Sitting of 11 July 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South-West Suburban Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    2. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the
    2208
    troops of Chang Tso Lin in their retreat to Manchuria commandeered all the available locomotives and rolling stock of the railways of North China and took them with them; that a large proportion of this material was supplied by British firms in good faith and has not yet been paid for; and what steps are being taken to press the heirs of Chang Tso Lin either for payment of the money owing to these British firms or the return of the rolling stock?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In putting this question, I am aware that the first part was answered on Monday, but I should be glad of some information on the last part.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I think that the question was entirely answered by the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on the 9th July.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he was making inquiries, and would he particularly answer the part of the question as to whether he can take steps to press the present Government of Manchuria to make some reparation to these British firms?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This stock has not been removed from the railway system to which it belongs, and I do not think that the time has come for making special representations yet. His Majesty's Minister has been doing, and will continue to do, his best to get payment of the commercial debts of these firms.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this money is long overdue to these British firms, and why does he not take as vigorous action as he would against the Nationalists of China in similar circumstances?

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is still a member of the League of Nations; and, if so, who represents her on the League?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: China is represented on the Council of the League of Nations by Dr. Tcheng Loh, the Chinese Minister at Paris.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is he a representative of the new order or of the old order?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be sorry to say what anyone represents in China, but I believe that he is continuing his functions with the approval of the Nanking Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does he represent the Government that owns the railway stock?

    PEKING.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official notification from the new central Chinese Government as to the abolition of the name Peking and the substitution in its place of Peiping; and whether in future correspondence is to be so addressed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information regarding the reported change of name.
    Viscount SANDON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any unofficial information?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think none, except perhaps what my noble Friend and I have read in the papers, but I think that Peking would still be a sufficient postal address.

  AMERICAN BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the States and cities in the United States which have defaulted in paying interest upon loans raised in Great Britain, the amounts, respectively, of those loans, the dates upon which interest ceased to he paid, and the date of the last occasion when the British Government raised the matter with the defaulting States and cities?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find such details as are available in the Report of the Council of Foreign Bondholders for the year 1927.
  2210
  The matter has never, to the best of my knowledge, been raised officially by His Majesty's Government, and, as stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 18th of April last, His Majesty's Government, after carefully considering the matter, are averse from making representations at present.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the document to which he has referred me, issued by the Council of Foreign Bond Holders, is an official document of this House, and, if not, why he as Foreign Secretary cannot answer the question?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only get the information from that document. I think that it is probably the best informed statement of the British case, but there are various estimates, and I do not want to make myself responsible for any one of them.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get a copy and let me have it?
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be better either to let this matter drop or to make direct representations to the American Government? What is the use of going on pin-pricking in the matter as the right hon. Gentleman has done?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, perhaps, not noticed that I was not the questioner, but that I was merely replying to a question.

  OUTLAWRY OF WAR.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reply of His Majesty's Government to the last Note presented by Mr. Kellogg on behalf of the United States Government will be ready in time for this House to have an opportunity of considering it on the Foreign Office Vote before the end of the Session?
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he expects to receive from His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and India their replies to his communications regarding the United States Gov-

  2211
  ernment's revised proposals for the renunciation of war in sufficient time to allow a reply to be sent to the United States Government before the end of the present Session?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I confidently expect to be able to send the reply of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain before the end of the Session. Communication with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and India is proceeding, but I desire to make it quite clear that they have no responsibility for any delay that has occurred.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a plain question? Does he intend to wreck this proposal by insisting upon his reservations?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not intend to wreck the proposal, Sir. I welcome the proposal, and I wish to bring it to a successful conclusion.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If by insisting upon these reservations the right hon. Gentleman prevents the Treaty being signed, will he accept the responsibility for destroying this chance of world peace?
  Mr. THURTLE: If the Dominions are not responsible for the delay, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the failure to agree with the French Government is responsible for the delay?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; the cause of the delay is the careful consideration which His Majesty's Government find it necessary to give to a proposal of such importance.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the delay himself?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I am responsible for the delay; but I use the word delay to signify the time taken for careful consideration of the matter.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public will hold him responsible also?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    S.S. "JERVIS BAY" (ASSISTANCE).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an
    2212
    estimate has been formed of the cost of the assistance rendered to the "Jervis Bay"; and whether this expense will be charged to the owners of that vessel?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I have not yet got details of the cost, but it will be about £500. As regards the second part of the question, a definite answer cannot be given until the full circumstances are known. It is the duty of His Majesty's ships to afford every possible aid to vessels in danger or distress, and if the services Tendered come under the heading of salvage services, the Crown is precluded from claiming expenses, under Section 557 of the Merchant Shipping Act.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the case of the "Jervis Bay," there can be no question of salvage, because there was no real cause for anxiety. In that case, are we to understand that the Crown will have no claim at all on the shipping company?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must have more information than I have, if he is able to satisfy himself that there was no need for the action that was taken by the captain of the "Jervis Bay." I prefer to wait until I hear a proper account of the circumstances. The word "salvage" is interpreted in a pretty wide sense to include such things as mutiny, disorder, piracy, and so on. I have taken legal opinion in this matter from the best advisers, and I think that it deserves attention; the word "salvage" cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense, so that if any mutiny or piracy or plunder were concerned, that would be covered by the word "salvage."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If mutiny was mentioned in the telegram, and it did not actually take place, would there then be a claim?

    LOWER DECK PROMOTIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when warrant or petty officers or ratings are promoted to mate, there is any understanding, implied or otherwise, that they will not be promoted to commander, but will only reach the rank of lieutenant-commander; and can he explain the small percentage of lieutenant-

    2213
    commanders, formerly mates, promoted to the rank of commander during the last three years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; lieutenant-commanders promoted from mate are considered equally on their merits with other lieutenant-commanders for promotion when the selections are made. None of the ex-mates whose seniority as lieutenant-commander is 1924 or earlier, the seniorities from which officers are now being promoted, reached the rank of lieutenant before attaining the age of 28, and the great majority were of the age of 31 or above. Consequently, it is only to be expected that promotions to commander would be very exceptional. The age of selection for mate, which governs the age for promotion to lieutenant, has since been appreciably reduced, and it is probable that the more recently promoted officers will have better chances of selection. In the nature of things, however, the exmate must be at some disadvantage as compared with the officer who has been trained as such from a much earlier age, and, it must also be remembered that it is only the best of the officers ex-cadet who are promoted to the rank of commander, and it is against these that the ex-mate has to compete.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that it is only the best of the petty officials and ratings who are promoted mate, and they have been through a double sieve, if I may say so, before they reach that rank, and will he see that the avenue of promotion from the lower deck to the quarter deck is widened?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware that they are being selected for merit. As I have said, the age of selection for mate has now been reduced, and as that governs the promotion to lieutenant it will give them a better opportunity than they have had before.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not bad luck for the excellent officers who were promoted during the War—simply because they were not able to qualify on account of age?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is equally bad luck that a large number of naval officers should have to leave the service, because there is no room for them.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "IRON DUKE" (REFIT).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the refit of His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke"; and when it will be undertaken?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The "Iron Duke" was taken in hand at Devonport for large repairs on 23rd May, 1928.

