be tried, the formation of associations, and that if that failed there should be direct action of the Board of Trade.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir, but I have informed the hon. Member that I do not think that the method ever has been exhaustively tried by the trade. I do not think they have formed the associations recommended.

    WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum compiled by the International Labour Office showing the effect of the adoption of the eight-hours day in France; and whether, in view of the conclusion drawn in the memorandum that, after temporary difficulties, the output quickly returned to or even surpassed its normal level, he will recon-
    1780
    sider the possibility of ratifying the Washington Convention on Hours of Labour?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have seen the summaries published in Industrial and Labour Information of certain reports published by the French Ministry of Labour on the extent to which conditions of production and labour have adapted themselves to the French Act of 23rd April, 1919, on the eight hour day. As regards the intentions of the Government towards the Washington Hours Convention, as stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Robinson), my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add anything to the statement he made in this House on 2nd June.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the reason why the Government have not ratified the convention is the tremendous opposition received from employers of labour?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must make no such assumption.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that Lord Cecil in another place said that the Government were prepared to ratify this, and it is only a question of time?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Lord Cecil, so far as I know, made no such statement.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If the employers of labour and the capitalists had wanted this, would not the Government have granted it?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS HOSPITALS (STAFF).
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the reason why ex-service and general orderly staffs employed in a temporary capacity at the Ministry of Pensions hospitals are compulsorily excepted from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Acts?
    Mr. BETTERTON: General orderly staffs at the Ministry of Pensions Hospitals are held in most cases to come within the scope of paragraph (b) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, which excepts from Unemployment Insurance

    1781
    employment in domestic service, except where the employed person is employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain.
    Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men are discharged, and are therefore in a very hard position, and can he see his way to remedying it in the present Bill?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That point will arise in debate. I could not answer it in reply to a question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider it himself with a view to drafting an Amendment, seeing that an increasing number of these men are being landed in an awkward position?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It is already laid down in the Act of 1920 that the definition as to who does and who does not come within the Act is decided by a Judge of the High Court appointed for the purpose, and we have no discretionary power in the matter at all.

    The AMOUNTS of CONTRIBUTIONS made to the Unemployment Fund by Parliament, employers and employés, for each financial year since the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to 31st March, 1927, were approximately as follows:—

    Financial Year.

    Contributions from

    Total

    Employers (including Service Depts.).

    Employed Persons.

    Exchequer.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    8th November, 1920, to 31st March, 1921

    …

    3,054,000

    2,866,000

    1,538,000

    7,458,000

    1921–22

    …

    15,068,000

    12,261,000

    8,123,000

    35,452,000

    1922–23

    …

    17,933,000

    15,608,000

    12,001,000

    45,542,000

    1923–24

    …

    19,009,000

    16,828,000

    12,811,000

    48,648,000

    1924–25

    …

    19,517,000

    17,318,000

    13,145,000

    49,980,000

    1925–26

    …

    19,467,000

    16,754,000

    13,504,000

    49,725,000

    1926–27

    …

    15,032,000

    12,874,000

    10,838,000

    38,744,000

    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give figures showing the estimated numbers of exempt men, women, boys, and girls, respectively, in respect of whom contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund are paid?

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give figures for each financial year since the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, showing the total amount of contributions made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by Parliament and by employers, respectively, in regard to exempted employés?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No separate record of such contributions is kept. It is estimated that the amounts paid in 1926–27 by employers and the Exchequer, respectively, were £50,000 and £15,000—total £65,000.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give figures for each financial year since the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, showing the total amounts of contributions made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by Parliament, employers, and employés?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a statement in tabular form, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Mr. BETTERTON:The figures at 29th October, 1927, were as follow:

    Men

    22,173

    Women

    8,654

    Boys

    506

    Girls

    123

    31,456

    Viscountess ASTOR: Were any of these flappers?
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of unemployed persons, and the percentage of unemployed to employed, in London and in the county borough of West Ham, respectively, for

    NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES of Insured Persons recorded as Unemployed in the Greater London and West Ham areas, respectively, at certain dates in 1926 and 1927.

    —

    1926.

    1927.

    Number.

    Percentage.

    Number.

    Percentage.

    Greater London.

    April (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    124,662

    6·0

    122,095

    5·8

    July (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    144,294

    6·8

    109,944

    5·1

    October (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    143,669

    6·8

    117,446

    5·5

    West Ham.*

    April (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    15,117

    21·5

    12,099

    17·0

    July (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    15,155

    21·2

    11,515

    16·1

    October (end of)

    …

    …

    …

    14,866

    20·8

    11,774

    16·

    *Comprises area of Canning Town and Stratford Employment Exchanges.

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. WILLIAM HIRSTasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have completed their training at the Brandon and Claydon training centres from their inception to 31st October, 1927; what proportion have gone overseas; is their training wholly agricultural; and is it the intention to provide additional centers?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 8th November to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). With regard to the last part of the question the centres at Brandon and Claydon are now being enlarged.

    COURTS OF REFEREES (CHAIRMEN).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour by what method it is intended to appoint the new chairman of the court of referees; and what qualifications are required for the post?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Under Section 13 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, chairmen of Courts of Referees are appointed by the Minister and no amendment on this point is proposed. The
    1784
    the last weeks in April, July, and October, in the years 1926 and 1927?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    qualifications of chairmen are not laid down, in the Acts, but in practice legal qualifications and, if possible, judicial experience are required, and, among other conditions, persons connected with any organisation of employers or employed persons, and candidates for Parliament are regarded as ineligible.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that a large number of chairmen are to be appointed, is it intended to advertise these posts for open competition among the legal profession?
    Mr. BETTERTON: What we do is to consult County Court Judges and, if necessary, Judges of the High Court to advise us as to the qualifications of the applicants.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that most of these persons consulted are drawn from a small and privileged class, will they not advertise the posts to open competition and allow the selection to be as fair as possible?
    Mr. BETTERTON: We certainly endeavour to make the selection as fair as possible, but I cannot give any undertaking that we will advertise them.

    INSURANCE BILL.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a memorandum from the Birmingham Poor Law Union protesting against the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Bill; how many similar protests he has received from other Poor Law unions; and ii he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has received the memorandum referred to from the Birmingham Union. No similar memorandum has been received from other Poor Law unions. As regards the last part of the question, the memorandum relates to the proposals of the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is now being considered in Committee, when all relevant points will no doubt be fully debated.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that other boards of guardians have passed similar resolutions protesting against the insertion of certain provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The only memorandum we have received is a memorandum from Birmingham. I am not aware of any others.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: Is it not a fact that dozens of local authorities have passed resolutions protesting against the possible effects of the Bill?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said, I am not in a position either to confirm or to deny the statement, as this is the only one we have received.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that Poor Law authorities and boards of guardians are sick and tired of protesting to the present Government as it is of no use?
    Mr. THORNE: How is it that the answer has been given by the Ministry of Labour when the question was put to the Ministry of Health, who have all the information that can be given to the House?

    TRADE DISPUTES.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Labour whether any strikes or lock-outs have broken out since the
    1786
    passage into law of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The number of disputes involving a stoppage of work reported as having begun in Great Britain since the passage into law of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act (1927) is 89, affecting 21,000 workpeople in all. Small disputes involving less than 10 workpeople or lasting less than one working day are not included in this figure.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not true that while these figures are very regrettable they entirely destroy the case made during the passage of the Bill?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these disputes were strikes and how many lock-outs?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What has happened to the raging propaganda which was going to bring about a national up-heaval?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    ACCIDENT.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the evidence given at the inquest held on Flight-Lieutenant Mackenzie Richards, who was killed on Wednesday, 9th November, in Surrey, he can state whether the defect in. the compass carried on the aeroplane used by this pilot was known before the aeroplane left Farnborough, and if there are any records to show when this compass was last examined
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The compass was not known to be defective when the machine left Farnborough; the instrument was last examined on 7th November, when it was reported to be in good condition.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these compasses are periodically examined?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, certainly.

    COMPARATIVE STATISTICS.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Air what are the comparative figures for the British Air Force and the largest air force possessed

    1787
    by any Power on the Continent of Europe in regard to the number of machines, number of men, and total horse-power of engines?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The present approximate first line strength of the Royal Air Force is 750 aircraft, of which 270 are in squadrons stationed abroad. The total personnel of the force is 29,985. The present strength of the French Air Services, according to my latest information, is about 1,350 first line aircraft, of which some 280 are in units abroad. It is not practicable to give the number of personnel engaged in air duties in France, since large numbers of those so employed belong to the Army and Navy; nor can any useful comparative figures be given for horse-power of the engines.

    NORTH-WEST INDIA (AIR ESTABLISHMENTS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there has been any increase in the air establishments in North-West India during the present year; and whether it is proposed to increase such establishments in North-West India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part is in the negative. As regards future policy, I am not prepared to make any statement at present.

    REGISTRATION OFFICE, FALA AND SANTRA.
    Mr. WESTW00Dasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the registrar's office for the parish of Fala and Santra, in the county of Midlothian, is on licensed premises; if he approves of this place for the registrar's work to be conducted; and, if not, what action, if any, does he propose to take to have the work done in more suitable premises?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the wife of the holder of a grocer's licence has been appointed registrar, and I assume that the licensed
    1788
    premises will be used as the registration office. As I have no powers in the matter, and no knowledge as to the availability of other premises, I do not think that I should express any opinion as to the propriety of the action taken by the parish council.
    Mr. WESTW00D: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the way in which this appointment was engineered and that large numbers of people have genuine conscientious objections to going into licensed premises, and will he be prepared to consider the facts which I can place before him from the district?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I am always prepared to listen to any facts, but, as I have explained to the hon. Member, I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
    Mr. WESTW00D: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the. reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to swear that he has no licensed supporters in Pollok in this matter?

  HOUSING.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of families living in one, two, three, and four apartments and upwards in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply involves a statement containing a considerable number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    According to the Scottish Census of 1921 the figures for households in Scotland, consisting of two or more persons (apart from lodgers) living in dwellings of the sizes referred to, were as follow:

    One-roomed house

    99,302

    Two-roomed house

    400,353

    Three-roomed house

    213,250

    Four-roomed house

    102,471

    Houses of more than four rooms

    171,140

    UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a large number of dwelling-houses are kept empty and withheld from occupation on account of the owners wanting to obtain a higher sale price; and will he take steps to remedy this
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware that there is always a certain number of unoccupied houses which are held for sale, but he does not consider that it would be practicable to legislate on the subject.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that every time a house becomes unoccupied it is put up for sale, and there is no possible chance of the local authorities letting it?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that is the case.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Cannot the owners of unoccupied houses be asked to pay rates while the houses remain unoccupied?
    Sir F. MEYER: Since when has it been the policy of the Liberal party not to sell in the highest market?
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these districts where there are unoccupied houses there are eight and nine people living in one room?

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health the names of the local authorities who have been granted subsidies under the Housing Act, 1924, for houses which were originally intended for sale under the Act of 1923?
    Sir K. WOOD: In submitting proposals for the erection of houses under the Act of 1923 it is not necessary for local authorities to inform my right hon. Friend whether it is their intention to sell or to let the houses, and although, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member he is aware of a few of the authorities who have been granted subsidies under the Act of 1924 in respect of houses intended for sale under the Act of 1923, he is not in a position to give a list of the authorities concerned.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Prime Minister if he will afford facilities for the Bill to amend the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, introduced by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, or take such other action as will enable women aged between 65 and 70, wives of insured persons, who reach the age of 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928, to receive the old age pension on the same terms as the wives of men who will be between the ages of 65 and 70 on 2nd January, 1928?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir, I am not prepared to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. In this connection I would refer him to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the 17th instant in reply to questions on this subject, by the hon. Members for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and Southampton (Colonel Perkins), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Edmund Wood) of which I am sending him copies.
    Sir F. MEYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very grave disappointment among a number of old people in connection with this distinction which has only recently been brought to their notice, and that they have never understood it and cannot understand it now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to refer to the answers to which I have referred.

    RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBRO0Kasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to assist those British investors who have become impoverished in consequence of their investments in Russian Government securities having been repudiated by the Soviet authorities, he will consider the possibility of making advances by way of loan to such investors to the extent of 20 per cent. of the face value of securities if deposited by them with the Exchequer as security, the amounts so advanced to be repaid with interest when the Russian authorities decide to recognise their liabilities to

    1791
    foreign investors in their national undertakings?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): No, Sir. It is clearly out of the question to ask Parliament to vote money for this purpose.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Seeing that the grant of such a loan has been made in Germany, why cannot it be done in this country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think it would be a very unbusinesslike thing to follow the suggestion to advance £20, in respect of a £100 Russian bond worth about £4 in the market.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: How many of these investors are drawing parish relief at the present time?
    Mr. PALING: Will the Government consider the advisability of making advances to people in this country who have become unemployed mainly as a result of the activities of the Government?

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN, IRISH FREE STATE).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the discontent felt by ex-service men in the Irish Free State on this score, he can say what the results were of the negotiations on the subject of their inclusion in the schemes of Empire settlement?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to answer this question. The position remains as explained in the reply given by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on the 20th June.
    Viscount SANDON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that we have a considerable responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has realised that.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men fought for us, went through all the hardships of war, and for four years afterwards were treated as British ex-service men and are now cut off from the privilege as far as going to the Dominions and Colonies is concerned?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. This question casts a reflection on one of the Colonies in its treatment of ex-service men, and I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it be in order for a question to cast a reflection in that matter, more particularly when this country is not treating its own ex-service men as well as it should do?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see any reflection cast in this question at all.

    POOR LAW RELIEF, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Health the amount of Poor Law relief, indoor and outdoor respectively, paid out during the last complete week in October of each of the years from 1923 to 1927, inclusive, in the area covered by the West Derby (Liverpool) Board of Guardians?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    CLOSED MINES (SOUTH WALES).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the number and the names of the collieries closed down in South Wales during the last 12 months, with the number of miners rendered idle as the result of the closing of these collieries?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): In South Wales 134 pits, normally employing 23,700 wage-earners, have been closed and not re-opened during the last 12 months. I will send the hon. Member a list of these pits.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, in view of this alarming decrease in the number of miners employed and the number of mines being closed, anything is being done by his Department in order to meet the situation?

    PRICES (IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION).
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the average price paid for the 18¼ million tons of coal and coke used during the first nine months of this year in the production of steel and iron?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I regret that this information is not available.

    SHOT FIRING (SHIELDED DETONATORS).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make the use of shielded detonators compulsory seeing that greater safety is assured in the packing and carriage, and in charging the shot-holes; and whether he is aware that their use does not alter the method of shot firing now obtaining, and that they also need no new appliance for their use?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 20th July last. I myself, and both my predecessors, have given most careful consideration to this matter, and have sought the best expert advice, and I am quite satisfied that it is undesirable to make the use of shielded detonators compulsory.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the setting up of a Committee to inquire into this matter, seeing that it is causing a good deal of concern among the mining population?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No Sir, because I have already a most competent Committee of the technical experts to advise me, and they reported unanimously against this.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that the technical advisers have come to the conclusion that extra safety would occur as a result of the adoption of this method?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I do not quite put it that way. They have come to the conclusion that if the Regulations are properly carried out, that is far safer than introducing a compulsory use of these appliances.
    Mr. PALING: If it can be proved to this hide-bound Department that there is a safer method, is that a reason why they should not be put into operation, and if this thing were done would not the number of accidents decrease rather than increase?
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is not a question of any Department being hide-bound, but a question of choosing between the advice of my technical advisers and the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. I prefer their advice.
    Mr. PALING: Has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted that extra safety might ensue if this method were put into operation?

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOREIGN MEAT (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information showing that pigs are shipped from Continental countries to the Irish Free State and thence to Great Britain, thus evading the embargo?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 9th of November to my hon. Friend, the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton), a copy of which I am sending to him.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of foot-and-mouth disease cases notified to date in 1927 in Great Britain, and the total Government disbursement in connection with such cases?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of foot-and-mouth disease cases notified to date in 1927 in Great Britain is 62, and the total Government expenditure in connection with the same is approximately £72,000.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any figures showing approximately the number of foot-and-mouth disease cases during 1927 in France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium, respectively?
    Mr. GUINNESS: With my hon. Friend's permission I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information.
    Following is the statement:
    The following statement, compiled from the official bulletins of the respective Governments, shows the numbers of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the undermentioned countries for the period 1st January to 31st October, 1927:

    France

    3,572

    Germany

    11,004

    Holland

    633

    Belgium

    633

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, EAST NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
    Mr. EVERARD
    Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Electricity Commissioners that the exceptional delay to which my hon. Friend refers is due to the fact that this is the first case in which the Commissioners have decided to insert a Clause in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, to make provision as to the relation between the price charged for electricity and the divisible profits on the capital attributable to the undertaking. This Clause has been the subject of prolonged discussion with the promoters. I understand that subject to any further observations that the promoters may wish to make the Order will forthwith be submitted to my right hon. Friend for confirmation. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any steps to restore Provisional Order procedure, which necessitated an Act of Parliament being obtained for the confirmation of every Order.

    KINGSTON BY-PASS ROAD (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of fatal and other accidents that have occurred on the Kingston by-pass road since its opening; and whether any complaints have been made of excessive speeds?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The Commissioner of Police informs me that three fatal and 85 other accidents (not all involving personal injury) on this road have been reported to the police since parts of the road were opened to traffic in April last. They have received only one complaint of excessive speed.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that speed limit traps are in existence on this route?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: As the hon. Member is aware, these traps, as he chooses to call them, or police controls, are exercised intermittently, and obviously I cannot say whether the control is being exercised at the present time.
    Mr. HAYES: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any of the accidents which have occurred have been due to bad lighting arrangements?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member has that point in mind, I will inquire and communicate with him.

    CABINET MINISTERS (POLICE PROTECTION).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the protest of the Westerham Council against the withdrawal of local police from their ordinary duties to special protection duties at Chartwell Manor on the arrival of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether arrangements can be made from New Scotland Yard for such protection as may be necessary from time to time and thus Avoid denuding the locality of its normal police protection?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The responsibility for any special protection given to Cabinet Ministers rests primarily with the authorities at Scotland Yard, and it is the rule that officers detailed for this duty from the Metropolitan Police should accompany the Minister wherever he goes. This applies in the case of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of routine, the local police authorities are always notified when any person receiving special protection goes to reside in their area, and it is entirely

    1797
    for those authorities to judge what, if any, special dispositions should be made. I have ascertained by inquiry from the Chief Constable of Kent that it is not the case that any police have been diverted in this connection from their normal duties in Westerham.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the Minister say whether the amount of police protection accorded to any special Minister depends upon the degree of nervousness of that Minister?
    Mr. HAYES: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the fact that men have not been diverted from their ordinary duties is due to the fact that, after doing a day's ordinary duty, they are called upon to do a further tour of special protection?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not think that is the case. Whether any local protection is provided is entirely within the discretion of the local police authorities, and has nothing to do primarily with the Home Office.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the Minister give any reason why this special protection is given to the Chancellor of tie Exchequer, or is it due to the fact that he has been stealing money from the Road Fund?

    REPARATIONS AND INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (PAYMENTS).
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount so far received during the present financial year in respect of reparations and inter-Allied debts, respectively?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The amount received during the present financial year in respect of reparations is £9,138,000, and in respect of Allied war debts £5,400,000.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state from 1st April to the latest available date the total national expenditure, exclusive of expenditure on the Post Office, the Road Fund, and payments for debt redemption; and the corresponding figures for the same period of last year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Excluding Post Office, Road Fund and Sinking Fund, the national expenditure from the 1st April last to the 19th November was £424,758,194. The corresponding figure for last year was £438,984,915.

    BETTING DUTY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, during the last three months, he has received any further representations or resolutions passed by recognised bodies in Great Britain asking him to consider abolishing or modifying the Betting Duty, especially as regards office betting or betting that takes place away from the course; whether any deputations have been received during this period either by himself or the officers of his Department; and with what result?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has received representations and a deputation from the Jockey Club on the subject of the totalisator. A deputation of office bookmakers has also been received by the Board of Customs and Excise on the subject of the Betting Duty. As regards the totalisator, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) on the 10th November. My right hon. Friend is unable to make any statement on the subject of the Betting Duty at present.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the answers given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can my hon. Friend say whether a reduction is contemplated in the forthcoming Budget?
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: May I ask whether the Treasury have any reason to believe that there is much evasion of the Betting Duty?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I am unable to give an answer to that question without notice.

    KENYA (NATIVE DOMESTIC SERVANTS).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the decision to introduce into Kenya Colony a system of registration for all coloured domestic servants, and

    1799
    to include in this the condition that all domestic servants shall have their fingerprints taken by the police of the Colony before they are engaged, has been approved?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): A Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council to provide for the registration of native domestic servants. Under the Bill a registrar of domestic servants would be appointed in each registration district who would be required to take the finger-prints of all persons before being registered as servants. It was decided to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of the Legislative Council.
    Mr. AMMON: May I take it that it has not yet received the assent of the Imperial Government?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not yet through the local Legislature; it has been referred to a Select Committee where all the relevant evidence will be taken.
    Mr. THOMAS: May I ask whether the Government will express their strong disapproval of this form of registration, whatever the result of the Select Committee's investigation may be?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. I certainly cannot do that; in fact, personally I take the view that registration probably is a very desirable thing in the interest of the native domestic servant, so that people should not pose as domestic servants with forged and misappropriated testimonials, thereby affecting honest servants.
    Mr. AMMON: The effect of the Government's answer is that they consider all natives either prisoners or slaves?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly not. The object of this Bill is to protect native servants who are regularly employed as servants from those people who pose as domestic servants with forged papers.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is there no other means of protecting these people against this fraud other than a system of finger prints, which is always associated with criminal activity?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must beg leave to contradict that. This system has never been associated with criminal proceedings as it is in this country, never; and almost universally it has been found the only means of identification. The finger prints of thousands of natives are taken in every colony in Africa and used as a means of identification, and no suggestion of any criminal taint has ever been made before.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there anyone on this Select Committee who can be said to represent the interests of the natives?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no idea how the Select Committee has been formed, but I will inquire.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has not the method of taking finger prints been used by several South American Republics for some time in connection with passports?
    Mr. THURTLE: Has the Under-Secretary never heard of the art of photography? Why cannot these servants be photographed?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, and if they had passports to enable them to come out of the country they would be photographed. The hon. Member has been in Africa and seen some thousands of natives, and I do not believe he would be able to identify any one by means of a photograph. Certainly, I have never been able to do so.

  WOOL TEXTILE TRADE.

    WAGES AGREEMENT (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that as a result of the employers in the wool textile trade giving notice to terminate the existing wages agreement, this week-end, a dispute likely to involve nearly 250,000 workpeople is imminent; and although the trade unions have offered to refer the whole matter to an independent tribunal, the employers have refused their offer; and what action he proposes to take to prevent the dispute?
    Mr. BETTERTON: My right horn. Friend has kept in touch with the course of recent negotiations in the wool textile

    1801
    trade and is aware of the present situation. I trust that the parties will still find it possible to reach an amicable settlement of their difficulties. I am not in a position to make any further statement at this stage.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In the event of not being able to come to an amicable settlement will the hon. Member say what action it is proposed to take? Has the Department power, where an industrial dispute is threatened and in which one party has agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, to interfere and compel arbitration?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The Department has, of course, powers in certain circumstances to set up a court of inquiry. With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think he will agree with me that it is better to say nothing more at this stage, because it might have the very result which we desire to avoid and make these negotiations more difficult. If the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman desire, then by all means they can put a question on the matter next week.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the stoppage, if it unfortunately comes, will take place at the end of this week, and there are therefore only two days left. Does not the Minister of Labour realise the seriousness of the position, and will he not at once do what he possibly can to try and avert such a stoppage, seeing that the negotiations have completely broken down?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has put that question, because it enables me to dispel a needless anxiety on the part of some hon. Members. It is true that the national agreement has come to an end, but no notice to terminate work or change rates has yet been given and that will leave at least another week. There is no question of these men being thrown out of work under a week at the earliest, and, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to put a question next week, I will give him all the information that I can.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: The situation is still very critical, because the employers have refused not only to accept arbitration in
    1802
    the dispute but to accept arbitration with regard to the terms of reference to a committee to negotiate the issues involved, which both employers and employés admit ought to be appointed. In view of the fact that there is a total rejection of arbitration in all forms, is not the Minister prepared to send down one of his chief officials immediately?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It is because I realise so fully that the situation is critical that I am most anxious to say nothing to-day which will make it more difficult and which might actually have the opposite result from that which the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend desire.
    Mr. RILEY: In view of the fact that the negotiations have broken down and the two parties are asunder, will not the hon. Gentleman and his Department try to secure a resumption of negotiations during the coming week?
    Mr. BETTERTON: So far neither side has approached the Department. The services of the Department are, of course, fully at the disposal of either side, and in so far as these good offices may be utilised I hope that they will prove efficacious.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Will the hon. Member suggest to the Minister of Labour that a declaration of the intention of the Government to have an investigation, which his Department is able to do, would at any rate stave off an immediate dispute, because neither side would be likely to cause an immediate rupture if the Government made a plain declaration that they intended to have an investigation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly tell my right hon. Friend the view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I must respectfully decline to say anything now which might have the opposite result.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it the policy of the Department not to. intervene in a dispute unless the parties ask for it? Is that the policy of the Department?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I could not give an answer to a general question of that kind—an answer which would do justice to it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted, at
this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(The Prime Minister.)
The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 137.

Division No. 368.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Forrest, W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gates, Percy

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

Nelson, Sir Frank

Astor, Viscountess

Goff, Sir Park

Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Bainlel, Lord

Grace, John

Nuttall, Ellis

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Oakley, T.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Grant, Sir J. A.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Pennefather, Sir John

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Penny, Frederick George

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

Grotrian, H. Brent

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Berry, Sir George

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Pllditch, Sir Philip

Bethel, A.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Betterton, Henry B.

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

Preston, William

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

Radford, E. A.

Bralthwalte, Major A. N.

Hammersley, S. S.

Raine, Sir Walter

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Remnant, Sir James

Briggs, J. Harold

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hasiam, Henry C.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hawke, John Anthony

Salmon, Major I.

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

Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Buchan, John

Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Sandon, Lord

Bullock, Captain M.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Savery, S. S.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

Campbell, E. T.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cautley, Sir Henry 8.

Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Shepperson, E. W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

Cecll, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Smithers, Waldron

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Chapman, Sir S.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hurd, Percy A.

Storry-Deans, R.

Cobb, Sir Cyrll

I liffe, Sir Edward M.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Conway, Sir W. Martin

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Cooper, A. Duff

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Cope, Major William

Lamb, J. Q.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Couper, J. B.

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

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Crooke, J. Smediey (Deritend)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Phllip

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

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

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Tinne, J. A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Loder, J. de V.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Looker, Herbert William

Waddington, R.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Daikeith, Earl of

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

Lumley, L. R.

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Maclntyre Ian

Wells, S. R.

Dean, Arthur Wellesiey

McLean, Major A.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Dixey, A. C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcoim

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Drewe, C.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Wolmer, Viscount

Ellis, R. G.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Womersley, W. J.

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

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Meyer, Sir Frank

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Fielden, E. B.

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

Finburgh, S.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.

NOES.

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Baker, Walter

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Barnes, A.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snell, Harry

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Kelly, W. T.

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kennedy, T.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lansbury, George

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Lawrence, Susan

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Lawson, John James

Sullivan, J.

Cape, Thomas

Lee, F.

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Lowth, T.

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

Clowes, S.

Lunn, William

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Cluse, W. S.

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

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistew)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Mackinder, W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Compton, Joseph

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Tinker, John Joseph

Connolly, M.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Cove, W. G.

March, S.

Varley, Frank B.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Maxton, James

Vlant. S. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Day, Colonel Harry

Montague, Frederick

Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

Dunnico, H.

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

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)

Murnin, H.

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

Fenby, T. D.

Naylor, T. E.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gardner, J. P.

Oliver, George Harold

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gibbins, Joseph

Owen, Major G.

Wellock, Wilfred

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Weish, J. C.

Gosling, Harry

Paling, W.

Westwood, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Greenall, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Whiteley, W

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wiggins, William Martin

Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Riley, Ben

Williams, C P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Groves, T.

Ritson, J.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grundy, T. W.

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

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

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

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Rose, Frank H.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hardie, George D.

Sakiatvala, Shapurjl

Windsor, Walter

Harris, Percy A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Wright, W.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hayday, Arthur

Sexton, James

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Question put, and agreed to.

LAW OF LIBEL AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Merriman be discharged from the Select Committee on the Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords], and that Mr. A. R. Kennedy be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Mr. BUCHANAN: On this Motion I wish to ask one or two questions. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is moving it inform me how many times the Select Committee on this Bill have met; and, secondly, what stage the Committee have reached in their proceedings?
4.0 p.m.
Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household):The question of the sittings of the Committee has nothing to do with me, though I believe that this Committee has held a meeting. All I am doing by this Motion is asking the House to substitute one Member for another.
Mr. BUCHANAN: This point involves an important principle. If I were assured that this Select Committee had only held one meeting I might not take any objection. My point has nothing to do with the personnel of the Committee, and I think it is a good custom of this House that when a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Member has to be replaced on a Committee, another Member of the same party should be substituted. I raise this point in no hostile spirit, but I think it is one to which this House and particularly the Party Whips ought to give some attention. Supposing this particular Committee had held a number of meetings, had gone fully into the question of the law of libel and had examined witnesses and papers, I submit that it would be wrong to appoint a new member in the midst of these proceedings instead of reopening the whole matter and starting de novo. I suggest that it is not right to appoint a member who

1807
would be called upon to give a vote without being fully informed of all the facts which had previously been before the Committee. This particular Committee was appointed in the month of July last year and they might have held a good many meetings since, and to appoint a new member now would appear to be bad tactics and bad form. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury who is, I am sure, anxious to facilitate the business of the House, will, on the next occasion of this kind see to it that the House is informed of the number of meetings held by a Committee and the stage which it has reached in its work. We can then decide whether or not it would be advisable to reconstitute) the Committee and start afresh. In a case where only one meeting has been held I think a Motion of this kind might be allowed to go unopposed, but the principle involved is important and should be examined by the House before we thoughtlessly pass Motions of this kind.
Mr. STEPHEN Mr. STEPHEN rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders only one Member can speak on each side in reference to a Motion of this kind.
Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps I had better answer the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.
Ordered,
"That Mr. Merriman be discharged from the Select Committee on the Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords], and that Mr. A. R. Kennedy be added to the Committee."

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Marriages (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATUTORY COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATUTORY COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Time for appointment of statutory commission.)
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) wishes to move another Amendment in place of those on the Paper.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Before moving my Amendment I wish to raise a point of Order. I wish to have your ruling, Sir, as to whether the Bill, as framed and worded, is in itself a valid document, and is in order at all. I ask your attention to the wording of the Title of the Bill, which says that it is "an Act to amend Section 84A of the Government of India Act"
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which ought to have been raised on Second Beading before Mr. Speaker. The House having committed the Bill, I cannot deal with a point of that kind.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Do you wish me to proceed with my Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can proceed with his manuscript Amendment, which is in order.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that the said Commission shall not be appointed until a Resolution shall have been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly of India approving of its appointment."
    I move this Amendment in place of the rather hastily drawn Amendments on the Paper, and I ask the Committee to treat it as a serious proposal. I do not1 move it merely with the desire of moving some Amendment to this Bill. In the first place, I have a little difficulty in reference to the previous Act. As I was trying to make clear in my point of Order, the Act which it is intended to amend is the Government of India Act of 1919.
    The CHAIRMAN: No, that is not so. The procedure with regard to the Government of India Act is the same as that with regard to the Army Act. Whenever an amendment of the law with regard to the Government of India Act is passed, a new Act is drawn up, embodying the amendment, and that is the Government of India Act for the purposes of any further legislation—exactly the same as in the case of the Army Act.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I suppose you will permit me to deal with the Government of India Act, 1919, by which the Statutory Commission has been created. It says in the Preamble:
    "Whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament upon whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples:
    "And whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred, etc."
    I submit that when the original Act was passed, it was then put forward as a forecast that the people of India would have the machinery to express their opinion, and it was clearly intended in the paragraph I have read, that, whatever Parliament might do in the future, it would have to be done in co-operation with the newly created body in India. We are now adopting a procedure which is quite contrary to that legislative enactment of 1919. My Amendment, therefore, appears to me to be an essential one dealing with a point which ought to have been borne in mind by the Government. The Bill introduced by the Government simply takes cognisance of what existed before 1919, and does not take cognisance of the events and circumstances of 1927. We are certainly not proceeding in a manner by which
    "the action of Parliament in such matters"
    is
    "guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service have been conferred."
    There were many ways open to the Government, but probably Friday will be a better day for us to dilate upon those lost opportunities. Coming directly to this Bill, I submit that it is contrary, even to the spirit of the Act of 1919, to sanction a one-sided bargain

    1823
    as if the Legislative Assembly of India did not exist and as if Parliament never intended to be guided by that legislature in future movements. Apart from the wording of the Act, I submit that after its passage, though not perhaps during its passage, it had become a contract between two parties, between the Government of this country and the body entrusted with whatever measure of popular government was granted to India. To-day we are asked to take a course of action by which one of the contracting parties wants to alter the contract radically, completely disregarding the existence of the other contracting party. That other contracting party, having heard of our one-sided activity through other channels such as the Press, is objecting as strongly as possible and in whatever manner it can against this proposal. I have just this morning received a cablegram from the Trade Union Congress of India—
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I wish to raise a point of Order. I ask you, respectfully, Sir, whether it is not quite out of order on any part of this Bill, much less on this Amendment, to discuss the composition or proposed composition of the Commission which it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to His Majesty. As I understand the hon. Member, he is now dealing with objections which are being taken in India to the proposed Commission.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is far from my mind to raise that objection at all, and I am sorry if the Noble Lord has got the idea in his mind that that is the only point which exists in regard to this matter. I assure the Noble Lord I am not bothered about the personnel of the Commission. If the Commission is wrong, any saint or scoundrel appointed to it will be in the wrong place.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member confines himself to the point that no such step should be taken until there has been a resolution from India, that will be in order. I have fortified myself with Mr. Speaker's ruling on the Second Reading and no reference to the method, personnel or probable proceedings of the Commission will be in order.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I shall obey your ruling, which is exactly what I have in mind. I have nothing to say upon those other matters, my point being that there are two parties to this contract and that one of the two parties is now undertaking to modify the contract. The other party to the contract is completely ignored as if it did not exist. The other party to the contract is raising objections not to the personnel, but to the whole procedure, and my Amendment seeks to put this House in some position of justification, and to save its honour, as far as I can retrieve its lost honour. My Amendment does not interfere with the desire of the Government to remove that cast-iron barrier of 10 years which they are trying to remove now, but what it does is almost to compel the Government to take notice of the existence of the second party to the contract and not to move in the matter as if they alone count, and India does not exist at all. I appeal to the Committee to recognise the fact that if this Amendment be carried, the entire spirit with which any future Commission or Committee will be working will be quite different from the spirit of the Government Resolution, and the people who are most concerned with either expediting or delaying such inquiry will get a reasonable chance of telling this Parliament what they desire to be done with the original contract.
    I strongly appeal to the Committee to set aside their prejudices and previously formed opinion, and to support my Amendment, which substantially carries out the Government's wishes, first, or removing the cast-iron barrier; secondly, reminds them of the original promise in the 1919 Act that in all future Measures Parliament will be guided by the co-operation of the new body created in India; and, thirdly, carries out the ordinary, honourable contractual obligation of letting the other side to the contract speak before one side settles the matter in a high-handed manner. I appeal to the Committee once again to be very reasonable in this matter and to accept my Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) is entitled, if he believes it is right that it should be done, to ask that these words should be added, but he is not entitled, on the one hand, to say that if these

    1825
    words were added to the Bill it would be in accordance with the spirit or the letter of the Government of India Act, and, much more, he is not entitled to claim that the Government, in opposing the addition of the words would break either the spirit or the letter of the Act. He has made a serious charge of breach of contract not only against the Members of the Government, but, inferentially, against the leaders of every party in the House. Members on that side will hesitate to support an Amendment which involves a direct charge against the leaders of the Labour party, as well as hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, of a breach of faith. That is a serious charge, even though it proceeds from the hon. Gentleman, and I propose in very few words to explain the utter fallacy, the utter falsity, of that charge. The hon Member has the—I use the word in a courteous sense—effrontery to quote from the Government of India Act in support of his point of view. As a matter of fact it is in direct opposition to the point of view he has put. These are the words that the Preamble uses, after stating that it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration:
    "And whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples:
    "And whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received …"
    Not must "take the form of co-operation," but "must be guided by the co-operation." Then, as regards Section 84A, which the Bill before the Committee seeks to amend, that Section is even stronger than the Preamble as to the intentions of Parliament at the time the Act was passed. That Section says:
    "At the expiration of ten years after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, shall submit for the approval of His Majesty…"
    There is no reference whatever to the Legislative Assembly. What right has the hon. Gentleman to come down here and make a most serious charge against every party in the House of breaking faith with the people of India by breaking the spirit and the letter of
    1826
    the Act of 1919? I submit that he has no right of any sort, and is absolutely denuded of argument in every respect. With regard to the other ground of his argument, namely, that it would be advisable to add these words, not that we have promised to do so, but from the point of view of satisfying Indian opinion, I must say quite frankly, again, that no one who has the remotest knowledge of India could possibly accept the hon. Gentleman as an exponent of Indian opinion. As far as I know, he has absolutely no authority of any sort. He is repudiated by every responsible organisation in India. There is not a responsible organisation in India that accepts the hon. Gentleman as its spokesman. He has made the statement this afternoon that opinion in India is in favour of this provision.
    May I point out to the hon. Gentleman the fact, although he ought to have known it before speaking with such confidence, that there have been no less than five resolutions passed in the Assembly in India in favour of the acceleration of the date? The Leader of the Opposition, I think, emphasised that in his speech yesterday, yet here is an hon. Gentleman who comes down here and claims, forsooth, to be an exponent of Indian opinion, telling us that these five Resolutions have got to be entirely disregarded, that he, the Member for North Battersea, the representative of 300,000,000 Indian people, demands that this Committee shall retard the date, in face of the desire of the Indian Assembly to accelerate it, when the demand for years past has been that the matter should be accelerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that it was under the consideration of his Government in 1924, but, for reasons which he explained then, he was not able to agree to that acceleration. It has been, as I explained yesterday, under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and now, for the reasons which have been made clear, it has been determined to accelerate the date. The hon. Gentleman says, "No, this date is not to be accelerated. You have to ignore what the Legislative Assembly want. You are to insert a provision in the Bill—"
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Noble Lord kindly inform me the dates, roughly speaking, of these five Resolutions, or, say, the date of the last one?
    Earl WINTERTON: I could not give the hon. Member the date off-hand, but Resolutions have been passed at different times ever since the Assembly came into being in 1920. Let me, in a friendly manner, assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be backing the wrong horse if he accepts the opinion of the hon. Member for North Battersea. I am quite sure he would agree with me that there is no demand in India that the date should be retarded, but that, on the other hand, there is a constant demand that the date should be accelerated. I say, in conclusion, that to accept this Amendment, on the one hand, would not only not be in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Act, but would be directly contrary to the spirit and letter, and, on the other hand, it would be flying in the face of the very demand constantly made by the Legislative Assembly for years past.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Noble Lord must be very grateful to me, because but for my boldness in protesting against his attempt to rush the Committee stage yesterday, he would not have been able to treat the House this afternoon to this flow of invective against the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is quite so grateful. I was watching his face when the Noble Lord was making the sort of speech he used to make with great success 20 or 30 years ago when he was the baby of the House, and in Opposition, and wanted to rouse well-disciplined supporters of the Government to reply.
    Earl WINTERTON: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that 30 years ago I was a boy of 14.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said "20 or 30 years ago." I suppose he and I are approaching middle age, although when I listen to him I can hardly believe it. The Noble Lord said that the hon. Member for North Battersea had no right to speak for any section of Indian opinion. I do not know that it behoves me particularly to defend the
    1828
    hon. Member for North Battersea; I think he can look after himself. But the Noble Lord seemed to question the right of any Member of this House to give certain opinions. The hon. Member for North Battersea was sent here by the electorate in his constituency, and has every right to voice his opinion in this House. I am sure the hon. Member treats the electors of North Battersea to a great many tirades on the Indian question, and that they well know his views. The Noble Lord, besides being a great ornament to this House, is an Irish Peer. What sections of Irish opinion does he represent?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's question opens up an alarming vista.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Noble Lord might make certain retorts against me, because we both suffer from accidents of birth. I was only protesting against the Noble Lord's suggestion that the hon. Member on this side speaks for no section of Indian opinion, and when an Irish Peer, who has estates in England, and sits for a Sussex constituency, says that, I make the obvious retort, but I will not repeat it. I really think the Under-Secretary need not get heated over this matter at all. I, personally, am very glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for North Battersea on Indian affairs. He is the only Indian-born native in the House, as far as I know. The Noble Lord can console himself that he is going to get the Committee stage of this Bill. He has no need to worry about that. What he has got to worry about is Indian opinion in India, and if he would address himself to that, and not allow his leg to be pulled by the hon. Member for North Battersea, it would be better.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in pro-testing against the tone of the Under-Secretary of State for India in his references to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). He said the hon. Member does not represent any responsible Indian opinion. I do not know on what he bases that statement, and I think he might have been a little bit more definite when he was making that vague charge against the hon. Member. It is perhaps true or it is perhaps incorrect, but the point that struck me in this con-

    1829
    nection was that it came very badly from the Noble Lord to make such a statement, seeing that the Government of which he is a junior member was responsible for keeping the hon. Member for North Battersea from visiting his own country to get into touch with Indian opinion. I think the Noble Lord would have been well advised if he had kept his temper when he was replying to the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea; and if that hon. Member's knowledge of responsible opinion in his own country is so limited, I hope the Noble Lord and his Noble Friend in another place will give the hon. Member the opportunity that he should have of getting into personal touch, if he so desires, with responsible opinion in his own country.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In regard to the Noble Lord's personal feelings about any one associated with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), I wish he always had such kindly feelings for the Opposition as he has to-day. If he had remembered them during the Trade Disputes Bill, we might have thanked him, but to-day we cannot give him any gratitude at all. When he talks about not wanting me to back the wrong horse, he is talking with his tongue in his cheek, and to talk about what side we should take is sheer impudence. I heard the first part of his speech against the hon. Member for North Battersea—
    The CHAIRMAN: It has been ruled that the word "impudence" must not be applied by one hon. Member of the House to another.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely I am entitled to say that as the Noble Lord, without interruption from you, Mr. Hope, started to tell the hon. Member for North Battersea what he is entitled to do, I am entitled to tell the Noble Lord what he is entitled to do.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to argue, but not to use that particular epithet. It is not in accordance with Parliamentary practice.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not see that the word "impudence" is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not challenge my ruling.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If you would show me where the word "impudence" is out of order, I would be very pleased. Can you show me the difference between the word "impudence" and the word "effrontery"?
    The CHAIRMAN: In accordance with Parliamentary practice, I have ruled that the word "impudence" is out of order, and I must ask the hon. Member not to repeat it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Then am I to understand that there is to be one ruling for a Noble Lord and a different ruling for a commoner?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lord had used the word "impudence," I should have dealt with it in the same way. I must ask the hon. Member to accept that ruling from me.
    Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. May I ask a question? When the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) was speaking a couple of days ago, he described the speeches on this side as hypocrisy, humbug, and cheek. Will you tell me, Mr. Hope, as the hon. Member was not called to order on that occasion, whether the words "hypocrisy, humbug, and cheek" are in any sense more Parliamentary than the word "impudence"?
    The CHAIRMAN: If those words are used, I will rule on them.
    Miss WILKINSON: They have been used.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was not present at the time. All that I have to rule now—and I do rule—is that to use the word "impudence" across the Floor of the House from one hon. Member to another is not in order.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: On a point of Order. When the Noble Lord was guilty of using the word "effrontery," he qualified it by saying that he used it in a courteous sense. If the word "impudence" were used with the same qualification, would it be allowed to pass?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is obvious from that that the Noble Lord felt he was going too far in using the word "effrontery"
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to describe the advice given by the Noble Lord as a piece of impertinence?
    The CHAIRMAN: That also has been ruled on. It is in order to use the word "impertinence" in the sense of "irrelevance."
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Would you assist the Committee, Mr. Hope, by giving us a word that would properly describe the insulting remarks of the Noble Lord?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not the business of the Chairman to assist hon. Members in finding either epithets or arguments.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Noble Lord started to talk about the hon. Member for North Battersea being entitled to do this, but not to do that. Hitherto I had thought that the person to determine what we were entitled to do was the Chairman, and I am interested at the Noble Lord wishing to become Chairman of Committee in addition to Under-Secretary of State for India. My experience of him is that he is hardly capable of carrying his own post, without adding another to it, and for him to assume the duties of Chairman—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to have gone off on the character of the Noble Lord. Perhaps he will address himself to the question before the Committee.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If I have strayed—I. hope I shall not be impertinent, Sir—do not forget that the Noble Lord's speech was almost entirely addressed to the hon. Member for North Battersea. The Noble Lord definitely scored this point—and I grant it—that the Indian Legislature had in five cases passed Resolutions wanting this Commission set up, or to that effect. I hope the Noble Lord will not think it impertinent, or even cheeky, if I ask him what the terms of those Resolutions are. He has made a serious statement in direct contradiction of the hon. Member for North Battersea, and if the Noble Lord can assure me as to the terms of those five Resolutions, I think there is almost an unanswerable case for his point of view. I hope I shall not be accused of unbelief, but in these days, when political controversy is very acute, the Noble Lord cannot accuse me of being unbelieving, be
    1832
    cause I can remember his friends when they were on this side never accepting one of the words of our Ministers. The thing had always to be brought down, as we say in our Glasgow slang, to tin-tacks. Therefore, I want the terms of those Resolutions before accepting them, and I would like to be certain that they did definitely ask for the setting up of this Commission. If the Indian Assembly, by definite Resolution on five occasions, asked for this Commission, it seems to me that a considerable amount of weight is added to the Noble Lord's case and, at the same time, taken from any adverse criticism of it. When the Noble Lord criticises the hon. Member for North Battersea for not having his brief prepared, he himself in not having the dates and terms of those Resolutions, shows that his brief was not properly prepared, and it is more excusable perhaps in the case of the hon. Member for North Battersea than in the case of the Noble Lord.
    The other point that I want to raise is this: We are told that the Mover of the Amendment is not representative of Indian opinion, and the assumption by the Under-Secretary is that he, the Noble Lord, is representative of Indian opinion. There is at least this much to be said for the hon. Member for North Battersea. He is at least representative of Indian opinion to the extent of one, that is, himself, whereas the Noble Lord is not representative of Indian opinion even to that extent. How far are we all representative of our own Divisions? [Interruption.] I think I could beat anybody on the other side in that matter, for in my Division at the last election the returning officer said he would stop counting my votes and start weighing them, they were so numerous. If anybody came to my Division, I would beat him by three to one, and after this Unemployment Insurance Bill is passed it will be about 10 to one, but even I might be said not always to be representative. It is always a question of degree, and for the Noble Lord to assume that he is more representative than somebody else is, to my mind, not a right attitude to adopt. The Noble Lord wants this Bill passed without opposition, and, therefore, his language ought to be couched in conciliatory terms. He ought not to talk down to anybody, but to try to get away