    NAVAL PKIZE FUND.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what grants have been made from the Naval Prize Fund to the Dominions and Crown Colonies?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Grants amounting to £5,000 have been made from the residue of the Naval Prize Fund to the Dominions and Crown Colonies, made up as follows:—

    £

    Dominions:

    Australia

    …

    …

    2,000

    Canada

    …

    …

    1,400

    South Africa

    …

    …

    200

    Newfoundland

    …

    …

    450

    New Zealand

    …

    …

    200

    India

    …

    …

    500

    Crown Colonies:

    Malta

    …

    …

    250

    £5,000

    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is that in respect of the damage done by the vessels of these Dominions?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should require notice of that question.

    SHIP'S FUEL (PULVERISED COAL).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the small obsolete warship which he is willing to lend for experimental purposes with pulverised coal fuel is sufficiently modern to secure a fair test and for obtaining the best possible results?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is presumed that the purposes of any experiments carried out in a converted vessel would be to

    2215
    determine the practical and financial difficulties to be overcome in the use of pulverised fuel in a sea-going ship. The type of vessels which the Admiralty are willing to lend would be entirely suitable for such a purpose.
    Mr. EDWARDS: If that is so, why was the offer rejected by those who desire to make the tests?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What offer? I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I understand that they asked for a certain vessel on which these experiments could be made. Why was it rejected if the vessel was all that could be desired and they could get the best results?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My answer is that the type of vessel which we think will give the best results has been offered to them, and I do not know what more I can do.
    Mr. PALING: Has there been any refusal of the type of vessel offered to them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question is difficult to understand. "Refusal of the type of vessel offered" might open up a wide discussion. I have no doubt that we selected what we thought was the most suitable, and I have no reason to suppose that they have differed from our view.
    Mr. PALING: Have they refused the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman on account of the type of vessel not being suitable?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of their having refused. I am sorry I did not understand the hon. Member's first question.

  IRAQ (OIL LINE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is taking any steps to ensure that the pipe line, if such is laid, to the Mesopotamian oil-fields shall debouch at Haifa and be under British control?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Member that
  2216
  the importance of this question is fully appreciated, but I am not in a position to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has already stated in the House on the subject.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the telegram in the "Times" to-day, which states that it has been definitely decided to debouch the pipe-line at Haifa, is without any foundation in fact?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, it is not correct to assume that there is no foundation for it, but we have not heard officially as to the statements which that telegram covers.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the British Admiralty is taking a hand in the question, or merely the Colonial Office?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that the Board of Admiralty are now all ardent Zionists? They ought to be.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSFERENCE OF WORKERS (MINERS).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that William Hazelby, of 36, Chapel Road, Nantyglo, Monmouthshire, an unemployed miner, was sent by the local Employment Exchange to Brixton on the 2nd of July and told there was employment for him; that when Hazelby got to Brixton he was offered casual labour as a sandwich-board man, which, as an able-bodied miner, he refused; that Hazelby was left stranded 150 miles from his home; has he authorised such action on the part of officials of Employment Exchanges; and will he have this case investigated, with a view to paying this man any unemployment benefit that may be due to him?
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Labour whether Mr. W. Hazelby, who was brought from Nantyglo to London for the work of carrying sandwich boards, became chargeable to the Lambeth Board of Guardians for any period; will he state what experience, if any, Mr. Hazelby possessed in respect of the work of a painter's labourer; and was the work as a painter's labourer found for him by the Employment Exchange authorities or the local board of guardians?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The circumstances in which Mr. Hazelby was brought to London were fully explained in the reply given on Monday last to the question by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. E. Young). The suggestion that he became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Work was found for him by the Exchange as a painter's labourer, and I understand he has had previous experience in the building trade as well as in the mining industry.
    Mr. BARKER: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the question? I want to know if he or his Department authorised bringing a man from a long distance to carry sandwich boards, and if he is prepared to indemnify this man for any loss he has sustained through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that he suffered any loss. As regards the rest of the hon. Member's question, it was, as I have said, dealt with in the previous reply.
    Mr. BARKER: On a point of Order. You prevented me from putting this question on Monday, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister says he answered it on Monday.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I may not have permitted the hon. Member to put a supplementary question, but I did not stop any relevant question. The hon. Member cannot expect always to receive an answer which entirely satisfies him.
    Mr. BARKER: My point of Order is this: The Minister says that he answered on Monday a question that was never put. It was not allowed to be put, and I say that he has not answered the question.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Minister know what has happened to the painter's labourer who did the work which this man is doing now?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the hon. Member ought to give me notice of that question. He is assuming that there was a painter's labourer who was doing the work, an assumption which I do not admit.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Minister be good enough to reply to the last part of
    2218
    my question, and say whether this work was found for Mr. Hazelby by the Employment Exchange or the board of guardians?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member cannot have listened to my reply, which stated that the suggestion that the man became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Consequently, the job could not have been found for him by the guardians, nor was it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Minister say by whom and under what circumstances it was found for him? Who made the application?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me any further points upon which he wishes information, I will have them inquired into.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: May I ask whether the Minister and his Department deliberately set themselves out to insult these young men?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask, as the representative of a London constituency, whether there is not already much unemployment in London?
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of two young men who were sent from the County of Durham by the Employment Exchange to Fort William, in Scotland, only to find there were too many applicants for the work; is he aware that these young men had to walk back from Edinburgh to Durham; and will he inquire into this case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such case.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Ministry of Labour inquire as to why these men were sent from Durham to Fort William, and will he say whether they will be paid their expenses, seeing that they had to find money in order to get back to Durham?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps I might explain that I have already inquired into this matter. The hon. Member appears to have taken what was stated in a newspaper paragraph for gospel. I have already inquired from the men themselves, and they were not sent.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he has made inquiries into the case of a young man named Milburn, who was sent from Bishop Auckland Employment Exchange to Wakefield, only to find when he got there that there was no work for him; and can he say when this young man's benefit will be resumed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Mr. Milburn was sent to Keighley, not Wake-field, and arrived at the Exchange in the afternoon. The manager was then in process of completing arrangements for his engagement, to commence next day, but before these arrangements were completed Mr. Milburn left the Exchange, about 4.30 p.m. to return home. He would have been able to start work next morning had he waited a few minutes longer. His claim to benefit is under consideration by the insurance officer.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: How long was this man kept waiting at the Employment Exchange? The answer seems to imply that he merely went there and went away again.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know how long it was, but I shall be glad to make inquiries. Certainly the opportunity which gave him his job came within an hour.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Are we to take it that men are sent long distances without any knowledge whether there is a job or not?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is quite clear from my answer that there was a job.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's last answer in contradiction of definite instructions issued by the Minister of Labour to managers of Employment Exchanges relating to the transference of workers such as these?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That does not arise out of this question. This is a matter of general policy, and I am perfectly prepared to state that general policy and to justify it at any time when there is an opportunity for debate.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries from his officials on this point? It is known that there are thousands of miners in Yorkshire out of work, and surely there
    2220
    can be no justification for any officer sending miners from one district to get work in another district where there are thousands out of work.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is a particular case which has been given. If hon. Members wish to raise the general question, which has nothing to do with the individual case, perhaps they will put down a general question, and, if there is a possibility of dealing with the question within the compass of an answer, I shall be glad to deal with it. If it is reserved for a Debate, I shall be glad to deal with it then.
    Mr. THOMAS: There is no need to have a Debate. Surely, the Minister can sympathise with anyone in any part of the House [Interruption.] May I ask whether the Minister would not sympathise with a point of view that his officers should not give instructions to send men into districts where there are already a large number of unemployed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will say at once that to send men to a district where there is the same degree of unemployment—[Interruption.] I am now being asked not to debate this question and therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it until there is an opportunity for debate. [Interruption.]
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer and not try to evade it? I did not ask him to debate the question.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that we cannot have a Debate on one question——
    Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please allow me to complete my sentence. These questions are put on specific cases, and on each one of them we cannot have a general Debate on the policy of the Ministry. Really, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.
    Mr. THOMAS: On that point of Order. That is exactly the difficulty that we raise on this question—it shows that this is a general policy all over the country. My object in putting my ques-

    2221
    tion to the Minister was to ask him whether, if that were the policy, he would stop it, or, if it were not, whether he would inquire why it was happening.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That should be put down as a specific question.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a young man, 19 years of age, was sent by the Employment Exchange from Bishop Auckland to Shoreditch; reporting there he was sent to a hostel in Grays Inn Road, there he was not allowed to write a letter unless it was censored, then he was given a job of delivering powder samples for a chemist at a wage of 2s. per day, and eventually he had to walk back home from London to Bishop Auckland; and can he say if his benefit has been resumed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The wages in this case were 1s. 3d. an hour for six hours a day, and not 2s. a day, as stated in the question. The man concerned was advised to consult the exchange in case of any difficulty, but left his job and returned home without informing the exchange. I have no information with regard to the alleged censorship of letters at the hostel, and I find it difficult to credit it. His claim to benefit is under consideration.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the Minister say what Shoreditch has done that it should have unemployed men from Durham sent to it, in view of the fact that there are thousands unemployed in Shoreditch at the present time?
    Mr. BATEY——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Stephen.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Surely we are going to be allowed to put supplementary questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said before, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.
    Mr. BATEY: My point of Order is this: On a former question I was not allowed to put a supplementary question which would have contradicted the answer of the Minister. [Interruption.] On this question, I want to put another supplementary question——
    Mr. SPEAKER: There must be some limit to supplementary questions.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Edward Whittington, 53, Havodarthen Road, Llanilleth, and David MacDonald, Brynithel Terrace, Aberbeeg, Monmouthshire, were sent to Birmingham to work for the Birmingham Corporation, and that when they arrived there they were told there was no work for them and they were left stranded with only four days' unemployment pay; will he take measures to stop sending men long distances to places where there is no work for them; and will he see that these men are paid for any expenses they have incurred through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The two men travelled from Wales to Birmingham on the 2nd July, and were paid accrued benefit on arrival at Birmingham. They were placed in employment three days afterwards, and, I understand, have expressed themselves satisfied with the jobs.

    COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW (CHAIRMEN).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of the court of referees for Glasgow; how many are practising solicitors; and what industrial experience they possess?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The chairmen of the Glasgow Court of Referees are Mr. Brownlie, Mr. Chalmers, Colonel Menzies-Anderson, Mr. Reid, Mr. Semple and Mr. Stewart. They are all practising solicitors. I do not know what the hon. Member means precisely by industrial experience, but I am satisfied that all these gentlemen are well qualified to carry out the duties of chairman impartially and efficiently.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least one of those chairmen has been prominently identified with anti-Labour and anti-working-class opinion in the City of Glasgow; and is it true or not that all those men have been drawn from one political party and that some of them have had no industrial experience?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of any of the circumstances just

    2223
    stated by the hon. Member. I have never inquired as to anything except the capacity of a person for the job. I am entirely unaware of their political opinions.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Semple has been prominently identified with anti-working-class opinion, that he has had no industrial experience, and no experience except that of being a prominent member of the right hon. Gentleman's party?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no knowledge whatever of the points to which the hon. Member has alluded. I am not aware whether it is the fact or whether it is not, but I would never ask any person with whom I was connected to conceal his opinions on other occasions than those on which he has official duties, whatever those opinions may be. So far as industrial experience is concerned, I can say that, supposing they had been connected with industry, I should at once expect the objection that they were allied to the capitalist party or something of that kind.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many claimants to unemployment benefit at the Glasgow Exchanges are availing themselves of the right to appeal their claims to the court of referees; and if he will take steps to have these rights brought more prominently before the notice of claimants?
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is uncertainty on the part of unemployed men and women as to whether, when their claims have been rejected by the insurance officer, they may appeal to the court of referees; and whether he will take steps to make sufficiently clear to applicants their rights in this respect?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The existing procedure provides for each direct claimant to be informed, individually, of his right to appeal against disallowance of benefit. The form notifying the disallowance contains a paragraph informing him that he is entitled to appeal. I am sending the hon. Members a copy of
    2224
    this form and also of the corresponding form sent to the Association in the case of an indirect claim.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister look at the form again, and see that the sentence dealing with the right of the applicant to appeal to a court of referees is put a little more prominently in the form. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that he is not dealing with people who have had a great deal of experience in reading.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly ready to consider that point. The difficulty is that there is no more prominent position in which that statement can be put. I am anxious that everybody should know that they have a right of appeal, but if the hon. Member will look at the form he will find a blank space for the reasons for the disallowance to be written in, and immediately beneath the blank space comes the sentence:
    "You are entitled to appeal against this decision provided your appeal is lodged at this office within 21 days."
    You could not have anything more prominent than that.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have those lines printed in black type?

    GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of lads and young women under 21 years of age who have been placed in employment through Bridgeton, Parkhead, and Springburn Employment Exchanges, respectively, during the last 12 months, and the total number registered as unemployed at present?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Separate statistics are only available in respect of juveniles under 18 years of age. As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Could not the Minister, in view of the change that has been made by the Act, try to get for us some figures with regard to juveniles under 21?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that, and see if it is possible.
    Following is the statement:

    ——

    Bridgeton.

    Parkhead.

    Springburn.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Number placed in employment through the Employment Exchanges during the 12 months ended 25th June, 1928.

    619

    732

    262

    225

    336

    181

    Number on the Register at 2nd July, 1928.

    394

    342

    171

    166

    177

    139

    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit made by men, women, and young people, respectively, at Bridgeton and Parkhead Employment Exchanges, respectively, and the number of claims rejected in each case since the

    ——

    Bridgeton.

    Parkhead.

    Men.

    Women.

    Juveniles.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women.

    Juveniles.

    Total.

    Fresh and Renewal Claims to benefit made from 24th April, 1928 to 11th June, 1928, inclusive.

    4,800

    1,923

    182

    6,905

    3,186

    617

    78

    3,881

    Average number of current claims on Register during period.