    1833
    from the atmosphere of superiority and to try and think that there are other Members as good as himself, that we are all elected by our constituents, and in so far as our election carries us equally representative. If the Noble Lord will just start to treat the Opposition, not as inferiors or worse, but as equals, it will be better for him and for the safe passage of this Bill.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: It would have been as well if, before the Noble Lord thought out his scheme of indictment against the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), he had been quite sure of his facts. He ought to be in a very good position to know what the facts regarding the situation really are, but he charged the hon. Member for North Battersea with not being representative of Indian opinion and Said that he represented no one at all. I believe that on a recent visit to India the hon. Member was presented with nine open Addresses by nine of the great cities of India, some of which have refused the same privilege and honour to Lord Irwin, the Viceroy. If that is true, the charge levied by the Noble Lord is not correct, and the hon. Member for North Battersea can say, I think, with some amount of assurance, that he does at least speak the mind to a large extent of a large number of persons in India occupying very responsible positions. If what I say is correct, as I am sure it is—and I believe the hon. Member for North Battersea has these Addresses in his possession now—I think at least the Noble Lord might have known those facts, because he must get the news from India. Certain words have been questioned, but I think the Noble Lord should withdraw his statement and apologise to the hon. Member for North Battersea for the statement he has made.
    I want to enter my protest against the idea that emanates from the Front Bench on the Government side with regard to the right of individuals in this House. I understand that a Member's right in this House rests upon the fact that he has been returned here by a majority of constituents, and that he has a right to raise any question of public, importance, which he thinks is necessary, affecting the public welfare and conduct here or in any part of the Dominions with which the House is connected. Therefore, to
    1834
    speak of rights or to challenge what is called the right to speak or to raise a question is to my mind not in accord with facts.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill for any length of time, but, listening to the Noble Lord to-day and the subsequent discussion gives the impression that the Government seem absolutely determined in the handling of this question to proceed from folly to folly; and as one who is genuinely anxious that the great Indian people shall be established in a position of liberty and dignity to develop their nation according to their own genius, I regret very much that first the Noble Lord the Secretary of State, in the other place, and then the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State in this House, should indicate to the Indian people that they had nothing but contempt for them. What possible measure of confidence can we have that the Government will deal with the Indian people in a decent gentlemanly, man-to-man fashion when they cannot treat with ordinary common courtesy the one representative of the Indian people who sits in this House? It seems to me to indicate quite clearly, what has been shown by their recent activities on the Indian question, that there is not the proper frame of mind on the part of the Conservative Government for the approach to a problem which is fraught with the very deepest possibilities, but also with the greatest danger for the future, not merely of the Indian people but for the whole of the East, and therefore for the whole of the human race. I think it should have been possible for a responsible Minister of the Crown to have put through this Bill, to have listened to any criticism to it with restraint and dignity, having regard to the fact that there were bigger issues at stake than his amour propre.I hope that both the Noble Lord in the other place and the Noble Lord who is piloting this Bill through the House will take serious thought to themselves and try to change their attitude towards the Indian people.
    Mr. BECKETT: I am rather surprised that the Under-Secretary of State resented this Amendment quite so strongly. I only felt, when reading it, amazement that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) should have come

    1835
    forward with such an extremely mild Amendment. It seems to me such a very reasonable request to make that I cannot understand why any hon. Member on the other side of the House should hesitate for a moment to support it. It certainly does not justify the very un-English practice of standing up supported by big battalions and taunting a man in the way that has been done just because he happens to be in a minority of one. I do not suppose any Member will find more points of disagreement with the hon. Member for North Battersea than myself, but he is certainly entitled to express his opinions without being treated insolently, and in this particular case I think he has moved an Amendment which has nothing to do with any particular party prejudice, but is an extremely moderate and very helpful Amendment. The party opposite are always telling us how India is the jewel of the Empire and have used all kinds of extravagant metaphors to show their affection for everything Indian, but, when we are discussing a Bill which is extremely important to the Indian people, except for the speech, which perhaps it is kinder not to deal with, from the Front Bench, we do not get a single word of any kind from the Members opposite, who are the self-appointed custodians and guardians of the Empire.
    I happened to have spent some little time in India and Burma myself, and my views on this subject do not always run on parallel lines with those of my Friends on this side of the House; and I want to say, quite definitely, that if British interests in India—and I think some of the interests are helpful to the Indian people—are to be maintained, if we are not going to develop an extraordinarily bitter and unpleasant hostility between the awakening man of the East and our own race, we have got to approach these problems with the most extraordinary tact and discretion and delicacy. We have always to bear in mind when we are dealing with Indian problems that India is in the strict sense of the word not a white man's country. Englishmen cannot go there and settle with their families and found ancestral homes in the way that they can in Africa and other parts of the Commonwealth; and, because that is so, and because the English population in India must always be of a temporary, floating character, because it
    1836
    must be always greatly outnumbered, and because we cannot hold it by developing racial interests and family interests, we can only hold the Indian nation by two methods—one, the unrestricted and most brutal use of force; the other, a determined effort to understand, sympathise with and assist the Indian people in their struggle.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather far from the purpose of the Amendment.
    Mr. BECKETT: I will try to relate my argument to the Amendment, and I think it will be quite clear in a moment or two longer. I use that argument because I do want to impress upon the Committee the importance of not taking any step in relations to our present governance of India without having very carefully considered beforehand the effect that it will have upon the Indian people. I do not think hon. Members opposite will accuse me of party prejudice in saying that their party is more suspect by the Indian people than any other political party in this country. Rightly or wrongly it does not matter, but it is a fact, and when a Government such as this, which is strongly under suspicion, if only from the nature of the occupants of the India Office, suddenly develops a desire, as they say, to do something for India 12 months before they need to do it, the Indians remember the old saying—"Beware of the Greeks when they come with gifts in their hands." They are extremely suspicious of it. The argument, as I understand from speeches made on the Government side yesterday and in another place is, that the Government is genuinely anxious to get this Commission appointed to find out what is best for India, and to do it. If that be the case, if this Commission is going to do the best thing both for India and for the permanent relationships between the two people, it is absolutely necessary that the Commission should start its work clear of suspicion and of prejudice and be able to get the best and most expert witnesses and advice from all sections of the Indian people.
    If you adopt this Amendment, if you go to the Indian people and say, "We think this is the best, but we do admit, that you have a little idea of what is best as well as us, but we suggest to

    1837
    you it is best, and we put it in the hands of the only kind of vocal assembly you have which can be recognised at all as representative and ask their opinion of it"—if you accept this Amendment, and follow that procedure, you are letting your Commission start on an absolutely clear and straight basis. It is true the Assembly is not as representative as it ought to be, for it represents vested interests too much and personal interests too little, but, at the same time, we have brought this Assembly into being, and we have made a pretence of gradually approaching to the grant of Home Rule to India; and if we are going to make this more than a pretext, we are not justified in taking such an important step without the slightest consultation with the body which we ourselves have set up for the purpose of causing Indian feeling to be represented. Therefore, I do suggest that we should not allow any prejudice against Communists, or against Indians, or against anybody who does not happen to be pure white and belong to the Primrose League, to prevent us from considering this Amendment on its merits. There is no party in this House which has any direct and interest-bearing majority-holding on the Union Jack or the future of the British Commonwealth. It is a matter that concerns all parties, but how can you expect a party which holds least in England to support without protest a Bill which is giving to India even worse treatment than is given to our constituents? This Amendment need not cause great delay if there be goodwill, suitability of handling and tact, and the recognition that the Indian peasant is often a better man than an English lord, and I am certain it would greatly expedite and improve the work of the Commission.
    Mr. PILCHER: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the first of these Amendments—in page 1, line 6, after the word "Act" to insert "1919"?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not on any Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. As I see it, but for the objection that some Members of the House have and that I have myself to the proposed composition of this Commission, nothing would have been heard at all of any objec
    1838
    tion to the acceleration of the action as proposed in this Bill. I hope it will not be pressed, because I feel that the passing of an Amendment of this character, or even the support of such an Amendment by any considerable section of the House, would have an undesirable effect in India and in this country with reference to Indian affairs. I do appeal to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) to withdraw for that reason. I think we ought to keep the two things distinct and reserve for Friday our real criticism and our objections.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It would be as well if we reserved our real objections to this Measure, but I think this Amendment is certainly justified and ought to have been met in a different spirit by the Noble Lord opposite. All sides of the House wants precisely the same thing so far as India is concerned. The main thing is that the Indians should not be on their knees begging for favours, but that they should be consulting with us as to what is in the interests not only of India but of the two races. Indian psychology at the present moment shows intense resentment against begging for small doses of freedom. They hold the view that in all matters they ought to be treated as equal partners; that the time for petitioning is coming to an end and that the time for consultation should dawn. If it were possible for the Government to await confirmation by the Legislative Assembly in India of the determination to set up this Statutory Commission before its time, we should begin on an entirely different plane from the rather unfortunate standard we have at the present time.
    I am sorry to go back to the question of finance. The other day the Noble Lord declined to say whether India or England is to pay for this Commission. If India is to pay, surely a resolution by them in favour of setting up this Commission would be only the natural and right thing to ask. If they have to pay they ought to have some rights in calling the tune. I would urge that from the financial point of view, and, above all, from the psychological point of view, it would be infinitely more desirable if this effort for peace were initiated by both sides, instead of being left to the sole initiative of the British Parliament.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I followed very closely the reasoned case submitted by the hon. Member for North Battersea(Mr. Saklatvala), and equally closely the statement made by the Noble Lord. I think the answer given by the Government is effective, if these resolutions have been passed, as we have been told, and there has been no contradiction.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: But we have had no proof that these resolutions were passed.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am simply summarising the situation as we have it up to now. The Noble Lord has given evidence of something which I take it can be effectively established, and if that be so, it would point to co-operation in the carrying out of this proposal. In that case, I submit there is no real ground for the Amendment. Yesterday I was directing attention to the composition of this Commission, and it was on account of my views on that aspect of the matter that I took up the attitude I did; but if there is proof of that co-operation, the need for which was the point of the argument of the hon. Member for North Battersea, I do not think there is a case for the Amendment. At the same time, as a Member of the House holding a similar position to that of the hon. Member for North Battersea, that is to say, not being a member of one of the large parties in the House, I want to say how gravely disappointed I was with the action of the Noble Lord in speaking so contemptuously, if I may use that word, concerning an hon. Member who was submitting a case in an effective fashion, even though it did involve a serious charge of diversion on the part of the leaders of the political parties. I may say for myself that I should not be extraordinarily surprised if the leaders of the parties did not adhere exactly to any particular agreement. There are ways of not adhering to an agreement which may be explained away so as to make it appear that there has been an honourable fulfilment of the undertaking. That is why I was led to interject that I should think it was derogatory to the honour of the House, especially as coming from a member of the Government, to say of an hon. Member that he would be backing the wrong horse if he undertook
    1840
    to support a given proposal. My idea is that we in this House are not supposed to be backing horses; we are concerned about the interests of mankind. As for myself, I would not trouble whether, anybody were going to support me about any given proposal; if I thought it right I should take my stand upon it. When a man does that, he is worthy of the highest possible consideration in this House or anywhere else.
    Miss WILKINSON: It is, I think, precisely 20 minutes since the Noble Lord was asked to bring forward proof of his statement that the Indian Legislature had five times passed resolutions asking for this Commission to be set up. We have waited for the Noble Lord to lay before the House those proofs, which he has now had ample time to obtain. I presume the Noble Lord would hardly have made that statement if the proofs had not been obtainable, unless he imagines that we on this side are so cowed by his general attitude of superiority to Labour men and black men and other inconsiderable trifles as to take his word without any further proof at all. May I say to the Noble Lord, perfectly flatly, that unless he can produce those five resolutions we do not believe him? If he will put those five resolutions on the Table, if he will read them to us so that we may know their actual terms, I will, of course, withdraw my statement. We are waiting for that proof. Particularly do we expect it from the Noble Lord, because on a previous occasion when he challenged a statement by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), he again and again demanded proof. In exactly the same way we demand proof from the Noble Lord. If it be true that the Indian Legislature have passed five resolutions asking for a Commission, I cannot for the life of me understand why he opposes the moderate request of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). If the Indian Legislature are so anxious for this Commission, to get a resolution from them, as the Amendment asks, would be a mere matter of a cable. If the Indian Legislature are so anxious for this Commission, why is it that we are not deluged with cables congratulating the Government, instead of being deluged with cables strongly protesting against the setting up of this Commission at all?

    1841
    The point of the Amendment rests on a question of time. We may assume that both the English people and the Indian people are anxious to find out what would be the very best time to appoint this Commission, and I would suggest that the Noble Lord is riding roughshod over the best opinion in both countries by the insolence of his attitude, both in this House and outside, as regards the native problem. In the 20th century you cannot treat these 300,000,000 awakening people as the Noble Lord's ancestors treated them in the 18th and the 19th century.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be referring to outside utterances which have no connection with this Debate or with this Amendment.
    Miss WILKINSON: I beg your pardon. What I was referring to was the well-known attitude of the Noble Lord, which we suffer from in this House, and which the country has unfortunately inflicted upon it.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this Amendment, which is concerned with the Indian Legislature.
    Miss WILKINSON: Quite so. I was only pointing out that the attitude of both the Noble Lord and of his predecessors has some bearing in regard to seeking the consent or otherwise of the Indian Legislature to this Bill. The whole point of my speech is that we are concerned to find the best possible time at which to appoint this Commission. We do not want a Commission which will force something down the throats of the Indian people, and the point of the Amendment is that we might dissolve a great deal of quite legitimate opposition in the Indian Legislature by consulting them first. The Amendment is so moderate that it does not even ask the Noble Lord to consult the Indian Legislature as regards the personnel of the Commission, a subject which will come under consideration on Friday. All the Amendment asks is that he should consult the Indian Legislature as to whether they agree that the Commission should be set up before the expiration of the 10 years contemplated by the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report has been regarded by a large number of
    1842
    Indians as a charter, which gave them certain rights and privileges, and it did definitely lay down that 10 years were to elapse before a Commission was appointed.
    I think, with all my colleagues on this side, that it would be a good thing for the Commission to get to work in order that it may be ready to submit its report to the Government of the day—and Heaven grant it is not this Government—before the expiry of the 10 years. Therefore, we are concerned with regard to the question of time, and if the Noble Lord wishes to ensure that he has got the best possible time what he ought to do is to consult the Indian Legislature. He seemed to give away the whole of his case when he said these five resolutions had been passed by the Indian Legislature. If they have been passed, why is he afraid to consult the Indian Legislature? In conclusion, I must press, and in this I believe I am at one with all my party, that before any vote is taken, or before the Committee stage is passed, the Noble Lord should lay before the House those five resolutions. I put it to you Sir, that the Noble Lord is not treating the House fairly in making a statement like that and then refusing to lay the proofs of it, and escaping the issue by taking refuge in contemptuous silence. Those proofs are most material to this discussion; we cannot go on without them, if they are available; and surely there has been time enough to get them, because it is at least half an hour since we asked for them.
    Mr. PILCHER: The hon. Lady who represents East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has just said that the Under-Secretary of State for India has made a statement which he cannot prove, namely, that the Indian Assembly on five different occasions has pressed for the setting up of this Statutory Commission. I want to say that I was a member of the Indian Assembly in 1924, when one of these Resolutions was adopted, and I voted upon it.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I ask the hon. Member whether the Resolution which was then debated was one dealing with a Commission of this kind, or was it a proposal dealing with a round table conference?
    Mr. PILCHER: The original Resolution to which I have referred had no relation whatever to a round table conference. It was sent home with a certain addendum. The only point we are discussing now is whether the Assembly desires to have this Commission appointed earlier than 1929 or not. I stand here as an ex-member of the Indian Assembly who assisted for weeks in its debates. The Resolutions which were adopted for the most part asked that India should not be kept waiting, and that the Commission should be appointed at an early date.
    Miss WILKINSON: May I ask if it is not usual for such a Resolution as that to which the hon. Member has referred to be put before the House instead of asking us to rely upon somebody's vague recollection of what happened in 1924?
    The CHAIRMAN: Very little said in this House would be in order if it had to be supported by written evidence.
    Viscountess AST0R: I would like to know if the Opposition as a whole are pressing this Amendment, or is it only being pressed by the back benchers?
    Mr. PILCHER: May I be allowed to state that hon. Members will find a verbatim account of the proceedings of the Indian Assembly downstairs, and they can verify all these statements for themselves?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I apologise for intervening in this Debate a second time, but I think the extraordinary character of some of the arguments which have been used demands some further explanation. On former occasions, during the general Debates, many unjustifiable and untruthful assertions have been made by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India which I did not get an opportunity of answering. The Noble Lord said emphatically that nearly every organisation in India repudiated my authority to speak on behalf of Indian subjects. That statement is far from the truth, and the Noble Lord knows that it is contrary to the truth. I quite appreciate the reference to myself which has been made by an hon. Member with regard to the nine cities which welcomed me in India, while several of those cities refused to extend an official or even a formal welcome to the Viceroy of India. The Noble Lord knows all this, and he
    1844
    has reports in his possession showing that hundreds of thousands of the people of India approve of my plans and my policy, and they also approve of what I have been doing for India while residing in this country. If the Noble Lord would make a journey with me to India, I would be quite willing to organise open public meetings—not camouflaged and manœuvred meetings—and he would then find that 99 people out of every 100 at those meetings would declare in favour of my authority to speak on their behalf. I want to remind the Noble Lord that he has been guilty of deceiving the British people and the whole world by placing unrepresentative Indian Princes on the League of Nations to speak in the name of India. Some of those Princes are corrupt men who are afraid to go back to India, and they are afraid of holding a single meeting in India. Nevertheless, the Noble Lord brings them to this country to speak in the name of the Indian people, when he knows that they are corrupt-minded Princes.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is out of order to speak in that way about the heads of friendly Governments.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: These Princes are not trotted out as the heads of the Indian Government, and I am talking about them as citizens.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has used certain epithets with regard to them, and it is not in order to speak in such terms of the members of a friendly Government.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I know that not one of those representatives of India on the League of Nations would be able to secure at a public meeting one vote as compared with the million votes I could secure declaring the belief that I do represent Indian opinion. For the Noble Lord to make such remarks as he has done on this point is rather stupid. With regard to my Amendment, I do not know whether the Noble Lord intends to confuse the Committee. I quoted from the Preamble and what the Noble Lord has said shows that the words I read out were correct. The Under-Secretary has read to us Section 84, but I suppose he understands the value of a Preamble. He says that he does not find those words in Section 84, but I would like to point

    1845
    out that the Preamble is the proper place to put those words and not Section 84. That is the spirit which should be applied to every Section in the Act. What I read out shows that Parliament in 1919 agreed that any future action in regard to these Acts would be taken by Parliament, and that Parliament must be guided by the opinion of the new body created in India.
    What I am urging is that the way in which the Government are now proceeding, as far as the people of India as a whole are concerned, is contrary to the old spirit, and the Government are not obtaining any guidance from the new Indian body. With regard to the Noble Lord's statement that the Legislative Assembly has expressed its approval of this Commission on five different occasions. I can only say that that is not my opinion. The Noble Lord is altering the Act of Parliament by the Amendments he has introduced in the new Bill and something is going to remain permanently in the annals of Parliament in consequence. Even if the Legislative Assembly did express itself five times in favour of appointing this Commission, I cannot see why the Noble Lord should not incorporate my Amendment in the permanent Act in order to secure that the Indian Legislature will be consulted in the future.
    Mr. WELLOCK: I think there is much more force in this Amendment than has been recognised by the Government. We are considering the claims of a nation of 300,000,000 people, and if I were asked how I thought those people would vote on this Amendment, knowing what I know about the state of the Indian mind after receiving the information that we have in regard to the Commission and its proceedings, I do not think there is any doubt whatever that a majority of the people of India would vote for this Amendment. That being so, I think that the Noble Lord who has spoken in reply to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) owes an apology for using the word "effrontery" about his claim to represent public opinion in India. This Amendment is far more representative of Indian opinion at this moment than the Bill which is now before the House. As far as the people of India are concerned, I daresay they are in the same position as I am, because all along I have believed in pre-dating
    1846
    the appointment of this Commission. We have to recognise how this Commission is to be constituted. The result of that information is that India has no faith in what is going to be done. While I myself could not Vote for this Amendment, on the ground that I do believe in pre-dating the Commission, at the same time, considering what our hopes are for the future, and the procedure adopted by the Government, there is a very great deal to be said for it. I rose particularly in order to justify the plea that has been put forward by the hon. Member for North Battersea, and also to protest against the statement of the Noble Lord with respect to the extent to which the hon. Member represents public opinion in India on this important matter.
    Earl WINTERTON: I would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this point. Really, the only question at issue is a very narrow one. It is, first, whether or not this amendment of the Government of India Act is in accordance with the spirit of that Act. I have endeavoured to show, I think successfully, that it certainly is most essentially in accordance with the spirit of that Act. If it were not, I venture to say it would not have been supported by all parties in the House. The only other point is as to whether or not there has been in India any demand for the Amendment which has now been moved. I have stated that the contrary is the case, but apparently some hon. Members do not believe what I said. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) said that she did not believe the first hand evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher), who himself was a Member of the Assembly, and who has already given the sense of the Resolution that was passed. [Interruption] It is obvious that, if hon. Members will not accept the first-hand evidence of someone who was in the Assembly when the Resolution was passed, they will not accept what I say when I quote that evidence. [Interruption] Will hon. Members allow me to point out that the evidence has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, who was himself a Member of the Legislative Assembly when this Resolution was passed?
    Mr. BECKETT: May I point out, in the first place, that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) only, at the best, confirmed one instance, and not five, and, secondly, that he was only speaking from memory? We do not doubt his word, but we do somewhat doubt his memory
    Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if the hon. Member doubts my hon. Friend's recollection, but, seeing that my hon. Friend was himself a Member of the Assembly, and was present on the occasion in question, quite obviously, if what my hon. Friend says is not accepted, what I say will not be accepted either.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not give us proof?
    Earl WINTERTON: The proof is in the statement I have made that these Resolutions have been passed, and there is even stronger proof in the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth. If hon. Members will not accept the proof offered by someone who was a Member of the Assembly which passed the Resolution, what proof will they accept? This matter has loomed far too largely in the discussion. The whole point of the demand from India, quite apart from the Assembly, has for years past been, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) knows perfectly well, for an acceleration of the date, and that is what we propose to do. The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), on the contrary, proposes to retard the date, and that, I say, is quite contrary to the wishes of India as expressed through the Legislative Assembly and by private individuals and associations in India.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I should be extremely sorry if it became the general practice in the House of Commons to doubt the good faith of the statements of Members of the House, but the Noble Lord has himself to thank. I hope he will remember in future that courtesy pays better than the use of words like "effrontery,"
    which he has used this afternoon in connection with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), who, whatever his views are, does, after all, speak on India in a different way from any other Member of the House. I was in India at the same time as the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for North Battersea, and I think it was the hon. Member for North Battersea who was getting the addresses of welcome, and not the Noble Lord. These, after all, are facts. Nearly all this discussion has arisen from the use of that word "effrontery," which was quite uncalled for and quite unnecessary. I am afraid we have allowed ourselves to get away from the point at issue, which is whether or not it is necessary to accelerate the sittings of this Commission in India. For my part, I believe it is absolutely accurate to say that repeatedly demands have come from India that this matter should be accelerated. The differences of opinion are as to how it should be done, and not as to whether it should be done. To-day we are deciding, not how it should be done, but whether it should be done, and I could not possibly go into the Lobby and vote for an Amendment which, whatever it says, will be understood outside this Chamber to mean a checking of the desire for this acceleration. It would be impossible for me to go into the Lobby to vote for an Amendment of that kind. I hope, now that we have allowed our feelings to have full play, and now that we have come, perhaps, to a state of greater normality than we were in an hour ago, we shall be able to proceed to other business, and allow what I think India as a whole desires, namely, that the work of this Commission should start, the only difference of opinion being as to what kind of Commission it should be
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 137.

    Division No.369.]

    AYES.

    [5.38 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T

    Astor, Viscountess

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wllfrid W

    Balnlel, Lord

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Berry, Sir George

    Bethel, A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Oakley, T.

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

    Greene, W. p. Crawford

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pllcher, G.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Power, Sir John Cecll

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I.

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

    Preston, William

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Radford, E. A.

    Buchan, John

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hills. Major John Waller

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hllton, Cecll

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y.Ch'ts'y)1

    Calne, Gordon Hall

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Charterls, Brigadier-General I.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Christle, J. A.

    Hume-WIlllams, Sir W. Ellis

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Clayton, G. C.

    lllffe. Sir Edward M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cope, Major William

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

    Couper, J. B.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Storry-Deans, R.

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Strauss, E. A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loder, J. de V.

    Tasker, R. Inlgo.

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

    Long, Major Eric

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dixey, A. C.

    Maclntyre, Ian

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Waddington, R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    England, Colonel A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Wells, S. R.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Womersley, W. J

    Forrest, W.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Morrison, H. (Wllts, Sallsbury)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wragg, Herbert

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gates, Percy

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

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

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

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Captain Viscount Curzon.

    Grace, John

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

    1850

    1851

    NOES

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Sakiatvala, Shapurji

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

    Harney, E. A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snell, Harry

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillp

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Bromfield, William

    John, William (Rhondda. West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kennedy, T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lansbury, George

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Mackinder. w.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Dennison, R.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

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

    Dunnlco, H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris. R. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Murnin, H.

    Westwood, J.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wllkinson, Ellen C

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and printing.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. On the last occasion I endeavoured to speak on the question, "That the Clause stand part." I should like to know if there is any reason why I should not speak on the question, "That the Clause stand part."
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member called out too late.
    Miss WILKINSON: It is now precisely one hour and five minutes since
    1852
    the Opposition first asked the Noble Lord to bring forward the five Resolutions—
    The CHAIRMAN: We are now on Clause 2.
    Miss WILKINSON: Might I point out that the Opposition needs those five Resolutions on every Clause of the Bill, because it is impossible to discuss it adequately unless we have this information which the Noble Lord assures us is in his possession.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not needed on Clause 2. Clause 2 deals with the Title and printing. That is all it does.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would it be in order to move to report Progress to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of justifying the Title of the Bill by producing proof of the extraordinarily untrue statements he made?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask who is to bear the cost of printing and the other things mentioned in the Clause. If it is the British Government, why has no financial Resolution been put before us?
    Earl WINTERTON: Of course the bill will be borne by the taxpayers of the country, as the cost of printing of Bills passed by the House is borne by the taxpayers. A financial Resolution is not required in order to authorise the cost of Bills printed in the House.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is that all the expenditure that is being asked for in the Clause?
    Earl WINTERTON: Certainly that is all the expenditure involved.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. More for the purpose of getting information than of prolonging the Debate, may I put this point? Would it be in Order—perhaps it is too late on this occasion—on a Clause dealing with the Title of a Bill, to move an Amendment—for instance in this case it might be to substitute the word "mis-government" for "government"—in order to raise any point connected with the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I make it a practice not to give hypothetical rulings.
    Mr. BECKETT: I want to oppose this Clause on the ground that the Bill is wrongly entitled. I have been at some pains to look up the Act of 1919, which talks about a Statutory Commission, and I am going to argue that as this proposal is not a Statutory Commission in any sense of the word, the Bill is wrongly worded from the start. Clause 41 of the Act says:
    "At the expiration of 10 years after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, shall submit for the approval of His Majesty the names of persons to act as a Commission for the purposes of this section.
    The persons whose names are so submitted, if approved by His Majesty, shall be a Commission—"
    There is nothing in that Section that justifies the Noble Lord calling an extraordinary Committee of the nature he proposes to set up a Statutory Commis-
    1854
    sion. What he is proposing to set up is merely a Parliamentary Committee, which does not meet in any way what I think was generally understood when the Act was passed. Everyone who listened to the Debates then visualised a consultation with the Indian Legislative Assembly and a careful combing of all the facts by the Government. I and all those with whom I have discussed the Bill were under the impression that the Statutory Commission referred to in the Act would be an inclusive and expert Commission. No Government has ever dreamt of calling a Parliamentary Committee an expert Commission. No Government, if it really wanted to find out facts or get a thorough investigation, has appointed a Committee of Members of Parliament.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the composition of the Commission which Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday was not in order.
    Mr. BECKETT: I accept you ruling, Mr. Hope, but I am arguing against the Government appropriating the expression "Statutory Commission" in brackets in their Title, and it is rather difficult to do justice to that argument unless the House is very attentive—
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not only difficult; it is impossible on Clause 2.
    Mr. BECKETT: I submit that under any rule of debate, if you say that is not a Statutory Commission, you really must examine what it is in order to prove that is not a Statutory Commission.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has not quite followed the wording of the Bill. This does not set up a Commission. It enables a Commission to be set up sooner than it otherwise would be. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.
    Mr. BECKETT: This Clause says:
    "Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Government of India Act, 1919."
    It quotes the Act, and Section 45 of the Act, a very long Section, says:
    "The Amendments set out in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act, being Amendments to incorporate the provisions of this Act in the principal Act and further Amendments consequential on or arising out of those provisions shall be made in the principal Act."

    1855
    6.00 p.m.
    It seems to me, the Title of this Bill being founded on Clause 45 of the Act of 1919, if we can prove that what they are doing to-day is not what anyone would expect from Clause 45 of the Act of 1919, we have a valid and perfectly legitimate case for objecting to the Clause. The Act of 1919 was a very important Act, which greatly interested everyone who had the welfare of the Empire at heart. It probably caused inquisition into the exact meaning of every sentence. I remember that the Secretary of State for India at that time was at pains, on three separate occasions, to make speeches outside which he purposely addressed to the people of India in explanation of what he meant. If the Government have in their Bill of to-day stolen a worthy title for an unworthy purpose, it is perfectly compatible for the Opposition, and, indeed, not only compatible, but it is the duty of the Opposition to do their best to prevent such a thing being done. The Act of 1919 met with the approval of considerable numbers and influential sections of the Indian community. The Bill of 1927 meets with the approval of no representatives.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address himself to the Title.
    Mr. BECKETT: I am addressing myself to the Title, because I consider that it is so unfair to the Indian public, who had high hopes raised in their breasts by the Act of 1919, that that Act should be used for the production of an illegitimate child of this description. It is hoped that they will not notice that it is not really their child because it is given the same name. I do not know whether I should be in order, Mr. Hope, in moving that the Bill be recommitted, but I suggest that the Noble Lord should try to find a Title which would, with bluntness and veracity, give the people of India to understand that this was not a Statutory Commission, and not a Commission of experts, but merely a Commission of Members of Parliament who have many other duties.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is entering into the composition of the Commission.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Noble Lord might have given us some explanation. This Clause, after all, is an important Clause governing the Title of the Bill,
    1856
    and I think the Noble Lord might have given us some explanation as to what this Clause really means. It is always difficult, as the Noble Lord knows, in legislation by reference, for the ordinary Member to grasp the significance of a Clause in conjunction with the Act to which it refers. I think the Noble Lord should give us some reasons for the Clause. In answering a question he said it was not necessary for a Money Resolution to be passed in order to pay for the printing. I am not sure that the Clause really refers to the cost of printing. I think the Noble Lord would be very well advised if, in order to allay suspicions and get back the support of Members on these benches—because I would remind the Noble Lord that the great bulk of Labour Members are in favour of the Bill; they wish to see it passed—he would give us an explanation. Another reason I would plead with him to give an explanation is this: After all, he wants to show that he enjoyed something like a united House of Commons if this Bill is to succeed.
    I would ask the Noble Lord, therefore, in the interests of courtesy to give the Committee a short explanation of this Clause. We are dealing with a subject with which many of us are not too familiar. I wish hon. Members on the other side would confess this fact with the same openness. I would ask the Noble Lord to give those of us who do not understand all the implications of this Bill, with its references, to utter a few sentences of explanation in order that on any vote we may be called upon to give, we may give it with a full knowledge of what we are doing. I hope the Noble Lord, with his usual courtesy and good nature, will do so in order to get us back into the spirit of harmony that prevailed earlier in the Debate. I hope he will rise in his place and assure us as to the real meaning of this Clause. I would ask this in all seriousness, because he must not forget the fact that hon. Members on this side want to see the Bill passed. They are constantly suspicious of the Noble Lord and his Government. [Interruption.]An hon. Member says, "Not without reason." That may be so, but the Noble Lord must realise that if he wants to allay that suspicion and induce hon. Members to agree to the passing of the Bill, he must get up and say

    1857
    a few sentences. I appeal to him in the interests of British fair-play.
    Earl WINTERTON: After such an appeal as the hon. Member has made, I should indeed be ungrateful if I did not respond. Certainly, I shall do nothing to interfere with what the hon. Member referred to as the spirit of harmony which prevailed in the earlier part of the Debate. I admit that, possibly, some explanation is required in a Bill of this kind, because this Bill, or rather the Government of India Act, is in the class in which many Acts of Parliament are—the Naval Discipline Act and the Army Annual Act, and, I think, one or two others, namely, the Consolidation Acts, which are constantly being added to. It has been the custom in this House for a very long time to put in words known as 'the printing Clause.' The object of the Clause, which has been inserted in identical terms in every Government of India Bill since 1919, to require all officially printed copies of the Consolidated Act which are printed after the passing of the Bill to incorporate in the text of the Consolidated Act the Amendment or Amendments made by the Bill. That has nothing to do with my Department, but it is an invariable rule of the House. The second thing is that the Act is correctly stated as the Government of India Act. That is the sole explanation. The language appears to be very technical, but this term has been in operation for many years. I hope that now the spirit of harmony has been restored the Committee will give us the Bill.
    Mr. BECKETT: I should like to ask the Noble Lord whether he thinks he has justified the Statutory Commission or not?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am very anxious that we should pass this Bill in the spirit expressed by the hon. Gentleman's own supporters. I would certainly, in order to meet the hon. Member's point, go into this matter, but it is absolutely out of order to discuss the Statutory Commission on this Bill. That will be discussed on Friday next. I would again point out that this Bill does not lay down the form of the Statutory Commission, but simply gives the Government power to appoint it.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Hope? I appreciate im-
    1858
    mensely the argument the Noble Lord put forward, but suppose we abandon this discussion and we pass this Clause and say it is a "Statutory Commission" and then on Friday, after we have discussed the matter fully, we come to the conclusion that it is not a Statutory Commission at all—as I think we shall be bound to do—the House will be in a very unpleasant position. We shall pass this Clause and say that it is a Statutory Commission, and afterwards we may analyse the position and find it is not a Statutory Commission.
    The CHAIRMAN: These arguments can be addressed to the House on Friday, not to-day.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have listened to the discussion on the various stages of this Bill, and there are one or two remarks I would like to make before it passes from the jurisdiction of the House. There can be no subject—and I think the House will be in agreement with me on this—which it is more the duty of the House to consider in an even tone and in the very best of temper than that of our relations with India. We are taking the preliminary steps here with regard to legislation affecting the future of about, I suppose, 300,000,000 of our fellow human beings. No doubt the future of that vast multitude will be largely affected by the relations that exist in the future between Great Britain and India. I hope I shall not say anything that will restore in the House the unfortunate atmosphere created by the Noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I think it was most regrettable that he should have introduced the Measure to the House in the superior tone which he felt it his duty to adopt; not that I think anything which he said would leave any deep impression on any Member of this House. I regret it from the effect it may have in India, and among people who do not understand the Noble Lord as well as do the Members he was addressing this afternoon.
    I said it was important that we should approach this problem, and particularly

    1859
    this question, in a manner that would be likely to sweeten the relations between the people of India and ourselves. It is not for me to say how far the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) represents independent opinion or represents Indian flesh and blood, any more than it is within my province to estimate how far the Noble Lord represents the people of this country in its attitude towards India. But I think the proper line of approach to a problem like this would be on terms of equality with the people with whom we are dealing, that we should not assume a position of superiority towards them, that we should not view them as if they were inferiors whose views on even the government of themselves did not seriously matter, but who had been placed by the Great Architect of the Universe in the care of ourselves through the regency of the Noble Lord. If we adopt that attitude, we are bound at the very outset to create in India an atmosphere of hostility to the Measures which, with the very best intention in the world, we may be bringing forward.
    It was the tone of superiority which the Noble Lord adopted this afternoon that I deprecated. What did the hon. Member for North Battersea ask? Simply that before proceeding with the major Measure we should, in a spirit of fraternity and with the best will in the world to create a proper atmosphere, wait until we had had a request from the people of India through their public representatives; quite a reasonable suggestion to make in the interests of the important proposals which will be discussed in this House within the next 48 hours. Instead of accepting that suggestion in a reasonable spirit and in the reasoned manner in which it was submitted to the House, the Noble Lord felt it to be his duty, I suppose as one of the superior people talking to one of the inferior people of India, to say that there was no need for him to come to this House and tell His Majesty's Government what they ought to do. Then, in order to bury him deep down in derision, the Noble Lord told us that five Resolutions had been already passed by the Indian Assembly in favour of the very course which His Majesty's Government are now adopting, and he said: "How dare the hon. Member for North Batter-
    1860
    sea come forward and ask us to wait until a sixth Resolution is actually proposed before we proceed with the Measure."
    Then one of the ordinary Scottish people got up and ventured to ask the Noble Lord, not having that deep-seated reverence for his warrant which ought to characterise the common people in referring to him, being of a more robust radical school, asked for some evidence that these five Resolutions had been actually passed. The Noble Lord felt rather embarrassed when the question was put to him, and all the services that are at the disposal of Cabinet Ministers were immediately requisitioned. Messengers ran to the officials behind the Chair, and no doubt other messengers were despatched to the Noble Lord's office in search of a scrap of evidence, even one little scrap of paper, in support of his assertion.
    Earl WINTERTON: It may assist the right hon. Gentleman if I say here and now that I have had the evidence for a long time. I did not in the first instance suppose that anyone wanted me to quote textually the Resolution. If so, I will read it to the House.
    Miss WILKINSON: Read the five!
    Earl WINTERTON: I will not read all the five, but I will read the most important, the one passed in September, 1921:
    "The Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council that he should convey to the Secretary of State the view of this Assembly that the progress made by India in the path of responsible government warrants the revision of the Constitution at an earlier date than 1929."
    Miss WILKINSON: That is only one Resolution; we want the other four Resolutions.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: We are very grateful for even this belated courtesy from the Noble Lord, but it might have saved time and perhaps a little temper had the Noble Lord been as careful of what was due to this House an hour and a half ago as he is now. I am not sure that his case against the hon. Member for North Battersea has been very much strengthened by the document which he has read. I take it that the Resolution

    1861
    which he has read is a fair sample of the five Resolutions to which he referred, but may I remind the House that that Resolution was passed in 1921 and that we are now living in 1927. The conditions of India and the views of the Indian people may have undergone some slight modification during the six years. At home in Great Britain we have had many changes in political thought since that time. The change of political thought that brought the Noble Lord to the Treasury Bench is much more recent than 1921. The question that we are discussing now is not so much whether or not the people of India desire an earlier revision of the Government of India Act of 1919, but whether we should, out of courtesy to the people of India, who are the people primarily concerned, postpone taking the initial step until we have heard from them. I understand that in India there seems to be some difference of opinion in regard to the appointment of the Commission. I have had placed in my hands a statement to this effect:
    "Interviewed by the Bombay correspondent of the Indian News service, Mr. Joshi, Secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress, said: 'The boycott of the Royal Commission was inevitable.'"
    I am informed that the gentleman whose words I have quoted is a very responsible person in India. Whether the hon. Member for North Battersea speaks for any section of Indian opinion or not, certainly the Secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress does. I do not claim to have any special knowledge on the subject, but I take it that a man occupying a responsible position like that does speak for a substantial section of the Indian population. When that has appeared in the public Press, does it not strengthen the request, I will not put it any higher, the legitimate, reasonable and intelligent request of the hon. Member for North Battersea, that we should have some word from the Indians themselves before we take the important steps that are contemplated in the discussion which will take place in this House next Friday? We can never leave out of account the consideration that our treatment of India up to now has not been a great success. It may be that we have made money there; it may be that we have added to the numbers and the prestige, in one sense, of the British Empire, but there are
    1862
    many improvements possible in the condition of the Indian people that have not taken place under British rule in India.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It is a very old rule that speeches on the Third Reading of a Bill should be confined to what is in the Bill itself. This history of British Government in India does not seem to be at all in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not intend to discuss at any length either the conditions of India or the Government of India. What I was wanting to bring to the notice of the House was the suspicion which exists in India regarding our government of it. The Amendment which was proposed when the Bill was in Committee was to the effect that in order to secure the good will of the people of India and that this Commission should be received in the spirit in which it is being tendered, we ought to delay further steps until a Resolution inviting the appointment of the Commission has been passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that particular Amendment was negatived by the Committee only a few moments ago. We cannot have another discussion on that subject.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not made myself clear. I am not proposing to insert these words in the Bill now. I am objecting to the Bill now because it does not contain those words.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has only just negatived in Committee an Amendment on this question, and I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I shall be guided by your ruling, but surely if I regard a Bill which is passing through this House as likely to be injurious to the interests of the country in the form in which it is presented for Third Reading, I am entitled to state my objections to the Bill and to oppose the Third Reading?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is true that the House and when it is sitting as a Committee are not one and the same

    1863
    thing, but these particular objections of the right hon. Gentleman have just been negatived by the Committee, and he certainly cannot make a speech on a subject which has so recently been negatived. Our work would be null and void if we were to discuss that which has already been decided.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I will conclude my remarks on that particular point, but I do submit that it is of the utmost importance that we should have the goodwill of the Indian people in the steps we are now taking, and that we should take every step to assure ourselves that what we are doing has their heartiest support. It would be most unfortunate if we were to embark on a course that led to friction, when we are attempting to produce harmony. I think the Bill in its present form is more likely to do harm than good, and for that reason I am opposing the Third Reading.
    Miss WILKINSON: I have in the last few minutes listened with some interest to the noble Earl's appeal for harmony, and I can assure him for his future guidance that he will generally have harmony when he asks for it with courtesy at the beginning. I suggest that we have not been treated with courtesy in this matter of the five Resolutions about which the Noble Earl spoke, and on which he based his opposition to the request of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). It is a little unfortunate that the Noble Earl replied to me when I happened to be out of the House for precisely four minutes. Our case is not at all met by his reading of the one Resolution which was passed in 1921. We are not asking for these Resolutions to be read in any frivolous or mischievous spirit. We have a purpose in asking. We should not ask for the Resolutions if they were merely, as the Noble Lord has tried to suggest, repetitions of the one which he has read. We have very strong reason to believe, although we have not proof, and it is; proof for which we are asking, that the other Resolutions were different from the one which the Noble Lord has read. That is why I challenged the Noble Lord's statement when he said that he had five Resolutions from the Indian Legislature asking for the appointment of the Commission.
    Earl WINTERTON: That is not what I said. I said that Resolutions were passed by the Indian Legislature but I never claimed to have the terms of those Resolutions by me. I merely said that Resolutions had been passed, and I have read the terms of the principal Resolution. Nothing could be more reasonable than my attitude in that respect.
    Miss WILKINSON: This is a very serious matter. The terms of these Resolutions must be contained in the Minutes at the India Office—
    Earl WINTERTON: They have nothing whatever to do with this House. I am not bringing forward this Bill because of the Resolutions passed in the Indian Assembly. I referred to them quite incidentally. The hon. Member said she did not believe me, and because she doubted my words I quoted the terms of the Resolution to the House.
    Miss WILKINSON: It is true that I doubted the words of the Noble Lord but no one more desires to be convinced of his Veracity than I. What I wanted was proof.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Would the Noble Lord pass the document he has quoted across the Floor of the House?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have read it out to the House. It is rather an odd suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman to make that he is not prepared to believe the word of another right hon. Gentleman. He can read it for himself if he doubts my word.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not because I doubt the Noble Lord's word.
    Earl WINTERTON: What is the right hon. Gentleman's object?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: In order that I may have an opportunity of studying it.
    Earl WINTERTON: Certainly. I shall be delighted.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind hon. Members that the House is no longer in Committee.
    Miss WILKINSON: Let me explain to the Noble Lord the reason I am pressing this question. The Resolution he quoted was passed in 1921, and the Government of India Act only came into operation in 1920. The reason for the Resolution

    1865
    passed in 1921 was entirely different from that given by the Noble Lord. The reason that Resolution was passed was to challenge the Government of this country; it was saying that its government of India, and its proposals had, as a matter of fact, failed. The other Resolutions which were passed later during the operation of the Montagu-Chelmsford Committee asked for a round table conference. I am asking that these Resolutions should be read as they are entirely different in spirit to the one Resolution read by the Noble Lord. Why are we having a presistent refusal on the part of the Noble Lord to bring forward these Resolutions? Surely it is not correct for the Noble Lord, with all the resources of the British Government at his disposal, with the permanent officials sitting below the Gangway and messengers crowding the House, to say that it is not possible to get these Resolutions from the India Office if they are there. If they are not in the India Office, why did the Noble Lord quote them in support of this Measure?
    It is not treating this House or the Opposition with courtesy for the Noble Lord to base his reply to the hon. Member for North Battersea on these five Resolutions and then bring forward only one which appears to prove his case. We do not want the out-of-date Resolution of 1921; we want the Resolutions of 1924, which, I submit, would put an entirely different complexion on what is now brought forward. I can quite understand why the Noble Lord has persistently refused, in face of all the courtesies of this House, to bring them forward. The Noble Lord, with a shrug of his elegant shoulders, says, "You cannot expect me to read all these Resolutions." In a matter of such importance I suggest that we do expect him to read them. We have a right to demand that they should be read. The actual reading of them would not take more than a few minutes, and if he is anxious to get this Bill through in good time he would have wasted far less time by sending for these Resolutions and reading them to the House. The reason the Noble Lord has not brought forward these other Resolutions is because they do not support his case. It is without precedence for a Minister to quote certain documents in the India Office in support of his case without quoting the documents themselves; if they
    1866
    are not in the India Office then he has no right to quote them. If they are there they should have been brought forward and read to the House before the Third Reading of such an important Bill.
    It is unnecessary to remind the Noble Lord that we are not dealing with the politics of the parish pump, but with a Bill which affects no less than 300,000,000 people, and we have a right to demand that it shall be dealt with in a way which becomes such an important Measure. It does not become the dignity of the Noble Lord to sneer at a member of a different race from his own, and imagine that the Opposition are going to sit down under the treatment they have received. Let me remind the Noble Lord that in connection with another Indian matter no-one was more insistent in demanding exact proof than he himself when he demanded proof from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), a Cabinet Minister, who in fact occupied a higher rank than the Noble Lord does at the moment. When that proof was forthcoming the Noble Lord wanted still further proof, and then still further proof. When we ask the Noble Lord to read out the Resolutions and bring forward proof of his assertions all we get is the reading of one Resolution which supports his case and a blank refusal to send a messenger to the India Office to obtain copies of the other four Resolutions which, he knows perfectly well, do not support his case. I feel that an insult has been offered to this House and that we have a right to demand that these Resolutions are placed before this House before we go any further with this Bill.
    Mr. T. SHAW: After all, this is an issue which ought to be clear cut. I do not want to make any personal allusions of any kind, because the personality of any Member of this House, whether it is myself or the Noble Lord, is as a grain of sand on the sea shore in comparison to the importance of the question we are discussing. The whole question is, is it advisable at the moment to move more quickly than the Government of India Act prescribes? I ask myself this question: Is there any responsible body of opinion in India which is against moving quickly, apart altogether from the method of moving? I, personally, know of no body of opinion in India that is against bringing forward this proposal.

    1867
    I know many people in India who are against the method proposed, but I have to ask myself, if this Bill stood alone without any reference to method, is there any Member of this House who would oppose it? I cannot find a single argument against the proposal of the Bill—namely, to do what Indians of advanced tendencies have been demanding for years, to speed up procedure in order that India may have a different method of Government from that which she has now.
    Looking at the Bill without any consideration at all of the method to be adopted, I could not possibly make myself responsible for casting a vote or uttering a word which would give the impression in India that we were against moving more quickly than the Government of India Act prescribed. I may have a lot to say about the method proposed, but as to the Bill itself I should certainly, if it be carried to a Division, vote with the Government. I hope, however, that there will be no Division, and that India will feel that we are going to move before the time prescribed. I have said that I know of no responsible body of Indian opinion which is against the move being made. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Indian referred to by the right hon. Gentleman for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), which seems to indicate that it is not the move which is opposed, but the constitution of the Commission. I believe this Indian would be just as eager to get things moving as any hon. Member in this House, but he would insist that it should be a move with due regard to what he considers Indian opinion. I am in favour of the move. I may have a different opinion from hon. Members opposite as to the method, but if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby in favour of this Bill.
    Earl WINTERTON: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speech he has just made, which in all the circumstances is a most generous one. He speaks with great authority as the representative of his party on the Front Bench in favour of passing this Bill without a Division. I want to make
    1868
    a strong appeal to hon. Members on this point. It does not matter much to the Government. We have a large majority and can pass the Bill, but I think a Division would be grossly misunderstood in India. The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing but the truth when he said that any discussion as to the composition of the Commission would be quite out of order. The proper time to deal with that matter will be on Friday next, and I have no doubt there is room for honest difference of opinion. But for this House to divide on this Bill, which has been demanded again and again by all forms of opinion in India, would, I think, lead to a certain amount of mischief or perhaps give a wrong impression, and I make an earnest appeal to the House to come to a decision without a Division.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is very difficult to resist the appeal that is made by the Noble Lord, because I can assure him that every person on this side of the House who has taken any part in the opposition to this Bill is as anxious for a proper settlement of the whole Indian problem as he is himself. I want to make that perfectly plain. I do not want to argue on the Floor of the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) as to the distinction that he draws between the principle and the method, but I would like to have a friendly discussion with him as to how he would apply that in certain difficult trade union situations in which I know he has been. It is right at one moment in certain circumstances, but it may be entirely wrong in other and entirely different circumstances. When one is out to achieve something that can be done only through conciliation, it is very bad to do it when tempers are at their hottest. We have found that in the House here and in trade disputes. We find it also in politics, and we can easily transfer ourselves in our imagination into some set of circumstances affecting a big issue like this. Therefore I do not think that my right hon. Friend's homily on the general principle applies. The important matter to those of us who have been speaking here on this Bill is that once we give the Noble Lord this Measure, our effective Parliamentary control of the future proceedings of the Commission is gone. I shall be glad if the Noble Lord will explain if that be not so.
    Earl WINTERTON: The House will have a right to refuse to pass the Resolution which I am Tabling for the Debate on Friday. Without that Resolution no Commission can be appointed. This is not the stage to oppose the appointments to the Commission. The question is now whether or not it is desirable that a Commission should be appointed.
    Mr. MAXTON: I agree with the Noble Lord's point there, but our effective control, when that Commission has started operations, is gone immediately the Third Reading of this Bill is passed. All of us here are strongly of opinion that a Commission should be set up and as speedily as possible. Many of us here hold the view that it would he most desirable to stop proceedings at this stage, to retrace our steps and to say quite frankly to the Indian people and the British people "We have made a bad start and we recognise that. We wash out all that has happened and we start as it were with a clean sheet." That need not take more than a week or two. Such a gesture to the people of India would wipe out all the bad passions that have sprung up in the last week or two, since the Noble Lord first outlined his proposals in this matter. We suggest a fresh start from the beginning and that the Government say to the Indian people "We shall begin again. Before we Table our proposals in the House of Commons we shall consult with responsible Indian opinion and get agreement as to how we are to proceed." I know that a great deal has been made in various speeches of the claim that there is no such thing as responsible Indian opinion that can be consulted. I am quite sure that that is not true. I am prepared to believe that you cannot get one man who can speak for the whole of India. I am quite satisfied that you cannot get one man who can speak for the whole of Great Britain. I question whether you can get one man who can speak in a really responsible way for the whole of the Conservative party.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Or for the Labour party.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am quite sure about that. Therefore it is not fair criticism of the Indian people or fair criticism of the suggestion made by my hon. Friends to say that there is no one in India who can speak for the Indian
    1870
    people. In these circumstances you approach representative organisations and the representative men in those organisations. You hear what each has to say and strike for yourself the best average that you can get. The one thing that you do not do, if you want to carry the opinion of the people with you, is to say "These are our plans. You fall in with them." It is always wrong, and it is certainly quite undemocratic in the approach to what is supposed to be a great measure of democracy. Therefore I do not respond to the appeals either of the Noble Lord or of my right hon. Friend, although I stand alongside them in my complete desire that the Indian problem should be settled as speedily and as safely and securely as possible.
    Mr. BECKETT: This Debate has been most illuminating. Here we have a most important question affecting one of the most important world connections of our country. The two Front Benches, speaking truly for their respective parties, say that there is no great difference in principle in regard to the Bill, that the whole House and all parties are agreed in principle, and yet there is an expression or insinuation of horror and outraged respectability because some of us on the back Benches, while not necessarily intending to vote against the Bill at all, do want to make sure, before the Bill is passed, that it is not merely an agreed compromise without any discussion, but that all the different views in the matter are to be expressed in the House. The Bill has had no discussion at all. The House appears to be tired of the Bill and to wish to go on to other matters. Reducing unemployment benefit is perhaps more congenial to the House. We have taken up very little time on the Bill, but the Noble Lord was preposterously amazing a little while ago when he got up with an air of outraged majesty and dignity and said, "Why, you are doubting my word!" I do not think there have been many cases in Parliamentary history when an Under-Secretary of State has been given so trustfully and completely by the Leaders of the Opposition a blank cheque for him to fill in.
    If it had not been that the Noble Lord at once started to slash out right and left at the mildest questions, the House would probably have been happily en-

    1871
    gaged by now in taking unemployment benefit away from young people. When I say the House would be happily so engaged, I mean that unfortunately the House's actions at the present time are decided by an unrepresentative majority. What is the blank cheque? I recall the Noble Lord's speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he said, in effect: "If you give us this Bill, if you let us rush it through in our intervals of ill-doing, later on, when we have our Act, we will introduce a Resolution, and then we may discuss the projected procedure, the incidence of the expenses of the Commission and other kindred matters." It is not that any of my friends object to the setting up of a Commission or to the proposed policy of the Government in that regard. What we object to is the utter flouting of all conscious Indian opinion, a deliberate declaration that "We are the all-high, endowed, aristocratic Englishmen, who can tell the Indians and the Chinese and the British workers and everybody else what they are to do, and they are to be very grateful to us." That is not the way to move the world now. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may have been able to do that 30 or 40 years ago, when no one else knew much about gunpowder except themselves. This Government is exactly like the Bourbons, it learns nothing and forgets nothing. It conducts itself as if it has still only to rattle the sabre and everyone else will shake. That is not the case. India cannot be held for ever by these brusque methods of conducting negotiations.
    What must happen with regard to India, when the Government suddenly decide that they are going to do something, is that proper discussion must take place. It is not too late for that now. There is influential Indian opinion in London now. There are people of great weight in London now—many of them. We have here prominent men like Pandit Nehru, who is on a visit to London this week. It is not too late for the Government to abandon this almighty pre-ordained attitude, to come off their perch and to realise that they must discuss with other nations the kind of Government they propose and the action they are going to take. As we have spent a comparatively small amount of time in discussing this Bill it ill becomes the
    1872
    Front Benches, the occupants of which take very much more time than any of us, to suggest that we must not be allowed to discuss anything at all. I appeal to the Government. I am no more anxious to go into the Lobby against the principle of this Bill than is the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw), but I am anxious to press upon the Government, and upon the Noble Lord in particular, that they cannot treat the Indians as coolies and they cannot treat His Majesty's Opposition as coolies, as the Noble Lord tried to do this afternoon.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I appreciate the difficulty of my position, as is often the case, yet I have to carry on, expressing views which otherwise could not be expressed. While I have listened to the charming appeals made by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the Noble Lord, about this House unanimously passing the Bill with all graciousness and sympathy and so on, I honestly and sincerely warn the House that if that well-intentioned but misdirected advice is followed, in the eyes of intelligent Indian opinion this House will be stooping to a meanness towards the whole of India. It is not easy trying to make the Indians and outside world believe that this Bill is nothing but a set of harmless phrases and words put together, that behind it there is going to be nothing, and that as a consequence of this Bill the people of India are not going to have something done which tramples upon their feelings and flouts their opinions. The right hon. Member for Preston and the Noble Lord, from certain circumscribed view-points, still look upon this Bill as something against which India has not expressed an opinion. Let ore submit certain evidence to the contrary.
    7.0 p.m.
    A Member of this House, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), is now in India. When he reached Bombay he conveyed to many Indian friends a piece of advice as coming from this House generally and from the Labour party in particular, namely, that the Indians should make the best of the coming opportunity, and accept the Commission. That hon. Member himself has sent a telegram from Calcutta to the effect that it is the unanimous opinion of all intelligent politicians in

    1873
    India that this Bill ought not to be carried; and that the Labour party, at least, should be advised to wash its hands of it, and should remain aloof from the great tragedy which is being enacted against India and the conspiracy which is being hatched in the shape of this so-called harmless Bill of a few words concerning a very narrow and limited issue. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) has also gone to India to confer with the Trade Union Congress and the Labour elements there, and yesterday we received a similar protest from the leaders of the Trade Union Congress—not from one individual, but from the Congress Committee as a whole. Again, I put it to the House that this Bill is an act of meanness when viewed from the Indian side of the transaction. As I pointed out previously, the Preamble of the 1919 Act lays down in very clear terms that while Parliament shall be the authority, yet Parliament must be guided—and "must" is the word used—by the express wish and opinion of the newly-created body in India. It is no use trying to get behind the fact that this Bill, this so-called collection of harmless words, flouts the opinion of one party to the contract, and that Parliament is refusing to allow itself to be guided by Indian opinion.
    There is no provision that the Bill is to be subject to ratification by the Indian Assembly. Parliament takes up the position of an autocratic dictator. We are not allowed to anticipate arguments appertaining to another discussion which will arise later, but in international relationships, in the relationships between peoples such as those of Great Britain and India, coming events cast their shadows before. Unfortunately in this case the shadows have been cast, and we need not try to deceive ourselves by pretending that the shadows do not exist. It is no good saying that this is a harmless Bill with a narrow issue. I appeal again to the House to consider that by this Bill we are committing a crime against India, and it is a falsehood to say that by it we are doing something for which Indians have unanimously wished. The Noble Lord, after all the manipulation of a surgeon extracting a tooth, at last produced one resolution out of the five which were mentioned.
    1874
    That one resolution is against his own argument.
    What are the circumstances of that Resolution? The new Act came into operation in India towards the end of 1920, and when it began to operate the people were under the impression that it was to operate for 10 years. This Resolution was passed in 1921 when the Indian Legislative Assembly, with the Act before them, thought it was going to operate for 10 years. They were bound to express themselves in technical language, or in language governed by the rules of debate and procedure. They said in effect at the end of the 12 months, "Do not wait for 10 years to elapse, but get on with it, and let us have another Commission." That did not mean that the Indians were demanding from this House what the Noble Lord is giving them. The spirit of that Resolution was, "Your Act is a complete farce and a scrap of paper and worse than useless. Get on with the job, and reconsider the situation." The subsequent resolutions which the Noble Lord, despite persistent demand did not produce will support that argument. As differences of opinion developed Indians have appealed to various parties in this House and to individual friends in the Labour party to the effect that it would be fatal merely to appoint a Commission such as was provided for in the old Act before certain issues were cleared up by heart-to-heart talks and unhampered discussions. They have asked for round table conferences. They have suggested that deputations should be officially invited by the Secretary of State to come here. They have asked that delegates should be sent from here to India and that delegates from India should be received here, but all these demands we are ignoring.
    We are pretending that this Bill is something desired by the Indians. I consider it my duty, not so much towards my Indian compatriots or towards the British working class, as towards this House, to say that what we are doing to-day in the name of peace and harmony is an act of unpardonable and contemptible meanness towards India. I still advise the Government to withdraw the Bill and to send a telegram to the Indian Legislative Assembly, and I undertake there shall be no further delay than one week in obtaining an expression of their views. By doing so, the Government will

    1875
    act in the manner provided for in the Preamble of the Act of 1919, and Parliament will be enabled to have that guidance from the Indian contracting party, which it is supposed to have. By proceeding along those lines, although a delay of a week may be involved, the Government will tread a safer road than that which they propose to-night to take.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to criticise this Measure and to oppose its Third Reading. No one could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) without feeling that there is something in the plea that this Bill should be withdrawn and the whole position reconsidered. The only thing we are allowed to discuss on this Bill is the question of the date at which the Commission shall meet. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton pointed out, the issue arises as to whether the date in the Bill is or is not a suitable date for embarking on the project of the Commission. During the Committee stage the Noble Lord stated that on five occasions the Legislature of India had made requests that this Commission should be set up at the earliest possible moment and facilities given for its work. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) said that when he was a member of the Indian Legislature, the Indian Legislature did pass such Resolutions; and he went on to make the further statement that, if Members wanted evidence, it could be found in this House. I have had an exhaustive search made for that evidence, and we cannot find any evidence in this House to back up the Noble Lord's statement or the statement of the hon Member for Penryn and Falmouth that the Indian Legislature made these requests to the House of Commons. I wish the hon. Member had given us some remote idea as to where that evidence is to be found.
    The Noble Lord quoted one Resolution, but circumstances have changed since that Resolution was passed. The Bill before us proposes to bring the date forward by one year, and the question which we have to consider is whether the new date proposed is the best date or not. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has argued that the date is not suitable
    1876
    because public opinion in India is at the moment inflamed. I think no one who is in touch with Indian affairs can deny the fact that Indian opinion at the present time is inflamed. How can a proper discussion take place on the Resolution which is to be moved on Friday next if we are here bringing forward a Measure of this kind which may well have a contributory effect in inflaming Indian opinion? No doubt the Noble Lord would not admit it, but we say that Indian opinion is inflamed and aroused, and on that ground we say it is the duty of the Government to withdraw the Bill. The proposed date is obviously wrong, and instead of proceeding with the Bill, an attempt ought to be made by the Government to search out representative opinion in India, and to try to get in touch with the leaders of thought, the leaders of religious and political movements in India, the leaders of all those movements which make or mar the people of India. If we are to solve the great problem in India, the proper course will be to consider the whole position anew, and, instead of looking for disunity, and for points of difference, we should search for those points on which we can co-operate. We should start afresh, and from that angle this Bill should be withdrawn
    In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what I said on Second Reading. I said then that I thought the time was inopportune, because the Government choosing the time was a bad Government. I want to reinforce that, and to say to my colleagues on this side who are going to allow the Third Reading to pass, and whom I believe to be as honest as I am, as desirous of seeing a united India as I am, as desirous of uplifting the Indians as I am, that in allowing this Bill to pass they are doing something which I believe to be wrong. This Government could not, in the very nature of things, even taking the most desirable steps imaginable, be doing the right thing as it has forfeited the confidence of a large mass of the people at home. That loss of confidence has its repercussions abroad, and especially in the minds, wishes and aspirations of the Indian people. Even though the antedating of this Commission may be desirable, yet, because the people who are ante-dating it are not the people calculated to create confidence, because the

    1877
    Government who are ante-dating it have forfeited the confidence of the great mass of the people, the party to which I belong would have been well advised to oppose it. I am in a party for good or ill, and have to accept largely the views of my colleagues. Nevertheless, I fear that we are doing something more important and more unfortunate to-night than on Friday. On Friday there will be the great Debate with a great blare of trumpets and the big guns on either side marched in to debate the pros and cons of the Resolution, but to-night I be-
    lieve that we are taking a most unfortunate step and that the passing of this Bill will be looked upon as a great misfortune and will not be to the benefit either of the people of India or of this country.
    Earl WINTERTON Earl WINTERTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 370.]

    AYES.

    [7.20 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

    Atkinson, C

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Drewe, C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Berry, sir George

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Bethel, A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    England, Colonel A.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Finburgh, S.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Buchan, John

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Forrest, W.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gates, Percy

    MacIntyre, I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McLean, Major A.

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Melier, R. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Clayton, G. C

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harney, E. A,

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

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cope, Major William

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Couper, J. B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Tinne, J. A.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Oakley, T.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Savery, S. S.

    Waddington, R.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Pilcher, G.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wells, S. R.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Preston, William

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Remnant, Sir James

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Withers, John James

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bondfield, Margaret

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

    Sneil, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Kennedy, T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

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

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Neill (Glasgow, Govan)

    Vlant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gillett, George M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gosling, Harry

    Murnin, H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H (Lianelly)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Harris, Percy A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Question put accordingly, and agreed Bill to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee—[Progress, 22nd November, 1927.]
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I wish to call attention to the fact that the White Paper, for which we have asked, and the details of which ought to contain the figures to enable us to form an idea of what is to take place under this Bill, details essential for us if we are to consider really the Clauses of the Bill, is so imperfect and is drawn in such a way as to give us a set of hypotheses and no real basis of actual fact. To commence with, the details given are based on a method of collecting information which, if I might put it in a word, is a method of taking samples—taking a sample here and a sample there—classifying the results obtained from those samples and assuming that those samples clearly represent the general condition of affairs. If those samples are collected, without any attempt at all to select them, they will form some idea on which some vague opinion might be formed, but as a method of making actual calculations, obviously they are very imperfect indeed. If one were playing the game of poker, one might speculate on the results of information collected in this way, but we are not playing poker; we are playing with a very serious state of affairs in this country, and I suggest that this method is not quite sufficient to justify the Minister in proceeding with this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman appears, according to the White Paper, to have based his case, not on the facts, but on the intervention of a kindly Providence which is going to give him certain results in 1929, and on the action of God he apparently bases his Bill, for there is nothing in any figures that exist to-day, according to this White Paper, that gives the slightest justification for any assumption which the Minister makes. Take paragraph (2), at the end of page 3, in which, by some mysterious process of reasoning, it is assumed—and the assumption evidently underlies the calculations on which the Bill is based—
  1882
  that if certain things had not happened, unemployment in mining would not have been above the average. If the Minister is asking the Committee really to accept an estimate that in the future, under this Bill, unemployment in mining is not likely to be higher than that of the average of general industry, then the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe something which is against all the probabilities and which even the poker player would not risk, because, if anything seems to be certain, it is that coal mining, instead of going better, is going from bad to worse. The peculiar circumstance in coal mining that a pit or an area stops for a very long time is just one of those cases in which the 30 contributions rule will be unable to be met by very large numbers of people. It is not like an industry such as the textile industry, in which a man may be out of work for three months, then get work for six months, then be out another month, and then work again for a month. In the mining industry, on the contrary, everything seems to prove that these men who are out of work are likely to be out for very long spells indeed, and nearly all of them are likely to fall under the guillotine of the 30 contributions rule.
  Therefore, we cannot accept what is evidently intended to be implied in the White Paper, that it may be fairly assumed that when this Bill becomes law unemployment in coal mining will be about the average of that in other trades. We cannot accept this. It is neither scientific nor is it plain. There is nothing in the White Paper to show that this will be so, but merely a general statement that it may be so. It appears to me that the Minister in his Paper is flying his flag on a castle in Spain. Instead of giving us actual figures and saying that on these figures we can base a case, he asks us to base a case on figures which he thinks will exist in 1929. How can the Committee come to an understanding on the financial provisions of a Bill when the right hon. Gentleman says in his White Paper, in effect, that his calculations are based, not on what is existing but on what he thinks will exist in 1929? In paragraph (3) the Minister assumes that during the year ending April, 1930, the rate of unemployment should not exceed 8 per cent., and on that basis of 8 per cent. the

  1883
  Committee is asked to deal with Clauses of a Bill which have a very vital relation to the actual physical livelihood of very considerable masses of our people. Let me now make a rough calculation for the Committee. Let us assume 11,000,000 workers, with 1,100,000 unemployed; that is, roughly, the condition of affairs to-day, without going into fractions, and that is 10 per cent. of unemployment. The Minister is asking us to assume that 200,000 of those people will have found work before 1929, and that in addition he will have absorbed, roughly, I think, the 100,000 people who enter into industry every year in our country, and on that flimsy basis the Clauses of the Bill are drawn.
  Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned.
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
  1. Government of India (Statutory Commission) Act, 1927.
  2. Kilmarnock Gas and Water Order Confirmation Act, 1927.
  And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
  1. Indian Church Measure, 1927.
  2. Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1927.
  3. New Dioceses (Transitional Provisions) Measure, 1927.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Mr. SHAW: Just before we went to another place, I was calling attention to the fact that the figures on which this Bill has been based assume that by 1929
  1884
  200,000 of the present unemployed will have work and the normal increase in the working population will have been absorbed. I hope the Minister will not think that anything I am saying has any personal application at all. It is a matter for which the Minister has to take responsibility, and I am speaking strictly without personalities. But really, we cannot afford, as a Committee, to discuss a Bill on the basis of what the Minister thinks will take place in 1929. That is surely an unheard-of proposition. If the Minister had said to us, "Here is a condition of affairs, but we must take into consideration that this condition of affairs may change," one could have understood it, but, frankly, to issue a White Paper on deductions which have no basis of actual fact and on assumptions that have not the validity of a doctor's diagnosis, but are, as it were, a spring into the blue—that is scarcely good enough as the basis for an important Bill. The lives of hundreds of thousands of decent unemployed working people depend upon whether the Minister's guess is realised or not, and I suggest that before we go on with the discussions of the Clauses of this Bill, we have a right to ask the Minister to tell us what is the state of affairs now, and what, if the Bill were put into operation to-morrow, it would mean to the people of this country under present conditions, and thus let us form an idea of the case.
  It is only on the basis of assumption like this that the Minister arrives at his figure that this Bill will deprive of benefit only 30,000 workers who would get it under present conditions. I do not get it under present conditions. I do not want to go outside the bounds of order, and I do not want to use the privilege of moving to report Progress for the purpose of entering into an argument not germane to the White Paper, but I am allowed to say that it is only on the basis of the assumption that this miracle will take place that the Minister makes his statement that there will be thrown out of benefit only 30,000 who would have got benefits if the present conditions obtained. May I call the Minister's attention to a very remarkable fact. On his own showing, even with the assumption that he is going to have the improvements that he prognosticates, for which, unfortunately, he has no proof, it

  1885
  is quite evident that 56,000, and not 30,000, is the number of those who will be taken off benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "More!"] I said assuming the Minister gets the result he hopes for and that a benevolent Providence showers its blessings upon him. This White Paper has been drawn up in the spirit of the excursion bills of a Scottish railway: "The excursion will run at 11.30 a.m., 30th May, D.V." and God will have to be very willing indeed and very benevolent if the Minister gets what he wishes under this White Paper. "But," says the Minister, "even if this Bill does deprive 56,000 people of benefit, it adds 26,000 people who are not getting benefit now." Let me use a homely illustration. If I had to say to John Smith and Tom Robinson—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the actual Motion before the Committee. He ought not to anticipate the debate that will take place on Clause 5.
  Mr. SHAW: I do not want to run against your Ruling, and I have not the slightest desire to use this opportunity for a discussion which will probably take place on the Clauses, but, after all, we are asked to discuss these Clauses on the basis of this White Paper, and I am entitled to point out that there will be taken off benefit by this Bill 56,000 people who would get benefit if the present conditions obtained, and that the Minister's number is based on an assumption that a miracle is going to happen, and that in some way, by some intervention of Providence, we are going to have a very marked difference inside the next year or 18 months in the labour situation. I venture to suggest that the White Paper gives no indication of any such miracle and we must look upon the cold facts of the situation. The cold facts are as disclosed by this White Paper, and these Clauses which the Minister asks us to discuss are Clauses which will remove a very large number of people from benefit, and the figures he has given in the White Paper are figures based upon assumptions which are quite unjustifiable, and on prophecies that ought never to have been made.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down
  1886
  accused me of playing poker in producing this White Paper. I am sure he wished to make no personal reflection, and I am sure he will realise that it is no personal insinuation in return if I say that the party opposite, in moving to report Progress, are taking a leaf out of the book of Danton who, when in difficulty, said,
  "Audacity, more audacity, always audacity."
  In the first place, our authority for bringing in this Bill, our primary authority, was the careful inquiries made by the Blanesburgh Committee. It was their recommendation that this 30 contributions condition should be imposed. They were all satisfied, and they had their own actuarial investigations. The Committee had their own reasons, which apparently were sufficient for each member of the Committee who signed the Report, and I should have imagined that the reasons that were sufficient for them would have been sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, their first and primary reason was that they had made careful inquiries into the subject. They were all unanimously satisfied, and they therefore made the recommendation.
  8.0 P.M.
  It was not a question of what I might happen to think. It was a question of what, after all their investigations—the Blanesburgh Committee thought, and what in following them we were satisfied was the proper Measure to introduce. This White Paper is of a different character from what the right hon. Gentleman has described. It is not the basis of the whole business. I took what the lawyers call "abundant caution." I had sufficient basis for all necessary purposes in the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, but as the Department carries out inquiries on many subjects, I took the opportunity of one of their inquiries to get a supplementary check of the results the new condition would produce. As the whole Committee are well aware, the Blanesburgh Committee suggested that the 30 contributions rule should come into force at the end of the transitional period. Therefore, if my supplementary check was to be of any use at all as a guide, I had to try to see what would be the result at the end of the transitional period. The right hon. Gentleman objects to my using what I think are

  1887
  perfectly well-founded hypotheses for that, but I do not think he or anyone else could claim a sort of Papal infallibility in saying what actually will be the effects at the end of the transitional period. If the hon. Members opposite wish to cut out the transitional period, that is another matter, but if they want to have a transitional period, as the Blanesburgh Committee also wish, then one has to estimate the position at the end of that period. It was right and prudent to try to get a supplementary check, and that is what I did, and I stand to the different reasons which led me to form that conclusion.
  I would ask the Committee to observe how entirely unjustified is this Motion to report Progress by contrasting the action which this Government have taken with the action which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself in his own administration. It is a case of the 30 contributions rule in each case. We bring in a 30 contributions rule, and it is proposed that it should begin to take effect in 18 months. Having already the authority of the Blanesburgh Committee to bring it into effect at the end of the transitional period, we take pains again to cross check it by getting the best idea we can of what will be the result. Further, as it will be introduced at the end of the transitional period, should any cataclysm or disaster occur in the meantime, and our calculations be very far from being realised—which I do not for a moment anticipate—there would be time for Parliament to take action with regard to the situation. That is what we propose. Contrast that with the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman who now poses as a critic and asks us to delay proceedings. The 30 contributions rule was his own baby. He first introduced it in the Act of 1924. When he introduced it he took power to waive it until the October of the year following. But mark the conditions of the waiver! In the year in which he introduced it, in 1924, the unemployment position had been consistently less good than it has been this year, after the recovery from the coal stoppage, so that at least he had no greater grounds for optimism than we have at this moment. At the same time, he absolutely refused to consider at the end of the time of
  1888
  waiver any alteration in his system. I have his own words. He was asked whether he would take power when his limited time for waiver was over to reconsider it. "No," said he, "I will have no reconsideration of my system until three years are up as a minimum." Far from having the Blanesburgh or any other inquiry on which to found himself—at least any which he communicated to the House—he gave no estimate, no reason, nothing of the kind at all to this House or to anyone else. Having given an ipse dixit, he refused to consider the possibility of waiving the provision at the end of 18 months, although the prospects were not so good as at present. In these circumstances when I consider the difference between the real caution with which I have acted, with greater grounds for optimism, and the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman acted, I can see no earthly reason for reporting Progress on this question to-night.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has been remarkable chiefly for its irrelevancies. What he has in fact done has been to occupy the second half of his speech with a problem which might have arisen on Clause 5 but has nothing whatever to do with the document with which we are now concerned. The question of the 30 stamps is not the question at the moment. The real question is whether this document is of the slightest value to members of the Committee. That is why, as we understood, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to lay a White Paper. He has based the greater part of his argument on the Blanesburgh Report. Let us see what that amounts to. Unfortunately, on statistical questions of this kind politicians are on very dangerous and treacherous ground. I speak as one who has had, professionally, to handle statistics, and I know the danger of embarking on this question. For example, I can conceive cases where the 1 per cent. sample could be statistically defended. But I do not press my own views on this matter, I will refer to the Government Actuary. What he says is based on the fourth inquiry made by the Minister of Labour into the 1 per cent. sample examination. Three of these examinations were before the Government Actuary when he presented his report to the Blanesburgh Committee. In dealing with

  1889
  the very question to which the right hon. Gentleman has devoted the greater part of his speech, the number of qualifying contributions, he says:
  "In regard to (ii)—the qualifying number of contributions—I regret that I have been unable to find any statistics which would enable the relief to be derived from this provision to be authoritatively measured."
  While for certain purposes the 1 per cent. sample might be scientifically defended, on this occasion no less an authority than the Government Actuary has denied the value of the three reports which have been issued on the same basis.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the hon. Member take into account one fact which has apparently not been brought to his notice? The 1 per cent. inquiry has not been on exactly the same lines in all the previous cases. There was no specific question put in the course of the previous inquiries which would enable that information to be at the disposal of the Actuary, but it was introduced in this one, as I said, as a sort of supplementary check. That statement by the Actuary was made before this particular inquiry was carried out, which made possible the additional piece of information desired.
  Miss LAWRENCE: The White Paper says:
  "This was the fourth inquiry made by the Ministry of Labour in which the method of taking a small sample has been adopted and it has been proved that.… the method can be relied upon to yield results which are sufficiently representative of the whole field."
  The "it has been proved" in the White Paper refers to the other three inquiries, with regard to which the Government Actuary says that he has had the data from the Minister of Labour but considers it actuarially insufficient.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It has been proved that a 1 per cent. inquiry is a satisfactory way of arriving at reliable results, from the standpoint of any statistician. In this case it is reliable for producing other results than this one. Its reliability in general having been proved, this information is obtained and gives reliable results.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's answer mystifies me even more, no doubt, than it mystifies the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). The point is the 1 per cent. sample is drawn from cases from which in previous inquiries the same information could have been drawn. The question as to what was asked for does not arise, because on the cards from which this inquiry was made the same information was available in the course of the first three inquiries as was available in the fourth. I am not advancing my view as to the validity of the 1 per cent. sample, but I am saying that if the Government Actuary is unable to find any statistics that will give him any real guidance, why should we place any reliance on this anonymous document which is now before us? Goodness knows where it has emanated from. The Government Actuary has certainly not put his name to it, and so I assume he accepts no responsibility. Let us assume a sample yields figures upon which one can base certain results. But the reliability of this document does not rest upon whether that 1 per cent. sample is right or not, it rests upon the fact that three quite separate hypotheses are made from which results are deduced. Let me take the question which arises on page 3 of the Memorandum, in reference to an allowance in respect of the effect of coal mining.
  "This method assumes that but for the coal mining stoppage of 1926, the contribution experience of coal-mining claimants in April 1925-April 1927, would have been no worse on the average than that of claimants from all other industries taken together."
  That is worthy of examination. The document says in effect, "Having got these figures from the 1 per cent. calculation, we must now begin to play about with them with a view to reducing them, and the first argument for reducing them is that in the coal areas last year there was an abnormal situation. We are to assume that if that abnormal situation had not obtained in 1926 the average rate of unemployment—that is what it amounts to—from 1925 to 1927 in coal mining would have been the same as it was in all the rest of the industries of the country. That is a preposterous statement. If this document were to try to substantiate that point, it would have to put in parallel columns the monthly figures of unemployed for that two-

  1891
  year period in the coal mines and in the other industries. Since this document came into my hands I have not been able to examine the returns in detail, but taking the period from April, 1925, to April, 1927, over most of it the unemployment figure in relation to coal mining was higher than for the country as a whole. That disposes of this case, but that is not all. If you take the figures for the country as a whole, they include this swollen unemployment in coal mining, and, if you take out coal mining, the disparity between unemployment in coal mining and the other industries is greater still. If you start with a case like that and introduce one hypothesis which will not stand examination, the results of your statement are absolutely nothing. I think it is perfectly unwarrantable to begin to deduct from the number of unemployed a number of miners because in two years their unemployment figure has been above the normal. That is the first of these hypotheses on which this document is built.
  The second hypothesis is that the percentage rate of unemployment among insured persons on 25th April, 1927, was 9.3, and, on the assumption that the present tendency for unemployment continues, and is not interrupted by abnormal conditions, it may be anticipated that during the years ending April, 1929–30 the rate of unemployment will not exceed 8 per cent. That is an assumption for which there is no real warrant.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These arguments might be used in a discussion on Clause 5, but it is going rather too far to anticipate the discussion on Clause 5 on a Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not raising the question of Clause 5. I have made only one reference to the main provisions of that Clause. My point is that the whole of this Bill is based upon certain statistical assumptions. We were promised a paper by the right hon. Gentleman dealing with those statistical assumptions. My argument is that this White Paper is entirely valueless.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is not what I stated. What I said was
  1892
  that the primary authority was the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee. This is a supplementary check.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: But the Actuary's conclusion differs from that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The argument which the hon. Member is using would be a suitable argument against the alteration which it is proposed to introduce into the law in Clause 5, but, beyond stating the dissatisfaction which is caused by the White Paper, we ought not to go into all the details of the White Paper in a discussion on a Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not want to go into the details, but a mere expression of dissatisfaction without giving the grounds for our dissatisfaction would not be intelligible to the Committee. I am simply dealing with the main proposals of the Memorandum, and I want to show why in my judgment the Committee should report Progress until we have further information.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those are arguments suitable to Clause 5, but it is going much too far to use them on a Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: My argument is not upon Clause 5, but has reference to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman promised a certain Paper which would enlighten us as to the basis of his calculations. This White Paper does not give us the information which we require, and I was pointing out that the special cases dealt with require further elucidation. On this question of the assumption with regard to the rate of unemployment in April, 1929, we are entitled to ask for a certain amount of information, which has not been given to us in the White Paper. My case against the White Paper is that it consists of one fact and three hypotheses, all of which are untrue and unsound. I was trying to show that the statement to the effect that the volume of unemployment was going to be reduced to 8 per cent. is not warranted by the statement of the Actuary.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly my point. All these arguments would be suitable arguments when Clause 5 is being discussed, but they are not in order upon a Motion to report Progress.
  Miss LAWRENCE: May we argue whether the figure of 8 per cent. is too high or not? There are three points set forth. We are now discussing the question whether 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. is the proper figure. Is it not strictly germane to argue that the figure of 8 per cent. is too high a figure?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are discussing a Motion to report Progress, and the grounds for that may be shown. It may be argued that the White Paper gives insufficient information, but we cannot go beyond that.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The case made out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) for reporting Progress was that although we had received the White Paper we had not got the information we desired, and we really have not the information on which the three hypotheses contained in the White Paper are based. In a document of this kind you start with one basis of facts, and then three unknown factors. Each of those unknown factors we are challenging. We should like to have further information which would indicate to us what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in setting forth these three hypotheses. The first is that coal mining could be regarded as normal; secondly, that the rate of unemployment was to be 8 per cent. in 1930; and, thirdly, that it is reasonable to assume that the average rate for the two years mentioned will not exceed 9 per cent. It is a matter of simple algebra that in a simple equation you cannot solve three unknown factors. This information leaves us without a basis on which we can effectively continue the discussion on the Bill. That is what I have to say on the first part of the White Paper, which deals with the question of the 30 contributions rule. That first part arrives, by these three wild hypotheses, at 56,000 further persons who will be deprived of benefit. Then the statement is made—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that, while those
  arguments might be suitable to any opposition he may have to Clause 5, they are not germane to a discussion on the question of reporting Progress.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am very sorry; I should be very unwilling to challenge your ruling, but I am not discussing the question whether 30 contributions ought to be paid in two years. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood our case, as I tried to point out, when he said that all that we were interested in was the question of the 30 contributions in two years. What we are really concerned about is to get the basis of information that will enable us to discuss the assumptions on which this Bill is founded, and what I am now trying to show to the Committee is that this White Paper does not give us that information; it is merely a farrago of nonsense and imagination with a little fact and a very large amount of assumption. In view of the assumptions that are made, the grounds for which are not set forth in the White Paper, I submit that we are entitled to complain. I should have liked to see a much more elaborate document giving the information on which the right hon. Gentleman based his hypotheses. We know many of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday and previously that he was acting on certain hypotheses, and what we really asked him for was the information which led him to make those hypotheses. Those three hypotheses are set forth in this White Paper without the information which would substantiate them, and on these grounds I think we are justified in moving to report Progress because the information which we sought has not been made available to us.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 136.

  Division No. 371.]

  AYES.

  [8.28 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Atkinson, C.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bennett, A. J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bethel, A.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Apsley, Lord

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Preston, William

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Remer, J. R.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Savery, S. S.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cope, Major William

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lumley, L. R.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  McLean, Major A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dixey, A. C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Drewe, C.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Tasker, R Inigo.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  England, Colonel A.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Merriman, F. B.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Waddington, R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waiden)

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

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Forestier-Walker, sir L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Fester, Sir Harry S.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Withers, John James

  Grace, John

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  of Titchfield.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  NOES.

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

  Barnes, A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Cape, Thomas

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Charicton, H. C.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Clowes, S.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Broad, F. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Baker, Walter

  Bromfield, William

  Compton, Joseph

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Connolly, M.

  1896

  1897

  Cove, W. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish universities)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawrence, Susan

  Snell, Harry

  Dennison, R.

  Lawson, John James

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Duncan, C.

  Lee, F.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Dunnico, H.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lowth, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lunn, William

  Strauss, E. A.

  Gardner, J. P.

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Mackinder, W.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Gosling, Harry

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  March, S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Greenwood, A (Nelson and Coine)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Montague, Frederick

  Vlant, S. P.

  Groves, T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murnin, H.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Harney, E. A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Welsh. J. C.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Westwood, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ritson, J.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Scurr, John

  Wright, W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sexton, James

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

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

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Whiteley.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 235.

  Division No. 372.]

  AYES.

  [8.37 p.m.

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

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

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

  Gosling, Harry

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

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mackinder, W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Greenall, T.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  March, S.

  Baker, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Maxton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Barnes, A.

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

  Montague, Frederick

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morris, R. H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hardie, George D.

  Murnin, H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Harney, E. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Broad, F. A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Palin, John Henry

  Bromfield, William

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, G. H

  Ritson, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  Clowes, S.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Connolly, M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, W. G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scurr, John

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Sexton, James

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kennedy, T.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Dennison, R.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Duncan, C.

  Lansbury, George

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lee, F.

  Smith. Rennie (Penistone)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Snell, Harry

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lowth, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charies

  Varley, Frank B.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sullivan, J.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Wright, W.

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Welsh, J. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Westwood, J.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Townend, A. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Whiteley.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  England, Colonel A.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Albery, Irving James

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Apsley, Lord

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Meller, R. J.

  Atkinson, C.

  Finburgh, S.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark).

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grace, John

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Bethel, A.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hammers'ey, S. S.

  Oakley, T.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harland, A.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Pilcher, G.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Preston, William

  Cassels, J. D

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Radford, E. A.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Remer, J. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cope, Major William

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  Kindersley, Major Guy M

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Savery, S. S.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

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

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Shepperson, E. W.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Drewe, C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Elliott, Major Walter E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Ellis, R. G.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  1900

  1901

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Waddington, R.