    6,395

    1,529

    154

    8,078

    2,858

    465

    59

    3,382

    *Claims disallowed by Insurance Officers, 19th April to 11th June.

    2,492

    291

    88

    2,871

    747

    162

    32

    941

    * These figures relate to the initial disallowance of claims by Insurance Officers and include cases in which the decisions were reversed on appeal.

  SCOTLAND.

    TRADE BOARDS ACTS (ADMINISTRATION, GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet considered the opening of an office in Glasgow for the purpose of dealing with affairs arising from the administration of the Trade Board Acts; and, if so, what action he intends taking?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot add to the replies which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, gave to questions on this subject on 2nd May last.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: have already got the answer. I want to know if the right
    coming into operation of the new Act, to the latest available date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 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:
    hon. Gentleman is going to carry out the duties imposed upon him by Parliament. The Under-Secretary said that he was considering the point and I have asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet considered it.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have considered the point, and the answer is quite clear. It is that there is no sufficient case at present for establishing an office in Glasgow, or for transferring it from Edinburgh to Glasgow. If more money was available, I should prefer to spend it upon having more inspectors. If any information is wanted about Glasgow, it can be got by a reference to the Employment Exchange.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Glasgow is the only large industrial centre in this country without a Trade Board office, and that all other large towns of a similar size have a Trade Board office? The Government have built an Employment Exchange in Glasgow, and it only means setting aside more room in that Exchange for this particular purpose.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have considered all those points.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of applicants for small holdings who have been settled in Harris since 1912, and the respective dates of their applications for and settlement upon small holdings?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL RJSPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    101 applicants have been settled in new holdings or enlargements of existing holdings formed in Harris since 1912. In 1914, 15 were settled who applied in 1912; in 1919, 18 were settled, of whom eight applied in 1912, six in 1913, and four in 1919; in 1921, 26 were settled, of whom 25 applied in 1912, and one in 1919; and, in 1926, 42 were settled, of whom seven applied in 1912, one in 1913, five in 1918, 11 in 1919, one in 1920, one in 1923, and 16 in 1925.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the statutory authority under which land has been refused to men whose applications have been before his Department for a number of years and who have occupied land without authorisation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 3rd May last.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the reply he will see that it does not mention what I ask
    2228
    him about, namely, the statutory authority under which he claims to have this right?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have the onus of keeping, or assisting to keep, law and order in the administration of this Department. I also have to hold the balance between those who behave properly and those who do not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the House to take it that the right hon. Gentleman admits that he possesses no statutory authority to act as he did act towards these two persons whom he has kept out of small holdings for the last 16 years?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am quite prepared to take the responsibility for the action that I have taken.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Why did you not say so in your original reply?

  WAGES.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for a readjustment of his Departmental returns as to rates of wages, &c., and distinguish between the various sections of each industry in sufficient detail to differentiate in every case between safeguarded and non-safeguarded industries?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information ordinarily collected as to rates of wages relates to changes in rates of wages reported to my Department, such changes being, in the main, those collectively arranged between organised groups of employers and workpeople. The particulars obtained are published regularly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," details being given of the industries or sections of industry affected.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (DRAFT CONVENTIONS).
  Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been reached by His Majesty's Government with regard to ratification of the Draft Conventions of the International Labour Office on seamen's articles of agreement and repatriation of seamen, 1926, and on sickness insurance (industry) and sickness insurance (agriculture), 1927; and whether he can make any statement

  2229
  upon the position as regards the Draft Convention on the inspection of emigrants on hoard ship, whose ratification was made conditional on the ratification by certain named States?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is hoped to reach a decision at an early date with regard to the first four Conventions referred to in the question. As regards the last (inspection of emigrants), only one of the six Powers (the Netherlands), on whose ratification that of Great Britain was made conditional, has at present ratified the Convention.

  AVIATION.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (AGREEMENT).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to state when the White Paper on the subject of the new agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, will be laid; whether the new agreement will contain any provision designed to secure technical progress in the design of civil aircraft; and by what date it is hoped to inaugurate the weekly service between England and India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): In view of the widespread desire that the House shall be given early particulars of the new Agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, I have arranged to lay forthwith a White Paper summarising its main features, since the full formal Agreement will take a considerable time to conclude. This will be available for hon. Members on Thursday. As regards the second part of the question, a feature of the new Agreement will be provision for an obsolescence rate of 25 per cent. per annum, which is expressly designed to enable the company to equip itself with the most up-to-date types of aircraft as new designs become available during the currency of the Agreement. As regards the last part, assuming it is possible to obviate, the Persian difficulty and no other political obstacles arise, I hope that the service will be inaugurated on or about 1st April next, which is the date envisaged in the new Agreement.

    CAPTAIN HINCHLIFFE.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether Captain Hinchcliffe, who recently lost his
    2230
    life in an attempt to fly the Atlantic, was a member of the Reserve of the Royal Air Force; and whether he was in receipt of any service pension?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first par; of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, Captain Hinchliffe was not in receipt of service pension or of any non-effective award from the Air Ministry, but I understand that he was in receipt of, a wounds pension and disability retired pay for war service from the Ministry of Pensions.
    Mr. MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the widow and two young children of this gallant officer are in very poor circumstances, and will he, in view of the great services rendered to aviation by this officer, and of the fact that the State has benefited to the extern; of £500,000, make representations, through whatever channels he thinks most suitable, that adequate provision be made for this officer's widow?
    Sir S. HOARE: The gentleman in question was not an officer on the Reserve of the Royal Air Force, and the Air Ministry, therefore, has no locus standi in the matter. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should address a question to the Ministry of Pensions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no compassionate grant in the Air Ministry, as there is in the Admiralty, that can be applied to oases of this sort?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: One ought to be established.

  AIR EXPENDITURE.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state for each year from 1925 the expenditure of the principal Powers on their air forces 2
  Sir S. HOARE: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a great diversity in the organisation of the air forces of the various Powers. Some countries, like ourselves, maintain a single unified air service, whilst others retain separate naval and military air arms. In the

  2231
  case of the latter, a considerable proportion of their air expenditure is not separately shown in their Estimates, but is borne on the main Navy and Army Votes, from which it cannot be segregated. For this reason, and as a result of the different financial procedure in vogue in the countries concerned, it is not practicable to give any reliable figures which would enable a comparison to be made between the total amounts of British and foreign air expenditure in any given year or period of years.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not practicable to give approximate figures, seeing that this question has been repeatedly asked in the House?
  Sir S. HOARE: The question has been repeatedly asked, and the answer has been repeatedly given, that it is impossible to make such a comparison, and I must repeat that answer to-day.

  ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what gifts of flora and fauna have been made by private donors to the Royal Parks during the past 12 months; and whether his Department is prepared at all times to consider gifts of a similar nature?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of gifts to the Royal Parks during the past 12 months. My Noble Friend is always pleased to receive such gifts, and is extremely grateful for them.
  Following is the list:

  Two specimen palms from Mr. Sholto Douglas.

  Five hundred lily bulbs from the Government of Bermuda.