  Withers, John James

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Wells, S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  of Titchfield.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  CLAUSE 3.—(Periodical Investigation into Condition of Unemployment Fund.)
  Mr. GREENWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he proposes to go to-night.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to get to about the first Schedule.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "once," in line 19, to the word "cause" in line 21, and to insert instead thereof the words "in three years."
  I move this Amendment because I feel the position of the Fund is so dubious within the next five years that Parliament ought to have a statutory right to review it at the shortest possible period. Inside the next five years the position of the Fund may be one of three. It may balance, there may be a deficit, or there may be a surplus. If it balances, it will prove that the assumptions underlying the Bill are fairly accurate. If there is a deficit, it will be necessary for Parliament to review the fund in the light of the experience of the working of the Measure, and take immediate action. Therefore, I think five years is much too long a period and three years a much better period. If, on the other hand, there is a surplus, a very vital problem arises for all insured contributors, as all insured contributors are interested in what will happen at the end of the extended period. When a surplus arises in this Fund, it is what is called an extended period, and then the Minister has power without reference to Parliament, as I understand it, under Regulations to cut down the maximum contributions. It is, therefore, of vital interest to all insured persons to have a review by Parliament on the Floor of the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment, so that they may have a full and frank discussion as to what will happen in the case of a surplus happening to the Fund through a lower rate of unemployment.
  1902
  The period with which this Clause deals is, in effect, as defined by Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, the period to elapse between the present time and the end of the insurance year during which it is certified that the Unemployment Fund in the opinion of the Treasury, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is solvent. It will be obvious to the Committee that there is a great deal of force behind this Amendment, because five years, in the position of the Fund at the moment, is a very long period. At the moment the interest on the debt of the Fund is equivalent to over £1,000,000 a year, according to the actuarial calculations, and should there be a great increase in unemployment, there will be an increased deficit. On the other hand, if in the assumption I make, we reach the extended period earlier, if the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman is justified, then all those who are interested in the Fund ought to have it brought before their notice in the most public way, that is to say, by Parliamentary action. The Clause, as the Committee will observe, says:
  "The Minister shall once at least in every five years, and if he thinks proper so to do may at shorter intervals, cause an investigation to be made, in such manner as the Treasury may approve."
  My Amendment would cut out his discretion in the matter and make it his statutory duty not within five years, but within three years, to take into consideration the condition of the Fund and to lay before Parliament a report of any investigation made under this Section. The actuary points out that:
  "The position of the Fund under the new conditions will obviously be governed by the rate of unemployment prevailing from time to time."
  He goes further and says:
  "In so far as the conditions which apply after the expiry of the 'extended period,' i.e., when the Fund is solvent, are concerned, it is appropriate, for the purpose of financial estimates, to consider the Fund as subject to the operation of a normal trade cycle."

  1903
  Then he gives alternative bases of calculation as to whether there will or will not be a surplus of the Fund. These are the classes—(1) The rate of unemployment for which the maximum rates of contributions were charged permanently. The Fund would be solvent in his estimate if the income and the expenditure of the Fund balanced at a rate of unemployment of 7½ per cent., that is to say 1½ per cent. less than the prevailing rate at the moment—rather under than over 1½ per cent. (2) What annual amount of surplus would be available, on the average, for the reduction of these contributions if the rate of unemployment over the cycle were 6 per cent.? There would be an estimated surplus in that connection, and for that period, of £5,400,000. You will see therefore it is a very big thing, for £5,400,000 means the possibility of a reduction to the employers and to the employed of a penny each per week in the contribution, or alternatively such other reductions as the Minister, having the right under the Regulations, may determine. I ask the Minister to consider this point, because the position of the Fund has varied a great deal during the past four or five years. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to point out that between November, 1920, and November, 1926, £290,700,000 was paid out of this Fund in benefit, and during the same period contributions were received into the Fund—employers £102,000,000, employés £92,000,000, service departments £4,000,000, the State £69,000,000; that is to say, £267,000,000, leaving a deficit of £23,000,000, approximately the same deficit as we have now. The trouble is this, that the persistence of unemployment has thrown wholly out of gear the arrangement originally made in order to preserve a reasonable balance in the Fund between contributions paid and benefits received.
  I wish to argue that the actuarial figures taken much earlier deal with the fund referred to in the Clause I am now seeking to amend. These figures, for instance, run as follow: If the number of unemployed be four men to one woman and the rate of unemployment be 7 per cent., the surplus estimated will be £8,900,000. If the number of unemployed be four men to one woman again, and the rate of unemployment 8 per cent., the surplus will be £5,210,000. If the
  1904
  number of unemployed be four men to one woman and the rate of unemployment be 9 per cent.—the present rate—the surplus will be £1,680,000, whereas if the rate goes to 10 per cent.—supposing the maximum contributions are paid —the deficiency will be £1,410,000. If, on the other hand, as as present exists, the rate be 11 men to two women and the rate of unemployment be 7 per cent., the surplus will be £8,480,000, £4,474,000 at 8 per cent. and £1,170,000 at 9 per cent., whereas there will be a deficiency at 10 per cent. of £1,970,000. These figures are to be found in the Actuary's report on the financial provisions of the Bill in page 8, Command Paper 2966. It must be noted by the Committee that no provision is included for interest on the debt of the Unemployment Fund in arriving at these results. This liability varies with the amount of the debt, and the rate of interest charged on the debt by the Treasury at the present moment is £1,000,000 per annum. It must also be noted that any surplus remaining in a particular year, after providing for the interest on the debt then existing, will be applied to reduce the debt and thus to shorten the duration of the "extended period." This Clause with its suggestion of five years is based on Section 64 of the Blanesburgh Report, of which I wish to read just one passage with regard to actuarial soundness of the fund. On page 36, paragraph 64, they say, after a good deal of discussion, the following, the assumption being a trade cycle. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the trade cycle?"] We will come to that a little later. There is a long passage and these are the vital words:
  "It is impossible, of course, to predict with certainty that the experience anticipated will actually occur. Even actuaries are not prophets. But in order that neither a surplus nor a deficit should reach unwieldy proportions, we recommend that there be an actuarial inquiry into the position of the Fund every five years."
  I think the members of the Committee will have observed in the last two days that since that basis has been departed from, and since the position with regard to statistical evidence and actuarial knowledge is fairer than that possessed by the Commission, and since there is in 1927 over 9 per cent. of unemployment, to say that there will be a trade cycle of 6 per cent. seems to be very optimistic, and I am justified in claiming that this Com-

  1905
  mittee will do itself, the insured persons, the employers of the insured persons, the Fund and the national interests a very great service by passing this Amendment, which will make it statutory for whatever Minister is in power, within three years to review the Fund and report immediately to the House.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment, and I should like to know whether it is convenient for the Chair to tell us whether that Amendment will be called.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The Amendment is inconsistent with the one now under discussion. If the words are left out, the hon. Member for Leith's Amendment might be rejected and the other put in. Both Amendments cover the same point. If the words remain in, it will be impossible for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to move his Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Some of us feel that the three years period is too long. Should we be in order in arguing on the present Amendment that the period should be one year?
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member could do that.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Would it be possible for the hon. Member for Gorbals to give notice that when the words are taken out he will move to insert new words.
  The CHAIRMAN: If and when the words are taken out we may consider that point.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I hope the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) will not persist in his Amendment. I do not question for a moment that he has moved it with the object of strengthening the Bill, and he has adduced reasons which seem to him satisfactory for attaining his object, but I wish to put one or two points which I hope will satisfy the Committee that the expectations of the hon. Member so far from being realised will probably have exactly the opposite effect. This Clause is founded directly on a recommendation of the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee. The Report says, on page 37, in the first paragraph:
  "In order that neither a surplus nor a deficit should reach unwieldy proportions,
  1906
  we recommend that there be an actuarial inquiry into the position of the Fund every five years. As a result of that inquiry any adjustments of contributions or benefits or both, on the lines of the scheme, which may appear to be necessary can be made."
  Having been based upon that recommendation in the Report the Bill reads as follows:
  "The Minister shall once at least in every five years, and if he thinks proper so to do may at shorter intervals, cause an investigation to be made."
  9.0 p.m.
  Then, the hon. Member moves an Amendment in which he seeks to leave out the words "at least in every five years and if he thinks proper so to do may at shorter intervals," and to insert the words "in three years." The first comment I have to make on that is that as the hon. Member has drafted it, it is at least doubtful whether the result of his words, if inserted, would be that there would be one investigation in three years and no other. Therefore, it would limit the power of the Minister if he thinks proper to make an investigation at least in every five years, and if he thinks proper at shorter intervals. No doubt what the hon. Member desires is that every three years should be substituted for every five years, but I do not think his Amendment would have the effect which he desires. He asks that careful consideration should be given to the point. Both my right hon. Friend and myself have already given very careful consideration to the point, and the conclusion we have come to is that the Blanesburgh Report was right in recommending five years, with a discretionary power of the Minister if he has good reason to do so to order an investigation before the five years have elapsed. To put in three years would be inadequate for the purpose of making an investigation. It might be that one of the three years would be a year of depression and that the other two years might be a time when trade was better. Therefore, in the view of my right hon. Friend as well as mine it is necessary to have a longer period than three years in order to make a satisfactory investigation. That is the answer to the hon. Member. I assure him that this proposal of his did receive very careful consideration both from my right hon. Friend and myself.
  As a matter of interest only, and I do not urge it as itself a sufficient

  1907
  reason for rejecting the Amendment, I may say that in health insurance there is a quinquennial valuation and in the Contributory Pensions Act the valuation is every 10 years, which has acted very well. I am not qualified to give an opinion as to why these periods were fixed, but I am informed that the two periods respectively of five years and 10 years have worked satisfactorily. For the reasons I have given, and while I hope the hon. Member will believe me when I say that I fully appreciate the motive with which he has moved this Amendment, I think the Committee would be well advised not to accept it.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I had hoped that the reasoned case made out by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) would have appealed to the mind of the Minister. If I may say so respectfully, I think the defence which the Minister has put up is weak. He began by founding his objection on the Blanesburgh Report. He said that the Committee recommended five years and not three, but I think I can claim that the Blanesburgh Committee contemplated a quite different Measure from the one now before the Committee. This Bill is not based on the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee and therefore it is quite unjustifiable to treat the Blanesburgh Committee's recommendations as being applicable to it. It is true that the Clause, as it stands, gives a discretionary power to the Minister of Labour to have an investigation more frequently than once in five years, but does any Member of the Committee believe that the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, will seize the most frequent opportunities of coming to this House and telling us what is happening to this fund after their experience of the past few days. We have very seldom seen Ministers of the Crown in a more uncomfortable position than the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary during the progress of this Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the quinquennial investigation into the Health Insurance Fund has proved very satisfactory. There has been one raid at least on that fund, and I should like to know whether a raid, as well as a quinquennial investigation, is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary when he asks us to accept this Measure with a
  1908
  provision in it which was accepted in the Health Insurance Act? The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Bill is not based on stability at all. It is based on instability. If there is one thing contemplated by this Bill it is quick changes in the unemployment conditions. It is based on the expectation that within 15 months, not within five years, we shall have a reduction of 33½ per cent. in the number of the unemployed. The hon. Gentleman has not enlightened the House very much as to how he expects the numbers of unemployed to be so rapidly decreased, but he and the Minister of Labour have time and time again appealed to the House to accept this as a probable happening within the next 15 months. If we are to have a reduction of 33½ per cent. within the first 15 months it would be interesting to know what we are to expect in the second 15 months, in the third 15 months, and in the fourth 15 months of the five years in which we are to be waiting for an investigation. Are we to have a reduction of 33⅓ per cent. in each of these periods? I am reminded by my hon. Friend that you cannot have four reductions of 33⅓ per cent. in the present figures, but that is just as likely to happen as we are to realise the expectations of the Minister of Labour and hon. Members opposite.
  The point is this, that we are asked to pass a Measure which is based entirely on quick changes. If the hon. Member's expectations are realised, if the conditions of unemployment change rapidly, you require an investigation quickly into the fund that is dealing with unemployment. Why are we asked to wait for five years when we are passing a Measure which is based on a change in the whole situation within 15 months. If the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary is right the case for the Amendment is strong. I would go further and say that the subject ought to be brought under the supervision of this House at least once a year. There should be an annual investigation into the state of the fund, and Parliament should be consulted every year as to its condition. Suppose the hon. Member is wrong, and I do not agree with his prophecies as to the course unemployment will take in this country in the next two or three years. I take exactly the opposite view. I believe we are at the peak of a boom in trade. He may be right, or I may be

  1909
  right, but I am just as likely to be correct in my expectation as the hon. Member, and there is certainly as much evidence in support of my view as has been placed before the Committee in support of the contention of the hon. Member. If he is right he would be able to tell us which trade is likely to improve within the next 15 months. He has never ventured to do that. It is well known that the great bulk of our unemployment is to be found in certain large industries, the coal industry, the steel, cotton and shipbuilding industries, a very small number, numerically, of the industries of the country.
  Where is this improvement in trade to take place? Is it in the coal industry? Is it in the shipbuilding industry? Is it in the steel trade? Is it in the cotton trade, or in agriculture, or in any of the principal industries on which the country depends? There is no evidence. My own opinion is that unemployment will increase substantially within the next two or three years. I am sorry to believe this, but I am perfectly convinced that unemployment is certain to increase rapidly and surpass in dimensions in the next two or three years anything we have previously experienced in this country, that is, assuming a continuance of the competitive system of fixing wages and prices. I see no indication of this system disappearing in the next 15 months, much as I wish it would. Suppose I am right in my expectation as to the future of industry in this country, is it right to fix five years as the period within which we are to investigate this Fund? I have no faith at all in the discretionary power of the Minister of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his discretion, will keep away from discussions in this House as often and as long as he can. The position of the Government is never strengthened by discussion on unemployment. The position of no Government is ever strengthened by such discussions, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary in the positions they occupy. There is no more thankless position in the Government and public life of the country than to try and deal with unemployment within the competitive system.
  1910
  Suppose, for instance, there should be a further collapse of the coal industry within the next 12 months. That is not beyond our imagination. We see the industry crumbling every day. What condition of things would that land us into? It does not stop with the coal trade, it spreads to all kindred industries and affects the whole position of unemployment. Are we to wait five years before this House, which represents the people and to which is entrusted the government of this country, is to have an opportunity of investigating a fund to which the mass of the people subscribe and on which millions at least depend for their maintenance and livelihood? It is not merely the unemployed whose position will be jeopardised by a substantial change in the condition of employment, but you have the whole incidence of rating and taxation carried into this Fund. For instance, if, as I fear, the heavy industries in the North have to undergo more difficult times within the next year or two, it means that the maintenance of the North will be thrown more and more on the insured persons who live in the South. That in itself compels you to keep your eyes on this Fund. It would be a most mischievous proceeding to allow this Fund to drift for five years. It is a Fund with which we ought to keep in constant touch. The very nature of it compels constant stock-taking, and in no aspect of the unemployment problem is it more important that the House of Commons should keep its eye fixed on every movement that takes place than with regard to the finance that the country has to provide.
  Mr. HARRIS: I quite appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to give consideration to this Amendment on business lines. It is largely a business proposition. I do not think he is prepared to justify the period of five years on the ground of accountancy. It is not merely a matter of money voted by this House. There is also the money provided by the insured persons, who want to know that they are contributing to a Fund that is actuarially sound. On the face of the Report of the Actuary we are almost bound to say that five years is much too long a period. I am not quite as pessimistic as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, for I am

  1911
  still hopeful that economic conditions may improve in the next few years. It is mere optimism opposed to his pessimism. If my hopes are right there is all the more reason why the Fund should be examined from the point of view of accounting, and it may be possible then not only to improve the benefits but to reduce the contributions.
  On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman is right, if his pessimism is justified, if trade becomes worse and unemployment increases, that is a greater justification for an earlier examination of the accounts, not at the discretion of the Minister or of a Government Department, but at a period fixed by the House of Commons. These are not voluntary contributions. If they were voluntary contributions it would be for the contributors to decide how often the Fund should be examined. These are contributions that every working man is compelled to make, whether he likes it or not. He is compelled, on the understanding that he is to get certain benefits. We have no guarantee for the future. A severe Chancellor of the Exchequer, under pressure from Income Tax payers, may refuse to come to the assistance of the Fund if there were a deficit, and the result would be that either the benefits would have to be reduced or actuarially the Fund would continue to be unsound.
  Mr. BETTERTON: It may shorten the discussion if I intervene. I ought to have said that every year an account of the Fund, audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is laid before Parliament and examined by the Public Accounts Committee. The Report which is referred to in the Bill as made every five years is merely a comprehensive review of these accounts.
  Mr. HARRIS: That rather justifies my case the more, for if the figures are available the cost of a triennial examination would be very small, and Parliament and the insured person would be aware of the actual position of the fund.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not a Report but an investigation that we are dealing with now.
  Mr. HARRIS: After all this is purely a business proposition. In the words of the Clause the Minister admits that five
  1912
  years is not necessarily the right period, because he puts into his own hands the power to shorten the period to any lesser time that he thinks fit. Is it not wiser and more practicable for Parliament itself to fix the period? Some hon. Members suggest one year. That may be right or wrong. I want to be reasonable and to get something done. I want the Minister to make a concession. He has not made a concession yet. Here is a slight business concession which will help the smooth passage of the Bill. I suggest to him that the way to get the Bill through is not to sit still and refuse to answer arguments or to make any concession. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out how doubtful the actuary was about the financial position. We need not go to the Blanesburgh Report. Turn to the Appendix, on page 89, and again on page 90. The actuary points out that
  "At no time from 1912 onwards has the working of the current scheme of National Insurance against Unemployment provided any data with reference to which the general rate of unemployment for a long period, and in relation to a wide span of industry, can be estimated."
  On page 90 the actuary says:
  "In regard to the qualifying number of contributions, I regret that I have been unable to find any statistics which would enable the relief to be derived from this provision to be authoritatively measured."
  In other words, with all his expert knowledge and his trained mind, until now he has not been able to find any satisfactory statistics of facts to enable him to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The whole scheme is still in the experimental stage. We are still groping in the dark. We are still taking in money, doubtful whether the scheme can be made watertight. Therefore we are bound, in the interests of sound finance and in the interests of the insured persons, to see that every three years the whole scheme is thoroughly investigated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"] We want to get something done. Here is half way between the two sides. The Labour party suggests one year and the Parliamentary Secretary suggests five years. Here we are, the middle party, suggesting three years. For the reasons I have given I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).
  Mr. J. HUDSON: Probably all the fundamental issues raised by this Bill are to be discussed upon this Clause. Long before five years and long before three years, it will be perfectly clear that there are forces at work in this country—whatever be the nature of our optimism or our pessimism—which will drive us, stage by stage, into harder and harder economic conditions, and will add to the unemployment from which we are now suffering. I am not able to speak with any certainty as to how long the capitalist system will stand the mulish kicks which capitalists themselves are delivering against it.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not a Debate on capitalism.
  Mr. HUDSON: With great respect, I would point out that what is going to add to the amount of unemployment in the future is the main issue which we ought to be facing just now in deciding whether we are to have a five-year reexamination, a three-year re-examination or a one-year reexamination.
  The CHAIRMAN: This Debate was being conducted with the most edifying compliance with order, but the hon. Member now seems anxious to discuss the fundamental issues of the Bill. He may argue that there is a certain amount of uncertainty in the position, and, therefore, that the period should be shorter than five years. That would be perfectly in order, but he must not be a fundamentalist.
  Mr. HUDSON: I owe you, Sir, a debt of gratitude for keeping me in order, and I shall avoid too much fundamentalism. I proceed, with this passing reflection—that it is clear to us, at least it is clear to me, that there is going to be an increase of unemployment not merely in connection with the coal trade but in connection with other vital industries which have not up to the present suffered in the same degree as the heavier industries. I arrive at that fundamental judgment because the Government have made it clear during the last few days that they intend to do nothing to stem the forces which are driving us into new reactions, and into new disputes out of which ultimately will come added unemployment. I am certain that before 12 months have passed, not only in the coal trade but in
  1914
  the industries of my own district in the textile industry—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member if he is not now playing the part of a fundamentalist has assumed that of a prophet.
  Mr. HUDSON: May I suggest with great respect that there is no greater element of prophecy in these discussions than that which has been introduced by the Government themselves. The whole of this Bill is based upon prophecy regarding the number of people who are to be unemployed in the future, and unless one can suggest some counteracting prophecy one is in a great difficulty in arguing the actual merits of this Clause, or of any part of the Bill. If I have departed a little from fundamentalism in order to deal with the prophecies of the Government, I ask for a little latitude in expressing my own opinion and giving my own prophecy upon this issue. Before we have gone very far in the political developments of the next twelve months, the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself will cause further raids upon this Insurance Fund just as we have seen such raids in the past. The hon. Member for Leitb (Mr. Brown) in giving an account of the total amounts that would be contributed in the next five years gave us details of the contributions from the workers, the employers, and the State. He was a prophet when he came to the details as to the State's contribution.
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I did not prophesy. I was quoting facts as to the five years from 1921 to 1926. They are to be found in the abstract.
  Mr. HUDSON: I had assumed that the hon. Member was basing on the experience of the last five years an estimate of what would happen in the next five years. At any rate, I am sure of this—that with the general financial difficulties into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is flying, it is more than likely that we shall have further raids upon this Fund. To that extent, the difficulties of the Fund will be increased, and for that reason I am sure we ought to expedite the prophesies of investigation. I admit that according to the Clause as it stands, the Minister has the opportunity to make his investigations

  1915
  oftener than every five years, but I am not enough of an optimist to believe that with such difficulties as the Minister of Labour will encounter, he will be desirous of letting this House know too soon the facts which confront us in regard to this matter. I think the situation will be so bad within a comparatively short time that when the House gets to know it an end will be made of the political careers of the Minister and of the Government as a whole. It is more than likely that instead of taking the opportunity which the Clause affords to hold an investigation before five years elapse, they will endeavour as long as possible to throw a cloak over the evil results of this legislation, and we shall not get the facts which ought to be placed before us. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
  Captain ARTHUR EVANS: It is very obvious that hon. Members who sit on the other side of the Committee are under the impression that all the Members who occupy these benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not!"]—who have the right to occupy these benches—share the views on this Bill which were given to a surprised Committee by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) last night. May I disabuse their minds at once. The group which the hon. Member represents—
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I regret to interfere with the hon. and gallant Member's speech, but is it in order to discuss anything on this Amendment, except the question of a five years' investigation or a three years' investigation?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has shown what I can only describe as an uncanny appreciation of what is in my own mind.
  Captain EVANS: If I am forbidden by your Ruling to pursue that point, I hope that I may have an opportunity of dealing with it on Clause 5. For the time being, I leave the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat to derive what satisfaction he may from the gloomy picture which he drew of our industrial future. He told the Committee that in his opinion and in that of his colleagues the industrial situation of this country was not going to improve but was going
  1916
  to get worse. The purpose of the Amendment is to compel the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour—or any Minister of Labour—to investigate the financial standing of the fund at an interval of three years. No doubt the hon. Gentleman who moved it told the Committee that by his Amendment he would deprive my right hon. Friend of investigating the state of this fund 12 months hence if he thought the position necessitated that further investigation. He may not so have informed the Committee, but, if the Committee accepts the Amendment, that will be the position. The question we have to bear in mind is not whether it is desirable to shift the burden of life from the shoulders of the individual to the shoulders of the State, but whether we can afford to indulge in a luxury of that kind—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that the only question here is whether the investigation is to be in five years at the discretion of the Minister or in three years.
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely, it is in order for the hon. and gallant Member to use the arguments which he has been using to illustrate the difficulties as between a three years' and a five years' investigation. While I object to his wandering back to Clauses discussed yesterday, I would certainly object if you were to restrain the hon. and gallant Member from using legitimate arguments.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I can only repeat a saying which I myself invented: Exemplum ne transeat in argumentum.
  Captain EVANS: I hope my hon. Friend who rushed so gallantly to my rescue appreciated the wit of your very excellent Ruling. The point that I am endeavouring to make is that, whether the industrial future of this country be certain or uncertain, it is not desirable at this stage to tie the Minister's discretion in this matter. If the hon. Member will read the Clause very carefully, he will observe that the Minister will at least once in every five years investigate the position of the fund. If we leave the Clause as it stands in the Bill at present, any unforeseen contingency or unrest can be dealt with by the Minister, to whatever party he belongs, but, if the Amendment be carried, the Minister,

  1917
  whatever his party, will be unable to investigate the situation for three years. I trust therefore that the Committee will not accept this Amendment.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support the Amendment, and I would like the Committee to bear in mind the history of the fund. Through the whole of its history there has been juggling with it unequalled in the history of any other fund. In 1920, when the principal Act of the present Unemployment Insurance scheme was passed, there was a big surplus to the credit of the insured people, amounting to some £22,000,000. Now we are faced with a deficit of about £22,000,000. Millions of people were given a share in 1920 of the funds contributed by other people. That was the appropriation of what was the property of those who contributed under the scheme. In 1926, we had the fund coming to a position of solvency and in 1926 the House of Commons passed the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which placed the fund in the position in which it is to-day. If we had in connection with unemployment insurance a proper financial investigation at a certain period, there would not be the same disposition to play fast and loose with the contributions of the workers, the employers, and the State which has characterised the fund hitherto. There was a reduction in the State contribution from 8d. to 6d. just after arrangements had been made at the end of 1925 that the State was to bear a certain proportion. Next year there was a complete overturn of what had been suggested by the Minister at the end of the previous year. It would tend to give a certain amount of stability to the arrangements if this Amendment were passed.
  The Minister has stated that, acting upon the Blanesburgh Report, he is intending that this scheme shall be a permanent scheme of unemployment insurance. Therefore, there is all the more reason why we should have an examination at the very beginning to see how the scheme is working out. There has been, throughout the history of the scheme, an idea that this is another form of outdoor relief. I think the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) would take that point of view, and perhaps he would see the importance of there being this periodical investigation and a shorter term of years than is proposed
  1918
  by the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is no need for it in three years, but that if the Minister thought fit he could have an annual investigation or one in two years, but the Minister may be the very last person who would like to have an investigation. The various Ministers who have held this office have been in very unfortunate circumstances so often, in connection with insurance, that the Minister may be the last person who would like to have an investigation, and, therefore, I think it would be to the advantage of everybody that there should be an examination in a shorter period. If this is going to be a permanent scheme, it has to justify itself, and the House of Commons should be able to keep in close touch with the working of it and should be given the opportunity of having, in the period of three years, a definite knowledge of the position of the Fund. I think everyone would be inclined to agree with that. I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite had not decided that for them there must be, in this connection, the strong policy of silence, so that we shall have a silent Tory party just as we have a silent Prime Minister, there would be many voices in support of our Amendment.
  In connection with unemployment insurance, I have always found, in dealing with people who have come to me with complaints, that there has been a general feeling that the State, as the smallest partner in the concern, putting up the least money in the business, yet has the biggest say in it, and there is a feeling that there should be more opportunity for the workmen and employers to have some say. If we had a triennial instead of a quinquennial investigation, the bigger paying partners in the concern, the employers and the workmen, would have something more adequate than they have now. I am sorry that the Amendment suggesting that the period should be one year was not taken. If the Minister were going to make it a shorter period, and if we had a thorough-going investigation, it would give us an opportunity in this House to see how we were dealing with the provision for the people, and it would enable us to get many very useful figures. One thing has already emerged from these discussions, and that is that the Minister of Labour has been impelled to publish a White Paper in

  1919
  order to give more information to the Committee. All through, there has been the constant complaint of the inadequacy of the information before us. It has been said that the Minister cannot give us figures about this and about that, and that nobody knows, and so on. Perhaps that is due to the fact that there has not been any sort of arrangement for a thorough-going periodical investigation in connection with the scheme.
  To my mind, the only argument that could be put forward against the Amendment would be this, that at the present time matters are so uncertain in connection with unemployment, that it is so difficult to gauge what the volume of unemployment will be six or 12 months hence, when the provisions of the scheme come fully into operation; in other words, that the time is so abnormal. There has been the opinion expressed in the Committee that it is not abnormal, but that we are really on a peak of prosperity under the new conditions under
  which Capitalism has had to work since the close of the War. That may be true, but most people regard it as an abnormal period of unemployment, from the point of view that there is such an appalling number of people still unemployed. The only argument that can be brought forward against the Amendment is that things are still so uncertain that we should take a period of five years, and possibly in the fourth year things may have got into the happy condition when it will be possible to get an investigation from which a very hopeful result may be obtained; and then in the fifth year you might be back in a period such as you are in at the present time. If you had the triennial period—
  Mr. BETTERTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 240: Noes, 143.

  Division No. 373.]

  AYES.

  [9.57 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Albery, Irving James

  Christie. J. A.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Apsley, Lord

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Grace, John

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Atkinson, C.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cope, Major William

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Harland, A.

  Bethel, A.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L.(Bootle)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Dixey, A. C.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Drewe, C.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  England, Colonel A.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M

  Cautley. Sir Henry S.

  Finburgh, S.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Forrest, W.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Loder, J. de V.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Lumley, L. R.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Pilcher, G.

  Sugden, sir Wilfrid

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Preston, William

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

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  McLean, Major A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tinne, J. A.

  MacRobert, Alexander M

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Waddington, R.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

  Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

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

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Smithers, Waldron

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Spender-Clay. Colonel H.

  Captain Margesson and Major Sir

  Oakley, T.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Harry Barnston.

  NOES.

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

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Palin, John Henry

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

  Groves, T.

  Paling, W.

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

  Grundy, T. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley. Ben

  Baker, Walter

  Harney, E. A.

  Ritson, J.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Harris, Percy A.

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

  Barnes, A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rose, Frank H

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scurr, John

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sexton, James

  Bromfield, William

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Bromley, J.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Clowes, S.

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Connolly, M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Cove, W. G.

  Lansbury, George

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee. F.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Dennison, R.

  Lowth, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Duncan, C

  Lunn, William

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Dunnico, H.

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

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Mackinder, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gardner, J. P.

  March, S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Maxton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Gillett, George M.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Gosling, Harry

  Montague, Frederick

  Viant, S. P.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Morris, R. H.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

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

  Murnin, H.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Greenall, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Oliver, George Harold

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

  1922

  1923

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Windsor, Walter

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Wright, W.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Westwood, J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.

  Whiteley, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 150.

  Division No. 374.]

  AYES.

  [10.5 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Albery, Irving James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Apsley, Lord

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Meller, R. J.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Finburgh, S.

  Merriman, F. B.

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

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Atkinson, C.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grace, John

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Berry, Sir George

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Bethel, A.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Oakley, T.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hall, capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harland, A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pilcher, G.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Preston, William

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Radford, E. A.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Clayton, G. C.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Savery, S. S.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Couper, J. B.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

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

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stanley Lord (Fylde)

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Dixey, A. C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Ellis, R. G.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wells, S. R.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Waddington, R.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Cope.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, George D,

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

  Harney, E. A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt, Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon Benjamin Charles

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clowes, S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackinder, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Montague, Frederick

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Morris, R. H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  England, Colonel A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Forrest, W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, W.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Paling, W.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ritson, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. MAXTON(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Amendments in manuscript,
  1926
  which have been handed in, are not to be afforded an opportunity for debate?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that there is to be no Debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes:
  Mr. MAXTON: Well, I think it is damned unfair.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 375.]

  AYES.

  [10.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Forrest, W.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

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

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Apsley, Lord

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Oakley, T.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Atkinson, C.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grace, John

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pilcher, G.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bennett, A. J.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Preston, William

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bethel, A.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Radford, E. A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Harland, A.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Remer, J. R.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Haslam, Henry C.

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hen. William Clive

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

  Briggs, J. Harold

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Savery, S. S.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cautley, Sir Henry s.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

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

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Jephcott, A. R

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Churchman, sir Arthur C.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  McLean, Major A.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Waddington, R.

  Davidson, Major-Genera] Sir J. H.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wells, S. R.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Drewe, C.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Meller, R. J.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  England, Colonel A.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Finburgh, S.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Forcstler-Walker, Sir L.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Major Cope and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

  1928

  1929

  NOES.

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

  Harney, E. A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayes, John Henry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Bromley, J.

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

  stamford, T. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clowes, S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F.

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

  Compton, Joseph

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Vlant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Morris, R. H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Fenby, T. D.

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rose, Frank H

  Hardie, George D.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 150.

  Division No. 376.]

  AYES.

  [10.22 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Albery, Irving James

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cope, Major William

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Couper, J. B.

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Atkinson, C.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balniel, Lord

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Drewe, C.

  Berry, Sir George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Bethel, A.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Clayton, G. C

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Finburgh, S.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Salmon, Major I.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lumley, L. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Gates, Percy

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Savery, S. S.

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Grace, John

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Smithers, Waldron

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

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

  Mason, Lieut.-Col- Glyn K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Meller, R. J.

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

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

  Merriman, F. B.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Harland, A.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Harmsworth. Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

  Waddington, R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Oakley, T.

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

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Wells, S. R.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Illfle, Sir Edward M.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Pilcher, G.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Preston, William

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Radford, E. A.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Reld, D. D. (County Down)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Remer, J. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

  NOES.

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Harney, E. A.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Harris, Percy A.

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dennison, R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Duncan, C.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Dunnlco, H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Baker, Walter

  Edge, Sir William

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Barnes, A.

  England, Colonel A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Batey, Joseph

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Forrest, W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Gardner, J. P.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  John, William (Rhondda. West)

  Broad, F. A.

  Glbbins, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Bromfield, William

  Gillett, George M.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bromley, J.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Kennedy, T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenall, T.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Cape, Thomas

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lansbury, George

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Clowes, S.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawson, John James

  Cluse, W. S.

  Groves, T.

  Lee, F.

  Compton, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Connolly, M.

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

  Lowth, T.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lunn, William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hardie, George D.

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

  1932

  1933

  Mackinder, W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  March, S.

  Scurr, John

  Townend, A. E.

  Maxton, James

  Sexton, James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Viant, S. P.

  Montague, Frederick

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Morris, R. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Murnin, H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

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

  Oliver, George Harold

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Owen, Major G.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)

  Welsh, J. c.

  Palin, John Henry

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Westwood, J.

  Paling, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stamford, T. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Potts, John S.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Riley, Ben

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Ritson, J.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Sullivan, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wright, W.

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

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

  The CHAIRMAN: When the last Division but one was called the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) made use of the expression that my conduct in the Chair was "damned unfair." I must ask him to withdraw that expression.
  Mr. BECKETT: He told the truth anyway.
  Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. May I ask a question dealing with a point of order—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must await the answer of the hon. Member for Bridgeton first.
  Mr. HARDIE: It is in relation to that that I want to put a question to you now. [Interruption.]
  Mr. BUCHANAN rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Member for Bridgeton for the second time to withdraw his expression.
  Mr. MAXTON: In the course of the proceedings, at the conclusion of the Debate on the last Amendment I asked you a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary question. You answered me in a manner that was both offensive to myself and degrading to the dignity of this House. That is where the matter stands so far as I am concerned.
  The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member for the third time to withdraw his expression. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member again declined to withdraw the expression, whereupon the CHAIRMAN ordered him to withdraw from the House during the remainder of this
  1934
  day's sitting, but the hon. Member refused to withdraw.
  Whereupon the CHAIRMAN named him for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I have to report that the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) has been named by me for persistently disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to name Mr. James Maxton for persistently disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question that can be debated.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That Mr. Maxton, the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, be suspended from the service of the House."
  Mr. MacDONALD: On a point of Order. Is it impossible for you, Mr. Speaker, to be put in possession of what really took place when the incident happened?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order, it is quite clear that I am bound to put the Question without Amendment or Debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 377.]

  AYES.

  [10.38 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Albery, Irving James

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Meller, R. J.

  Apsley, Lord

  Finburgh, S.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Forrest, W.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Atkinson, C.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gates, Percy

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Goff Sir Park

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grace, John

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Bethel, A.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Oakley, T.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Penny, Frederick George

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harland, A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hartington. Marquess of

  Perring, Sir William George

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Pilcher, G.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Preston, William

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cassels, J. D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Reid, D. D (County Down)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Christie. J. A.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston Spencer

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Churchman. Sir Arthur C.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Clayton, G. C.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Savery, S. S.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Jephcott, A. R

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Couper, J B.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Cunliffe Sir Herbert

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Strauss, E. A.

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Tasker, R Inigo.

  Drewe, C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Ellis, R. G.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  England, Colonel A.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Waddington, R.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  1936

  1937

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Wells, S. R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Major Cope and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Woodcock, Colonel. H. C.

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scurr, John

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charies

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sullivan, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Clowes, S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Compton, Joseph

  Lindley, F. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Cove, W. G

  Lunn, William

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackinder, W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan, C.

  Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Riley, Ben

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ritson, J.

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

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

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the decision of the House, I must ask the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division to withdraw.
  The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I move this Motion on the ground that the indignation on this side of the House is such as to prevent any reasonable discussion—indignation which I venture to say, is shared by every one of us who
  1938
  saw the incident and heard what took place. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who neither saw the incident nor heard what took place can form no idea. I saw the incident, and consequently I move that the Chairman do report Progress on the ground that it is absolutely impossible, in view of the rulings that have been given, for reasonable discussion to take place.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to support the Motion. There is no doubt that the Ruling you gave was both contemptible and unmanly.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw that observation. [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Committee to the disorderly conduct of Mr. Buchanan, Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, and ordered him to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.
  The hon. Member refused to withdraw; and the Chairman directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to request the hon. Member to withdraw, but the hon. Member again refused to withdraw, whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that under Standing Order, No. 20, I have to report the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to name Mr. Buchanan for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That Mr. Buchanan, the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, be suspended from the service of the House."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 106.

  Division No. 378.]

  AYES.

  [10.54 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Albery, Irving James

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Harland, A.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

  Cope, Major William

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Apsley, Lord

  Couper, J. B.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Atkinson, C.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hopkins, J. W. W

  Barry, Sir George

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Bethel, A.

  Drewe, C.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Betterton, Henry B

  Edge, Sir William

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  England, Colonel A.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Everard. W. Lindsay

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Finburgh, S.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Forrest, W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lamb, J. Q

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Cassels. J. D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Gates, Percy.

  Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Loder, J. de V.

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

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

  Long, Major Eric

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Grace, John

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Macdonald, R, (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Churchman, sir Arthur C.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  McLean, Major A.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hail, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  MacRobert, Alexander M

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Preston, William

  Strauss, E. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Radford, E. A.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Ralne, Sir Walter

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Meller, R. J.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Merriman, F. B.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Morris, R. H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Waddington, R.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wiggins, William Martin

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Oakley, T.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Owen, Major G.

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

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Smithers, Waldron

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Perring, Sir William George

  Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Major

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  The Marquess of Titchfield.

  Pilcher, G.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  NOES.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Bromfield, William

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Bromley, J.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Clowes, S.

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lowth, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Connolly, M.

  Lunn, William

  Vlant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

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

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Duncan, C.

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

  Welsh, J C.

  Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Riley, Ben

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ritson, J.

  Wright, W.

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

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Mr. Dunnico and Mr. Groves.

  Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the decision of the House, I must ask the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division to withdraw from the House.
  The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 257.

  Division No. 379.]

  AYES.

  [11.5 p.m.

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

  Harney, E. A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clowes, S.

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Strauss, E. A

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lansbury, George

  Sullivan, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sutton, J. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lawson, John James

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dennison, R.

  Mackinder, W.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Edge, Sir William

  Montague, Frederick

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Morris, R. H.

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

  Fenby, T. D.

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Glliett, George M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Riley, Ben

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Groves, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  Wright, W.

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

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hardie, George D.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Albery, Irving James

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Apsley, Lord

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cope, Major William

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Couper, J. B.

  Atkinson, C.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Campbell, E. T.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Bennett, A. J.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Berry, Sir George

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Dixey, A. C.

  Bethel, A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Drewe, C.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  England, Colonel A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Rye, F. G.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Finburgh, S.

  Long, Major Eric

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Forrest, W.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sandon Lord

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McLean, Major A.

  Savery, S. S.

  Gates, Percy

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Goff, Sir Park

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grace, John

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon.G.F.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Harland, A.

  Moore, Sir Newton J,

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

  Waddington, R.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Oakley, T.

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

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

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

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Wells, S. R.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Pilcher, G.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

  Preston. William

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Major

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Remer, J. R.

  The Marquess of Titchfield.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that during the time that an hon. Member was standing upon his feet you put the Question and asked the Committee to take a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was on his feet at the same time that Mr. Speaker was, and under the circumstances I thought it right to ignore him.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw attention to the fact that when he rose to his feet you were seated, and if you had risen you ought to have stated the ground upon which he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] May I put it to you, Sir—[HON.
  1946
  MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am stating my point of Order. If you are going to conduct the business of this House in the way that this House has had its business conducted according to its tradition—[Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN rose—
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I be allowed to finish my point of Order?
  The CHAIRMAN: Rising to question the ruling or the discretion of the Chair is not rising to a point of Order. If the hon. Member has a point of Order to raise, I will hear it.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I have one to raise. You stated just now in your answer to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean,) that you refused to allow me to speak because I was standing at the same time that Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. If Mr. Speaker was in the Chair you had no authority in this House at the same time. Mr. Speaker was in charge and not you, and your Ruling over this matter is as damned contemptible as your Ruling has been all the night. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that your Ruling is contemptible and unfair, and it has been a damned disgrace to the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member persists in those expressions?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw those expressions.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I persist in what I say. I mean what I say.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I must ask the hon. Member to leave the House.
  The hon. Member refused to withdraw, and the CHAIEMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have to report the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to name Mr. Wallhead for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That Mr. Wallhead, the Member for Merthyr, be suspended from the service of the House."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 87.

  Division No. 380.]

  AYES.

  [11.9 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Forrest, W.

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Albery, Irving James

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Apsley, Lord

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Gates, Percy

  Attbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Atkinson, C.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Goff, Sir Park

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grace, John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cocker ill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Bethel, A.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Harland, A.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

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

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

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

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Drewe, C.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Edge, Sir William

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  England, Colonel A.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. b.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Finburgh, S.

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

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

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

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

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon.G.F.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Oakley, T.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Storry-Deans, R.

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Pennefather Sir John

  Strauss, E. A.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Penny, Frederick George

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Loder, J. de V.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Long, Major Eric

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Pilcher, G.

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Lynn, Sir R. J

  Preston, William

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Radford, E. A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  McLean, Major A.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Waddington, R.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Wells, S. R.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Marriott. Sir J. A. R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Meller, R. J.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Morris, R. H.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T

  Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Shepperson, E. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Major

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  The Marquess of Titchfield.

  NOES.

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

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

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Baker, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barnes, A.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Stamford, T. W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, T (Glasgow)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sullivan, J.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)

  Bromley, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clowes, S.

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

  Townend, A. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Viant, S. P.

  Connolly, M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee. F.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lowth, T.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Westwood, J.

  Duncan, C.

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

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dunnico, H.

  Murnin, H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Paling, W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wright, W.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Groves, T.

  Scurr, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Sexton, James

  Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Neil Maclean.

  Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the decision of the House, the hon. Member for Merthyr must please leave the House.
  The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Greenwood.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. As one very much affected by the Bill before the House, I want to protest in the strongest possible manner against your action in putting the Clause without discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is no point of Order.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I have already tried to describe the action you have taken in the Chair. I have taken no part in disturbance in this House, but we miners have a strong feeling on this Bill. It may be all right for Members opposite to sit somewhere else than in the Chamber and allow a Clause to go through without discussion
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member said he rose to a point of Order. What is the point of Order?
  Mr. SULLIVAN: The point of Order I make is that your action has been damned unfair.
  Mr. GREENWOOD rose. [Interruption.]
  Mr. COMPTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Hope. Would I be in order in moving a Vote of Censure on the Chairman, in that he has named the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for using language which is not even as bad as that which has been used now and which he has overlooked?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not appreciate the point. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it.
  Mr. COMPTON: The point I wish to make is this. Would I be in order in moving a Vote of Censure on the Chairman of Committees for naming an hon. Member of this House for using language that has been used repeatedly since by Members who have not been named?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can put a Motion on the Paper on which Mr. Speaker will rule.
  Mr. COMPTON: I shall have great pleasure in doing so.
  Mr. BECKETT: On a further point of Order. Is it not possible, Mr. Chairman, now that you have accepted the
  1952
  description of the hon. Member for Both-well (Mr. Sullivan) for the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to be brought back, as you yourself have accepted the statement, by virtue of your action, to be inaccurate?
  Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like to rise to a point of Order. How long do you intend to allow this sort of thing to go on? [Interruption.] Is it not possible for ordinary business methods to be applied to the work of this Committee? [Interruption.] Is it not possible for you, after what has happened, to report to the Speaker and for the Speaker to call for some explanation as to the origin of this trouble from a Member of the Front Opposition Bench or, alternatively, to suspend the sitting of this House? Are we to go on, all night, apparently, seeing Members suspended?
  The CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of the hon. Member is well worth consideration, and, if it were possible to apply it, I think it would be a most excellent suggestion, that the origin should be discussed and made known.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: Will you accept a Motion?
  The CHAIRMAN: Under the Rules of the House, it is not possible for me to do so. The Rules may be faulty, but I have to administer them to the best of my powers.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: If that be so, it is time the Government brought in a Bill to alter it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD rose—
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Hope, in view of your reply to the last point of Order that was made, whether there are certain Rules of the House which must be observed, and is it not the case that when a certain Motion was moved in this Committee, you, as Chairman of the Committee, had the right not to take notice of that Motion, but to go on with the proceedings, as you believed it to be possible for the business to be conducted? Is this turmoil, which has been going on for the last hour and a half, not due to the very bad Ruling that you yourself gave? [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to call attention—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not the time or occasion to question the former Ruling of the Chair. If the hon. Member has a point of Order on the Amendment which I have called upon the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) to move, I will hear him on that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: My point of Order has to do with your Ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the Amendment which I have called upon the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to move, and I cannot hear the hon. Member on anything else but that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The point of Order I have raised is the only matter before the Committee, and not the Amendment which you have called. A point of Order takes precedence of all business in this House, as you ought to know.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that there is no point of Order.
  Mr. MACLEAN: You have not heard the finish of my point of Order, and until I have completed it you do not know the sense of it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has referred to a past decision of mine. He is not in order in discussing that. Mr. Greenwood.
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The point which I have been trying to express would, but for your repeated interruptions, have been finished long ago, and put in the same way, if you had not done what you have done. All the Amendments which you ruled out of order would have been discussed and voted upon, and we should have arrived at the particular Amendment which you have now called upon the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to move. You, by your action, are trying to shelter yourself behind the Rules, and you yourself have deliberately delayed the business of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN rose.[Interruption.]
  Mr. MACLEAN: You are mainly responsible for the scenes that have taken place. If you had any sense of decency or any sense of the proprieties of this House you would resign from the Chairmanship of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Greenwood.
  Mr. GREENWOOD rose—
  Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order.
  Mr. MACLEAN: My point of Order is, "Are you going to resign the Chairmanship, because of your unfair and partisan ruling in this House?"
  The CHAIRMAN: As regards my ruling, if the hon. Member again reflects upon my conduct in the Chair, I shall have to ask him to withdraw.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Your conduct is the worst reflection upon you in this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to leave the House.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I shall leave it when you take the usual course.
  THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have to inform you that I have to name the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maclean) for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to name Mr. Maclean for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That Mr. Neil Maclean, the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow, be suspended from the service of the House."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 77.

  Division No. 381.]

  AYES.

  [11.43 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Liut.-Colonel

  Apsley, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Atkinson, C.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Bennett, A. J.

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

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

  Bethel, A.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

  Grace, John

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Oakley, T.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crott

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Pennefather. Sir John

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Briggs, J. Harold

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Harland, A.

  Pilcher, G.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Preston, William

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Price, Major C. W. M

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Radford, E. A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Rawson, sir Cooper

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Remer, J. R.

  Casseis, J. D.

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

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rye, F. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Christie, J. A.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sandon, Lord

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Savery, S. S.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

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

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Couper, J. B.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Crawfurd. H. E.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, J. de V.

  Storry-Deans, R.

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

  Long, Major Eric

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Strauss, E. A.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lumley, L. R.

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Dixey, A. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Drewe, C.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Edge, Sir William

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McLean, Major A.

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macmillan Captain H.

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  England, Colonel A.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Waddington, R.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Falle. Sir Bertram G.

  Meller, R. J.

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

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Merriman. F. B.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells. S. R.

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Forrest, W.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gates, Percy

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  1956

  1957

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wragg, Herbert

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.

  NOES

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

  Hall, G. H. (Methyr Tydvil)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hardie, George D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Baker, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith. Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiflery)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Stamford, T. W.

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Bromfield, William

  Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Bromley, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Townend, A. E

  Clowes, S.

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

  Varley, Frank B.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T

  Vlant, S. P.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Connolly, M.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Montague, Frederick

  Welsh, J. C.

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Westwood, J.

  Dennison, R.

  Murnin, H.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Duncan, C.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Ritson, J.

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Groves, T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Sullivan.

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

  Sexton, James

  Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the decision of the House, I must ask the hon. Member for Govan to leave the House.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do so out of respect for you, not for the Chairman.
  The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. James Hope in the Chair.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Rates of unemployment benefit.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris)—in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert the words "with suitable provisions for training while unemployed"—should come as a new Clause, and I will consider it when he puts it down.
    Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "woman" in line 13 to the word "has" in line 16.
    Do I understand, Mr. Hope, that you have called the Amendment standing in my name and that you have pissed over three Amendments standing in the name of other hon. Members. If so, may I
    1958
    ask you why you have not taken those previous Amendments?
    The CHAIRMAN: Because the hon Members did not rise when they were called.
    Mr. BROMLEY: I am exceedingly loth to continue challenging your Ruling, but, with all respect, may I ask whether it was possible for hon. Members to hear their names called in the way in which you called them?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will agree that I called them quite slowly and distinctly.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is it possible for an hon. Member whose name is not attached to an Amendment to move that Amendment in the absence of hon. Members whose names are down to it? Is it not usual for the Chairman to allow a moment or two for any hon. Member who may wish to move the Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: An hon. Member must get up immediately his name is called, and no other hon. Member can take his place.
    Miss WILKINSON: I was about to tell your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that it would be utterly impossible for any hen. Members on this side of the

    1959
    House to move any Amendment while he remained in the Chair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to use the occasion of moving an Amendment to make such remarks.
    Mr. PALING: Is it in order for the hon. Member to say that she prefers you to the Chairman?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the occupant of the Chair but the Chair itself.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is it not in order for a Member to say he prefers you to another Chairman?
    Miss WILKINSON: I quite agree that we should address our remarks not to any individual but to the Chair, but when the honour of the Chairman has been so pitiably degraded as it was—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows quite well that that is quite out of order on this Amendment.
    12.0 m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I bow to your Ruling. I only wish to assure you I meant no disrespect to you. I only feel it necessary to explain why I move this Amendment when other Amendments had not been moved. I do not want in any way to dissociate myself from what has happened, but after the loss of one's colleagues like this it is extremely difficult to get back to this discussion as one feels the matter so keenly. I want to say, quite briefly, that the object of these Amendments is to obtain for persons under the Insurance Act a concession which after years of struggling was obtained in respect of those who pay Income Tax. For Income Taxpayers it is now customary that, when a man employs a housekeeper either to look after his children or his house, he is allowed an allowance in respect of her as in respect of a wife. The object of these two Amendments is to give to the poor man, who is under the Income Tax limit, and who is faced with the terrible alternative of unemployment benefit, the same exemption that is given to the richer man with regard to Income Tax. Therefore, the object of this Amendment is to provide that the dependant's allowance may be paid in respect of a housekeeper,
    1960
    whether or not there are any children. Will the Minister not consider giving this comparatively small concession, in the way in which it has been given by the Treasury to the Income Taxpayer? I want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the actual position that may arise. You may have a man who, though he may not have dependant children, that is, children under 16 years of age, may have dependant relatives. He may have a sick or an aged mother, or other sick or aged relations dependent upon him, or there may be children who are just going to work, and who are not absolutely dependent upon him, but it is essential that there should be a housekeeper in the house if the mother is not there, if she is dead or if she is incapacitated; and I feel sure that while the Minister, in drawing up this Clause, wanted to exclude one set of persons, he has in fact excluded more persons than I am sure he desired to do. I hope the right hon Gentleman will go into the matter and see whether it is possible to grant this small concession.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has not quite understood the effect of the Amendment, which is really not to give a claimant adult benefit in respect of a housekeeper who is looking after his children; the only effect of her Amendment would be to grant benefit in respect of two adult dependants. Under the present law the contributor who gets benefit is entitled also to an allowance in respect of one adult dependant, and the Amendment would give that person allowances in respect of two adult dependants. That is a principle which has never yet been granted, and the words in question which the hon. Member proposes to leave out were words which were taken from the Act of the Labour party in 1924. In the No. 2 Act, Section 2, Sub-Section (2a), she will find the actual words—" Not being a person entitled to an increase under the said Section otherwise than in respect of his dependent children." We are merely maintaining the practice that was instituted in that Act. As regards the second Amendment to which she referred at the same time, I think she is under a misapprehension as to the effect. The Clause in the Bill means that anybody who has a housekeeper in charge of

    1961
    his children would be entitled to the dependants allowance in respect of her; and the effect of her Amendment would be to give him an allowance in respect of a housekeeper when there were no children to look after. Under these circumstances, it is considered that he ought not to have a right to the same extent to benefit in respect of a housekeeper when there are no children to look after. It is a different case when there are children to look after, because quite obviously there must be someone to look after them. As the hon. Member has misapprehended the reason for the words in the Clause and the effect of her Amendment, I trust she will see her way not to press the Amendment.
    Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I realised, of course, that the object of the second Amendment was to do precisely what the Minister says, that is, that while there is no question that the woman would get benefit if there are dependent children, the trouble arises when there are other dependants for whom a home has been established. I quoted the case of an aged mother or a sick sister, or other people who are absolutely necessarily dependent upon the man. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to insert the words "children or other dependants" we could then consider the question of coming to an arrangement.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: So far as the children are concerned—I am afraid I have not been able to find my notes for the moment, and I am talking from my general knowledge of the Clause—I do not think the children must necessarily be the children of the husband. The dependant's benefit may be received in respect of them, but so far as adult benefit is asked for a second person, that I am afraid I should not be able to grant. It has never been granted before, and I am afraid we could not grant it now.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As the Clause is now drafted, where a man has children, and has a housekeeper, he can draw dependant's allowance in respect of that housekeeper. The object of these two Amendments is to make that apply, whether the insured man has children or not. I think the case is one of substance. We have had it pointed out to us that these men have to have a bona fide housekeeper, and if that housekeeper makes
    1962
    the insured person eligible for allowance it ought to be so, whether they are the children of the insured person or not. This is a vital consideration here, and surely if a housekeeper entitles a man to a certain allowance in the case of the Income Tax the housekeeper of an insured person ought to be entitled to unemployment benefit. I think the Minister of Labour might meet our point by suggesting some other words.
    Miss LAWRENCE: It is very difficult to understand the meaning of this Clause, and if the Minister would read out the Clause as it has been amended we might understand it a little better.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are two points' raised in the two Amendments, which have been moved together by the hon. Member for East Middles-brough (Miss Wilkinson). The effect of the first Amendment would be to allow benefit for two persons in respect of the same claim. The effect of the second Amendment would be to allow benefit for a housekeeper, although there are no children at all. At the present time benefit may be allowed for a housekeeper, although the children may be by a previous marriage or they may be stepchildren. At the present time there is no allowance in respect of a housekeeper where there are no children. Therefore these Amendments contain two distinct proposals, although we are discussing both of them at the same time.
    Miss LAWRENCE: What will be the effect of substituting the words "either a man or a woman"?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The effect of the Clause will be to cut out a person who is living with a man as his wife and not married in cases where there are no children.
    Mr. KELLY: The only point which has been urged against this Amendment by the Minister of Labour is that be considers that it would not be right to pay an allowance for two adult dependents. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman takes up that line, and why he is so narrow in his outlook in regard to this insurance scheme. There are cases where there is a wife and probably one of the daughters has been obliged to become the housekeeper by reason of the wife being incapacitated. Why should there

    1963
    not be the payment of an allowance in that case? I hope the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will not withdraw this Amendment. We did not get a chance of moving our Amendments on the last Clause because the Closure was moved, and for that reason we should watch every move on the part of the Government. Why should there not be this payment for the two adult persons because they are not unemployed through
    any fault of their own? If they were so unemployed, then they would be deprived of all benefit. If they are out of work, you have no right to refuse a dependent's allowance in respect of the second adult. I hope that we shall press this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 105.

    Division No. 382.]

    AYES.

    [12.17 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Gates, Percy

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Albery, Irving James

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

    Oakley, T.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

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

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Atkinson, C.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Balniel, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pitcher, G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

    Preston, William

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Harland, A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Bethel, A.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(0xf'd, Henley)

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye, F. G.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Christie, J. A.

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

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Long, Major Eric

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Cope, Major William

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Couper, J. B.

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    McLean, Major A.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbartōn)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Drewe, C.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Ellis, R. G.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Wallace. Captain D E.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Fielden, E. B.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Wells, S. R.

    Finburgh, S.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Williams. A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Captain Bowyer and Mr. P

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    NOES.

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

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

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barnes, A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, A. F.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromfield, William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Clowes, S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sullivan, J.

    Connolly, M.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lansbury, George

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawson, John James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Lee, F.

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edge, Sir William

    Lunn, William

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mackinder, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Poits, John S.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Groves, T.

    Riley, Ben

    Whiteley.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "person" in line 18 to the end of paragraph (i), and to insert instead thereof the words "in the capacity of housekeeper."
    Mr. HARNEY: I think this Amendment raises a point of some importance. As I understand it, the law at present is that a man is entitled to dependant's benefit in respect either of his wife or of a housekeeper, if he has children, or in respect of what has been called an unmarried wife whether he has children or not. The way this marvellously drawn Bill is framed excludes from benefit a woman living with a man if there are no children. I therefore take it that the curious distinction is drawn that it is a highly immoral thing for a man to live with a woman and have no children, but that it changes its moral complexion and becomes quite right if the lady happens to be fruitful. I fail to see, if it is right that a man should receive added benefit in order to maintain a woman who is looking after him, that he is any more entitled to receive that added benefit
    1966
    because he has children through that woman or because he has not. I have read many Acts of Parliament in the course of my professional life, and if ever there was a Bill entitled to the first prize for obscurity this is it. It is very like a jig-saw puzzle. The only way you can get a picture with any meaning at all is by gathering together out of a heap of scattered pieces of painted wood the appropriate ones and sticking them on. I defy anyone to know the meaning of this Clause if he has not half-a-dozen Acts of Parliament open before him at the same time. But that is the system. Whether it has been put forward in this Bill in order that most lay people may be unable to see what underlies it I do not know, but certainly no one but a very acute industrous lawyer would be capable of saying what really is intended by the Clause. I understand the Clause to make this change specifically in the existing law. No longer, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, will it be possible for a man to obtain benefit for the woman looking after him, if she has no

    1967
    children, whether it be a housekeeper or whether it be an unmarried wife. The one test is whether the lady has proved fruitful to him or not. I would like to know what is the ground of the distinction. If a man, by reason of some unfortunate circumstances, is deprived of the blessing of a wife to look after him and is thereby compelled to get some woman to do so, I would like to know on what principle, moral or commonsense, he should be deprived of something additional to maintain that woman merely because she has no children. Why should she get something because she has children?
    Mr. BETTERTON: This, frankly, is not a very easy matter to discuss. The hon. Member has expressed a view which he is perfectly entitled to hold—that under the circumstances he describes of a man and woman living together and where there are no children, benefit allowances should be made. On the other hand, it is a view which is repugnant to a great many people who think otherwise.
    Mr. HARNEY: Is it more immoral to live together and not have children than to live together and have them?
    Mr. BETTERTON: This is one of those difficult matters on which I think we are justified in being guided by what the Blanesburgh Report says. Of course, we do not shelter ourselves behind the Report, but the Report has put so clearly the view that appeals to us that I venture to read Section 145. It says:
    "At present, the immediate family circle is recognised and the Acts have gone a step further in admitting the widowed mother living with the claimant and maintained by him, and in admiting also a housekeeper to look after the children in place of a mother. But a further departure, which has been made, has evoked considerable criticism, namely, the admission of the grant to an unmarried man or widower in respect of a female person who has been living with him as his wife. We understand that in including this class of dependant the Ministry—
    that is the Ministry of Labour
    —followed the precedent of the War Office during the War in regard to Army Separation Allowances. Now, however, the War Office has reverted to the pre-War practice of recognising only married wives for Separation Allowances. The unmarried wife
    1968
    is recognised for the purposes of War Pension but receives a lower rate than the married wife. Under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, dependants' benefit is allowed if the woman has been living with the claimant for a period of at least six months prior to the date and if the union is and has been on a bona fide domestic basis."
    This is the significant paragraph:
    "This extension of benefit has been a cause of serious misgiving to many people, and it is, we believe, injurious to the credit of the system. We have agreed to recommend that such unions where there are no children should not be recognised by a scheme to which so large a contribution is made by the State."
    Mr. HARNEY: I want to clear up a point. What I want to know is whether it is immoral for "A" to live with a woman and have no children and whether it is not equally immoral to live with a woman and have children. You put it on grounds of morality.
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is not the right way to put it. We have taken into consideration the cases where there are children. It is not so much a question of morality as a question of the children. We think that where there are children of the unions that puts the situation on a different footing. I do not put it any higher than I have already done. The view of the Committee is very clear on this point, and the expression of that view is incorporated in the Bill.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to support the Amendment. I do not understand why an Insurance Bill should make any difficulty in granting an allowance for someone who is living there in the capacity of a housekeeper. Allowance is made in dealing with Income Tax. The Minister in defending the Clause quoted the Blanesburgh Report. He should have quoted the paragraph which follows and which says:
    "We understand that claims are sometimes made in respect of dependent mothers who are unmarried. Such a woman does not fall within the definition of widowed mother, since she is, of course, not a widow. We think that she should be included. The same remark applies to the widowed stepmother. In both these cases, it is, of course, to be understood that the woman is in reality and has been dependent on the claimant."
    If you can quote the Blanesburgh Report when it suits you, it is only right and proper that you should finish the quotation. I think this Report justifies the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I think the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) will agree that children are not to blame for the fact that their parents are not married, and although I, and many members on this side of the Committee, may think that it is equally reprehensible to live with a woman unmarried whether there are children or not of that unhallowed union, the children are not to blame. We think it is unfair to penalise the children and subject them to hardship on account of their parents.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does it not occur to the hon. Member that there may be cases where a man may be 55 or 60 years of age and have a housekeeper living with him for the exclusive purpose of performing domestic duties. He may be unfortunate enough to be thrown out of work. There is no immorality at all. It is quite a legitimate occurrence and all cases of that description ought to be brought within the ambit of the Section referred to a moment ago. This is a very delicate question, and it may very well be that there are different points of view. Personally, I think that if the individual is obliged to pay his weekly contributions, and for reasons over which he has no control, he is obliged to have a housekeeper, he ought not to be deprived in time of need of the same benefits that are obtained by other individuals in almost indentical situations. I think the Committee would have been justified in taking the view that in 99 cases out of every 100 the domestic arrangement would be a perfectly legitimate one. There would be no sort of imposition on the funds, and the same treatment would be meted out to each individual. For these reasons, I think one is justified even now in asking the Minister to revert to the practice that was approved of during the War.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Both the Minister and every other Member seem to hold the idea that every housekeeper must be an unmarried wife. We dispute that, absolutely. I think the number of unmarried wives is very small compared with the number of persons who are keeping house for men in order to keep their homes together. There are men whose wives have died, and who have children who want to come and see them occasionally. For that reason, a man wants to keep a home, and for that
    1970
    reason he must have a housekeeper. Everyone has read Burns's "Cottar's Saturday Night," where the children come back to their homes. That is very common, and I say that a man, whether married or not, wants to keep a place where the children can come home. I think on this point the Minister ought to give way. On the point of the unmarried mothers, I do not agree at all. I suppose it does obtain, but it does not obtain in all cases, and there are many honest men with housekeepers simply keeping their homes together for their own comfort, and to have a place where their children can come occasionally. It is a most reasonable request.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: We have an example here of how our morals change. In the War atmosphere we had nothing of this nice distinction. They were all then accepted as quite legitimate wives for the purpose of our Acts of Parliament. Our morality of pre-War days was thrown to the winds. Now that we are out of the War days we are back again into the state of hypocricy in which we usually live except in periods of national necessity. I do not think that Acts of Parliament should be used to enforce ethical or religious views on people. We have been accustomed in recent years to treat them as human beings, whether or not they conform to our views on religion or on ethics. What are we asked to do here? As has been pointed out, you have in this country, I suppose, tens of thousands of men who find it necessary to have housekeepers to look after their domestic comforts. These people, as has been pointed out, may, and we are entitled to assume do, live ordinarily decent lives, conforming to the morality of the religions that they profess. One of these men is knocked out of employment. He has to maintain the woman during the period of unemployment who has served him so well during the period of employment. He cannot throw her on the street. He cannot tell her to go and beg for a living. She having served him well in a domestic capacity honourably during his employment period, he has now a moral obligation to maintain that woman. The Minister proposes that he is to be deprived of the means of maintenance; because she has not borne children to him. What are you tempting him to do? You are laying it down that if, instead of leading a moral life, he had

    1971
    had sexual intercourse promiscuously and she had borne him children, then he would be rewarded for his immoral conduct by receiving allowance. Someone on the other side said that it would be unfair to punish the children for the wrongful acts of the parents. But here you are punishing a man by refusing him any allowance for his house-keeper unless he performs the immoral act that is necessary to have children. He has to produce illegitimate children in order to get the maintenance to satisfy his moral obligations to the woman who acted as his housekeeper. I say that is a most regrettable departure in our legislation, and it is surely a case that calls for reconsideration by the Minister. If ever there was a proposal in this Bill, the consideration of which ought to be continued until it is viewed from every angle, I submit that this is one, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will see his way to continue this part of the Clause until he has given it more adequate consideration than apparently he has given it up to now.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: I would like, before the Minister replies, to try to urge a human point upon him. I do not think that the discussion of this question is really illuminated by reference to the War period, because that was an exceptional period of stress and strain, and the arrangements made then are not normally made in peace time. The hon. Member who replied for the Government said that he did not shelter himself behind the Report of the Committee, but he agreed with the Report that a distinction should be drawn. Benefit is to be paid to people who are in the position of what is called the unmarried wife if there are children of the union, but that benefit is to be paid not for the sake of the wife, but for the sake of the children. In other cases, it is not paid, and the hon. Member, and presumably the right hon. Gentleman who is his colleague, lays it down quite clearly that the distinction is made, not perhaps on grounds of private morality, but at any rate on grounds of public policy. Therefore, in order to penalise a certain percentage of people who may have offended against the interests of public policy, the Government are also going to penalise an enormous number of women who are quite legitimately following the occupation of housekeeper. An hon.
    1972
    Friend behind me made the suggestion that in many thousands of cases it may be a man's sister. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends understand the position, they will realise that there are not thousands but hundreds of thousands of people in this country who for one reason or another are compelled to seek the aid of, or employ, some woman to maintain a home. All these people, as I understand it, are going to be penalised because, if you do not penalise them, you lose the opportunity of penalising another class of person, who, you say, are offending against public morality. That seems to be the position, and, before the Government come to a decision on that point, I would like them to make up their minds very clearly on that point. It seems to me that the words of the Amendment express exactly what I am sure all of us would like to see in the Bill. It is the female person in the capacity of housekeeper, whether looking after children or after some man who may be infirm or unable, from other circumstances, to look after himself. The right hon. Gentleman should give this his very careful consideration, and, if the Government are not prepared to make some concession, they will be doing a very grave injustice to a very large and not undeserving class.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The point I want to ask the Minister to consider is a very small financial point. The unmarried wife is to be deprived of benefit under the insurance scheme. What is going to become of her? Obviously, the only recourse is Poor Law. Such people are not very numerous, and it is a small part of what I consider one of the great evils of this Bill—the throwing of persons off unemployment insurance on to the Poor Law. These people do not cease to exist because they are struck off benefit. They do not cease to have a claim on the State, but, by putting this small class of person out of benefit, you do in very many case create the necessity of recourse to the Poor Law. It is because I feel that recourse to the Poor Law and the throwing of burdens on to the rates are among the greatest dangers to this country and to our trade, that I draw attention even to a small advance in that direction.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Parliamentary Secretary, when he was dealing with this

    1973
    matter, took occasion to review only a very limited section of those who would come under these provisions—only those who are in the position of the unmarried wife. The Amendment is ever so much wider, and the person concerned is the person in the capacity of housekeeper. I dare say hon. Members in every division have had people come to them in connection with claims to benefit, and these people will have told them about the circumstances of their homes. In every division there must be ever so many cases where there is a housekeeper, and, if there be no allowance in respect of that housekeeper, it adds very greatly to the difficulty of maintaining that home. Take the case of a parent, an old man or woman practically infirm, and possibly living with a son, and there is a housekeeper in order to maintain the home. If there be no allowance for that housekeeper, that home, in a time of unemployment comes into a position in which it is apt to be swept away. The son is anxious to do as much as possible to make provision for the old person, but he is quite unable to carry on and to maintain the home if there be no allowance in this respect. There are ever so many other cases, and I would like to see the Government address themselves to this aspect of the problem. A case was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown)—the case of a sister or some other relative acting in the capacity of housekeeper. What you have to look at is the economic need of the home. No question of morality or immorality comes into it; it is the case of a sister, a relative, or friend, or someone who is no relative, but is there in the capacity of housekeeper. There has been an income of, say, £3 a week coming into the home,, and they have just been able to get along moderately; and then comes a period of unemployment for six or twelve weeks, and at the end of that time they are in great distress. There is this person who, perhaps, is not a relative, who has got no reason to remain there unless she is able to get adequate maintenance in the home. Surely, it is only reasonable that you should take that basis—the economic need. The Amendment is not pressing the question of public opinion and morality and immorality in the arrangements of the home; it is pressing the practical and ordinary business-like relation and
    1974
    the need for keeping the home together. I hope the Minister will see what can be done in respect of this matter, in order that the burden of unemployment in this aspect, as well as in others will be as light as possible on the people who have to suffer that cruel misfortune.
    Mr. HARNEY: May I ask if the Minister will deal with this specific aspect? Is it intended that a man whose sister is housekeeping for him should be placed in a worse position that a man who is living with a woman who has children by him.
    Mr. OLIVER: May I ask whether the Minister has any information in his department which justifies the resistance of this particular Amendment? There are Employment Exchanges in every important town, and you have people employed in those Exchanges who can give the information to show quite clearly that there are thousands of cases where men have housekeepers, where there is no question of immorality. Therefore, before resisting this Amendment, I hope that the Minister will give us the specifitc information on what grounds he proposes to resist it.
    1.0 a.m.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) put a question to me to which I will reply. Quite briefly, we are not setting out by this Clause to penalise the housekeeper as he seems to think. There were a limited number of members of the family circle in respect of whom previously adult dependants' benefit has been given. There are some cases of aged parents who are completely dependent and presumably beyond the age of working, but in regard to those who are approximately of the same generation as the man who is the insured contributor and in receipt of benefit the question has been, "To how many of the family circle should the adult rate be given?" Pressure has always been in the direction of trying to enlarge that circle. The decision which we have reached is that we should give dependant's benefit, with the exception of unmarried wives, in respect of the same people as under previous Acts. That is, in the first place, to wives; in the second place, to someone who looks after small children. The housekeeper by herself

    1975
    who does not look after small children has never before been given benefit, and we do not wish to extend it to her case. There may be differences of opinion about that, but in that respect we are keeping to precisely the same circle as at present.
    Mr. HARNEY: Really, that is not the law at present. The law at present is this. There are three classes of women who are in the household of the men who get benefit. First, where the man has a wife he gets it; second, where he has a housekeeper looking after children he gets it; third, where a woman is living with him as his wife he gets it. That is the law as it stands at present, and as the Clause is drawn it can only mean this: "Show me a man who has a housekeeper, be she his mother or sister, and has no children—he gets nothing in respect of her. Show me a man openly and flagrantly living with a woman and has children—he gets benefit both in respect of that woman and of the children."
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think the hon. Member can have heard me. Putting aside the aged people, as I have already said under a previous Amendment to this Clause, we do not propose to give it to the unmarried wife, but as regards the rest of the family circle we do give it in respect of two classes—one, the wife; and, secondly, anyone who looks after small children. We do not extend it to the housekeeper. It has never been given to a housekeeper who does not look after children, and we are merely keeping it circumscribed in that respect.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I want to make an appeal. The ordinary case in a working man's home is not that of an unmarried wife at all. The unmarried wife is a case that is so very exceptional that it is scarcely worth considering at all. But the housekeeper is a well-recognised institution in working-class life. Why force a man of the type who has a housekeeper and who becomes unemployed, to break up his home and go into lodgings? It is much worse for him and worse for the State. May I ask the Minister whether he will not at least leave this matter to a free vote of the Committee and give hon. Members a chance of voting for it purely on the merits of the case?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask the Minister a question? He said that at present there are three categories that are paid—the wife, the unmarried wife, and the housekeeper of any description who is looking after my children, and that by leaving out the housekeeper he was not contracting the benefits. If a man has a housekeeper and is forced to claim benefit for her, does he have to make a declaration that she is living with him as his wife?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid that I cannot answer on the spur of the moment.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Really, I think we ought to adjourn until the Government-make up their minds.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As everyone must realise, I cannot be expected to answer every point off-hand.
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think I can say, in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. Crawfurd), that that is the case.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I draw the Minister's attention to the Blanesburgh Report, page 69, the latter part of the first paragraph, which answers the question just put to the Minister by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd). He said a moment or two ago that the housekeeper had never yet been recognised. In this paragraph of the Blanesburgh Report he will find that that is not quite the case. The Blanesburgh Committee say:
    "Under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, dependants' benefit is allowed if the woman has been living with the claimant for a period of at least six months prior to the date and if the union is and has been on a bona fide domestic basis."
    The housekeeper performing purely domestic duties on a perfectly bona fide. basis is entitled to-day to dependant's allowance, and this Bill takes away in future what has been paid up to the present moment. I think the Minister may very well concede so much as to undertake to reconsider this question before he comes to a final decision.
    Mr. HARNEY: We want to have this matter cleared up. As I read the words of this Act—and perhaps the Minister

    1977
    will refer this question to the Attorney-General or some other lawyer—at the present time, where a man has a woman in the same establishment, if she be his wife, clearly benefit must arise; if she be his housekeeper looking after children, clearly benefit must arise; if she be an unmarried wife with no children the present law is that benefit in respect of her arises, and now the Minister is changing that law so that if there are children there is benefit, but for a housekeeper or mistress, sister, mother or anybody else, there is no benefit unless there are children. As the law stands to-day, men who are receiving benefit because they have no women living on them who are in all respects their wives but with no children are to be deprived of benefit. It is no answer to say, "The woman is my sister." I ask the Minister seriously if it be really intended to go forward with this proposal and whether these perfectly moral and respectable people are to be deprived of benefit when this Bill becomes law, while a man living in immoral relations with a woman, because they had no children, is to continue to receive benefit.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer so far as a woman has been living with a man as his wife but is not so in reality is that up to the present time she has received benefit, and in this Bill it is proposed that a change should be made, and that the unmarried wife should no longer receive benefit. At the present moment if a sister be living with a man and keeping house for him but there are no children she is not entitled to benefit under the existing law and she will not be entitled to benefit under the future law.
    Mr. T. SHAW: This cannot have any great effect on the financial basis of the Bill, and I am sure that there are many among the Minister's own supporters who see the justice of this case and would vote for this allowance. Is it not possible for the Minister to let us have an open vote of the Committee. It cannot hurt the Bill financially. The thing is so small among the general mass that it does not matter, but to the individual it is so great, and I appeal to the Minister to let us have a free vote of the Committee.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: I hope my right hon. Friend will do nothing of the sort. Public morality is already sufficiently lax.
    Mr. HARNEY: But this emphasises immorality.
    Captain FRASER: The assumption that most of us on this side of the Committee would agree with our friends above the gangway is a quite unwarrantable one. There is very good reason why this apparent inconsistency should be maintained. It is true that there may be cases in which the relationship is perfectly proper, but, generally speaking, to use the Minister's words, in the case of "people of the same generation, there must be a very large number where the living of those two persons in the same house, while more or less temporary, is perhaps promiscuous. This distinction should be drawn between the people who live together promiscuously and possibly temporarily and those who are unmarried making a real home where children are brought up.
    Mr. BECKETT: I think the remarks of the last speaker would be subscribed to by every member of the Committee, but I do not see how they invalidate the Amendment which we are proposing. We are not proposing to take away the allowances in the cases existing at present. The question of morality or immorality does not arise at all. If this Amendment be not accepted the present allowances will be taken away. Therefore, the argument which the last two hon. Members have introduced with regard to encouraging or lack of encouraging immorality does not seem to have any great bearing on the Minister's decision. Is the Minister so strongly opposed to our Amendment on moral grounds, or is he opposed on the ground of cost? I do not want to put the Minister to a lot of trouble if the facts are not easily ascertainable, but if that be possible for him to give us some idea of the number of cases and the extra money he would have to spend if our Amendment were accepted, the Committee would have reason to be grateful to him. I want to suggest that he has not been very ready in meeting us throughout this discussion. Last week we had an even more intricate Bill to deal with and one on which opinion was very divided, but the President of

    1979
    the Board of Trade, by making concessions, was able to get his Bill through without any ill-feeling. The Minister of Labour, however, has never offered any concession, even in the direction of accepting a harmless Amendment of this kind. He lets us talk and then moves the Closure, or gets someone to do so. I do suggest that he should take one or two of these Amendments seriously.
    Miss WILKINSON: I would ask the Minister whether it is possible- to come to some accommodation on this question. There is no doubt that there may be certain cases where it would, obviously, be undesirable if dependants' benefits were paid. I want to make it perfectly clear that that is not my intention in moving my Amendment. That is not the sort of thing which we should desire to countenance. What I am trying to get at, and what I want to ask the Minister, is whether it is not possible to get some form of words that would meet the very real difficulties of the position? At present the only woman entitled to benefit is the woman having actual care of dependent children. I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to consider a form of words such as follows:
    "Wholly or mainly maintaining a female person who has care of the children or other dependants of the person entitled to benefit."
    That would bring in a woman looking after an aged mother or ailing relatives. I have consulted with my friends on my own Front Bench on this matter.
    Sir J. NALL: Does it mean if a man has two women living with him, one to look after the other?
    Miss WILKINSON: I think it is perfectly obvious that that sneer is entirely unwarranted.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If that came from this side of the Committee you would have demanded that we should withdraw it. Hon. Members opposite would have shouted out, "Name." But we do not expect anything else when we have a Government in power like the present, and a Minister like the present. The Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett), who spoke a minute ago, said we could get concessions from other Ministers. He was referring to the Cinematograph Films Bill. We got concessions there,
    1980
    but we cannot get concessions here when we are appealing for human beings. No concessions for women, particularly of the working classes. It is quite in keeping with actions of the Minister of Labour, the same Minister who is going to drive thousands of working girls on to the streets. He is now going to drive—[Interruption]. What is wrong with that?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are really not germane to the Amendment which we are discussing, and it is quite unnecessary for the hon. Member in his remarks to use expressions offensive to the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You allowed the hon. Member on the other side to make remarks without pulling him up. I think I was quite in order in going along the same road, only I was putting my remarks pointed and direct to the Minister in charge. I am here impeaching him on behalf of my class. I have a case in my mind's eye. In a single apartment in the West of Scotland—and the same holds good all over Britain—you have a man and his family. The mother dies, and invariably the mother has been murdered, starved by the hellish conditions that have been dealt out to her by this cruel and remorseless Government. That mother dies and leaves a family. The breadwinner has probably £2 10s. a week, and there they are struggling on. It is quite impossible for him to go into lodgings. He cannot afford it, and he brings in a sister or, maybe, an aunt, to keep the family. Suddenly, through no fault of the breadwinner, he is deprived of the means of earning a living for them. He is thrown on the street unemployed. This Minister of Labour gives him 17s. a week, and now has the hardihood to say to that man that he has to give an allowance of that 17s. to this sister or aunt. I ask the Minister if he would like his friends to be dealt with in that manner. Could he maintain himself on 17s. a week. Would he give a share of that 17s. to a sister. We have no right to deal out treatment to others different from what we would to those about whom we are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is smiling, smiling and acting the villain all the while. No one but a villain would put forward legislation such as this. It is our class, the working class, again, just as it is the

    1981
    working girl that is going to be handed out 8s. a week. How are you going to face the working class women. They will chase you. The Government are robbing the women, doing everything that they can to rob them of their virtue—rob them of everything, there is no doubt about it. You would think that at the moment the Government were deliberately going out of their way to destroy what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) referred to. He referred to Burns' "Cottar's Saturday night," where the poet describes the home life which the Minister of Labour is at work just now trying to destroy. He is trying to destroy the homes of the people of this country. The home life of the working-class of this country is the backbone of the British Empire. If you are going to destroy the home life of the working-class of this country, you will get away from the very foundations of this great Empire. Here we have to stand time after time, being thrown out of the House, being ejected, defending the workers, defending the British Empire against the individuals who are trying to destroy it. You can laugh, but you have to remember that he who laughs last laughs longest.
    I have kept myself in because we do not want to cause unnecessary strife. We are trying everything we possibly can to get the Government to understand working-class life. The Minister of Labour came here with a great reputation. Some of my colleagues on the Front Bench told me that he was a good man, and that he would do all right. I have not given him up even yet, because I believe, while there is life, there is hope. When he came here, he told us about going into the East End of London and studying the aspect of life as lived there, and we believed that he had some knowledge of working-class life. Here you have him this morning standing as if he was metallic. You would think it was a robot that was standing there, and that he was as immovable as the rocks that encircle our island the house. We cannot make any impression on him when we are appealing for our women folk and for the poorest of the poor who have nobody to say a word for them. The Government poses as being a strong Government. They are
    1982
    posers, there is no doubt, of the first order. If they are a strong Government and the Minister of Labour is really in earnest to do something on behalf of suffering humanity, here is a glorious chance for him to stand up and defend those who are not able to defend themselves. Those women folk invariably have no vote. They are practically outcasts. Let the Committee try to understand what it is to be a working man with 36s. a week. There are many thousands in my constituency working a full week for that amount—shipyard workers. How is a man to provide for his children out of that amount? The wives of the workers are imbued with as high ideals as the wives of any Cabinet Ministers and work the flesh off their fingers in order that their boys shall be better men than their fathers. In the midst of the struggle the mother is cut down in many cases because of starvation, and the man is forced to bring in a relation. Then he becomes unemployed. The tragedy of it all. Then you say to that man, after the terrible struggle he has gone through: "You will have 17s. a week, and you have to share it with your sister as we are not going to give her an allowance." You would think she was not a human being. If that does not move the Minister, then I have to give it up, and I shall have to go to the people of the country and tell them exactly how this House sneers and jibes and turns them adrift when we appeal on behalf of our class. What is the use of me telling them that this is the most tolerant institution in the world if that is what its tolerance amounts to? You would think we were Russians. You would think that it was another species we were appealing for, and not the women of our class. Our daughters are just as good as those of any Minister or any Prime Minister, and we have no right to sit calmly by and allow measures like this to go through that are going to crush our women, that are going to drive our women folk into immorality. If the Government are to be allowed to do that, then certainly Britain will fail.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 383.]

    AYES.

    [1.39 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Goff Sir Park

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pilcher, G.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Albery, Irving James

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Preston, William

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harland, A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bethel, A.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bird, Sir R B. (Wolverhampton W.)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Sandon, Lord

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Savery, S. S.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Bullock. Captain M.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Lamb. J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

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

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Christie, J. A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lumley, L. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    McLean, Major A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Couper, J. B.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Nortnern)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fielden. E. B.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Oakley, T.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Gates, Percy

    Pennefather, Sir John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    NOES.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Grurdy, T. W.

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Barnes, A.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Batey, Joseph

    Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hardie, George D.

    Beckett. John (Gateshead)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Harney, E. A.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Duncan, C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Broad, F. A.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Bromfield, William

    Edge, Sir William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Glbbins, Joseph

    Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)

    Clowes, S.

    Glliett, George M

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

    Varley, Frank B.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Scurr, John

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Kennedy, T.

    Sexton, James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Westwood, J.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lawson, John James

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Whiteley, W.

    Lee, F.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Mackinder, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Windsor, Walter

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sullivan, Joseph

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Oliver, George Harold

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Paling, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards.

    Potts, John S.

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 89.

    Division No. 384.]

    AYES.

    [1.48 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pitcher, G.

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Preston, William

    Albery, Irving James

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Atkinson, C.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harland, A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Bethel, A.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Sandon, Lord

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Long, Major Eric

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Christie, J. A.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Macintyre, I.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    McLean, Major A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    MacMlllan, Captain H.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Couper, J. B.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Heme! Hempst'd)

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wallace. Captain D. E.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Drewe, C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fielder,, E. B.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Oakley, T.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. c.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wragg, Herbert

    Gates, Percy

    Penny, Frederick George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt Hon. George Abraham

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Goff, Sir Park

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Major Cope.

    NOES.

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

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Harney, E. A.

    Sexton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromfield, William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sullivan, J.

    Clowes, S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Varley, Frank B.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kelly, W. T

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawrence, Susan

    Welsh, J. C.

    Duncan, C

    Lawson, John James

    Westwood, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lee, F.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lindley, F. W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Lunn, William

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mackinder, w.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Edwards.

    Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Some of us, after all, do regard this Bill as serious. It is full of problems that require an elasticity of mind that we are unable to bring to bear on them at this hour. Then, to-morrow there is a very important debate on and many hon. Members on all sides of the House wish to be fresh with their wits about them for that occasion. I do ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is really impossible to get much more of this Bill through as we stand now, and I think that the time has come when we should report Progress.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think that we could possibly stop where we are just at present. I am glad if hon. Members wish to make progress and consider this Bill seriously and precisely, but I think we quite clearly could not accept any Motion to report Progress and leave the debate right in the middle of this Clause.
    Mr. PALING: I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is desirable to carry on a debate of this importance, affecting so many people, in the atmosphere that has been largely created by his own mistakes. I would like to direct his attention to the fact that since the beginning of the Committee stage nearly
    1988
    every Amendment that has been debated, and on the first two Clauses during nearly two nights, the Parliamentary Secretary has never got up to say a word at all, and the Minister himself, when he has got up, has sat down again in two minutes without attempting to answer the arguments at all. Is that fair?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Motion before the Committee is a Motion to report Progress. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to that particular Question and not give a summary of the debate.
    Mr. PALING: I am trying to give reasons.
    Mr. HARNEY: May I ask if the Minister would be prepared to fall in with the Motion if he got Clause 4 carried, or at the end of Clause 4 if there were not very much debate on it?
    Mr. PALING: I was trying to give reasons why we should finish to-night here. One reason is because of what has occurred, particularly in view of the fact that no attention has been given to the arguments by the Minister and no sufficient answer given to them. I have heard one or two things said about this Bill that I never remember having heard said about any other Bill. We have had, for example, a memorandum. The Minister

    1989
    admitted that he did not understand it, and the Chairman of Committees said that it was misleading. To-night we cannot get the Minister on his feet to give a reasonable reply to anything. I do not know whether it is due to the atmosphere that has been created or whether it is because the Minister does not know anything about the Bill. In view of this, I think it is time we put this business back. I appeal to the Minister to give it a new chance. Every speaker from his own side of the Committee—and there have been very few speakers on his own side of the Committee, I will admit—has spoken against the Minister. One of them has asked him plainly to withdraw the Bill. The argument from this side of the Committee has riddled the Bill from beginning to end.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Question!
    Mr. PALING: There is question about it. It is a mere question of fact, and, in view of this, I am going to ask the Minister to let us go home to bed and come back to-morrow with clear minds and clear brains and give time to this business worthy of it. This Bill affects a very large number of people in this country. I appeal to him to let us report Progress.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would ask hon. Members whose fault it is that we are here at this time of the night? I do not want to keep hon. Members opposite longer than I can help. My right hon. Friend has said, in answer to a previous Motion to report Progress, that the Opposition are continually taking the advice of Mirabeau, of being audacious. If we are to have a series of these Motions moved with each Clause we shall be sitting here till the very early hours of the morning. As far as the Opposition are concerned, I think it would be much better if, with the advice of Mirabeau to be audacious, they should take that of Talleyrand and go to bed. I should like to say to the hon. Member who has just sat down and who made a few remarks about the Minister of Labour and the way in which he has treated this Bill that there are some Members on this side of the House who think that he has treated the Committee with courtesy and has listened with a great deal of patience. We hope he will not only stick to the Bill, but be prepared to stay here till breakfast time.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I think the request of my hon. Friend below the Gangway is quite a reasonable one. If the right, hon. Member cannot agree to it now, he could agree to it at the end of Clause 4. We are approaching Clause 5, and, if I may venture an opinion, that Clause is one of the most important of the Bill, and I should not like it to be the subject of the Closure in order to get it through by any stated time. I would much prefer to commence this Clause on some other day. If the Minister cannot accept the Motion now submitted, I hope that there will be no restriction of Debate so far as Clause 5 is concerned. It is one which will bring into play part of the White Paper dealing with the whole question of the contributions and one can quite well see the amount of interest that must be taken on specific points. I would therefore add my voice to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) that if the Minister cannot accept the Motion now he will be satisfied with the completion of Clause 4. We should either get awav now while there is an opportunity of getting some rest or of giving full discussion to the Bill even if it takes us into the next day.
    Mr. TINKER: I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said and withdraw the Bill for to-night. I have tried to realise what is happening now. Here we are with our tempers on edge on both sides. That is not the right atmosphere in which to discuss a Bill of this kind. What we are earnest about is that, whatever shape the Bill ultimately takes,, it shall have the full consent and opinion of the House of Commons. But you can-uot get this at the present moment. I ask the Minister to consider it from that standpoint. If he does, better progress will be made later and greater satisfaction arrived at: I appeal to the Minister to consent.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If hon. Members opposite are willing to give us Clause 4 to-night, I am prepared to leave Clause 5 until to-morrow, or, rather Monday. If we get Clause 4 now, it will give hon. Members the opportunity of starting Clause 5 on Monday.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not accept the suggestion that we have unnecessarily

    1991
    prolonged discussion. It has been quite legitimate considering the very great importance of the Bill. So far as we are concerned, we should be glad to begin Clause 5 when we are fresher, and we shall be glad to finish off at Clause 4, but that does not necessarily mean no Debate on the remaining Amendments to the Clause. I do note ask for prolonged Debate, but such reasonable Debate as will enable my hon. Friends to put their views. Subject to that, we should be glad to agree.
    Mr. HARNEY: I withdraw the Motion on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I appeal to members of the Labour party that really it is a reasonable compromise. We have had a fair debate on the Clause, and we might pass it and then start the next day.
    Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman says he withdraws his Motion. Is that an indication that my party accepts conditions regarding Clause 5. I suggest that he has no right to make such conditions.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that he had any intention of attaching conditions in regard to Clause 5.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out the word "seven" and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
    I have no doubt that the Committee will agree with the wisdom and the desirability of making provision for adult dependants. We are of opinion that a payment of 7s. is totally inadequate, and we should like to see a large increase in the amount. As I understand the provisions of the Bill, the rate of benefit to the man over 21 years of age will be 17s., with payment of benefit to an adult dependant of 7s. per week, making a total payment of 24s. If my Amendment be carried, the total payment will be 27s. instead of 24s., and, consequently, I am hoping to find, now that we have disposed of the somewhat technical points raised in the previous Amendments, that there will be no opposition to this proposal from the Minister, and that he will experience great difficulty in obtaining any support
    1992
    from his own side in opposition to my Amendment. I would point out that the benefit of the adult has been reduced by virtue of the provisions of this Bill from 18s. to 17s. and that the reduction in the case of the single man without dependants has been transferred to the adult with an adult dependant. But the actuary rightly points out, on page 4 of his report, that this is not something that the Government are giving:
    "The above rates of benefit represent a reduction of 1s. a week in the case of men over 21; on the other hand, the benefit payable in respect of an insured wife or other adult dependant has been increased by 2s. a week. It appears from the statistics collected by the Ministry that 50 per cent. of men claimants have an adult dependant, and therefore that, so far as the total cost of benefits is concerned, these charges balance each other."
    They not only balance one another, but there is, if my information be correct, a substantial profit made on the transaction. The Minister shakes his head. I said if my information be correct. I understood that to be the position and shall, therefore, ask the Minister to produce the figures. Let us know the number of people affected. Let us know the saving that will be made. I will ask him to give an estimate, if he can, of the outgoings and indicate to us the amount of money that will be expended, having regard to the additional increase of 1s. per week. I do not, seriously, think that anyone will contend that the provision of 24s., including the 7s. for an adult dependant, is adequate or by any means sufficient to enable a man to maintain his wife on the one hand, or an adult dependant on the other. The value of money, from the purchasing point of view, is by no means so great as it was prior to the war. The value of the £ is now somewhere in the neighbourhood of a little over 12s. The cost of living is still exceptionally high. Take these two facts into consideration with the excessive lowering of wages—equivalent to over £10,000,000 per week during the last few years—and associate them with the period of unprecedented unemployment, and we can say that the majority of the working class have already exhausted their resources. They have no bank balances or means at their disposal, and when they fall out of work they are immediately compelled to provide their living from the benefits that we are offering them under

    1993
    this Bill. We have to remember that under the provisions of the Bill a man is not paid from the first day of unemployment. There is a waiting period of over six days, and consequently to suggest that 7s. per week is sufficient for the maintenance of an adult, whether the person be a married woman or otherwise, is to me a most serious proposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider whether he cannot increase this amount, and whether he will not think it expedient and wise to accept my Amendment. It may well be he will say, it will cost too much. He may suggest that he is giving certain other increased benefits which will absorb the profit made upon the exchange. There is a real substantial case for an increase in these adult dependants' allowances. I hope, though he has not indicated up to now any signs of generosity, though he has resisted every appeal made from these benches to display a more generous hand in the provision of these benefits, that he will nevertheless seriously consider the Amendment I propose, and ultimately incorporate it in the Bill.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This Amendment has certainly been proposed most moderately, and I only wish that the funds at the disposal of the Unemployment Insurance system would enable me to meet all the different proposals that are made, each one of them no doubt having much to be said for it if only there were funds to meet it, and if the supply of money was never ending. The fact is that we have to try and make both ends meet. So far as there is an extra drain upon a married man, I agree with the Report that on the whole the distribution of 17s. with a 7s. dependants' benefit is probably an advantage as compared with an 18s. adult benefit and a 5s. dependant allowance. But there is no gain to the Unemployment Fund. Practically 50 per cent. of the adult male claimants for benefit are married, and, therefore, the change makes no difference to the fund, and there is neither gain nor loss. If it were possible to give these additional benefits, just as previously as regards the housekeeper, one would wish to do so, but I am afraid that it is impossible. The fact is that I have already drawn on the comparatively small margin
    1994
    of income over expenditure, and that there is no balance left that could produce anything like this sum. Therefore, I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The reply of the Minister is what one might have expected. We submitted evidence on behalf of the great industrial movement of this country to the Blanesburgh Committee, and we submitted certain proposals and stood severe questioning on them. At the end of the cross-examination, we certainly felt that our case was stronger than when we first presented it. Now the Committee reported on the lines that any benefit should be of such an amount as not to reach a labourer's rate of wages, but something slightly less than that. We suggested 20s. for the man, 10s. for the adult dependant, and 5s. for each dependent child. Taking the average of husband and wife and three children, that would mean 45s. a week. We were told that that was slightly more than the average wage of a miner, and we had to reply that we were sorry to know that miners' wages were less than what one might reasonably consider to be a subsistence wage, and that that amount would not provide for five persons anything like adequate housing or sustenance in the generally accepted sense. Now you have redistributed the outgoings of the Fund. The Minister says it is a kind of fifty-fifty arrangement, that while the single adult is sacrificing one shilling it is being passed on to the married man and his wife. But he has saved considerably in another direction. He has created a new class that will save to him far more than this Amendment would call for increased expenditure from the Fund. There is not only the 16-to-13 class, but there is the reduction in the 18-to-21 class for which the Fund will no longer be liable. If you look at the larger aspects of the problem, the appeal comes with greater intensity. It is admitted that there are married men who have been unemployed through no fault of their own, some of them for three years; and they are largely becoming unemployable because of the long period that they have been out of work. Our purpose in our evidence, as we have stated before the Committee, was that there should only be one source of benefit; that you should

    1995
    make a provision for unemployment insurance sufficient to meet the sustenance level an unemployed person, rather than that he should have to go elsewhere. Many men have come to me after a long period of unemployment, with a desire to retain respectability in appearance and character, gradually pawning the things dear to them in their homes in order to meet their responsibilities, the principal of which is rent. As their rent gets into arrear, so they apeal to the Guardians as a last resort to keep their little homes over their heads. The information some of them have brought to me is that they have been told by the guardians that they ought to try as long as they could to realise on their homes before coming to them for any relief. Lately the landlords—no doubt because of the high amounts owing in some cases—are frightening them with notices to quit, without going to the Court for ejectment orders. I am afraid they imagine the outcry against them would be too great, but the mere fact of giving a week's notice adds to the disturbance of the minds of these people who are already overburdened with this world's worries. I would like hon. Members opposite, unaffected by political partisanship, to say to the Minister: "We believe the state of affairs to be such that we are doing an injustice to the best men the country can produce, and we ought, so far as possible, to assist them in retaining the full flush of manhood and womanhood, unhampered by any unnecessary domestic worries and anxieties." I would not care whether any party got praise in abundance for such an act, because I should have the satisfaction of knowing that there were a few less tears being shed in the homes of the workers. It is is bad enough for a man and woman going into an apartment house and being fleeced by high rents there, but it is worse where there is a family. You appear to be adamant on proposals of 17s. for a man and 10s. for an adult dependant. With 2s. for each child you only get 33s. a week for a family of three. That is not sufficient to make them feel that there is no need to be anxious about the meal for the next day or a pair of boots for the winter.
    The CHAIRMAN: I read this with the Section of the 1922 Act, and I think it
    1996
    refers only to the dependant and not to the child.
    Mr. HAYDAY: That is so, but we are so used to dealing with the mother in the family circle that I am sure you will excuse me, speaking as a man of some experience in these matters. You will forgive me if I cannot think of mother without thinking of children. It is because I know that the mother gives to others the sustenance that she ought to have for herself that I would like to see the 7s. increased to 10s., knowing that the extra 3s. would not go to the man or the woman where there were children. Whatever you do for the adult dependants, you do in a measure for the other members of the family also. I do not think the Minister is going ultimately to reduce the number on his funds to any great extent, because the value of manpower in output, in association with modern appliances and machinery, will not call for the same number of human units. Therefore, you will have to face this problem in a far different and better manner. I would strongly urge, in association with this Amendment, that you might well make a special appeal, if it be necessary to your Cabinet or your Treasury to see to what extent they can assist you in improving whatever increased burden would be necessary by reason of the increase in adult dependants' benefit from 7s. to 10s.
    Mr. TINKER: I want to support the Amendment and I would like also to compliment the Minister on the one bright spot in the Bill, the slight increase he has given to wives or dependants. That is the only good point in the Bill, and I would appeal to the Minister to see if he could not go a little further and give something more. When a man is out of work and has a wife it is a double accident. In our trade unions we make ample recompense for the wives. We give, when a man is on strike, additional allowance to the man and see that the wife gets something substantial. If we recognise that, surely the State, which I understand encourages large families, ought, at least, to see that those people are provided for. I would call the attention of the Minister to page 38 of the Blanes-burgh Committee's Report, dealing with the rates of benefit, It says:
    "Ideal benefits must not be more generous than is consistent with the necessary con-

    1997
    ditions of a good scheme as above set forth; on the other hand, they should certainly be so substantial that the insured contributor can feel that, if he has the misfortune to need them, then, taken in conjunction with such resources as may reasonably in the generality of cases be expected to have been built up, they will be sufficient to prevent him from being haunted while at work by the fear of what must happen to him if he is unemployed."
    I contend that at this juncture many of the persons have had no opportunity of building up any reserves at all. This insurance scheme, I understand, is for the purpose of dealing with unemployment at a period where there has been a reasonable amount of work, so that a man who may be out of work will have something substantial to fall back on. In the present circumstances, there is nothing to fall back on. Take the mining industry, for example, which has been in a most depressed state, and still is. Wages are hardly sufficient to live on. What chance has a miner, if he is thrown out of work, of having any reserves to live on? Many of the miners have big families, and no resources at all, and it is for that class of people that we are appealing. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) referred to certain grades. You will find in both grades, between the ages of 18 and 21, and between the ages of 16 and 18, that a surplus fund has been made because of the reduced benefits to these people. Why not transfer the whole of this surplus to the wives of insured contributors, who may be unemployed? We would like the Minister to go a little further in the direction in which he has gone. To my mind it is one of the best features in all the Amendments that they are trying to give to the married man some better source of income than he has had before.
    Miss WILKINSON: I wish to approach this Amendment from a different point of view than that of the last speakers. They have asked for the increase of the wife's allowance first in order that it may improve the position of the children, and, secondly, that it may improve the position of the man. I want to suggest that we should ask for it that it should improve the position of the person for whom it is intended, namely, the wife. It is too often assumed in discussing questions of benefit that while you con-
    1998
    sider children and men, the wife is not to be considered. There is an important principle involved in the request that the funds at the disposal of the insurance should be given this higher allocation for the wife. The reason why a capitalist. Government gives unemployment benefit to a worker is that he shall be maintained in efficiency, or so-called efficiency, in the period during his unemployment. I want to suggest that the wife, mother, or housekeeper, is as important a worker as the actual industrially employed worker, and that her work is important in keeping the home together and in looking after the children and preparing for the future generation. Therefore, I suggest that the 7s. is a quite ludicrously inadequate amount and for that matter the 10s. also. We are going as far as we are allowed in asking for 10s. for a housekeeper or wife. She has a special claim on the State and her work is in a special degree work for the State.
    There is no work that the State can regard as so important as the rearing of children. The man works for his employment, but in a very special degree the woman engaged in bringing up children is doing service for the State. Seven shillings is quite inadequate, but at least we can press the Minister to give the wife ten shillings. The working women of this country bear a terribly heavy burden under the inadequate wages that the men bring home every week. They have to pay out of that for the home and the children, but when unemployment comes the woman is expected to go on doing her work for the State when the means are taken from them. It seems to me that the State is taking a very short view of the matter. Without the work of the mothers you cannot go on as a nation. It is quite out of proportion to suggest that a man's wife can live on 7s. It is ridiculous. This is a matter of very great importance and will be very gravely regarded by the women electors of the country. Going about the country, I know how bitter is the feeling when the husbands go to the Employment Exchanges. 7s. is the allocation they bring home to the mother and the wife. It is degrading and humiliating as well as condemning these women to semi-starvation. A more adequate amount than 7s.

    1999
    a week should be given to the married woman. The Minister will reply that he is not paying wages, that you cannot regard unemployment benefit from the point of view of wages. But the proposal of the Bill, so far as women are concerned, is a reflection upon that most important work, housekeeping. This is an additional reason why the Minister should re-consider his decision in this matter.
    Mr. KELLY: If you take the whole amount handed out in unemployment benefit—17s., plus 7s., making 24s.—I ask the Government and the members of
    the Committee if they can realise what that means to maintain a couple of people for seven days. I am amazed at the objection of the Government to this simple Amendment asking for 10s. instead of 7s. I hope that those on this side of the House at any rate will not be responsible for the payment of a mere 7s. a week. I trust they will carry this Amendment to a Division in order to show our objection to this miserable sum of 7s. which is in the Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 84.

    Division No. 385.]

    AYES.

    [2.56 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Preston, William

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Harland, A.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rhys. Hon. C. A. U

    Balniel, Lord

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Bethel, A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Savery, S. S.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Christie, J. A.

    Long, Major Eric

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cope, Major William

    McLean, Major A

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Couper, J. B.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Drewe, C.

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

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Oakley, T.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Gates, Percy

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wragg, Herbert

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Penny, Frederick George

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Goff Sir Park

    Perring, Sir William George

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Captain Bowyer.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Pilcher, G.

    NOES.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

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

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Harney, E. A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Clowes, S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kelly, W. T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kennedy, T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawson, John James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lee, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Lunn, William

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out paragraph (c).
    The purpose of this parapragh is to make an alteration in the definition of dependent child. The definition as it now stands in the Act of 1922 is that a dependent child is maintained wholly or mainly at the cost of the person entitled to benefit. It is proposed in the Bill to alter these words so that a dependent child shall be a child under the age of 14 maintained wholly or mainly by the person entitled to benefit. We on this side have difficulty in ascertaining what is the precise alteration made by the alteration in the Bill. The alteration may restrict the meaning of "dependent child." The paragraph conveys little meaning, and I put down this Amendment to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The explanation is not readily apparent on the surface, but it is quite simple to anyone familiar with the legal construction of what the words "at the cost of" may be. At the present moment a person may not actually be maintaining a child; he may not be paying anything for it, but just because of liability to maintain it, constructively in law he is held to be maintaining it at his cost. He may be getting 2s. for a dependent benefit for a child when not paying a penny towards it. By inserting the word "by" instead of the words "at the cost of," he is not able
    2002
    to get the 2s. if he does nothing towards the maintenance of the child.
    Mr. SHORT: It is clear that the word adopted by the right hon. Gentleman is restrictive, and I should like him to tell us what is the actual saving. Really I think there can be very few cases of this character, and I doubt whether the advantage to be derived from that warrants the alteration in the law. I have no doubt that the administration of the law in respect of the word "by" will create exceptional difficulties and a great deal of ill feeling. So far as I am concerned, I cannot think there can be any real justification for the change. Perhaps the Minister will say what is the actual saving. How many people will be affected? If these figures are serious then, of course, he may be justified in making the necessary charge, but I cannot think such is the case.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: The phrase in the 1922 Act is "maintained" not "maintainable." This appears to point to an actual liability. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Now that we have the advantage of the presence of the Solicitor-General or the Bench, I would like a little more information regarding the legal position, and the distinction between "at the cost of" and "by." I take it that there have been cases decided in this connection which have led the

    2003
    Minister to take the action he has taken. It is a matter of some importance, and I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us whether the shorter word "by" will really meet the position that the Minister is evidently desirous of meeting, and if any case has been decided that really conveys a different meaning legally than "at the cost of."
    I think the Committee is entitled to this information, first as to the cases that have been decided, and, secondly, as to the amount of money that may be saved, and the number of people that the Minister estimates in this connection. I myself, since I came into this House, have often been told in connection with Bills that this is a little thing and have let it go, but I have repented afterwards when I have found that some of the things assumed to be little became serious. One wants to know whether this is really meeting the difficulty or whether it would not be necessary to get even stronger words.
    Mr. KELLY: I am surprised at the statement of the Minister that it was possible for recipients of benefit to draw the 2s. for a child even though they were not doing anything for the maintenance of the children. I want to put this to the Minister. Can he state a case during the whole time that these children's allowances have been in the Act where the Ministry of Labour have paid that benefit to the man or woman when the children were not being maintained by them? I can only say if there is such a case that I am amazed at the method of administration. I know they have taken strong exception to the payment of the benefit, and to suggest that something that they know has been happening in the past is responsible for this change of words I am afraid I cannot accept from the Minister of Labour. Throughout the administration of the present Act they have refused to pay the money unless the child was being maintained by the parent.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: We are dealing here with an Amendment of the Insurance Act of 1922, and I have not a copy of that Act, so that it is all the more necessary that we should have from the legal authorities on the other side a clear definition of what we are doing. I can
    2004
    only try to understand this Amendment from the words that are at my disposal here. I would like to know what is the difference in fact between saying the child of a man "being maintained at my cost" and "being maintained by me." There is a distinction I suppose, but as far as the words at my service here are concerned, I cannot see the distinction. Again, I would like this point cleared up. Is the onus of proof that he is maintaining a child thrown on the unemployed man, or are the people in charge of the fund, the Ministry of Labour, to prove that he is not maintaining the child. The whole thing seems a little complex, and I hope we will have the matter cleared up.
    Mr. DUNCAN: It seems to me, from the statement of the Minister, that there must be some sort of evidence that men receiving the money are not maintaining the children. If there be such a case, we should have the benefit of the information. That would lead to a better understanding of the situation.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Generally the case is one where a man has made a false declaration, or rather has made a declaration that the children are being maintained at his cost, whereas, in fact, he is not paying for them. But the words "maintained at his cost" are held to be constructively true, because he is liable to reimburse the people who are actually paying. We have actually had cases where magistrates have taken that view, and obviously, under these circumstances, these fathers who have made the declaration have been able to put the 2s. into their pockets when they had not themselves ever paid a penny towards the maintenance, and were not likely to reimburse the people who were paying for it. That is the reason why we want to cure that state of affairs.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to be clear upon this question. I had a case that I put before the Minister of children being sent to an institution and the parent contributing so much, but not the whole, because an unemployed man could not possibly pay the amount of money to keep them in an institution. Are we to assume that unless an unemployed person proves that he is maintaining his children in an institution—possibly a defective children's institution—he is not to be paid the 2s.?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 386.]

    AYES.

    [3.20 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

    Pilcher, G.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Goff, Sir Park

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Albery, Irving James

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Preston, William

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Radford, E. A.

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

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Balniel, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harland, A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Roberts E. H. G. (Flint)

    Bethel, A.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rye, F. G.

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

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hilton, Cecil

    Savery, S. S.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sheffield. Sir Berkeley

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smithers, Waldron

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

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Christie, J. A.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Long, Major Eric

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cope. Major William

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Couper, J. B.

    McLean, Major A.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Crawfurd, H. E

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Merriman. F. B.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Dixey, A. C.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Drewe, C.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Edge, Sir William

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Oakley, T.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Penny, Frederick George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Captain Margesson and Major the

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Perring, Sir William George

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    Gates, Percy

    NOES.

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lawson, John James

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lee, F.

    Broad, F. A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Bromfield, William

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

    Lunn, William

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Mackinder, W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Clowes, S.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Paling, W.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Potts, John S.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Scurr, John

    Duncan, C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Thurtie, Ernest

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Townend, A. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Westwood, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mr. Tinker and Mr. Sullivan.

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. JOHNSTON: While we gladly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has made some response to our appeals on the Second Reading for more adequate benefits for the new classes he has created in Schedule Three, we still regard the benefits that he is paying as so insufficient that we are compelled to divide against this Clause. We believe that ultimately we shall have to pay for these benefits in ill-health, in disease and in misery, but even the limited figures which he has admitted on Schedule Three—the increase of 2s. at the age of 19 to 20 and the increase of 4s. at the age of 20 to 21—must be qualified by the extraordinary delays which normally take place in the payment of these benefits. I will endeavour to explain how, in Scotland at all events, these delays, in fact, reduce his schedule of benefits very considerably. Take a girl of 18 years of age, to whom he proposes under this Schedule to pay the miserable benefit of 8s. in future, and suppose she loses her employment on Saturday. She reports on the Monday to the Employment Exchange that she is now out of employment. On the same day, the Monday, the employer is written to by the manager of the Employment Exchange to inquire as to whether or not the statement by this girl was correct. On the Tuesday, the employer replies. By the Wednesday his reply is received, and the girl is written to and given the substance of the employer's answer to the statements in her claim. On the Thursday the girl receives this reply. On the Friday she makes a further reply to the employer's statement, and both the employer's statement and her claim are then sent to the Chief Insurance Officer in London, who gets these documents on a Saturday morning. A week has now gone.
    If the Chief Insurance Officer, who is popularly known as the C.I.O., or one of his clerks—because the C.I.O. never sees the thing—says that benefit should not be paid for any particular reason, good, bad,
    2008
    or indifferent, then on the Monday that reply is sent back to Scotland disallowing the claim. On Tuesday the decision arrives in Scotland and the girl is written to and informed that the C.I.O. has disallowed the claim. On the Wednesday she receives that note and appeals. On the Thursday her appeal is received. On the Friday the papers are sent away to the Court of Referees at Edinburgh. On the Saturday they are received in Edinburgh. Nothing can be done that day. Nothing is done on the Monday, nor on the Tuesday, nor on the Wednesday, and the Court of Referees, who cannot meet until the Thursday, sit on the Thursday and decide, say, in favour of the girl's claim. That is to say, they decide against the C.I.O. Their decision is sent back to London to the C.I.O. On the Friday, or the Saturday at latest, he receives that decision.
    Let us again take it in its most favourable light. Let us say that the C.I.O. accepts the decision of the Court of Referees. Three weeks have gone. He then sends an intimation back to Scotland saying that he accepts that decision. That intimation is received on the Monday. No payment is made on the Tuesday, nor on the Wednesday, nor on the Thursday, because the first pay day is the Friday. So four weeks have gone. That is the normal regular method in which these applications are dealt with. Consider the case of a girl of 18 years of age who has been in employment at a wage which does not permit of her banking money against a rainy day. Consider the fact that she has to wait four weeks before she is paid benefit and then, when she is paid benefit under the provisions which the Bill asks the House to approve of and Clause 4 deals with, this girl is to be paid a benefit of only eight shillings a week.
    I submit without further argument that this payment of eight shillings a week is insufficient and is grossly inadequate, and that it will make for social disease and social misery of a serious kind of which this generation will never see the end. When the Bill was discussed on the last occasion I put forward something similar to this point of view, and the hon.

    2009
    Member who is private Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister got up and said in effect that there are not hundreds of thousands of girls who may be subject to this, and that I had grossly exaggerated. He says there are only 500,000 girls in this Clause at all between the ages of 18 and 21, and of that 500,000 only six per cent. are unemployed, so that there are only 30,000 girls in the position of being compelled to attempt to live cleanly and decently on 8s. a week after four weeks have elapsed, during which they have got nothing at all. I put it to any hon. Member in this House, whatever side he is on politically or whatever his attitude towards this Bill may be, that this provision is hopelessly indefensible, and that if we vote for Clause 4 as it stands we are voting for 8s. a week to a girl of 18, 10s. to a girl between 19 and 20, 12s. to a girl between 20 and 21, and 15s. to a girl who is older than that—and that they cannot live on those payments. It cannot be done. However unpopular it may be to say so, I repeat that there will be some cases of girls driven to the streets as a result of that vote that will be given in a few moments in this House to-night on Clause 4. I do beg of the Minister to make an increase in these figures, and at any rate to put figures in the Schedule which will make it possible for a girl to live honourably and decently—and that is what she cannot possibly do on the figures in the Schedule at the present time.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish very heartily to support what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down. With regard to the question of the very indirect method that is adopted concerning these cases, we have had that put before us in our constituency, and undoubtedly that particular phase of the matter is a decided grievance to many who have really good grounds for urging on the Government the necessity of making a very considerable alteration. I believe that that action is a question that will have to be dealt with by Scotland itself. With regard to the Clause itself and the figures in the Schedule, I do not know whether it is possible to make any more fervent appeals than have already been made to-day. We have heard appeals of the most heart-searching character. The struggles of these people
    2010
    are, I reckon, beyond all proper description. It seems to me from my experience in this House that it looks somewhat like as if it were steering on the rock, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said. Perhaps he was thinking of the great rock of Dumbarton. Unless we do find in the later proposals of the Minister pertaining to Schedule 3 that we are going to have some evidence of improved figures the position is hopeless. The improvement already made goes to show that the hurricane of condemnation brought to bear on the Minister has had some considerable influence. But even at that, I do wish to say that it is a heartrending situation that is confronting the masses of these people.
    I feel deeply convinced that many of the Members of this House are treating these matters—as, for example, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), who told us that they would gladly sit here until the earliest hour in order to get the Bill through—in such a manner that it does make one feel somewhat keenly when we hear such sardonic references of that character, that there is being burned into the minds of those people the necessity for bringing about a bloody revolution. Yes, even in evening dress, I see them before me now with the look of scorn concerning these people. Sometimes we are impelled to express ourselves in no ordinary fashion. I am quite well aware of the environment and the atmosphere with which many Members on that side are familiar. Many on the opposite side of the House do not understand the references made from this side concerning these matters. They live to all intents and purposes in an artificial world. They are handled by the Government in a way that becomes purely mechanical and go through with a crushing remorseless determination. When the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) was speaking about the situation you could see that the man's whole heart was being expressed to the full possibly to make an impression upon the Government. It seems to me impossible for any professing Christian man to deal with these things in the hard fashion in which they are being dealt with in this Committee. We are not getting down to the realities of life. We read of suicides, of men throwing themselves into the river, having no

    2011
    hope whatever. We want the Government to realise these things. It is not for want of money, because, if you want any money for the defence of the Empire, millions will go as readily as anything. But these, people for whom we are pleading, are not put on the plane of humanity at all. Dogs and horses are better looked after. I hope that the Government will do more than they now propose for these people and realise the situation.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member who has just sat down has used a good many hard words. I hope that the Committee will allow me to deal briefly with the reasons for putting in this new Clause. The reasons are given by the Blanesburgh Committee on which this Bill is based. Although I have quoted them before, I do so again. They say:
    "The rates finally resolved upon are an adjustment of conflicting views, but they leave in the minds of all of us their justification in principle."
    The Committee then went on to refer to the rates of persons over 21 and the proportion between the married man and the single man on the ground of the greater commitments of the former, and they conclude the paragraph as follows:
    "It is by similar considerations that the lower rates for unemployed boys, girls and young persons are principally to be justified, although other factors also enter into this case."
    A little later in the Report they again reiterate the same opinion:
    "Our purpose has been to apportion the available money according to need, but so also as to correct features of the existing practice which in some cases have been attended by undesirable results. We have also taken into account the report of Sir Donald Maclean's recent Committee."
    To quote once again, the Committee says:
    "We have considered it of the first importance so to frame our scheme that it is as free as possible from all injurious tendencies. The conditions of benefit are so devised as to admit of speedy payment to those who are genuinely entitled to it and at the same time to make it as certain as is possible that these alone can establish a claim. The prior payment of 30 weekly contributions, the reduction in the rate of benefit of young persons, the periodical review of those who make lengthy claims on the fund by a competent, authoritative and impartial tribunal, namely, the Court of Referees, are expressly designed for this purpose. We have realised that the reputation of the scheme in the eyes of the in-
    2012
    sured persons must be continuously maintained. Otherwise the benefits, so far from maintaining the self-respect and independence of these persons when they are unemployed, will have precisely the opposite effect."
    These are the statements in the Report: Again, I would ask the Committee to realise what the opinion of the local committees means. These bodies, from whom the Blanesburgh Committee sought information, were the local employment committees of whom the chairman and vice-chairman came together by districts in order to give opinions on points submitted to them. There was a difference of opinion among the local committees, but the preponderating opinion was in favour of having a separate class of from 18 to 21. This was an influential body of expert opinion, and they were preponderatingly in favour of the establishment of this class. I went into the question of rates. I was not moved by the hurricane of disapproval of what I proposed, but I wanted the figures to be as accurate as possible. I paid atten-to opinions expressed in the House, and also to the opinions suggested by the Local Employment Committees. That led me to propose that those rates should be increased so as to form some intermediate stage between the rates for the juveniles and the rates for the adults. That is the reason for the proposal which stands in the Amendment in my name and which will be discussed later.
    I would like to say one more word. On a considerable number of occasions it has been urged in connection with this Clause that the rates, even the larger rates proposed in my Amendment, would lead to prostitution amongst young women. That is an extraordinarily grave charge to make. It would be a very grave situation if it were to exist, and if any proof could be produced from examples in the past that such a situation was likely to occur, the evidence should be brought forward as an analogy at the present date. It is an extraordinarily grave charge, and if there are any lessons of the past to prove it, one way or the other, they are very material at the moment. At the same time the responsibility is much the more heavy upon people who make these charges. I ask the Committee to judge of charges like that, made fairly freely in this House without one bit of evidence on the subject. There was a reduction in the rate

    2013
    for women in the late summer of 1921. The rate was then reduced for all women from 15s. to 12s. That meant that it was reduced for the older women, too, who were much more likely to be alone in the world than the younger women. It was reduced for women who were widows with dependants although that was at a time when dependant's benefit was much smaller than at the present day. A reduction to 12s. with the cost of living at that time was a reduction to what was in value a smaller sum than the rates now proposed. Not a case such as has been suggested has ever come to light, and T would say further that before such charges are made—many by hon. Members opposite who were Members of the House when that change was made—they should, if there was a real foundation of cases, have brought them forward to substantiate such statements and such charges. None has been forthcoming, and I repeat that so far as I have been able to ascertain nothing of the kind occurred. Supposing there was any ground in these apprehensions as regards the future, it could have been easily shown what had been the result then. The charges recoil upon the heads of those who make them if they cannot bring forward some substantiation of such calumnies upon their fellow countrymen.
    Miss BONDFIELD: When the Local Employment Committees were consulted upon this matter, it was not a question entirely new to them. It was a matter which had been canvassed as to what was happening to our young people who could not get into employment. I have a vivid recollection of the attitude in which this discussion was conducted inside the Blanesburgh Committee. I want to say that I have no shadow of doubt in my mind that this Clause would never have been agreed to by the Blanesburgh Committee if it had not been contingent upon the secondary benefit of giving occupation, training and discipline to these young people—giving them some chance to get some place in the industrial world. It was never intended that the Clause should be disassociated from that idea. This is a large group which is suffering most terrible cases of hardship. We are making savages of some of them and unprincipled young people of others. These cases are thrust into a condition of which that is an inevitable consequence. Your children
    2014
    have never had to find their amusement by grouping the street corner outside the public house.
    This section signing on at the Employment Exchange in the morning has nothing to do during the rest of the day in the miserable overcrowded condition in which the home can occupy little of their interest. This deterioration, after six years, is a progressive thing. I remember one piece of evidence put before the Committee. It was from a Poor Law representative. I think he was from Scotland. The Poor Law guardian was cross-examined as to why the actual amounts of benefit paid to-day were so much greater than the amounts paid in 1914. We had the table of scales and we asked what made the difference? This was the statement made. In 1914 our people were a hardy, independent, self-respecting people who would not go to the Poor Law if there was anybody who would help them to keep away—if there was anybody in the family earning anything they would help each other rather than go to the Poor Law, or if they had any money or friendly society money. The periods of unemployment were of shorter duration so that they were able to fall back upon their thrift. It is not a question now of help from the bank or neighbours. They are down to the bone when you have got a situation such as that you have created, a situation which can only be handled by Governments, and only by a national and central organisation. The primary object of an intermediate scale was that special expenditure should be incurred in other ways to come to the help of these young people, above all by training, and I personally protest against the idea that anything in the Blanesburgh Report can be held to assume that that Committee consented without the other considerations to the payment of 8s. a week to women of from 18 to 21, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Clause.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I have been trying to help the Minister and the Committee by not intervening in the Debate too much, but the last explanation the Minister made transcends anything that he has hitherto said. Like many members of the Committee I am the father of a daughter, but had I been a workman on the old 25s. a week I should have felt very sorry to think that that daughter

    2015
    would ever be out of work under a scheme of unemployment insurance such as this. I come from a textile district where our girls are as skilful as any in the world, but they are not earning enough to keep them in times of unemployment. In the Division I represent there are girls drawn from all over the country living in hostels, paying anything from £1 to £1 5s. a week for board and lodgings. If they become unemployed these girls have no home to go to. What are they going to do with 8s.? Will the Minister tell me? One of these particular hostels is kept by a millionaire in order that he may have the girls on the job ready to do the work, but when there is no work they have to live. What is going to happen to them? These girls at the present moment are working under the disgraceful two-shift system. When there is no work what will they do? Will this gentleman keep them for 8s. a week? The Minister asked us to find some evidence that some of the suggestions made have some substance; that is to say, to find a girl who has gone wrong because of the miserable pay. You cannot find them. They are lost in the streets of the cities of this country, and nobody will find them. It is no good saying we have to find evidence that this kind of thing will happen to a girl. It is nothing less than a scandal to say that a girl at the most attractive time of her life must live on 8s. a week. No one, even the most mean, could keep her on that sum. The girl would go down in morale. She could not even afford clothing. I protest most strongly against the exceedingly bad case the Minister has put up. I can understand the recommendation of the Committee that girls shall have training. If they are being trained they are doing something. If they are having domestic training they are having a midday meal, and they are having something to do to keep their poor brains from breaking. There is no more heart-breaking work than looking for work, and if a girl is receiving training and a small amount of food there is something to relieve her brain. I can visualise two girls. One is being trained, even, for domestic service, which I do not think is bad service for some girls. She will be learning something which will be useful to her, and she will get a midday meal. In that
    2016
    case I can imagine her scraping through. But I cannot imagine a girl with only 8s. a week scraping through. The explanation given by the Minister is the worst I have heard since I came into this House. If he could have given the provision suggested we could not have forced even a show of indignation, but there is no excuse for saying that 8s. is enough for our girls. As far as I am concerned, I intend to say that not only in the House but in every possible place I can in the country.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said is the view of the Government, and I have no doubt all his friends will troop into the Lobby in support of him. I do not distinguish between the right hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Blanesburgh Committee. The Chairman of the Committee knows as much about working class life as the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the Committee, and that is nothing at all, or if he does he has a very curious way of expressing himself. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to answer a series of questions put to him by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). He never even referred to them, but he began to tell us about the virtues of the chairmen of the local employment committees, and he wants us to believe that the chairmen of the local committees are men who are conversant with the actual conditions obtaining amongst the working classes in the areas over which they happen to be chairmen. As a matter of fact the chairmen of the committees do not even attend the committee meetings. They only occupy their positions because they happen to be of a socially superior class, because they happen to belong to the employing class.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Forgive me if I did not make myself clear. I said the chairmen and the vice-chairmen after consulting the Committees.
    Mr. GRAHAM: It would require something more than the statement of the Minister to convince me that the consultation with the Committees meant that there was any desire to find out what effect this proposal would have.
    I do not believe that a working class member of a Committee anywhere in the

    2017
    country would agree that 8s. a week is sufficient to maintain a girl of 18 years of age. It is no good the Minister telling us that he is backed in his proposal by members of the local unemployment committees. Let him test it fairly, and, if he can get the ordinary working class representatives on the local unemployment committees to accept the proposal that he has defended to-night, I shall withdraw my opposition. I have been led to believe that it was the same God that created me, that created him. I have two daughters. I do not know whether he or other hon. Members on the other side have daughters, but I put the question to them—not to the son of a newspaper owner who never knew what it was to do any work in his life—is there a man on the other side of the House, who would believe that his daughter could live on 8s. a week and preserve her purity? Most of the men who come from the class to which the majority on the other side belong, live to a large extent by preying upon the girls who are being reduced to this state.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will say the same if he withdraws.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member can carry on the debate without making offensive remarks.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I quite agree. I have no desire to make offensive remarks; neither am I entitled to listen to offensive remarks.
    Mr. COUPER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw such an allegation. It is a personal matter, and he must withdraw.
    Mr. GRAHAM: You only require to read the papers owned by Lord Rothermere, and his friends to know—
    Mr. COUPER: That is not an answer to my question. [Interruption.]
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no desire to say anything offensive.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am quite sure that the hon. Member is right when he says that he did not mean to make any offensive remark. I hope that he will say so openly again.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have said so. I have no desire to say anything offensive, but
    2018
    neither have I any desire to listen to any offensive things said about myself or those belonging to me.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must also believe that if there had been anything offensive said against him, I should equally have asked other hon. Members to make the same withdrawal.
    Mr. GRAHAM: No doubt, you would if it had been said about an individual, but it cannot be said that I have said that of any individual over there. I have said it about the class generally. We are dealing now with a purely class issue.
    Mr. COUPER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member said it was hon. Members on the other side. I desire to ask that he should withdraw such a statement. [Interruption.]
    Mr. GRAHAM: I repeat this is purely a class matter. It is a question on which my hon. Friend from Maryhill (Mr. Couper), and I could not possibly agree. I put it to him that if he and his family were faced in exactly similar circumstances—
    Mr. COUPER: Would the hon. Member kindly address the Chair?
    Mr. GRAHAM: What I take strong exception to is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Labour, instead of meeting points that were raised, deviated and went on to matters that had nothing to do with the Clause under discussion. What the opinions of the Blanesburgh Committee are or were are of no importance so far as this House is concerned. It is this House that makes the law, and it is the Minister who will have to administer this Bill, and he and every member of the Ministry of Labour staff know that even under present conditions it is absolutely impossible for young women to live in a manner that each of us would expect our own daughters to get an opportunity to live. I make an exceptionally strong protest against the right hon. Gentleman seeking to get away from the real points that we are raising on this discussion by reference to the opinions of the Blanesburgh Committee and the chairmen and vice-chairmen of local unemployment committees—men

    2019
    who have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that 8s. is too little to maintain a girl in decency, apart entirely from any question of comfort, the Blanesburgh Committee will not prevent him from putting a reasonable figure in the Bill. I believe the right hon. Gentleman felt ashamed when he got up to apologise for the position which the Government occupy in this matter. I am convinced that behind the Ministry of Labour is a department that is not represented on the benches here to-night—the Treasury. They simply tell you what money you are going to get, and it is time this House made a protest against the attitude of that particular department which is laying down conditions that make it impossible for the ordinary spending departments to carry on their work. I have had some experience during the last few years, particularly of the treatment that girls get from the Ministry of Labour, and it is absolutely scandalous. It is nearly impossible for a girl to get a claim recognised. Every little petty, mean, and contemptible trick is adopted to put these girls off the Employment Exchange. Now, in addition to that, we find the Government coming along and trying to justify their action by moral arguments for the reduction of payments to these girls.
    I sincerely hope that the Government will even now consider the whole position. If anyone is entitled to get more money it is the girl more than the man. The girl is more entitled to depend on the good will and support of this House than the young man is. But it is the young girl that is being taken out of the scheme—the young girl at the period of life when she is most attractive and therefore all the more likely to come under the influence of some designing scoundrel. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider this matter in a more favourable light than they have done in connection with other questions. This is a question of the utmost importance, and I can assure the Committee that there is no stronger feeling amongst us on these benches than there is amongst the working classes outside, including the Tory working men. I am one of those who do not deny that there are a number of Tory
    2020
    working men, but I do say that they would not vote for this, and if hon. Members are really seeking to represent their constituencies in this House they would join in this appeal to the Government to recast this part of the Bill.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I listened to the Minister's statement with a feeling of profound dejection. I really do not think his speech was worthy of him. He made no defence at all of the proposal. He said the Blanesburgh Committee did it. When was it an axiom of the Parliamentary life of this country that a Committee that was appointed to inquire into a subject was a law-making body, and if an ad hoc Committee said a thing the responsibility of the Minister introducing the Bill no longer existed and the responsibility lay on people who cannot be here to defend their projects? They are people who have nothing to do with the discussions in the House and have no responsibility at all to the Members of this House, and who absolutely did not suggest, even if they were responsible, what the Minister implies. May I read again to him certain passages from the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee to prove that what I am saying is correct? The Report says:
    "Indeed, if we had not been recommending that useful training should be provided—if necessary, even out of any surplus in the Fund—some of us would not have agreed to reduce the existing scale of benefits for juveniles, and others would have insisted that juvenile benefit should be abolished altogether.
    Training is scarcely less important in the case of young men and women from 18 to 21, and we earnestly desire that in their case also facilities for training will be available or made available to the greatest possible extent."
    What, after all, is the position of the Minister, who comes to the House and says that he can escape his own responsibilities and throw them on the shoulders of a Committee when the Committee tell him plainly that this training is an essential part of their suggestion? The responsibility still lies on the shoulders of the Minister, and though the sins of the Opposition be scarlet, that is no excuse for the Minister declining to defend his own proposals. He has never made any attempt to prove that these benefits are sufficient or to defend the proposal. He has run away on every occasion to the Blanesburgh Committee and he has done

    2021
    them the profoundest injustice. Does he consider the benefits adequate? I challenge him to answer plainly that question. Does he consider the payments to these girls are adequate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will tell the right hon. Member perfectly plainly two things. I am going to deal with training when we come to it. As regards training from 18 to 21, that was always considered as subsidiary. If the right hon. Gentleman says I am not doing justice to the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, let him look at the summary of all the main recommendations. When he comes to the summary of the things considered most essential, then there is no mention of it. As to the question of the sufficiency of benefit, I have never pretended, for one moment, that any young woman could live on ten shillings a week. I never pretended that any rate of benefit is considered to be a full maintenance allowance. It never was, it never is, and I hope it never will be.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: What are they to live on, then?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I am prepared to say is that, if a Committee is appointed of people of the ability and experience of the Blanesburgh Committee, and they obtain the considered opinions of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the consultative committees throughout the country, then I think it is a body of opinion to which I should pay deference. Though I have been responsible for breaking the scales up, I am prepared to abide by their opinion and say that I agree with them.
    Mr. SHAW: May I take it that the Minister is prepared to justify these figures and analyse them for us a little? No man in the House knows better than the Minister that, after these years of unemployment, particularly in the distressed areas, there is a degree of misery that has never been known before during the last half century in this country. He knows that in scores of thousands of cases every farthing of savings is gone. He knows that in scores of thousands of cases even the little extra bits of furniture have gone from the house. He must know that in thousands of these cases, if the girls cannot maintain themselves, they have no relatives on whom they can fall back who are able to help them. It
    2022
    is under these circumstances, with another three years of unemployment since 1924, that he begins to reduce the benefits that we were able to raise in that year. I had the privilege myself of lifting the benefits. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not the same privilege. It is time for another advance and not for another reduction. The conditions are worse than in 1924. Let us take 10s. a week for a girl. Can you imagine a girl spending less than 2s. a week on clothing and washing? Can she get any decent lodging for less than 5s. a week anywhere and under any conditions. There goes 7s. a week, and the girl has 3s. a week on which to live. There is nothing for insurance, there is nothing to put by for a rainy day, and there is nothing for amusements. Are these people to be considered? Are they as good as dogs, or horses or cattle? Would anybody treat his horse as the Government intends to treat these girls? Hon. Members opposite treat their horses and dogs better than they treat these human beings. But what is worse, those people who do give way to temptation—and temptation is always there, not only for the girl, but for the young man as well—those who do yield to temptation and get into prison find that the nation is prepared to spend far more on them to keep them as criminals than to keep them decent. Neither the Blanesburgh Committee or any other committee can take away the responsibility of what is done. You cannot place blame on the Blanesburgh Committee. It is not the Blanesburgh Committee that has introduced the Bill; it is the Government that have introduced the Bill. I am sorry that the Government think that the treatment to be meted out to working people should be far less favourable and far less costly than to criminals or that the workhouse has to pay to paupers. What is the condition of affairs? The Government say that in their opinion this is a suitable scheme. The only answer I have to the Government is this—that if this is what they consider a suitable scheme there is no wonder that in this country the feeling of class bitterness is growing. It is growing because working people in this country see that in spite of all the talk there is a class that does not preach class struggle, but that practises it. This class looks upon the worker as a kind of inferior brown pottery, whilst they them

    2023
    selves are fine china. It is a sorry state of affairs, and I should be very sorry if I felt I could bear the responsibility for any young man or woman who in these circumstances yields to temptation and goes the wrong way. The burden of responsibility will rest on the shoulders of those who deny them reasonable treatment.
    Miss WILKINSON: I wish the Minister of Labour in his speeches had gone a little further in connection with this matter. If a girl, who is without home or friends and is getting 8s. or 10s. a week goes to the board of guardians to have it made up she is told she cannot have outdoor relief. The only thing she can have is a ticket for the workhouse. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he imagines a ticket for the workhouse means for a girl of these years. I have had some experience of these cases. If I cannot appeal on humanitarian grounds may I appeal on grounds of economy. It costs far more to keep a woman in an institution of this kind than to give a generous form of benefit. The proposals are forcing the Government into an extremely extravagant thing. I do not suggest that every girl or the vast majority of girls in these conditions are going on the streets. The idea is ridiculous. Most of them will prefer starvation to that. But does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate with pleasure what he is doing. May I give the right hon. Gentleman a case that came under my own experience. A perfectly decent girl, whose name and address I can give—a member of the union I represent—went on unemployment benefit. This was exhausted. She had no home to go to; her box containing her clothes was taken by her landlady for rent, and that girl slept on the Embankment, and although she was perfectly decent and respectable she had nowhere but the public fountains at which to wash herself.
    I admit that is an extreme case. I just challenge the hon. Gentlemen on this point. If he said that 8s. or 10s. a week is not a maintenance wage, and if the Minister of Health said that relief cannot be given to ablebodied young persons, what is a girl to do? That is a question we have a right to address to the right hon. Gentlemen, and we have not had
    2024
    an answer from the Minister on that point. Every time he has spoken he has made the position worse. He says the evidence in favour of this age rule was overwhelming. I am not denying it, but there was not a word in that questionnaire that that particular age group was to be paid 8s. or 10s. a week. If he had suggested that I imagine the answer he would have got would have been overwhelmingly on the other side, not only from the Labour benches but from the Conservative members, because Conservative members dealing with this from the local point of view would have been horrified at the further burden on the local rates. The Minister says that the Blanesburgh Committee is a responsible Committee and that, therefore, he must adopt the report. May I remind him that there was such a. Commission as the Sankey Commission. Its report was not what the Government wanted and it was thought convenient to ignore it. But this Report is what his great party wanted and it is convenient to quote the Blanesburgh Report on every point. If it had demanded decent conditions of maintenance we should have had the Report explained away and pigeon-holed in the same way as the Sankey Commission Report. Unless we can have an answer from the Minister as to what these girls are to do he is driving a nail into the coffin of the Government and giving us a slogan.
    Mr. W. HIRST: Reference has been repeatedly made by the Minister and also by the Under-Secretary to the fact that certain conferences have been held throughout the country to consider certain proposals in connection with this Bill. I have been labelled the chairman of the Employment Committee of Bradford, and I say without hesitation that when the chairmen and vice-chairmen attended the conference—I had not the privilege or it was not convenient for me to go—whatever may have happened then I do associate myself with the view expressed by the Noble Lord. It was never contemplated that there was to be this marked reduction in the benefits paid to these people. I would say to the credit of the Bradford Committee that they responded to the appeal I made that we should meet specially to consider this Bill. Every member of that Committee got hold of a copy of the Bill—both em-

    2025
    ployers and the operative side. When we came to consider its provisions the final remark was that there was no single vote in favour of a single penny of reduction under this Measure. We had no less than 10 employers present at that joint meeting, along with 10 or 11 on the opposite side. After giving it very exhaustive consideration we finally arrived at this position that we should attempt, not only to reject the reduction, but, if the right hon. Gentleman were to give all the evidence before them, it would be seen that he had received from the Bradford Employment Committee a recommendation signed by employers and ourselves that no reduction should be given effect to. It is as well that this Committee should know that. I do not often stand up for the employers, but on this occasion that body of people should be given their proper meed of praise when they supported the position the operatives so keenly put forward. I venture to suggest that if all the evidence were brought forward it would probably be found that other committees were taking the same line. The rates which are proposed, even the amended rates, are a positive scandal and a positive disgrace for a Labour Ministry or any Government to put forward. I associate myself entirely with the protests from this side of the House and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, when using this evidence again, to bring it forward fully. It is not true that the chairman and vice-chairman are committed to this Bill.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I was careful to explain that the recommendations were not unanimous, but that it was in the preponderating majority in the direction I stated.
    Mr. HIRST: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Labour have both attempted to convey to the House and the country that at least these people were favourable to this reduction? They are not favourable to it in all cases. We have not only the example of the Bradford Committee. I hope there are other Committees in the country who have been courageous enough to resist these astounding proposals. I join in denouncing them and I hope the hon. Gentleman will have the courage to say that the case made out this day is a reasonable case. This is very bad economy and I hope he will say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "You are lending yourself to a most discreditable adventure, and I hope you will not attempt to pursue this reduction. Go the whole hog and agree with the Bradford Committee that there must be no reduction whatever". I hope you will follow the idea that there must be no reduction whatever. If we cannot find work we must find maintenance.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 79.