  Eight hundred colchicums from Lord Riddell.

  Five thousand British-grown daffodil bulbs from Lord Riddell, Mr. E. Hudson and Mr. G. Munro.

  2232

  Foreign seeds and bulbs from Mr. S. Atchley, Mr. H. G. Chick, Monsieur Cleas and Mr. E. St. J. Monson.

  Six Canadian geese from the Duke of Bedford.

  Ten teal from Sir Richard Graham.

  Two golden pheasants from Mr. S. Joel.

  Twelve French partridge eggs from Mr. F. Meynell.

  Two demoiselle cranes, eight bar-headed geese, two pairs of Javan tree ducks, two pelicans and several red-crested pochards from Mr. Alfred Ezra.

  Mr. H. E. Seligman has also presented six see-saws and one plank swing for the children in Regent's Park.

  HOUSING, SHEFFIELD (TYLER STREET HUTS).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, as applications for tenancy of the Tyler Street huts in Sheffield are now being refused, the demolition of the huts is contemplated in the near future; and, if so, what alternative accommodation it is intended to provide?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The houses at present vacant at Tyler Street have been reserved for tenants who were being transferred from the Tinsley Estate. It is hoped to commence re-letting in the usual way at Tyler Street at an early date. The demolition of the huts at Tyler Street is not at present in contemplation.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when these lettings ceased—when a decision was come to that there should be no lettings on this estate?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir; I could not give the date without notice.

  TRANSPORT.

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport the present position of the negotiations between his Department, the London County Council,

    2233
    and the Southern Railway Company regarding the proposed new Charing Cross bridge?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will my right hon. Friend see that, at any conferences which may take place as to the removal of Charing Cross Station, the travelling public are represented?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter which I have had constantly under review.

    RAILWAY BRIDGE, NEWHAVEN.
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the bridge over the river at Newhaven, belonging to the Southern Railway Company, has recently had a restriction placed upon it whereby vehicles with over eight-ton loads are debarred from passing over the river, except those belonging to the railway company, and also trains belonging to the Southern Railway Company; and whether he will take steps to secure the removal of this restriction, in view of the fact that this is the only road through Newhaven and seriously affects the position of haulage contractors and traders from other parts of the country?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention had not previously been drawn to the restriction placed upon traffic over this bridge, but I am causing inquiries to be made and will communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject in due course.

  ELECTRIC CABLE STANDARDS.
  Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the protests of district councils and other bodies, as, for instance, Eastbourne, against the proposed erection of high standards over the countryside in order to carry the new national electric cables; and what steps he is taking in this matter to carry out the intention of the Government to preserve the beauty of rural England?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot find that I have received any protests against the erection of the standards for the lines of the Central Electricity Board. In order to carry out schemes under the Act of 1926 it is necessary to erect overhead transmission lines, but I have reason to knew that the Central Electricity Board are anxious to carry out this work so as to interfere as little as possible with rural amenities.
  Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman recently visited North Wales and seen what is going on there, and how the country will shortly be defaced?
  Colonel ASHLEY: In the first place, I cannot see that what is going on, or alleged to be going on, in North Wales has anything to do with the Central Electricity Board. As to the activities of the Central Electricity Board, they have taken every step possible by getting a Royal Academician to advise them, as to the particular form of these standards, also what colour they should be painted in order to harmonise with the landscape.

  STANDARDISATION COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information as to the success achieved by the Standardisation Committee in Washington; and whether anything is to be done on these lines in this country?
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware of the progress made in the United States in regard to this matter. As to the steps; taken in this country, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which the President of the Board of Trade gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas), a copy of which I am sending him.

  IMPERIAL WIRELESS AND CABLE CONFERENCE.
  Mr. AMMONasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Committee of the Imperial Conference on Imperial Wireless and Cable Communications will be published in time to allow for discussion in Parliament before the end of the Session?
  Mr. DAYasked the Prime Minister whether he has now received the Report from the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference; and is he now in a position to make a statement thereon?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Conference has submitted its Report, the recommendations of which now have to be examined by the Governments of the several parts of the Empire concerned. I hope that it will be found possible to publish this Report and to make a statement thereon before the end of this Session.
  Mr. AMMON: Can we have an assurance that the matter will be discussed in the House? Did the right hon. Gentleman see that it has been intimated that that would be done before the House rose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall do everything that I can to secure that there is a Debate. I have to-day sent very urgent cables to every Dominion asking them to expedite their reply.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PENSIONERS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of persons in receipt of pensions adequate for comfortable maintenance are employed in various Government Departments; that in some cases these persons are also granted additional pensions on retirement; and whether, in view of the number of capable men and women unable to secure employment in any capacity suitable to their qualifications, he will set up a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the advisability of prohibiting the employment in Government service of such pensioners except under special and temporary circumstances when no other person is available?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The pensions of civil pensioners re-employed in the Government service are, under Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, either suspended or adjusted so that the salary and pension of a re-employed civil servant shall not exceed the amount of his former pay. No deduction is ordinarily made from the service or disability pensions of ex-members of the Army, Navy or Air Force employed in a civil capacity, and I am aware that
    2236
    a number of such pensioners are employed in Government Departments and that in certain cases they will in due course be eligible for the grant of a civil pension in respect of their service in a civil capacity. In regard to the latter half of the question, I see no reason why ex-members of the Army, Navy, or Air Force in receipt of service or disability pensions should be debarred from further employment, for which they are fitted, in a civil capacity in Government Departments; nor would it be in the interests of the State to take any steps which might tend to restrict the free choice of the best candidate available for a particular post. In these circumstances I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's suggestion of the appointment of a Committee.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like 30,000 men have been removed from employment and debarred from any future employment because of the receipt of a paltry 10s. a week pension from the State, and that employers all over the country are discharging men and refusing them any chance of further work merely because of the 10s., and does he think it is right that men who have comforable pensions and can live quite reasonably should take work when there are others capable of doing it?

    HOME OFFICE (SALARIES AND EMOLUMENTS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if he can state how many of the chief officials attached to the police and other Departments connected with his office whose salaries and emoluments exceed £500 a year are in receipt of pensions, the amount of such pension, present salary, and future pension to which such officials will be entitled to on retirement or which may be granted on the recommendation of the Home Secretary; and the number of persons employed at salaries and emoluments under £500 a year who are in receipt of pensions and who on retirement may receive additional pensions?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The answer is a long one, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    1. The following information relates to the Departments of the Home Office proper, including the various Inspectorates:
    (a) Salaries and Emoluments exceeding £500 a year.

    Salary, etc., of officer.

    Pension.

    £

    £

    1,055

    700

    1,404

    150

    1,263

    666

    1,160

    256

    995

    228

    995

    395

    749

    104

    516

    108

    678

    168

    634

    73

    With the exception of number 3 in the list all the above officers will be entitled in the ordinary course on retirement to pension calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts. The amount will depend in each case upon the length of service and the actual salary at date of retirement.
    (b) Salaries and Emoluments not exceeding £500 a year.
    There are 23 officers serving under the Homo Office who come under this heading and who are in receipt of pensions (with one or two exceptions for disablement).
    2. The following figures relate to the Department of the Prison Commissioners at the Home Office:
    (a) Salaries and Emoluments exceeding £500 a year.