    Division No. 387.]

    AYES.

    [4.52 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Cope, Major William

    Harland, A.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Couper, J. B.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Balniel, Lord

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Bethel, A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hilton, Cecil

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Drewe, C.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lamb, J. Q

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Long, Major Eric

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Gates, Percy

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lumley, L. R.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Goff Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Clayton, G. C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Oakley, T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Snepperson, E. W.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Pilcher, G.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Preston, William

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Mr. Penny and Captain Viscount

    Radford. E. A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Curzon.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    NOES.

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Barnes, A.

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clowes, S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sullivan, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd. H. E.

    Kelly. W. T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawrence, Susan

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Duncan, C.

    Lawson, John James

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Llndley, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lunn, William

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

    Fenby, T. D.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Windsor, Walter

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Gillett, George M

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 79.

    Division No. 388.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Christie, J. A.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Gates, Percy

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Goff. Sir Park

    Balniel, Lord

    Cope, Major William

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Couper, J. B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bethel, A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harland, A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

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

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Dawson. Sir Philip

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Drewe, C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hilton, Cecil

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Campbell. E. T.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Perring, sir William George

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

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Pilcher, G.

    Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Long, Major Eric

    Preston, William

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Raine. Sir Walter

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    McLean, Major A.

    Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Tinne, J. A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Rye, F. G.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Smithers, Waldron

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Oakley, T.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Grundy T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Barnes, A.

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, F, A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith. Rennie (Penistone)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clowes, S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sullivan, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd, H E.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lawrence, Susan

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Duncan, C.

    Lawson, John James

    Welsh. J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lunn, William

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Fenby, T. D.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Windsor, Walter

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, D M (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir A. Steel-Maitland.)
    Mr. J. JONES: We have been dealing with questions affecting the lives of the common people of this country, the working people. When we ask for anything for them, there is nothing doing; but when the other people want something, everything is doing. The whole machinery of the State can be brought into operation to provide them with the things they want. I expect the Government do not imagine for a moment that we are asking them to solve the unemployed problem. They are incapable of
    2030
    it. What we are asking is that they shall provide means whereby the people who are suffering in consequence of unemployment shall be able to get some real assistance during the period of their real misery. When we ask for bread, we get a stone. All the things we say, and all the appeals we make, fall on deaf ears. I do not want to make a personal reference, but every day we spend in this House we spend more on our own personal sustenance than we are prepared to allow in a week to—
    The CHAIRMAN: What connection has this with the Question that I report Progress?
    Mr. JONES: So far as we are concerned, reporting Progress simply means a convenient way of getting out of a difficulty, particularly when the Government move it. You want to rob the workers of something they are entitled to, and therefore you are reporting Progress so that you may be successful in your depredations. You believe 8s. is enough, but we say that the whole of this Debate has been a sham. That is because you are responsible for it. It is you who have raised the issue. We are dealing with the problem of unemployment and so far as this House is concerned I say that the Debate has been a sham because no one can say that the provisions for benefit under this Bill are adequate to the situation. They do not meet any part of the problem. Therefore, to that extent the Debate is a mere sham. I would go to any constituency you like, even the most reactionary—if it is possible to find the most reaction-
    2032
    ary constituency—with any of you and argue this Bill out in all its details and I do not believe any one of you would be able—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go until I report Progress.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without question put, pursuant to the Order of the Mouse of 8th November.
    Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Five o'Clock a.m.

  RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES AND ROLLING STOCK.
  RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES AND ROLLING STOCK.
  OCCUPATIONS (STATISTICS).
  OCCUPATIONS (STATISTICS).
  AIRSHIP SHED, CARDINGTON.
  AIRSHIP SHED, CARDINGTON.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (PRIVATE EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (PRIVATE EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT).
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  HOUSING (CONTRACT PRICES).
  HOUSING (CONTRACT PRICES).
  ROYAL NAVY (TOTAL PAY).
  ROYAL NAVY (TOTAL PAY).
  RUSSIA (TRADE RELATIONS).
  RUSSIA (TRADE RELATIONS).
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.
UNEMPLOYMENT
  EXTENDED BENEFIT
  EXTENDED BENEFIT
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  TRAINING CENTRES.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  POLICE ACCOMMODATION, DUNDEE.
  POLICE ACCOMMODATION, DUNDEE.
  DEATH DUTIES.
  DEATH DUTIES.
  SUPER-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Iveagh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Kilmarnock (Earl of Erroll)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House, a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is in connection with the arrangements which will be for the convenience of your Lordships when the Prayer Book Measure comes before this House. I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be convenient—and I make this suggestion with the knowledge and approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury—if the Resolution asking your Lordships to approve of the Measure were brought forward on Monday, December 12, and that the debate should continue on the next day, Tuesday the 13th—the House sitting on both those days after dinner if necessary—and continue on Wednesday, the 14th, the Division being taken by arrangement before dinner on Wednesday.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble friend is well aware, as your Lordships are aware, that I have no control over the time of the House in the manner in which my noble friend is kind enough to suggest. I can only offer my humble advice to your Lordships in respect of business and it does appear that it would be for the general convenience that the Prayer Book Measure should be taken upon December 12. The Government, of course, are deeply conscious of the great importance of the issues to be tried, and therefore we shall, so far as we are concerned, make every effort to meet the wish of the House in the matter. Therefore, if December 12 is a convenient day from the point of view of noble Lords interested in the subject, as far as we are concerned we shall be very glad should December 12 be assigned to the debate.

175
My noble friend tells me he is given to understand that the debate will last longer than one day, indeed longer than two days, and I am quite willing, as far as we are concerned, that the 13th should be similarly devoted to the Prayer Book Measure and the 14th too, so that a Division might be taken before the dinner hour upon the third day. As I have said, I can only give my advice to the House, but I think, after this expression of opinion, if it is the view of other noble Lords of influence, that we might suggest respectfully to our colleagues in the House that they will not put down Notices upon those throe days, which then will be left vacant for this important discussion.
Now I am on my legs on the subject of business I might venture to take this opportunity of asking whether your Lordships would be willing to allow the Government to have a certain privilege for the remaining weeks of this Session. We shall have a good deal of business from the House of Commons and we know by sad experience how difficult it is to find time for the transaction of all that work in the closing days of the Session. I am therefore inclined to suggest to your Lordships that on and after Monday, December 5, by the consent of the House, Government Orders should have precedence over other Orders. If I get encouragement from noble Lords opposite I shall put down a Motion to that effect for the formal consent of the House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I fully recognise the difficulty that every Government has in disposing of business in the last days of the Session. I think it is very desirable that we should not be squeezed up with Government business and therefore I should quite willingly assent—again I say so far as I am concerned—to the taking of the days after December 5 for Government business. Now I come to the Prayer Book Measure. The proposal, I understand, is that we should take that question on Monday, December 12, Tuesday, December 13, and Wednesday, December 14, sitting after dinner if necessary. I think that is quite reasonable having regard to the interest there is in the subject and I make no objection. It is always awkward taking Divisions after dinner because a great many people do not attend then, but we could get through a good deal of
176
speaking upon the Monday, we could get through a good deal more upon the Tuesday, and we ought to be able to divide before dinner on the Wednesday, But, if necessary, I am quite prepared to sit after dinner upon the Wednesday.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, my noble Leader has answered this question on the spur of the moment, but I would beg to put in a plea for a Motion I have on the Paper for December 7 [relating to East Africa]. I had that Motion down for November 30 and I feel that it is one of considerable importance and may be of interest to your Lordships' House. I postponed it at the request of my noble friend Lord Lovat, to suit his convenience, because of a mysterious festival on November 30, and I would rather strongly protest—and I hope my noble Leader will support me in the protest—against December 7 being entirely occupied with Government business.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it really is not for me to interefere in a discussion between noble Lords on the Opposition Bench. It is not the first appearance of disharmony between them which has occurred in the last few days. But I am quite ready with regard to the discussion on the Prayer Book Measure to agree to the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I am not quite sure that we shall need all three days, but it may be well to allot them, and if it is necessary by all means let us sit after dinner. The other question is that of Government business after December 5. I feel unwilling to allow them precedence, but precedence I am willing to give them. I will leave it to the noble Marquess to say how far he disagrees with me on that point. I am ready to come to the help of the Government all the more because the noble Marquess is more ready than many people to allow your Lordships time for discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not compete with the noble Earl opposite in the pronounciation of the English language. I am sure if there is any difference between us, he is right and I am wrong. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, I was not aware of his Motion being on the Paper when I spoke, but I hope your Lordships will realise that the form of Motion which I

177
shall submit is that; Government Orders shall have precedence when they are sent down. If there is very strong-feeling in the House, as, for example, in the case of the Prayer Book Measure, that Orders which are not Government Orders should be taken, it is always open to the Government not to put Orders down in front of the particular Notice which it is sought to save. I will not promise the noble Lord to exercise clemency in his particular case, but perhaps he will allow me to confer with him afterwards on the subject. I will do the best I can to study the convenience of noble Lords.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I was not aware of the special arrangement made about the Motion to which my noble friend referred. There seems to be a good deal in the point, and if the Government could avoid putting down Government business for that day, I think perhaps it would be better, because it is a very important question. As to the gibes which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, chooses to address to this Bench, I think it would be better taste if he would keep them to himself.

EDINBURGH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ANNUITY, ETC. FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will institute a public Inquiry into the record of the railway companies of Great Britain, with particular reference to whether, during the century for which railways have been in existence, the progress in the facilities offered to the public has been reasonable; whether reasonable encouragement has been given to new inventions; whether facilities have deliberately been withheld from the public; and in case things are found to be unsatisfactory what steps should be taken to put them right; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on two recent occasions I have ventured to put before you at some length certain
178
facts regarding the failure of the railways of this country to provide the public with a service as good as might reasonably be expected. My remarks are on record and I do not propose to occupy your time by repeating them. I gave full particulars of a number of matters which urgently require reform. Apart from certain small movements in the right direction by the Great Western Railway Company, on which I take this opportunity of warmly congratulating them, the railway directors and managers, in accordance with their almost invariable plan of treating with contempt suggestions for any considerable improvements coming from an outside source, have done nothing. No one is better aware than I am of my extreme insignificance, and if it were a personal matter I should not dream of troubling your Lordships further. But it is no personal matter. It is a question of the neglect of the public interest by a clique strongly entrenched behind a high wall of privilege. In these circumstances the interest of the public is the first thing and the insignificance of the source whence the movement comes is of no consequence whatever. The one thing that matters is whether the facts alleged are true.
I have given, with all the publicity that membership of your Lordships' House affords and in the most elaborate detail, particulars of matters that urgently require reform. Instead of attempting to justify themselves, the managements, with one exception to which I shall come presently, have thought fit to boycott the very precise and detailed statements which I have made. They do so obviously because there is no satisfactory answer, while at the same time the ignorance and impotence of the public, including the shareholders, is such that they think it safe to presume to any extent upon that ignorance and impotence. The fact of the matter is that the railways are, and always have been, in the hands of a clique consisting of directors, managers and officials. A seat on the board is hardly ever anything more than a social distinction. Officials usually treat the directors with the utmost outward deference and the directors, who in any case seldom know anything about railways, respond by leaving all real power in the hands of the officials. The share-

179
holders nominally elect the directors, who are nominally responsible to them. No one with the slightest knowledge of the facts is for an instant deceived by this sorry make-believe. There is no machinery by which the shareholders can control the dominant clique, while the clique can use the company's money to any extent they please to suppress any revolt against their authority if, by any extraordinary chance, the initial difficulties of organisation and propaganda are overcome by the malcontents.
When I ask for an Inquiry, I hope that we shall not hear anything about the undesirability of interfering with private enterprise. The private enterprise that provided capital for building and running the railways has about as much chance of controlling its own property as it has of controlling Jupiter's moons. I therefore ask the Government to hold a public Inquiry
"into the record of the railway companies of Great Britain, with particular reference to whether, during the century for which railways have been in existence, the progress in the facilities offered to the public has been reasonable; whether reasonable encouragement has been given to new inventions; whether facilities have deliberately been withheld from the public; and in case things are found to be unsatisfactory what step should be taken to put them right."
I suggest that the Inquiry should cover the relations of the railway managements with the Press. The managements obviously control very large payments to the Press for advertisements, and equally obviously a great number of the more important newspapers are intensely reluctant to publish anything displeasing to the managements. I am myself prepared to give details before a Committee of Inquiry of several instances of such criticisms, awkward for the railway managements, having been suppressed by the newspapers in a manner so extraordinarily convenient for the managements that there is no reasonable doubt that it was due to influence exercised either by them or on their behalf. That things are very far from right is, I fear, obvious. The whole idea of the clique is a quiet life for itself, to be secured, if necessary, by evasion and concealment.
Some idea of the length to which they will go can, I think, be gathered from the following narrative. Shortly after I last addressed your Lordships on the subject
180
of the deficiencies of British railways, the Chairman of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company made, in a speech that he delivered at Bradford, some extraordinarily uncomplimentary references to what I had said. I quote from the report that appeared in the Yorkshire Post. Mr. Whitelaw said:—
"You must have noticed one particularly pernicious piece of nonsense. He talked about the value of faster running and making up time on late trains in order to preserve the safety of our lines. It was unfortunate to be told by a man in his position that one of the great dangers of accidents on the line was because trains were late, and drivers, once they were late, did not make up time. As you know, the whole foundation of the safety of travelling depends upon the system of signalling, and it does not matter if a train is a day late. Your safety is just as great whether trains are an hour or a day late. If our signalling system cannot provide against dangers of that kind, it had better be scrapped altogether. That is the sort of twaddle you get from people you imagine ought to know better."
Your Lordships will observe that Mr. Whitelaw, having the whole of my remarks, which I am ashamed to say took no less than three-quarters of an hour to deliver, from which to choose a point of attack, fixed upon this one point, which he presumably thought gave him the best opening. He laid the strongest possible stress upon the perfection of the signalling arrangements, which, he said, were so good that precautions tending to decrease the strain put upon them were completely superfluous.
A few days before this there had been a serious collision on his own line at Hull in which twelve people lost their lives and many more were injured. The accident is stated by the Government Inspector in his official Report, which I have in my hand, to have been due to the mistake of a signalman. It also appears that, unless one of the trains concerned had been late, the accident would not have occurred, for the exceedingly good reason that one of the colliding trains was timed to reach Hull before the other started. In fact the circumstances exactly illustrate in every particular the contention that I advanced to your Lordships, that the making up of lost time is conducive to safety. Hardly had Mr. Whitelaw's words passed his lips before there occurred, also on his own line at Penistone, another collision, also due to

181
the mistake of a signalman—again I have the official Report in my hand—in which more than forty people were injured.
I subsequently attended the general meeting of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company's shareholders and reverted to the speech of Mr. Whitelaw at Bradford, repeating at the same time some of the remarks that I had made to your Lordships on the subject of increasing safety by making up lost time. Though this was after both these accidents had taken place, Mr. Whitelaw, in answering me, still had the assurance to say:
"Lord Monkswell's view upon this subject is his view and not mine, and I say deliberately that in my judgment he is talking nonsense from top to bottom."
When any one makes statements of this kind, which are demonstrably at variance with recent facts within his knowledge, it is fair to say that he is showing contempt for the intelligence of his audience. The audience before whom this last remark was made was a general meeting of the shareholders of whose interests he is, more than any man alive, the trustee. I have thought it right to give the London and North-Eastern Railway Company notice of my intention of making these last remarks, as it is only fair that they should be given an opportunity of answering them by the mouth of one of their directors who have seats in this Assembly. If no answer is forthcoming, your Lordships will not fail to draw your own conclusions. The position is that the clique already referred to has applied its policy of resistance to change with such iron rigidity and such complete success that it has hopelessly overreached itself and manœuvred itself into a position which is tenable only so long as public attention is not directed to it. Hence come these desperate measures of evasion and concealment to which the managements habitually resort. This is, I know, a strong statement, but I am prepared to substantiate every word of it at a public Inquiry.
Ridiculous statements are often made to the effect that the railways have already reached the limit of their development. The fact is that, as a means of rapid transport, the possibilities of railways have hardly been considered. In safety, reliability, comfort and economy, the railway possesses, and so far as can
182
be seen will always possess, advantages with which the aeroplane and motor car cannot compete. To raise railway speeds to those of ordinary commercial aeroplanes is merely a matter of perseverance tinged with imagination. I have with me the official record of a recent run on the Pennsylvania Railway, in which a train of weight sufficient to accommodate at least 150 passengers ran 216 miles at an average sped of 74 miles per hour. A four minutes stop and several prolonged slowings were included. The train was worked by one of the ordinary steam locomotives of the company. If speeds such as this were introduced into this country very nearly three hours would be knocked off the time of the fastest train between King's Cross and Edinburgh. It is quite certain that this is only the beginning of the accelerations which are possible. The railway managements wish permanently to deprive us of that mobility which the railways offer us. Why should we acquiesce in a policy so blind and imbecile?
I have ventured to revert, to this subject sooner than I should otherwise have done because I understand that the railway companies intend shortly to introduce a Bill to extend their powers to run road vehicles, and that a considerable amount of lobbying is now going on, with a view to ensuring the passage of that Bill through another place. If we wait until that Bill has reached this House any action on our part will be futile. In all the circumstances I do not see how the Government can refuse the Inquiry for which I ask without laying themselves open to the charge of aiding and abetting the policy of concealment which alone makes possible a continuance of the present system, and I do most emphatically say that the railway companies of this country, till they have purged themselves of the vices which are obvious to any one who has studied their history, but which are too technical for the general public to grasp, are unfit to be entrusted with largely extended powers.
If these powers are accorded them we may confidently expect to see them use their vast financial resources to stifle competition and hold up reasonable improvements on the roads as they have done on the railways. To avoid any possibility of mistake I must repeat what

183
I have said many times before, that in making these charges against the official clique as a whole, I fully recognise that there are many individual railway officials both enlightened and progressive, whose first desire is to give the public a good service. The pity is that they can make so little headway against the massed obstruction of their colleagues. I beg to move.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to assure the noble Lord that Mr. Whitelaw was not the only person who made uncomplimentary remarks about his speech, either in this House or outside of it. I and others have made uncomplimentary remarks too. I did not hear his speech, but I remember reading it. He accused the companies of not accelerating the speed of their services, and again quoted an illustration taken from America. My view is that so far from being slack in the acceleration of their services they go in too much for speed. Take the two trains running from Edinburgh and Glasgow to the South. No doubt in some sense those trains are a good advertisement for the companies, but personally I believe they are perfectly unnecessary. The saving in time is very little, and really it is a waste of energy. If the noble Lord agitated for improvement with regard to the cross-country services I should be with him. There are lines not taken advantage of for the convenience of passengers going from East to West, and so forth. There are also a number of details of minor importance, as to which I agree with him the management might be more alive to the wants of the public.
He accused the companies, finally, of wishing to stifle competition by having power over the roads in the running of motor traffic. I agree with him to a certain extent as to the disaster arising from lack of competition, but that is not the fault of the companies but the fault of the Government, who passed the Act for the amalgamation of the railways. I believe that that amalgamation has had the most disastrous effect, and that Government interference on that occasion, and on others, with regard, for instance, to the number of hours worked by railway servants, has done nothing but impair the efficiency of what I believe to be the very best railway system that the world has ever seen. If, as a result of
184
this Inquiry for which the noble Lord has asked, there was further legislation, I should look upon it as most disastrous. I fancy that individual enterprise, shown by that most competent body of men, the railway experts, may fairly be trusted to have the best interests of the public at heart.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord who introduced this subject was really very sanguine that it would be possible for the Government to accede to his request, because he, I think, menaced the Government with being held in some way responsible for what he considered the shortcomings of the companies, if they did not agree to this Inquiry. There is a singular amplitude, if I may say so, about the Inquiry which the noble Lord desires. Your Lordships will observe that it is an Inquiry "into the record of the railway companies of Great Britain," and these subjects have to be particularly dealt with.
First of all, what is the period that the Inquiry is to cover? It is "the century for which railways have been in existence." I can recall a good many Government Inquiries, but I cannot, for the moment, think of any which covers such a period as a century. Further than that, they have to consider "the progress in the facilities offered to the public"—whether they have been "reasonable." I suppose that that would involve going into every one of the changes or improvements that have occurred during the last century, and examining carefully to see whether those facilities have been reasonable or not. Again, it is to inquire "whether reasonable encouragement has been given to new inventions." Surely that is a very difficult thing to enquire into. There have been innumerable persons with new inventions and patents, hundreds of which have been pressed upon the railway companies. I am afraid that many of these gentlemen have now passed out of existence during the century which has elapsed since the railways began to run, and therefore, I think, it would be an exceedingly difficult and wide subject into which to inquire. Again, it is to inquire "whether facilities have deliberately been withheld from the public." These negative propositions are notoriously very difficult to investigate,

185
and I am not quite sure that I see how it would be possible to show, over that long period of time, what facilities have been withheld or given to the public.
LORD MONKSWELL: I am able to give the noble Viscount any number of them, if he will arrange for an Inquiry.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord's Question goes on: "and in case things are found to be unsatisfactory, what step should be taken to put them right." That, no doubt, would be a matter for very long consideration. But one of the difficulties I find in considering the request of the noble Lord, is this. I cannot think of anybody who would be competent to conduct so stupendous an Inquiry. And even if you could discover somebody with the requisite knowledge, capacity, and experience, he would have to be, first of all, a centenarian of some standing. I can hardly think of anybody with the spaciousness of leisure requisite for so gigantic and roving a commission. And indeed, if the noble Lord himself were to enter into competition for the Chairmanship, I am afraid that he would find it very difficult to find colleagues who were competent enough to advise him on all these matters. I cannot think that so vast and roving a commission is necessary. Considering the number of Commissions already in being and the necessity of saving public time and expense, I really do not think that the public advantage would be much served by an Inquiry of this kind.
I want to make two or three observations on the speech of the noble Lord. One is that, though an Inquiry of this kind would be beyond any practical possibility, the Government in its relation to the railways is by no means averse from specific inquiries on particular subjects. I note that during the last few weeks the Minister of Transport has appointed two Departmental Committees, one to consider the question of the standardisation of railway electrical equipment, and another to consider the question of automatic train control. I had, as a matter of fact, armed myself, in view of the possible criticism of the noble Lord, with a long list of improvements that have been introduced on the railways during the last century. But
186
the list is so long and so complicated that perhaps your Lordships will acquit me of the necessity of reading it out.
I think the most important part of the noble Lord's speech was directed to the question of new powers for the railways. Railways, he said, are seeking for new powers to run transport over the roads. I think it is a little hard upon the railways, I am bound to say, that, when they have been abused so much and so vigorously and in such unmeasured language by the noble Lord for their neglect of opportunities and their lack of originality, the moment they do display some desire to burst out in a new direction and run a service over the roads they are severely criticised for the efforts they are trying to make. And I am bound to say I do not see any reason to suppose, from the noble Lord's advocacy, that if they did get these powers there would be very much chance for them to run all the other transport companies off the roads, because he has already told us that they are so singularly incompetent in the management of their own business that it is difficult to believe that, if they transferred their energies to another business, they would be any more successful. So that I do not think we need be very anxious as to any trouble in that direction.
I was very glad indeed, however, to hear the noble Lord's opinion, because as a small shareholder in one of the railways I had not noticed from the size of the dividends that they had such a large amount of money to distribute, or such vast funds on which they might call for the setting up of other transport systems. But, of course, this is a very difficult problem. I understand that some of the railway companies are introducing Bills this autumn, which will probably come before your Lordships next year, asking for powers to run services over the roads. Those Bills will be considered when they come before your Lordships, and I think you will agree with me that it would be premature at the present moment if, before seeing these Bills and the measures they advocate, I should try to give any indication of what might be the attitude of the Government towards them.
There are only two observations I should like to make in addition, first with reference to the organisation of the

187
railways. Your Lordships will very well remember that the whole matter was very fully reviewed in 1921, only six years ago, and a Tribunal was set up, specially constituted, to deal with systems of rates and charges and other matters, and I understand that the new scheme of rates and charges, as examined and decided upon by the Tribunal, will take effect from January 1 next. No doubt the noble Lord who introduced the subject will study that with his usual sympathy for the activities of the railways. Then there is the other point about facilities. That is one of the subjects which the noble Lord wanted to introduce into his proposed Inquiry. I should like to call his attention to Section 16 of the Act to which I have referred, which increased the scope of the applications which might be made for affording improved services, facilities and conveniences, with a view to securing and promoting the public safety or the interests of the public, or of a trade, or of any locality; so that there seem to be considerable powers given to those persons who have a locus in the matter to take action under Section 16, and to ask for new facilities, if they are required.
The only other point dealt with by the noble Lord was in reference to some rather critical observations, as they appeared to me, made by the Chairman of one of the great railway companies upon some speech made by the noble Lord. That is, as he will agree, a purely domestic matter, and it would be very presumptuous in me to interfere in any controversy carried on between the noble Lord and the Chairman of that railway. In conclusion, I think I am bound to refuse the request of the noble Lord, because I have shown that this Inquiry for which he asks is so wide, and embraces such an immense number of subjects, that it would be almost wasting the public time if such a far-reaching Inquiry were set up by the Government.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I always think it is a pity that the noble Lord who sits on the Cross Benches uses such violent language in regard to this question. There are a great many important points about the railways which could be debated in this House with great advantage, but he always seems to imagine that every railway director is a criminal, or nearly a criminal, and that
188
all railways are managed extremely badly. I suppose they are like all other businesses in the world: there is good management and bad management; and mistakes have been made in the past by railways, which I suppose the railway companies would themselves acknowledge. Of course, the railways at the present moment are having rather a hard time owing to bad trade, and the competition of road transport, and other things. I do not know whether the noble Lord's motto is "When a man is down do not hit him, but kick him"; but he seems to have taken this opportunity of rubbing it into the railway companies that they have not done all they could.
I stand in a more or less independent position. I was brought up on steam railways, and later on I studied mechanical transport, including motor vehicles. I am not interested either way financially, but, taking a wide survey, certainly the British railways to-day are the best managed railways in the world. Whether particular railways are well managed is a different point. Of course, in some cases their speed is not what it might be, and there I agree with the noble Lord. When we read about non-stop runs and trains running, with a great flourish of trumpets, between London and Edinburgh and only stopping once, that is rather a stunt. We read of an eight and a quarter hours' run on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, the train only stopping at Carlisle, and on the London and North Eastern Railway only at Newcastle, but those runs are only done in the same time as a train occupied this time last year, when it was done habitually every day, with either two or three more stops, as the case may be. As a matter of fact, if the public only knew it, this non-stop train runs at a considerably lower average speed than ordinary trains ran at years ago. I have worked it out that if this non-stop train ran at anything like the average fast speed of trains on the Great Western Railway more than half-an-hour would be taken off the time occupied in making the journey.
LORD MONKSWELL: It would be more like an hour and a half.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: However that may be, these non-stop trains have been of some advantage. They were responsible for the introduction of the principle of water troughs

189
between the rails to an extent which did not exist before, and they have shown that a modern locomotive can run three hundred miles or so without a stop; which is quite a long run. In regard to what was said about road transport by my noble friend who replied for the Government, I do not propose to deal with that at any length today because I hope to place a Motion on the Paper in the coarse of a week or so dealing with the whole question of transport, in connection with which the forms of transport used by the railways can be considered. It is a big and interesting subject and it could hardly be raised to-day. Those who talk about railway companies and road transport sometimes forget that the railway companies already have over 35,000 vehicles on the road, nearly 6,000 of which are motor vehicles; so they are very large users of motor transport to-day. The railway companies have nearly all the powers they require for the purpose, and the road transport people are not as yet really terrified at the idea of the railway companies taking to road transport.
I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that if any inquiry is wanted it should not be one which looks back into the past but one which enquires how we can, to use a long word, co-ordinate all our traffic. What the railway companies will have to do in the future is of very much more importance than what they have done in the past. Supposing they have been as criminal as my noble friend alleges they have been, they can reform themselves, other people have done the same thing, and I would suggest to the Government that if there is to be an inquiry into this matter it should consider what could be done in the future to enable the railway companies to earn their bread in a reasonable manner. It seems to me that noble Lords do not realise the extent of the depreciation in the cumulative value of the stock of our great railways. I took the values out yesterday and found that they amount to £790,000,000 out of a nominal total of rather over £1,200,000,000. From that it will be seen that one-third of their value has been knocked off already. That is a very considerable loss. It varies, of course, on the different railways. So far as one can see, there is not much chance of that valuation going up, at any rate for
190
a very considerable time to come. So that whatever they may have done, the railways have been severely punished by the loss of one-third of their capital value.
Really the railways need more capital and, with all respect, they want more initiative enterprise and more elasticity in their work. You cannot get more money unless you can establish confidence in the minds of financiers. The railway companies used to be able to raise money very nearly as cheaply as the Government could raise it; but everybody knows that they cannot raise money on the same terms to-day. They could only do it at the expense of the junior stocks. Supposing the railways doubled some of their main lines, I think they would add very extensively to their business, and in view of the competition on the road it would probably be wise if they did something like that. It seems to me to be quite a natural thing that they should ask to get out on the road. The mistake they have made is in not doing it before. They ought to have done it more than twenty years ago. It has been done by other railways in many other countries. It has been done in France and in the United States. There are, I believe, about eighty companies in America which have road transport. In England the railway companies have been very slow to take it up.
It must, however, be said for the railways that they have done a great deal for the trade of this country. Over and over again they have helped the traders, and I think it ought fairly to be said that at the present moment they are rather between the devil and the deep sea, because if they lower their rates for the benefit of trade generally they will have to reduce their dividends, and if they increase the rates they will affect trade. The fact is that the big railway labour organisations have been able to keep wages from going down. I congratulate Mr. J. H. Thomas on having worked his union up to such a pitch that it can command higher wages than almost any other body in the country. But every ton of goods and every passenger carried over the railways pays too much in proportion for labour as compared with other means of transport. Let us take, for example, a parcel going from Harrod's Stores or any big store of that description to any destination in the country. I have taken the figures out and I find that a parcel

191
going by rail is handled nine times as against being handled only twice if it goes by road. That means that every time the most expensive thing in the world, the human hand, touches a parcel, the price of transport must be put up. It is the handling, the want of elasticity, and the number of times that an article has to be handled which really puts up the cost of transport by rail.
It is a very big problem for my noble friends whether and how they can bring down their labour costs. As far as they can they are doing away with the expenses of the smaller stations, and in my opinion they ought, to do away with many more of those smaller stations altogether. Their branch lines are not feeders; most of them are suckers. If those suckers were cut off they could be made in many cases into motor roads. The railway companies ought also to run lighter and more frequent trains wherever possible. I have a whole heap of suggestions that I could make, but it is not my business to make them now. There may be opportunities of doing that later on. The time may come for the railway companies when, if they cannot pay reasonable dividends, these questions will have to be faced. If the companies are not serving certain parts of the country as they should do that contingency will also arise. Some noble Lords have been, no doubt, to the great commercial show at Olympia and I expect have seen staring them in the face the future of transport, which is mainly on the road and only to a certain extent on the railways. There are motor omnibuses there which will carry sixty-eight people. The average bogey third-class coach takes only seventy-two or, in the case of the larger ones, eighty passengers. Some of the motor vehicles running on the roads now will carry almost as many people as the largest-sized passenger coach of twice their length. I think it is more evident than ever that transport, as a whole, is going on to the road and the railways will have a hard time to live. I think they will eventually have to cut down their expenses far more than they have yet done.
May I say one other word in conclusion? I am afraid I take rather a gloomy view of the future of all rail traction. I think that the rail has had its day in tramways and in railways. I do not say that
192
the railways will not be useful for the purpose of conveying certain classes of goods. I do not say they will not be used for some purposes for many years to come, but the trend of development is towards free-wheel vehicles and to the road. That need not necessarily kill railways if the railways take steps in time, if they get on to the road, as they should have done before. But it is quite clear that all rail traction is going to suffer more and more as each year goes by, and nothing done politically or in this House can alter that trend. The change is going on all over the world, in every country where there are railways and roads. In America, in France, indeed everywhere, you hear the same complaint. Therefore if there is to be an inquiry I think it should be into the future—as to how railways might be able to earn reasonable dividends—without delving into the past. I am not going further into the question of road transport to-day because that is a subject which in itself would justify a debate.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, you will agree that the speech to which we have just listened fully justifies the noble Lord on the Cross Benches in having once more brought this matter before your Lordships' House. It also illustrates a favourite theme of mine, that your Lordships' House can produce experts on every subject which comes up for discussion. In the noble Lord who has just spoken we have an expert on the subject of traction, whether upon railways or roads. Our thanks are due to the noble Lord on the Cross Benches for having once more brought this subject before your Lordships' House for discussion. His persistence has made this an annual affair. I think that it will continue to be an annual affair, and that members of your Lordships' House will be able to discuss the methods of transport every year with regard to the special circumstances of the time. In view of that I regret the tone of the speech of the noble Viscount who responded on behalf of His Majesty's Government. This thing is not entirely to be treated as a jest; it is a serious matter. I can assure the noble Viscount that as time goes on we shall ensure that this matter is to be treated more seriously than he has treated it to-night.
This has been a useful discussion. It is a difficult subject, because members

193
of your Lordships' House, unless you have special knowledge of it, can speak upon it only from the point of view of your personal experience. Those of you who travel by one railway can speak of what happens on that railway, but it is difficult for you to speak of what happens, on another railway upon which you do not travel. If I may be allowed to say so, I am glad to see the noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Great Western Railway, present. His railway ranks among the first in this country. It is in the first rank and, being in the first rank, I hope it will continue to do even better in the future. I hope the noble Viscount will not allow his company to rest upon its laurels, but will see that it continues to remain in the very first rank. I should like to speak from personal experience and to say a word on behalf of a railway which is much too often decried and that is the Southern Railway. I think the Southern Railway does provide, for a great many of the places upon its system, a very good and a very punctual service. Unfortunately the newspapers have chosen to make it a subject of comment, but with one or two exceptions—I will not refer to those exceptions—the Southern Railway does, I think, on the whole, provide quite a good service, in spite of one or two exceptions which I shall not mention.
For my own part I think that an inquiry of some kind would be very useful. I find it very difficult, to get useful statistics upon this subject. I want to know a great deal more about railways than I can find out at the present time. I confess that there is a great deal to be said for more speed upon the railways than we get at the present time. I remember a friend of mine amongst the friends I have who are directors of railway companies, saying on one occasion that he did not think the British public wanted speed upon the railway. I wholly disagree with that. I am sure we do need speed. We want to move as quickly as we possibly can. It is difficult for me to speak upon this subject because the railways in some instances are so slow that I prefer, as many of your Lordships do, to go by motor car, which is in some cases faster than the railway service which is provided for us. I think an inquiry of some kind would be useful. The noble Viscount scoffed at the idea of inquiry.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not scoff at the idea of inquiry; I scoffed at the idea of an inquiry extending back to one hundred years.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Whatever the noble Viscount may say he deprecated the idea of inquiry. I am here tempted to give an example of what the Government of which he is an ornament do when they want an Inquiry. When they want an Inquiry they generally refer to my friends in order to find a suitable Chairman. Whether it be upon a question of coal or upon a question of India they come to my friends in order to find the most suitable person to preside over any Inquiry which His Majesty's Government may wish to have upon the subject. But so far as the general question is concerned I think we may perhaps on another occasion go into this in a little more detail. We want a little more knowledge with regard to the statistical aspect of the railways. The noble Lord mentioned a fact which is not generally known with regard to the speed on railways. It is realty only a stunt to speak of a non-stop run from England to Scotland when it is slower than a run with stops at two or three places on the way.
I want to know a little more in regard to the real speed which our railways give us. I think we might know a great deal more about the speed which might be given to us on the railways if they were inclined to give us the speed to which modern engineering and science give us the key. I believe if some of these railways in the North were to give us the admirable speed which is given by the railway of the noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Great Western Railway, upon some portions of his line, the journey to Scotland would be shortened very appreciably. I really do not know why we should not have some reason given to us as to why that is not done. I think that in most matters a public Inquiry is a very useful thing and in this matter I am quite sure it would be equally useful, not perhaps upon the extensive scale to which the noble Viscount objects, but upon some scale that perhaps we might think over between now and next year when we shall have another discussion upon the subject.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think this is the third occasion upon which

195
I have heard the noble Lord on the Cross Benches deliver an elaborate treatise in the shape of an attack upon the railway companies, and upon each occasion he has been fortunate enough to obtain the approval of somebody. On the previous occasion I think he was thanked by the Government representative for his interesting statement. I did not observe any gratitude, however, in the tone of my noble friend Lord Peel, when he made his reply. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp has, however, expressed his gratification at the speech. It seems to me that if anybody is to express any gratitude at all, the persons who ought to do it, are the railway directors, because the astonishing weakness of the attack is such that the more the noble Lord goes on the more public opinion will take the side of the railway directors.
LORD MONKSWELL: Will the noble Lord deal with the precise facts which I stated?
LORD NEWTON: I did not get any facts from the noble Lord. The noble Lord appears to be one of those persons who are under the impression that the great object of railway directors is to prevent the public from travelling and to put every possible impediment in their way. That is the burden of his remarks. I remember once seeing in Paris a representation in which the travelling public were portrayed expressing great indignation more or less in the terms employed by the noble Lord in the course of the debate. They were met by a station-master who expostulated with them and said: "What unreasonable people you are. Why on earth do you travel at all? Look at me, I do not travel." The noble Lord appears to be under the impression that that is the permanent attitude of railway directors in this country. The noble Lord would have made more impression, certainly upon me, if he had brought forward any facts in support of his denunciation, but I have never been able precisely to find out what it is he wants. I think I am getting nearer to it now. What I gather the noble Lord wants is a public Inquiry at which he shall appear himself and put forward his case against the railway directors. I am not at all sure that he is going to get any support for that unless it is from the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. I do
196
not think there is any general desire upon the part of the public that there should be an inquiry at all.
What I submit to the noble Lord is that when he comes forward and makes these ridiculous charges he might at all events cite one country where railways are better administered than they are here and where the public is better served. I presume the noble Lord has travelled, probably he has travelled extensively. Perhaps before we adjourn he will cite some country where railways really are better managed than they are here. I have some experience of travelling—I do not think I am at all insular in my disposition—but I say unhesitatingly that there is no country in the world, so far as I am aware, where the public is served so well. Until he can give concrete instances where the public in other countries are better served I think the noble Lord may well leave the subject alone.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think perhaps, if I may say so without offence, the generalisation of the charges made by the noble Lord who introduced the subject, and perhaps the occasionally unfortunate phraseology, do a good deal to damage his cause, but I do not think that we ought to part from the subject quite on the note of the noble Lord who has last spoken, that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds and that railway directors have nothing for which they need amend their ways. I think the general public certainly have grievances against the railways. I think there are many ways we can all think of, and of which we all have experience, in which travel for the public might be made more comfortable than it is now. It may be that in other countries it is worse than here, but it is not so good here as it might be, and do not let us go away with the impression that it is.
First of all it is true that speeds might be increased. On the journey to Edinburgh I am told there are perfectly wonderful runs made to Carlisle and perhaps to Newcastle, but I am also told—I do not know whether any of the competent noble Lords I see opposite will tell us whether it is true or not—that there is an agreement between the railway companies that nobody is to get to Edinburgh in less than 8¼ hours. If that is true I do not know that that agree-

197
ment is necessarily in the interests of the public. That seems to me to be a sort of thing that might be brought out in an inquiry. Then there is the question of the present very high fares. I think the first class fare is 2½d. per mile or something like that. I was travelling by railway on Monday and that was the fare. The sort of accommodation that was given for that very high price was that on a very cold day people had to travel in a carriage fitted for steam heat which was not heated, and supplied with three lamps in the roof—in order no doubt that it might be illustrated in the newspapers as the latest type of rolling stock—of which only one was lighted. That is the sort of way in which passengers are treated and of which passengers complain.
Then there is another point, which has not been touched upon to-day. It has always seemed to me to be a legitimate grievance of the travelling public that, alone among those who carry the public, alone among those who are allowed to carry the public for profit, railway companies are allowed to carry them without giving them seats so that they have to stand in the trains. That seems an injustice to a person who has paid for a seat. It is so common that apparently it is treated as being a normal thing and as something which railway companies have not to apologise for. I am inclined to think that in that matter, and perhaps in some other matters, there is room for two or three clauses to be added to the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act and to be included in all Railway Bills, putting some obligation of that sort upon the companies. The public are not treated by any means with that consideration with which they might be treated, and I think no one will deny that there are many ways in which they are not treated with the common sense with which they might be treated. There are various restrictions imposed which have their roots apparently in—what shall I say?—in the formal brains of those at headquarters. It is also true—it may be rightly true, but it is undoubtedly true—that railway shareholders cannot be said to have any very effective control over their boards. No doubt if there were cause for real dissatisfaction,
198
serious dissatisfaction, they could take steps, but in fact and practice they have very little control.
I do not think we ought to part from this subject without recognising that there are matters in which there might be considerable improvement, and particularly matters dealing with the comfort of the public and the fares which are charged. In saying that I ought also to endorse what was said by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which of course we all recognise. Railway companies financially are in a very difficult position and they deserve really the greatest sympathy for that reason. They have immense difficulties of a financial kind to trouble them, and they are compelled to put up their rates for passengers and for goods to a figure which I am perfectly sure they do not wish to adopt. That is a misfortune which perhaps time may remove, but something can be done to remedy it, and something I believe is being done, by administration of the railways and by economy. But I do not think that economies which lead to the putting out of lights in railway carriages and the absence of heat in cold weather are desirable forms of economy. Since there are so many noble Lords opposite who are interested in railways I take the opportunity of presenting them with that complaint.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not know that there is a great deal for me to say in reply to this debate. The trouble I find is that when I come here and give the most precise particulars time after time, exactly when everything happened and where, somebody like Lord Newton gets up and says he has no particulars. I do not know what is to be done. I do not know what he means. If he would do me the honour to listen to what I say, or if he would go through my past speeches he would find them absolutely crammed full of particulars of the most precise kind. I do not consider I have made one single remark that has not been most carefully thought out from every point of view. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, deplored the vigour of my language. Again, what am I to do? I have taken an interest in railways all my life, I have had endless interviews with railway directors and railway officials, I have put suggestions before them over