    Salary, etc., of officer.

    Pension.

    £

    £

    1,364

    210

    1,205

    222

    572

    73

    1,077

    120

    1,047

    224

    919

    169

    611

    210

    686

    60

    (b) Salaries and Emoluments not exceeding £500 a year.
    There are in the Prison Department 83 officers who come under this heading and who are in addition in receipt of pensions of £50 or over.
    All the above officers will be entitled on retirement to pension calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts.
    The statistics furnished under 2 (a) and (b) above do not include disability pension, of which there is no record available.
    NOTE.—Particulars of pension are only required in the Department for the purpose; of appending the appropriate notes to the Estimate for Parliament where the amount is £50 or more. No record is kept where the amount is less than that sum.

  RIVER PENK (POLLUTION).
  Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now report on the investigation he instituted into the causes of pollution of the River Penk and its tributaries; and if he is now in a position to recommend measures for dealing with the matter?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The investigation which I instituted was concerned solely with the question whether cattle had suffered through drinking water from the River Penk. The report I obtained is inconclusive on this point. With regard to the wider question of the causes of pollution of the River Penk, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
  Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that fish were killed in the river 19 miles away from where Lhis pollution arose?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, and I understand the Corporation of Wolverhampton have undertaken to pay compensation for damage to fishery interests.
  Mr. LAMB: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how difficult it is adequately to arrive at a true compensation for damage done to stock which has not actually caused death?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The whole of the pollution is most unfortunate, but there is going to be another hearing by the official of the Ministry of Health. If hon. Members want further information, they had better put down questions to that Department.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTAL CHEQUES.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has under consideration the question of introducing a system of postal cheques; and, if so, when he will be in a position to make an announcement of his plans?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): With regard to the first part I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) on 3rd July. I am not likely to be in a position to make any announcement before the Recess.

    AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Postmaster-General the number of districts in which the automatic telephone system is in operation, and the names of such districts?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Automatic telephone working is in operation in 52 areas, comprising 120 exchanges. I am sending the particulars to the hon. Member separately.

  WEST HAM UNION (COMMISSIONERS' REPORT).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health when the West Ham Poor Law Commissioners' Report for the half-year ending March, 1928, will be ready for publication?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): This report was published yesterday.

  RECREATION GROUND, BRIERLEY HILL (SCHOOL).
  Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Health whether an application made on 2nd April, 1928, by the Staffordshire County Council education authority to the Board of Education for approval of the purchase of a site for a public elementary school at Brettell Lane, Brierley Hill, has been referred to him; has he considered it; and is he aware that delay in sanctioning this purchase
  2240
  is hindering the scheme for the reorganisation of the Brierley Hill schools?
  Sir K. WOOD: This application has been referred to my right hon. Friend and has been considered. The difficulty is that the land proposed for the school has been acquired, and is now in use, by the district council as a public recreation ground, and cannot be alienated for another purpose except in accordance with statutory provisions. The district council have suggested other land of less extent as an alternative recreation ground, but on present evidence it is not clear that this ground is a satisfactory alternative. My right hon. Friend has directed that a local inquiry be held into the proposal and a decision will be given as soon as possible.

  COAL INDUSTRY (WELFARE LEVY).
  Colonel APPLINasked the Secretary for Mines if he will give instructions to the financial department of the Miners' Welfare Fund to abstain from putting pressure for the payment of the welfare levy on those collieries which are struggling to employ their men in spite of financial loss, in view of the balance in hand of £2,261,395, of which £1,627,365 was unappropriated on 31st May last?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I regret that, in view of my statutory obligations, I cannot give any general instructions of the kind suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I can assure him that sympathetic consideration is being, and will continue to be given to individual cases in which my Department is satisfied, after inquiry, that insistence on the immediate payment of the full amount would involve the undertakings concerned in serious financial difficulties.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also make application to the royalty owners to give relief as well?
  Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply that he said the colliery owners need not pay unless they wish?
  Commodore KING: No, I do not think anyone could read that into my reply.

  DEATH CERTIFICATION.
  Mr. NAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Dr. F. J. Waldo, Senior Coroner for London, concerning the importance of not permitting burial or cremation until the certifying doctor had seen and examined the body, and the need for making this compulsory by law; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to strengthen the law in this respect?
  Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has seen a report of the observations referred to. They appear, however, to pay no regard to the practical considerations involved, and to ignore the fact that, with respect to cremation, the safeguards recommended, and others even more stringent, have long been compulsory. The whole subject was fully discussed during the passage through this House of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1926; and my right hon. Friend is not prepared in the present circumstances to introduce further legislation.

  POLICE.

    RACE MEETINGS (TRAFFIC REGULATION).
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether the cost of the large number of extra police engaged in regulating the traffic to and from racecourse meetings held outside the Metropolitan Police area is a charge upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis; and, if so, whether he will inquire as to the justication for imposing on London this abnormal expenditure, with a view to an early readjustment of charges being made?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The cost of any Metropolitan Police employed by or in connection with a racecourse outside the Metropolitan area does not fall on the Metropolitan Police Fund. All traffic within the area, wherever it may be going, has to be regulated by the police as part of their normal duty.

    HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what action,
    2242
    if any, he proposes to take in respect to Constables Badger and Maclean of the Hyde Park Police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to be hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hayes) on the 5th instant, to which I am not yet in a, position to add anything further.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman then say that he was waiting for the Report of what is known as the Savidge Commission, and did he not earlier say that the case of these two constables was quite distinct from the matters arising out of the Savidge Commission? Why cannot he give an answer in reference to these two men?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said on the last occasion that it would be only respectful to a Judicial Commission of that kind not to arrive at any decision in regard to these constables, without waiting for their Report. There is a question to be put by the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the Opposition, in regard to the Savidge Report, which I shall answer.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he admitted that the Savidge Commission was in no way a re-trial of the original Hyde Park prosecution? In that case, is it fair to these two constables that that fate should be left in suspense?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree that it was not a re-trial in any sense of the term, but, having an important Commission investigating certain facts which arose, I will not say directly out of but in consequence of the previous matter, it would be more respectful to them to wait and see whether there is any reference to this matter, after which I hope to make up my mind and to deal with the police case within a very few hours.
    Mr. HAYES: If I put down a question on the subject to-morrow, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to give an answer?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Perhaps the hon. Member will leave his question until to-morrow.
    Mr. MORRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any question at all of taking proceedings against these two officers for perjury?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That question, if I may repectfully say so, is premature.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these two constables are still at work?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (CHIEF COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if he can state on what date it is proposed that Lord Byng shall take over the duties of Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; and does he intend to ask Lord Byng to undertake duties or work of any kind at Scotland Yard before the actual retirement of the present Chief Commissioner?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sir William Horwood will attain the age of 60 on 7th November next, and I contemplate that Lord Byng will assume the office of Commissioner on or about that date. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    MISS SAVIDGE (TRIBUNAL'S REPORT).
    Mr. SNOWDEN(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has received the Report of the Tribunal appointed to inquire into the interrogation by the police of Miss Savidge, and can he state when it will be made available to Members?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I received this morning two Reports, one signed by Sir John Eldon Bankes and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) and the other signed by the hon. Member for the Keighley Division of the West Biding (Mr. Lees-Smith). I hope that these Reports will be available for hon. Members to read over the week-end.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I address the next question to the Prime Minister? I suppose opportunity will be given before the end of the Session for a Parliamentary discussion of these Reports.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are a number of days on which it would be quite possible to ask for a discussion.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports in the newspapers giving extracts from the two Reports in question, and can he say how these Reports have leaked out before Members of Parliament get them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I was not aware of that, and I cannot say.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the Prime Minister state the business for to-morrow and Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow. Thursday, the Post Office Vote will be considered in Committee of Supply. The Railway Road Transport Bills have been set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for 7.30 p.m. on Thursday. On Friday, Supply, Committee, Colonial Office Vote.

CORONERS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT.
Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Coroners Act, 1887."
The object of the Bill which I seek leave to introduce is to amend Section 4 (3) of the Coroners Act, 1887, which relates to the powder of a Coroner's jury to find a verdict of murder against the person accused. Sub-section (3) indicates that a Coroner's jury has to inquire who the deceased was; how, when and where the deceased came by his death; and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons, if any, who the jury find have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter. The object of the Bill is to cut out that part of the Sub-section, with such consequential Amendments as may be necessary in the remaining parts of the Act, which relates to the naming of the person found guilty of murder.
The Coroner's Court is a very ancient Court, and in the development of its history it has gradually come to occupy a very different position from that which it hitherto occupied in the administration of justice. The object of putting the

2245
provision in the Act originally was that the Coroner's Court was regarded as providing a collateral security for the prevention of crime. It was thought that the Coroner's Court provided a ready avenue to explore whether murder or manslaughter had been committed, and to bring the offenders to justice. To-day, although a Coroner's warrant can commit a, person for trial and has the effect of an indictment and is equivalent to the finding of a Grand Jury at the Assize Court, it is the invariable practice—although it is not necessary in law for the accused person to be brought before a Magisterial Court—for the Magistrate to examine the case and come to a decision whether a prima facie case has been made out. It is not therefore necessary in the present circumstances to have an inquiry, especially under the conditions of examination, conducted before the Coroner's Court.
There are very strong objections to the present procedure. The Coroner's Court is not bound by the rules of evidence. Any evidence can be admitted. Hearsay evidence can be admitted. What the soldier said can be admitted before the Coroner's Court. Such evidence cannot be admitted before the Magisterial Court or before the Assize Court. There was notable instance of this in 1914 in a case which came before Mr. Justice Avory at the Birmingham Assizes. In that case, the Coroner's jury found that the accused woman had been guilty of murder by abortion, and committed her for trial. She came before the Magistrates in the ordinary course and the Magistrates dismissed the allegation. They found no prima facie case. The indictment went before the Grand Jury at the Assizes and Mr. Justice Avory, in addressing the Grand Jury, said that there was no evidence upon which the accused person could be put upon trial. It was true that there was evidence before the Coroner's Court which entitled that jury to commit for murder. Although there was evidence before the Coroner's Court and although there was a verdict of the Coroner's jury finding the accused person guilty of murder, there was no evidence such as could be put before a jury at the Assize Court, and therefore the Grand Jury threw out the Bill.
That is an anomalous position, and I am seeking by this Bill to provide that
2246
a coroner's jury shall be limited to finding the cause of death atone. The police and the authorities will know perfectly well the evidence given before the coroner's Court, and if that evidence points to a specific person they can make their own inquiries and bring the person before the magistrates without a coroner's Court finding a verdict of murder. That has been to some extent amended by Section 20 of the Act of 1926, which provides that in a case where an arrest has been made the coroner must suspend the inquest until the criminal proceedings upon indictment have been disposed of; and if the person is acquitted at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the coroner can completes his inquest or not, as he pleases. If that is the case where an arrest has been made, if the coroner's jury no longer operates until the trial is over, I think the Amendment should go further and include those cases where no arrest has been made, and especially those cases where there is a likelihood of an arrest being made subsequently. The Act of 1926 is unsatisfactory, as Section (20) provides that:
"After the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the coroner may, subject as hereinafter provided, resume the adjourned inquest if he is of opinion that there is sufficient cause to do so:
Provided that, if in the course of the criminal proceedings any person has been charged on indictment…"
The position, I understand, is this: If a person has been arrested during the time of the coroner's inquest on a charge of murder, the coroner shall then suspend the inquest pending the conclusion of the trial. If the magistrates find that there is no prima facie case, you have a position where there is no conclusion to the criminal proceedings on indictment, and the present position of the law leaves it still open for the coroner to go on with the inquest and for the jury, notwithstanding the fact that the magistrates have thrown out the case, to find the person guilty of murder. That is a very illogical state of the law, and for that reason I am asking leave to bring in a Bill which will limit the finding of the coroner's jury to the first part of their verdict—namely, the cause of death alone
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morris, Major Owen, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Thurtle, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Sir Robert Newman, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Ernest Brown.

CORONERS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT.
  CORONERS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Coroners Act, 1887," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rye.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report in respect of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SOLICITORS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
South Suburban Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE ACT.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1928.
      CLASS III.

        POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £3,536,260, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant in Aid of the Police Federation."—[Note.—£3,596,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. SNOWDEN: We desire to raise on this Vote the recent announcement of the Home Secretary of the pending resignation of the present Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the appointment of his successor. The announcement of the appointment of his successor has excited a great deal of public interest and concern and has aroused a great deal of criticism, which is by no means confined to the party with which I am associated. A large section of the Press which usually supports the party opposite has expressed very grave doubts about the wisdom of this selection. There will be no differences of opinion when I say that the public mind has been very much disturbed by recent incidents in connection with police administration. In an answer to a question this afternoon, the Home Secretary said that the present Commissioner will not retire until November, when the nobleman who has been appointed to succeed him will take office. It is very unusual to announce the resignation of a public servant so far in
        2264
        advance and at the same time to announce that his successor has been appointed. It is difficult to dissociate this early statement from those incidents to which I have just referred. The Home Secretary has denied that his statement has been in any way influenced by the present state in regard to police administration, but it is very difficult to dismiss from one's mind the impression that the appointment of Lord Byng has been made in the hope that it might allay popular discontent.
        4.0 p.m.
        The announcement of this resignation and the appointment of his successor was made at a time when the Tribunal was sitting to inquire into certain incidents in connection with police administration, and one would hardly like to think that the Home Secretary made this announcement in anticipation of the conclusions which might be reached by the members of this Tribunal. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that it is far from our intentions or desires to say one word in disparagement of the high military achievements, the great military gifts and high character, of Lord Byng, which are universally accepted. We base our objections to this appointment on wider public grounds. However great Lord Byng's ability as a, military officer may be, we submit that his training, his experience and, naturally, the outlook and point of view which he must have developed by long years of military service, are not the sort of qualifications necessary for the post of Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. As a matter of fact, his whole experience has been gained in a sphere which unfits him for the discharge of duties which are of a purely civil character. His achievements, his attainments, his experience in that sphere are, we submit, a disqualification rather than a recommendation for the post to which the Home Secretary has just appointed him. We cannot dissociate the appointment of a military man from other appointments as chief constables and headships of police which for some time have been, apparently, the settled policy. We believe that there is a growing militarisation in the police force, and I think, and my friends think, and. I am quite sure, a great many people besides ourselves think, that it would be disastrous for the efficiency of the police if the police force were given a military character. In