199
and over again with all the tact at my command—no doubt I am very deficient in that—but there it is, there is nothing done and there is not the least attempt to answer me.
The noble Lord has not taken hold of any single detail and given a definite answer. I do the best I can. All I can think of is to go on stating the facts in public and then perhaps gradually the drops of water will eat away the great cliff of opposition. It is extraordinarily difficult to think what more I can do. Nobody has answered my very definite statements. There is no definite answer forthcoming of any kind whatever. I do not know that it is worth while occupying your Lordships time very much further with this subject. One of the points to which I particularly wish to draw attention is that railway officials—not railway directors, they know nothing about it—railway officials are very strongly entrenched. One of their defences is the practical control of the Ministry of Transport, which was most carefully arranged by Sir Eric Geddes when he staffed the Ministry of Transport almost entirely by railway officials. I think some of them have been changed now, but the spirit is exactly the same. When the noble Viscount was answering me it was just as though railway officialdom were speaking. The voice was the voice of the noble Viscount, but the sentiments were the sentiments of the railway officials. That is really the trouble; but, after having said these few words, I propose to leave the matter for the present, I hope that my words will gradually sink in. I think they are bound to do so, because my case is a most extraordinarily good one and, I say again, has not been answered in any particular. In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SLAVERY IN SIERRA LEONE.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state what steps have lately been taken to deal with the question of slavery in Sierra Leone, and what further steps are being taken to bring about a total abolition of slavery in all its forms in the Colony, according to the terms of the
200
new Anti-slavery Convention issued by the League of Nations and ratified by this country; and to move for Papers The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I owe something of an apology to noble Lords for so often raising points regarding slavery and the status of slavery in the Dominions, but I think that your Lordships will agree that this is a matter to which public opinion ought to be directed and that the vigilance of members of your Lordships' House is well worth while. I need hardly say that my Question was not put down in any hostile spirit towards His Majesty's Government or the Colonial Office. On the contrary, I venture to congratulate them on the prompt action which they took in regard to this question of Sierra Leone as soon as it was raised and brought to their attention, and I think that possibly my noble friend opposite will welcome the opportunity of making some statement as to what has occurred.
The other day—I do not know how far noble Lords may have followed the question—a remarkable and somewhat unexpected judgment was given by the Appellate Court in Sierra Leone. The decision practically came to this: that in British territory the body of one man belongs so absolutely to another that the master is entitled under the law forcibly to capture a runaway slave and to take him back to his work. I think that this decision of a majority of the Court came as a surprise to the Colonial Office, and it certainly came as a shock to the public opinion in this country which takes an interest in these things. That a slave should in British territory be in the power of his master when he has escaped from him is certainly contrary to all our ideas regarding slavery. I remember that about fifty years ago there arose the case of what was called the slavery circular, directing our cruisers in certain circumstances to return slaves to their masters. We had one of the strongest of Governments in office at that time, but they had to give way—though it was all due to a misunderstanding—because public opinion was so averse from such action.
I think it has also come as something of a surprise and a shock to many people to find that, apart from this question of returning a runaway slave to his master,

201
slavery in a certain form should exist at all in one of our Colonies and be tacitly allowed to continue. I should like to say at once that I do not impugn for a moment the judgment given by a majority of two Judges out of three, who were quite obviously deciding the matter solely on the legal position. The fact remains that there was this very considerable loophole in existing legislation under which a runaway slave could be returned to his master. Public attention was drawn to the matter by Sir John Simon in a very forcible letter, and the Press and the public generally took up the question as one of serious import. I should like to add that I am quite certain that it required no pressure from outside to induce the Colonial Office to take action in this matter. So far as I personally have had anything to do with the Colonial Office, I have always found that in these matters of status or of domestic slavery they have taken an enlightened and progressive view. In this matter they at once took action of their own volition and, in conjunction with the Government of Sierra Leone, at once introduced and passed an Ordinance abolishing the status of slavery for the future. I venture again to congratulate them upon their action and upon the promptitude with which it was taken.
I recognise, of course, that the so-called slavery in Sierra Leone is not quite the slavery of the old days, when true slavery was abolished. It is what is called domestic slavery, but nevertheless it is a form of slavery. According to a Report of the late Governor, Sir Ransford Slater, it varies very much in different parts of the Colony and is in some parts much more of a real servitude than in others. At the same time he points out that even this domestic slavery is demoralising to the employer and debasing to the slave, while I need hardly say that it is utterly opposed to ordinary ideas of English justice and English law. He also points out that economically, from the point of view of the Colony itself, it is a very serious stumbling-block in the way of development. It is not necessary, however, to go into the past history of the question of slavery in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone—and I ought perhaps, in my earlier remarks, to have distinguished between the Colony itself and the Protectorate, which is undeveloped and under the control practically of the chiefs. It is
202
in the latter part only that this slavery has existed. From time to time attention has been drawn to it and various steps have been taken to reduce it gradually, but there have always been difficulties in the way of abolishing it altogether. Even the late Governor, Sir Ransford Slater, who had this matter very much at heart, in his final recommendation to the Colonial Office before he left pointed out that we must proceed more or less by degrees. His proposal was that every child born in slavery should be freed, and on the death of an owner of slaves all the slaves should become free and no compensation should be paid. It would, of course, have taken a generation before that plan could be carried through, but fortunately, if I may be allowed to say so, we have now had this judgment which has enabled the Colonial Office and His Majesty's Government to take immediate action, to cut the knot and to remove the difficulty.
I admit that this Protectorate is largely undeveloped and uncivilised and there will probably be some difficulty in enforcing this abolition of the status of slavery. I am sure, however, that the matter will be undertaken with great care and great tact, and I think we may trust those on the spot to carry it out with the best results and with the least friction. Already similar steps have been taken in the Gold Coast in Nigeria and in Gambia, without any difficulty, though I admit that those Colonies are more developed and civilised than Sierra Leone, where there may be some obstacles. These, however, ought not to stand in the way of an immediate application of this Ordinance to Sierra Leone. My purpose in rising is to ask my noble friend to give us such information as he can in regard to this matter and to assure us, as I am sure he will, that the status of slavery in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone will be abolished without qualification, without delay and without compensation. We should like also to know something as to the methods by which the Administration proposes to carry out this Ordinance. My noble friend very courteously sent me a copy of the new Ordinance, the main proposition of which is that the legal status of slavery is hereby declared to be abolished throughout the Protectorate.
I would ask his attention to this point in connection with this Ordinance. It is

203
unfortunate that Sierra Leone has copied, in that Ordinance, that very pernicious habit of legislation by reference. This Ordinance is the worst case that I have seen of legislation by reference, and I would ask the noble Lord whether, in a matter of this sort, in which we want to know how the matter stands, the Ordinance cannot be reprinted, as it is now the law of Sierra Leone, repealing all the previous Orders. After all it is difficult enough for some of us, who have had experience of these matters, to understand this Ordinance, and how much more difficult must it be for the native chiefs and others to know what is the effect of the Ordinance. I would, therefore, commend to the noble Lord the re-enactment of the Ordinance in a better form.
As I said just now, I am anxious for information as to what is going to be done in order to carry out effectively the abolition of the status of slavery in Sierra Leone, and I thought that the simplest way of asking for information was to put a series of questions. I took the opportunity of sending a copy of those questions to my noble friend, so that he would be in a position to know exactly what information I desired to ask of him. With the leave of the House I will read those questions which I have sent to the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office. The information required is, firstly, as to the administrative machinery for informing the 200,000 slaves of their right to be free, so that—and this is the second point—before the Ordinance comes into force, and under the Ordinance, the owners shall be left no loophole for depositing their slaves, by means of pawning, etc., with their tribal relations, over the Liberian border. We previously saw a great deal of this in the direction of Liberian slaves being imported into Sierra Leone, and the fear is that the opposite may now take place.
The third question is: What administrative arrangements will be made for the care of any of the slaves who may be unable to care for themselves? There must be a considerable number of aged persons and others who have no means of subsistence, and who are unable to take care of themselves, and who would therefore require aid from the Administration. The last is a very important point. It is: How do the Administration
204
propose to deal with the question of the steps that should be taken in regard to the allotment of land and roaming forest rights for the slaves given their freedom, so that they may become economic units, and what steps will be taken to protect, on the one hand, the rights of the chiefs in regard to the collection of kernels, and, on the other, to secure that the freed slaves will have an opportunity of collecting? The House would like to know on what sort of lines that question will be dealt with.
In my question I refer to the League of Nations, because we have put our hands to a Slavery Convention, under which we and other nations agree that every vestige of slavery, of all sorts, is to be abolished within our Dominions. This is a step carrying out our obligations under the League of Nations, and therefore I need not further refer to it, except to say that I think that the League of Nations, in this matter, and in the publicity which has been given to it, has not only done in our case, but in other cases, very considerable service to the cause of the liberty of the slave and native races. I am glad that we have now made in our West African Colonies a clean sweep of every form of servitude or domestic slavery, by any name under which it goes, and I think we may therefore say, as I said just now, that startling as was the judgment given the other day, really out of that judgment has come great good, for this matter has been enabled to be dealt with rapidly, and is now by way of being decided.
So much with regard to Sierra Leone. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to add one question on a matter which affects the question of slavery, although I am afraid it is hardly within the noble Lord's competence to deal with it. At the same time, though I am not asking for an answer, I think he will admit that it is just as well to have the matter on record, so that it may receive full attention. The question has arisen lately with regard to the Blue Nile and Abyssinia. A question has arisen with regard to certain works and who should do them, and we know that various firms were prepared to tender for the works. Some time ago there was a communication in The Times, the substance of which I would like to read to the House. It

205
affects the question of slavery. It is from The Times correspondent in Washington, and it says:—
"The Department of Commerce has just issued an appeal to American capital to enter Abyssinia, an almost virgin field for productive effort. … In a recent statement to the Press the Abyssinian Regent suggested that American capitalists should employ the slaves, who still constitute a large part of the population, for development of coffee, rubber and copper, paying the slave-owners a yearly sum for five years as a rental for this human property, after which the slaves should be 'free,' although the nature and degree of this freedom was not defined."
I understand that we are in such a position with regard to Abyssinia that under Treaty we have a right of interference and veto in regard to any big undertaking, such as the Blue Nile undertaking, before it is carried out.
This occurred not long ago, but no attention was drawn to it, and I think it is worth while drawing attention to it now, as there seems an almost certain prospect of the Blue Nile works being undertaken under the auspices of Abyssinia. Abyssinia is a country which has joined the League of Nations and has signed the Slavery Convention, although it has not yet abolished slavery, and I think it is well, before things go too far, that the British Government should be aware of the position. I am certain that they will give the matter their best attention, and take care that under our auspices, in agreement with Abyssinia, nothing of this sort is allowed with regard to public improvements for which we have a responsibility.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I have been to Sierra Leone twice in my life—once in the 'eighties and once later. This question of slavery in Sierra Leone is a very interesting and curious one. Your Lordships must remember that when it was decided by England that she could not allow slavery in any part of the world, if she could possibly help it, Sierra Leone was the place where the slaves were dumped down, and a very curious state of affairs hag arisen there. These so-called slaves have a peculiar language of their own, and that is one of the difficulties which have met every Governor and every statesman who has had to deal with this matter. Let me give you an
206
instance of this. Supposing one of these natives of Sierra Leone, these so-called slaves, wishes to tell you that his master is dying. He says: "He lived for die." That has begun to be understood. Then we come to a much later period in the 'nineties; when I was there then I saw a tremendous change. They were independent, they brought their wares to market and sold them in the open market, and they seemed quite happy and contented. I remember that there had been a very heavy storm of rain—what they call a tornado—and the whole place was cool and comfortable. These so-called domestic slaves were very different people from what they were before.
The noble Earl has mentioned the collection of kernels. I do not really know whether the chiefs make these domestic slaves collect kernels or not. There is no doubt they did make them do it, and derived a great benefit from it. But you must remember that now, according to the International Convention with the object of securing the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, we have agreed with all the nations, Commonwealths, and Dominions to put a stop to this slavery to the best of our ability. I have this International Convention before me, and it is very satisfactory to know that practically the whole world, in agreement with us, is quite determined to stop slavery in any form whatsoever. But you must also remember that this domestic slavery at Sierra Leone was not by any means a great hardship on these men. A domestic slave at all events was well treated—it did not pay to treat him badly—he had plenty to eat (a very important thing for the native races there) and he was well looked after and kept warm—because sometimes it is very cold there. I need say no more, but, having been in the country and seen the immense change that has taken place, I thought it only right to address your Lordships upon this subject.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, I should like in the first place to thank the noble Earl who raised this debate for affording an opportunity of making a statement on behalf of the Colonial Office, for the courteous manner in which he has brought the matter forward, and

207
the notice he has given of the special questions which he wished to have dealt with. I do not think that the noble Earl would wish me to go at any length into the history of domestic slavery in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, but I do think it is necessary to say that the moment the British Government took over the Protectorate of Sierra Leone slavery in the ordinary sense ceased. It was decided then that it was impossible, in view of tribal customs, to depart from the state of domestic slavery which existed, but in 1896 and 1901 regulations were passed, under which any person who so wished could very simply, merely on a payment of £4, pass out of the state of domestic slavery. Twenty-three separate Ordinances were made improving their conditions up to the year 1926, which is the first period with which I think it is necessary for me to deal.
In that year Sir Ransford Slater brought forward an Ordinance by which he freed all persons to be born in the Protectorate after the passing of the Ordinance, and by which all persons treated as slaves should become free on the death of their masters. The Ordinance also reiterated an already established provision of the law that no claims for, or in respect of, any slave should be entertained by any of the Courts of the Protectorate. He was evidently satisfied, as we see by his introductory speech in the Legislative Council, in which he said:—
"If you pass this Bill you will thereby remove the last vestige of recognition by local law of the status of slavery; I feel confident you will agree with me such a step was long overdue."
This was the position, as the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, has pointed out, until the time when the decision of the Courts was made last July, by which it was seen that the wish to abolish any recognition of slavery by law was not actually made effective. Action was immediately taken, and the Ordinance of September, 1927, was passed.
May I assure the noble Lord in a word that it is believed that the status of domestic slavery is abolished absolutely and finally, and this will be made known in the Protectorate with the least possible delay? The Government have fully considered the various methods by which it should be made known right through
208
the tribes. They have, after serious consideration, definitely rejected the idea of notifying them, so to speak, by the town-crier method, in the first place because the Ordinance is generally known, and some of the tribes, even as early as the 1926 Ordinance, already imagined that domestic slavery had been abolished. The Government considered that in order to avoid the difficulties of the matter, with two classes interested, the best way to proceed was by instructions given to the thirty-one political officers, directing them to take the action required in the spheres which they governed, and, during the period that would elapse until this Ordinance was thoroughly known and realised, to take in the Courts some of the cases which are generally dealt with in the Court of the Paramount Chief. In this way it is believed that information will go out from thirty-one centres, and the Government are satisfied that this will be known immediately throughout the length and breadth of the Protectorate.
With regard to the second point raised by the noble Earl as to the arrangements to be made to see that none of the present slaves are pawned over the Liberian frontier, action will be taken to see that that does not happen. I may point out that the approach to Liberia from Sierra Leone is remarkably difficult except by sea. It is through a jungle country, the paths are few and the whole approach between the two countries is for the most part, I should say, by sea. The next Question raised by the noble Earl was as to the administrative steps taken to look after those domestic slaves who are not able to look after themselves, and I would prefer to take the third and fourth questions together and to answer them as one. It is necessary to point out to your Lordships, I think, that the wealth of the country is in agriculture and that the system of agriculture in Sierra Leone is what is called chena or shifting cultivation. That system of cultivation is probably as nearly allied to the principle under which the Chinaman was supposed to burn his house down in order to roast pig as anything that exists. It is the worst form of cultivation. It has already reduced the forests of the Protectorate by nearly 90 per cent., most of which has been done during the period of

209
British occupation. That is one of the reasons why what I may call the town-crier method is not to be adopted—because it is not desired that any increase in the roaming or chena cultivation shall be made immediately.
The whole trend of cultivation, not only in Sierra Leone but in Nigeria, is as far as possible, by improved crop rotation, to fix the people on the soil and enable the forests, which are a necessary portion of native life, to exist to the maximum that is possible. As your Lordships are aware, Sierra Leone is in serious danger of suffering from lack of forests and any Ordinance or regulation which would induce further forest fires with a view to increasing the area of chena cultivation would be dangerous. There is a further point. It is important to follow out as far as possible the principle which has been accepted and under which the whole arrangements run—that the land belongs to the tribal authorities, and any interference with tribal authority is a thing to be deprecated to the greatest extent possible, Now that these slaves are set free any division of lands will be followed with the closest attention by the officers concerned. I may point out to the noble Earl that there is no great danger that these men will not get such land as they require, because although the term "domestic slave" is used, some of these men are sub-chiefs and headmen in their districts.
There is a further point which might alleviate any anxiety the noble Earl might feel. In the north the chief tribes believed that they were already entirely set free by the Ordinance of 1926, and they have already taken up land there in considerable quantities. I hope that these answers to his four questions will satisfy the noble Earl that everything is being done to give effect to the Ordinance with the least possible delay and the least possible derangement of existing conditions. No one who has read the debate which took place when this Ordinance was accepted can think too highly of the attitude of the Paramount Chiefs who, undoubtedly, were losing something by the passing of this Ordinance.
The noble Lord has raised another question regarding the making of the dam at Lake Tsana. I am glad indeed to hear that he is certain as to the
210
prospect of those works. I can imagine nothing which will more readily solve the Egyptian question and the Sudan question than the damming of that great lake which, I believe, has a capacity equal to the difference between a full normal flow and a flood on the Nile. Even if I knew I very obviously could not say anything at the present time about that.
EARL BUXTON: No.
LORD LOVAT: But I should like to inform the noble Earl that I will certainly bring this matter to the notice of the Department concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the very satisfactory answer he has given. That, no doubt, will be dealt with by the noble Earl. This question of slavery is one of far-reaching importance. It is true that the last relic of slavery in British Protectorates is in Sierra Leone and that it will come to an end under the Ordinance of 1927. I think there can be no doubt about that. But our Protectorate commenced there in 1895, as I think the noble Lord will agree, and since that date there have been in all twenty-three Ordinances, all of which have dealt more or less, if I may use that expression, with this question of slavery. It is unsatisfactory, no doubt, that the decision should have been given by a majority in the Appeal Court of Sierra Leone, that the status of slavery still existed. It was given in rather unfortunate circumstances, because what was held to be justified was the recapture of slaves who sought to escape from their masters. That is very much the question which was discussed by Lord Mansfield in the great Somerset case. I will not go into the legal aspect of it, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me, that what was said in Sierra Leone ought to have no bearing on the great principle laid down by Lord Mansfield—that so odious a condition as slavery could not be supported without extreme positive law in any civilised country. In that respect I hope that both the law and the general outlook are the same as they were in Lord Mansfield's day.
I dare say the noble Lord will recollect that this view has been reinforced by Sir Frederick Lugard, a great authority in these matters. Sir Frederick's view of the Ordinance, as the noble Lord knows, is that although you allow slavery

211
in the sense that so long as a slave desired to continue with his master he might accept that status and that it would be the status between them; yet that did not mean that if he wished to break the status he was not perfectly free to do so. That was the real question involved in the decisions to which attention has been called. I only wish to express my own view that Sir Frederick Lugard's dictum and his knowledge of the subject are perfectly accurate. We have always taken the foremost part in all those questions of freedom, particularly of slaves, and it can never, I think, be said again that slavery does exist in any part or any Protectorate of the British Empire. I also think it can be said to our honour—and I congratulate the Colonial Office upon it—that so soon as this decision, which, as I understand from the noble Lord, was a rather startling decision to them, was brought to their knowledge, they at once made up their mind to introduce the Ordinance, which I have carefully read, and which undoubtedly is sufficient to abolish slavery of all kinds in Sierra Leone in future. I feel what the noble Earl has said, that the Ordinance itself is a difficult one even for an English lawyer to understand. What the noble Lord has told us with regard to the method of ensuring that the natives shall have the advantage of all that is intended to be given to them under the Ordinance is entirely satisfactory. More than once I have criticised the present Government in relation to Conventions made at Geneva. We know that they ratified the Slavery Convention, and it is extremely gratifying to find that on the first occasion they have shown their loyalty to that ratification.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not rise to continue the debate for more than a very few moments. I should like, in the first place, if I may be allowed to do so, to thank my noble friend for the statement he has made as to the position, and I am quite sure that all your Lordships will agree with what Lord Parmoor has said, that nothing could have been more satisfactory and more loyal to the Slavery Convention than the action which the Government took the moment the decision of the Sierra Leone Court was announced. I do not think there is any
212
need for apprehension, such as was hinted at by my noble friend, Lord Parmoor, that anything that has happened in Sierra Leone can in any way interfere with the general principle laid down by Lord Mansfield. I do not anticipate that in any way. I can only say that if all the nations in the world will act as loyally and vigorously on the Slavery Convention as we have done, then slavery will very shortly be a thing of the past.
There is only one observation I may venture to make to my noble friend Lord Buxton. It is not quite true to say that the Slavery Convention was issued by the League of Nations. It may seem a very small point to take, but in view of the many misunderstandings of the League of Nations perhaps I may be allowed to point out that is not really what happened. The machinery of the League of Nations was utilised by the various Governments in order to make the Convention. The Convention was, of course, signed and ratified by the various Governments and was not in any sense issued by the League of Nations. But that is a small matter. There is another point on which I wish to add a word. My noble friend Lord Buxton referred to the question of Lake Tsana and the possibility, as I understood it, of the utilisation of slave labour for works which might or might not be carried out in that district, and he uttered what does seem to me to be—and I am sure my noble friend Lord Lovat would agree—a very necessary caution. We could not possibly consent, if we have any power to stop it, to a work being earned out for our benefit or the benefit of Egypt, by slave labour. That would be an intolerable situation to put us into.
I confess that Abyssinia does seem to me, if I may say so without indiscretion, to be the one black spot in the world with regard to slavery at the present time. All the accounts one reads of the state of things there are terrible—the devastation of districts, the wiping out of whole tribes, a shocking state of things undoubtedly. I believe the present ruler of Abyssinia is anxious to put a stop to slavery, but owing to the Constitution of the country it is extremely difficult for him to do it. I trust the matter will not be lost sight of by His Majesty's Government and, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Buxton. It is a matter

213
in which this House and the Government ought to do their utmost to strengthen the good elements in Abyssinia and really to clear out the scandalous state of things which at present exists in that country.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I only desire to thank my noble friend for his speech. I feel that we are quite safe in leaving the matter in his hands. I hope this will be the last occasion on which I shall have to raise the question of slavery in any part of the British Dominions. I understand that the noble Lord has no objection to laying Papers.
On Question, Motion for Papers agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY SCHEMES.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Transport have had their attention drawn to the fact that the large majority of electrical supply undertakers in the South-East of England unite in asking that an inquiry under Clause 4 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, should be held by the Central Electricity Board in connection with the scheme which has been published for this area; and that having regard to the general desire that the important and highly complicated issues raised by the scheme shall be thoroughly investigated before any decision is arrived at, or action taken to carry out the scheme, to ask that His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that an inquiry by the Central Board will be held; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, undoubtedly the object of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, was to secure a cheap, abundant and universal supply of electricity, and the Question which I have placed upon the Paper is intended to draw attention to the procedure which I understand is about to be adopted in connection with the carrying out of those very excellent objects. The scheme devised by the Electricity Commissioners has been adopted more or less by the Central Board established by the Electricity (Supply) Act to which I have just referred, and has been published without any previous consultation with any of the parties affected by the proposals of the scheme. They had not had, up
214
to the time of the publication of this scheme, any opportunity of placing before the Control Board their views upon this particular scheme. Whether they think the scheme is a good one or a bad one or an indifferent one is not really the point that I wish to impress upon your Lordships to-night. The real question is whether a scheme brought, forward in this way affecting, as it does, so many interests, should be forced down the throats of the people of this country without adequate investigation and consideration.
I have put down this Question because indications are already manifest of a great variety of points which are debatable and controversial, and many of which are uncertain and require elucidation. This is the first scheme of any magnitude which has been proposed by the Central Board to affect England. It covers an area from Peterborough to Brighton, an area of nearly 9,000 square miles with a population of 11,392,561 people. It operates through eleven counties and parts of three others and relates also to the whole of the Metropolis. It is most important that no mistake should be made in connection with the first scheme which is proposed, and if the public are to have confidence in the proposals it is essential that they should be carefully investigated and considered. This scheme affects 102 municipal corporations who at present possess electrical stations. At least 96 out of those 102 are protesting against this threatened action of the Board in refusing an investigation for which Parliament in its wisdom made provision in the Act of last year. The County Company, with six other companies affiliated to it, the City Company, the London Power Company, representing to a very large extent the Metropolis, all unite in protest against the action on the part of the Control Board and ask for an inquiry.
What I submit to your Lordships is that a preliminary necessity exists before any definite step is taken to force this scheme upon the whole of South-East England, and that the proposals in it ought to be examined, criticised and weighed. The scheme, moreover, is devised in the first instance to secure profitable results at the earliest date rather than to secure a general expansion of the facilities of cheap electricity in

215
rural areas. I venture to protest against this display of bureaucratic zeal fixing upon an area which, if it had been left alone, would in the natural course of events serve as an example to the Control Board. I do suggest that a better method would have been to secure an area which really requires electricity at the present time and to commence in that way. But the choice has been made under the powers which the Control Board have under the Electricity (Supply) Act, and of course we have to accept the inevitable. The important question of principle, however, remains, and can only be dealt with by an inquiry. The scheme affects both producers and consumers.
I wish at once to admit to your Lordships that I am a director of the County of London Company, and that I am therefore interested in this matter as a producer, but I also represent here to-day, through the Federation of British Industries, an enormous number of industrial undertakings in this area who have asked me to say here that they are very anxious about their interests under the provisions of this scheme. As the Act does enable them to be heard, and it was intended that they should be heard, unless their request was frivolous, it does seem to me reasonable that the Control Board should allow a public inquiry to be held. It cannot be imagined that a scheme of this kind is immaculate and incapable of improvement by a little consideration and by weighing the facts, experience and knowledge of a great number of those who have taken great interest in the development of electricity in this large area, I will give your Lordships one instance of the way in which this scheme might have to be varied. It is quite possible—I put it no higher than a possibility—that the anticipation of the Control Board that they would be able to fix a low tariff would not justify the wholesale scrapping of a hundred of these power plants which are already in existence throughout this area, and that the new stations which are proposed to be erected would, in that event, not have exactly the same load, or in other words their sales would be reduced because some, of these other stations might have to be left after experience, and the consequence would be that in these other places the price of electricity would have to be raised. Therefore the whole scheme
216
might really require revision as the result of experience. How much better it would be to have that information presented to the Commissioners in public at once so as to avoid any danger of that kind.
The attitude of the Control Board seems really to encourage the assumption that they are despots and are unwilling to face criticism or to modify or amend their proposals. I know Sir Andrew Duncan and several other members of the Control Board, and I know personally that their attitude is friendly to the undertakers, and that they are anxious individually to co-operate with those who produce electricity and to consider points which may be made. But they say: "Let these points be made in private within closed doors." They seem to object to anything in the nature of a public inquiry. A public inquiry is the real way in which the public case can be presented. It will enable those who already produce electricity in this area to be enlightened, to have matters explained, and where their interests are opposed one to another they will at any rate hear the representations which are made by their rivals or by those who take a different view or have varying interests of their own. I believe an inquiry of this kind will really be very valuable also to the Board itself. Figures upon which conclusions have been based are most hotly contested by the municipal corporations.
My case is that all interests should have the opportunity, which was promised when this Act was passed by Parliament, of having their case considered, and that the scheme should be framed on a really sound and reliable foundation after consideration has been given to it at an inquiry. The only objection that I can conceive to my proposal is that this request by the electricity undertakers as well as by industrial traders in the area might cause some delay. I believe that a slight delay would be far better than that the scheme should be an unworkable one and that the public should not be given the opportunity of being heard. It is quite easy for the Control Board to make arrangements as to how the case of those who wish for an inquiry should be presented. There are groups, such as the group of municipalities and the group of private enterprise undertakers, and many of the

217
points which they desire to make publicly before the Control Board could be put in common so that there should be no repetition and no unnecessary delay. The alternative, I am afraid, in connection with some of the points, would be litigation. Apparently the Control Board are proposing to provide supplies and show revenue, to exercise powers to give directions as to the quantities of electricity to be generated and to take compulsorily surplus outputs not needed for the service of those stations, and to take it at bare cost.
That is a point which requires public examination, and if the Control Board persist in their attitude the only alternative is for these big companies as well as for the municipalities to take a case into Court and to spend money in litigation. I do suggest to your Lordships that that is quite a wrong way in which to proceed, that, it is wrong (hat litigation should be the first result of the Board's operations. By a public inquiry I feel quite satisfied points of this kind could be satisfactorily dealt with. In one way I might make a point against myself. The local authorities, 102 corporations, to which I have alluded, which produce electricity at the present time, are under the impression that the private enterprise companies are already being somewhat favoured by this very scheme. It is all to the good that, if they are under this impression, it should be removed and that by a public inquiry the position of private enterprise companies as contrasted with that of others should be thoroughly thrashed out and dealt with by representatives of both bodies. There are several technical points that I could dwell upon, but it is not so much upon the technical points that will arise before the inquiry that I need trouble your Lordships as with the question whether the Central Electricity Board should burke inquiry at the present time.
They will raise prejudice if they do so, and those of us who are consumers as well as producers of electricity are anxious to co-operate in order to make the scheme as workable and satisfactory as possible. We all want cheap electricity for industrial purposes
218
and there is great anxiety among all those responsible for progress in this particular scheme. We are somewhat justified in the view that we take by the remarks of Mr. Page, who is one of the leading engineers of the new body, He addressed a meeting only a few days ago at the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and is reported to have said:—
"There were a number of things that the 'grid' could not do, and considering the extraordinary predictions that had been made it was as well that these should be clearly stated. It would not, as such, appreciably improve the efficiency of generation in certain areas of the electrical power companies and larger muncipalities; it would not reduce the price of electricity for lighting in our big cities; and it would not create a new electrical heaven nor give 9d. for 4d."
In other words, the very things that were promised from the Electricity (Supply) Act when it was passing through this House and through another place, are apparently not going to materialise, in the opinion of the engineer.
In these circumstances, if I may be allowed to sum up, it is, I think, necessary for Parliament to express the opinion that some kind of public inquiry ought to be held before a scheme of this kind is forced upon the community. Apparently people are not going to get that cheap electricity which was anticipated, and these proposals ought to receive adequate public examination and the scheme ought to be adequately explained in public. I know that public opinion is anxious about this scheme, although it has only just been published, but perhaps the public are not fully aware of its importance. I think your Lordships will agree, however, that it is undesirable, as a first step in connection with a scheme of this kind, to refuse the request not only of bodies like the corporations affected, but of the large power companies who are also affected and of interests such as those represented by the Federation of British Industries, who believe that industrialists ought to have an adequate opportunity of being satisfied that the scheme is a good one before it is forced upon the community. This is an entirely reasonable attitude.
I desire, of course, to pay a tribute to Sir Andrew Duncan, with whom I worked in the past. I recognise his ability and his intentions, but I want

219
to point out that no hole and corner proceedings, such as he thinks will meet the case, are adequate in a matter of this great importance. Private interviews may be of value, but the public have no confidence in this sort of thing and there is a variety of interests which ought to be explored publicly. If the community desires to have them explored, the Board ought to carry out the intentions of Parliament and allow a public inquiry to deal with a scheme of this kind. I felt that to resist a public inquiry raised considerations so important that I ventured to put this Question upon the Paper and to move for Papers.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I desire most warmly to support my noble friend Lord Gainford in the suggestion that he has made that there should be a public inquiry in this matter. He has noticed that there can be a public inquiry, and, indeed, this is permissible under Section 4 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act of last year. He has also shown that there is a very strong demand for it, and this view is supported by many papers that have come to me upon the subject. Last year I had a good deal of work in Committee on this Bill, and on December 15, when it came back from the Commons, I remarked that it was useless to press for any more Amendments at that late period of the Session, but that many amending Bills would be required. It was notorious that the Bill was passed with very great speed and that those in charge of the Bill did not pretend to be technical electrical experts. The Central Electricity Board is not composed of technical electrical experts, and even those who are engaged in this business, both producers and consumers, are every day learning of essential developments that from time to time take place in this great industry.
What has been produced? There has been produced a bald, barren scheme, produced without consultation and consisting of two pages, with two maps added and with a few schedules, and some particulars are afterwards given in another yellow volume. The scheme has only six clauses, and Clause 5, which is the important one, is supposed to be both ultra vires and illegal. It lays down definite rules, as my noble friend said, without consultation with any of the people connected with this trade
220
such as might have avoided many technical mistakes. It has not dealt with what is to be done with the high-frequency stations in London, and it has fixed upon certain stations which must ultimately depend upon an increase of population and the demand in the districts where they are placed. With regard to Western London, it has proposed to establish in Battersea a central station which is to produce 3,060,000 kilowatts in a district where intense resentment has arisen with regard to this matter, and where it was said twenty years ago by a Parliamentary Committee that a generating station ought not to be put up because the district was already too much industrialised.
With regard to the County of London electricity company, in the East of London they were proposing to have a high-power electricity wire going over the Thames from Barking, but instead a new plan is brought forward with the suggestion that it should not be finished before October, 1929, whereas this other high-power scheme could be brought into being much more quickly, and it is desired to bring it into being much sooner. They have already paid money for way-leaves and taken steps in the matter, and they are uncertain with regard to which stations are to be abandoned, and how far they can proceed. In the circumstances, in view of the vast number of people who want to have an inquiry and to put their views before the Commissioners, for the Commissioners, as my noble friend says, to burke that inquiry seems to be unreasonable and unwise. I therefore support my noble friend.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, supported by Lord Askwith, has asked the Government to give an assurance that an inquiry by the Central Board will be held. I should like to say, before I give a specific answer to the Question, that Lord Gainford made certain statements as to the assurances which had been given while this measure was being carried through this House. I was in charge of the Bill, and I made no such statements. I never made any such statements about electricity in London such as he quoted. Equally, I not only did not state, but am entirely incapable of ever suggesting, in any circumstances, that the Government is going to give 9d. for 4d.

221
I think his historical memory is at fault, and that he had better carry his mind back a few years and recollect who it was that made that statement about giving 9d. for 4d.
LORD GAINFORD: Ninepence for fourpence was Mr. Page's statement. My point was as to the assurances given to Parliament that there would be cheaper electricity provided.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is really burking the question. My statements were made with reference to power, and nothing that I said can be quoted as showing that, as a result of the Electricity Act, there would be cheaper electricity all over the country. I specially guarded myself. I said that in certain places I did not think that the price could be reduced. If the noble Lord quotes me I hope he will look at my speeches, and be a little more accurate in any statement which he makes. With regard to the specific Question, the noble Lord, and my noble friend behind me, have given a good many reasons as to why an inquiry should take place. He will forgive me if I do not deal with all the points raised, because this Question really should not be addressed to the Government. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to give any such assurance as my noble friend asks, as they have no control over the action of the Central Electricity Board in this matter. Section 4 subsection (2) of the Act of 1926 gives the Board complete power to act as they think fit.
Presumably the action of Parliament in setting up a Board vested with the powers which the Central Electricity Board possesses, was to create, a quasi-business body which should proceed to deal with the matters entrusted to them in the most expeditious manner. On the 12th of October a conference of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London approached the Central Electricity Board, asking that a public inquiry should be held into the representations made by the authorised undertakers. On October 14 the Board replied that while it is not possible for them to determine the form of procedure they will adopt for the examination of the representations, they will in any event feel themselves bound to follow
222
such course as appears to them best fitted to ensure that representations of the respective undertakings will all be considered on their individual merits. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Gainford is conversant with that particular correspondence. There is no reason to suppose that the Board do not wish to give every adequate facility for the making and consideration of representations, and prima facie it is difficult to see how they could give more specific pledges than they have given without creating unnecessary delay, which it is very desirable to avoid. As I have said, the Question really might be addressed more to the Electricity Board than to the Government, because the matter is one for the Electricity Board and not for the Government. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance for which Lord Gainford asks.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount will realise that it is a very unsatisfactory reply to a matter in which a great number of people are very warmly interested. The noble Viscount says, in effect, that it is not the Government's responsibility but the responsibility of the Control Board. I admit that the words of the Act of Parliament give the Control Board the opportunity of putting forward a scheme and burking all inquiry, but that was not really the intention of Parliament. The intention of Parliament was that these schemes should be adequately considered, otherwise they would not have given to this body the power to hold a public inquiry; and surely it stands to reason that in a matter of this kind the Government might make representations to the Control Board, that in their opinion the intention of Parliament was that these matters should be fully investigated, so that there should be proper atmospheres created in regard to the production and consumption of electricity with a view of carrying out a good scheme. This is denied to the public, and because the public feel very strongly on the matter I ventured to put the Question on the Paper to-night, and I press for Papers.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13: Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Sempill, L.

Buxton, E.

Jessel, L.

Southwark, L.

Liverpool, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Olivier, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information regarding the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the New Forest.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this Question, because there is no doubt that there is a certain amount of alarm in the public mind, which has been occasioned perhaps by somewhat exaggerated paragraphs in certain organs of the Press, in relation to the serious outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which have occurred in the neighbourhood of the New Forest. I believe a suggestion has been made, in consequence of the alarm which exists among certain residents in that district, that the ordinary-policy of slaughter which is adopted in cases of foot-and-mouth disease should be abandoned on the ground of expense, and also on the ground of the large number of animals being destroyed. I want quite frankly to admit that there is probably no area—in fact, I may say there is no area—in the whole of the Kingdom where the risk of the spread of the disease, when once an outbreak has occurred, is so great as in the New Forest. The difficulty of preventing the spread of the disease is probably also greater there than anywhere else, with the possible exception of the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. The reason for that is that there is a very large unenclosed area of no less than 48,000 acres in the New Forest, where at the present time not only have those who graze cattle
224
and other stock a considerable number of that stock running in the Forest and on the commons in the Forest, but there is a very large number of pigs now roaming about the Forest, picking up the acorns and the beech mast, which are both very plentiful this autumn. It stands to reason that when once you get outbreaks of so highly infectious a disease as this in such an area the policy of restriction is extremely difficult to carry out.
I ought perhaps to mention that the first outbreak occurred on November 15, that is, exactly a week ago, and already there have taken place no fewer than fourteen outbreaks in this area, but all within the scheduled area of fifteen miles, and we believe that the likelihood of the disease spreading outside that area is remote. I may mention that the scene of these outbreaks is a place called Totton, near Southampton, and unfortunately it involves bringing within the restrictive area the important port of Southampton, where there is a certain traffic in animals between the Channel Islands and the mainland. Just to show that the Ministry have not been at all inactive in this case, may I mention that its staff of inspectors is normally two in the Hampshire district, but there are now no fewer than 27 on duty, under the direction of the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer of my Department? Some of these are engaged on the infected places, and the remainder are on patrol work examining the animals in the area. These latter are kept distinct—this is rather an important point—from the inspectors who are working in the infected places, and all due precautions as to personal disinfection are strictly observed.
I ought to mention also that the main trouble in connection with the outbreak, as occurred in the case of the very serious outbreak in Cheshire three years ago, is

225
that undoubtedly certain persons have failed to report the existence of the disease among their animals for some time after it must have been apparent to them, and possibly to others. The number of animals actually slaughtered or condemned to be slaughtered is approximately 118 cattle and 238 pigs. The Emergency Restrictions Order was put into operation immediately the disease was suspected on November 15, prohibiting the movement of animals out of a five mile radius from Totton, and this was, as is the usual custom, extended to fifteen miles immediately the existence of the disease had been confirmed by the Ministry's officer. It was considered necessary to collect and detain all the animals running in the New Forest, and an order was made on November 18 requiring every owner to do this and to report to the police. So far the disease has been confined to an area of less than ten miles in diameter, with a circumference roughly running from Romsey, Totton, Brockenhurst, Ringwood, Fordingbridge, Downton, Whaddon, back to Romsey. The lesions present in certain of the cases clearly indicate that the disease had existed in the area from two to three weeks before being actually reported, and the spread of the disease had been encouraged by the fact that at this time of the year several thousands of pigs are running in the Forest feeding upon the heavy crop of acorns and beech nuts. The question of legal proceedings against the owners for failing to report is now under consideration.
Some of your Lordships are anxious to know, I think, something with regard to the forest ponies and also the deer in the Forest. The forest ponies, of course, may possibly act as mechanical carriers of the disease; but it was found that rounding up the ponies in the Forest enclosures was impracticable as their collection would take several weeks and involve the risk of spreading disease in the operation. It has been arranged for certain police officers to patrol the outride boundary of the dangerous area on motor cycles night and day to keep the ponies to the confines of the Forest as far as possible. With respect to the deer, I am given to understand that there are several hundreds of deer widely scattered throughout the Forest. The infected area covers the normal range of the deer. It is not considered necessary to take action
226
with regard to the deer at present; but the Master of the New Forest Staghounds and the Forestry Commissioners state that if desired they will co-operate in organising a drive for the purpose of shooting a certain number of deer in order to ascertain whether any have contracted the disease. Deer, of course, are amongst the animals that will contract the disease, although not so readily as such domestic animals as cattle and sheep. I would also mention that the Verderers of the Forest have also most loyally co-operated and have instructed their agisters to do everything possible to restrict the area of contagion. In all the above operations the staff of the Ministry has been ably supported by the co-operation of the local authority officials and particularly by the police.
The only other thing I think I ought to add, in view of this demand for scrapping the slaughter policy, is that considering the number of outbreaks which are still prevalent on the Continent, although very much fewer last year, we really have net had any very serious prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the country during the present year. It is true that during the autumn there has been a somewhat alarming recrudesence of the disease; but we believe it is well in hand and we believe also that the slaughter policy is deemed to be justified, both in dealing with the disease and as to the expense as compared with what is happening in other countries where there is a much more serious loss of stock. I hope the noble Lord opposite will consider that a satisfactory reply to his Question, I do not want to minimise the seriousness of the outbreak because it is a serious outbreak; but there is no necessity at present to be alarmed as to the spread of the disease to other districts.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, can the noble Lord who has replied for the Government tell us anything about the origin of the disease? Did it come through Southampton, for instance? Has he any information about that? It might interest your Lordships to know that I can remember the deer in the New Forest for over fifty years and I have never known them to be affected. They run in places which are not as a rule frequented by cattle; that is to say, in the enclosures and not

227
in the open forest. Therefore, I do not think there is any risk really of their spreading the disease at the moment. The noble Lord might like to know that the area as measured from Totton to Lyndhurst is comparatively small—smaller at any rate than the measurement he gave. It is only on the northwest of the Forest that there is any trouble. Smallholders and others who have lost all their cattle in consequence of this outbreak, after having lost their harvest or having gathered a very bad one, are in a most unfortunate position.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, as in most other cases, unfortunately, we were unable to trace the origin of the outbreak. Particular care was taken in examining the stock in all the local markets to see that it was not prevalent in the markets or spread from market to market or from market to farm.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the information he has given. I congratulate myself on having elicited the facts of this case. Whenever an outbreak of this sort occurs there is bound, especially in the locality, to be exaggerated ideas of what is happening and of the danger incurred. And to get from the Ministry of Agriculture the full unexaggerated facts is a valuable thing. I thank the noble Lord for the information he has afforded.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATU- TORY COMMISSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills, and Measures passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, received the Royal Assent:—
Government of India (Statutory Commission).
Kilmarnock Gas and Water Order Confirmation.
Indian Church Measure, 1927.
Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1927.
New Dioceses (Transitional Provisions) Measure, 1927.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LEATHERHEAD DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Headley, in the rural district of Epsom, in the County of Surrey, and for the amendment of the Leatherhead and District Electricity Orders, 1902 to 1925:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.