        2265
        increasing numbers the police authorities in the provinces are making appointments to chief constableships of ex-Army officers, although the Home Secretary himself, some time ago, in regard to the appointment of the Chief Constable for Westmorland, refused to endorse the appointment, I believe on the ground that the man who had, in the first instance, been selected was an ex-Army officer, and that there was at least one person whose experience had been obtained in the police force whom the right hon. Gentleman considered to be more suitable for the appointment.
        Why do we say that military experience is not a recommendation but a disqualification for the control of the police? The reason why we say that is that the police have to exercise functions and duties which are quite different from those of the Army. The police are a civil force, and for their efficiency it is necessary that they should have the confidence of the public, that they should have the confidence of all law-abiding citizens. It is important that the police and the public should co-operate. Now in the Army it is quite different. The Army is something apart from the public. The functions of the Army are to exercise effective force which I might describe as violence. The discipline and the organisation of the two forces must be different, because of the different functions they have to perform, and their different relations to the public. In the Army there must be stern discipline. There must be strict obedience to authority. The private soldier is not permitted to exercise any initiative, any independent will or any independent judgment. Now the exercise of those things is most important in the police force. The police officer is very often called upon to act at the moment, to rely upon his commonsense and upon his judgment, to exercise initiative, and I have the highest possible admiration for the way in which, with very few exceptions, the police of this country discharge those duties. If the police force had to be organised on Army lines, then you would destroy, as I said just now, that necessarily intimate, confidential sympathy and co-operation that there should be between the police and the public, and you would destroy the initiative of every police officer.
        2266
        These, briefly, are our objections to the growing tendency towards the militarisation of the police. I believe that most of the Chief Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police who have been appointed in this generation have been men who had no police experience, who had only Army experience. Has the appointment of men with that experience been a success? The inference can be drawn, from the replies which the Home Secretary has given to questions in the past week or two, that he is not satisfied with the present state of things in the Metropolitan Police. The administration of the Metropolitan Police has been in the hands of military men for a good many year. The present Commissioner, Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, was himself a soldier, and the general opinion of the public is that, under his administration, the police force has been reduced to a state worse than it has occupied since the police force was established by Sir Robert Peel nearly a century ago, and it cannot be said that the experience of appointing military men to the control of civil police forces has justified itself by practical experience. France is generally regarded as a highly militarised country, and there are few things in France that I would wish to see this country emulate, but, at any rate, they do these things better in Paris than they are done in London. [Laughter, and an HON. MEMBER: "What about Chicago?"] The French would never tolerate the appointment of a military man to the control of the police. Things, apparently, in Paris do not meet with enthusiasm on the part of hon. Members opposite, but I am quite sure that their imagination is not sufficiently strong to conserve what the state of things in Paris would be if the Paris police were under strict military discipline and control.
        Our first objection to the appointment of Lord Byng is that it brings in a man who has spent his life and gained his experience in quite a different situation. I do not care how able a man may be, if he has spent 30 or 40 years in one career he gets into a rut, and it is impossible for him to get out of that rut, and he will bring his experience and his training to bear upon any new duties that he undertakes. We profoundly disagree with the Home Secretary when he

        2267
        said that Lord Byng has just those qualities which will fit him to become an ideal Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. What did the right hon. Gentleman say?
        "The position in the Metropolitan Police is that there are many high officers, all carrying out their duties satisfactorily, but it may well be, and it is my view, having been responsible for three and a half years and having worked with these officers, that neither of them was the right man to appoint to the control of a great force of 20,000 men, involving as it does the safety and happiness of an enormous city of some 8,000,000 people. I felt it essential that I should get a man of great qualifications, great ability, great character, and while I make no reflection of any kind on the officers of the force, who are carrying out their duties admirably, I felt, and still feel, that Lord Byng is better adapted for carrying out the duties than any one of these officers. I never, in any statement of mine, said that there was any question of clearing up a mess. I stated that I asked Lord Byng…to take this important duty, because I could conceive that he had exactly those qualities which are required at the present time."—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1928; cols. 1383–4, Vol. 219.]
        His remark about "the present time" is very significant. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that Lord Byng is coming into this office because there is something wrong in the police force: but I think it is a reasonable inference to draw from what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the words I have quoted, "at the present time," that in his opinion there is some special reason why, a man like Lord Byng in the Home Secretary's estimation is necessary to deal with the present state of things in the Metropolitan Police. I have already given reasons why we dissent from that view. High as are his qualifications, and highly honourable as is the record of Lord Byng as a military man, we consider that that experience and those qualifications are not a recommendation for a civil appointment. Our second objection is against this practice of bringing in outsiders to fill the highest posts in the civil force. I think that, just as every soldier should carry a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, so there should be under the helmet of every police constable a possible Chief Commissioner of Police.
        If you take away from men of ability the hope and the reasonable expectation of attaining the highest position, you are striking a mortal blow at the initiative
        2268
        of the rank and file. Every man of ability in the police service, as indeed in the Civil Service generally, should be able to look forward, if he proves himself worthy by his work, to attaining the highest position in the Service. In my opinion the man who is needed for the post of Commissioner of Police is a man with police experience, but a broad-minded man, a man who understands how to deal with men and to deal with them not as a martinet but in a sympathetic way. I take it that if the Home Secretary had looked through the list of those high officers in the Metropolitan Police service who, he said, "are admirably discharging their duties," it would have been possible for him to have found a man who would have satisfied these qualifications.
        The third objection that we raise is on the point of age. There is no precedent for appointing to this position a man of the advanced age of Lord Byng. The ages at which Commissioners of Police have been appointed in this generation have varied from 50 to 56 years. Lord Byng will be 66 before he takes up this appointment, and in the natural course of things he cannot be expected to take the position for very long. The fact that the Home Secretary is appointing a man of that age seems to point to the conclusion that the man is being appointed for special work, because of urgent present problems, and that it is not intended that the appointment shall be long continued, for, as the Home Secretary stated, it is subject to 24 hours' notice on either side. If the Home Secretary felt that Lord Byng was just the man to be called in to deal with something of the nature of reorganisation, it would have been far better to have called him in as a consultant, and for some other person more likely to hold the position, if he proved worthy, for a considerable length of time, to have been appointed to the position of Commissioner of Police.
        We object to this practice of finding jobs for retired Army pensioners. Why does a man retire from the Army or from the Navy or from the Civil Service? Because he is supposed to have earned a period of leisure by long service. I will not put it so offensively—at any rate I do not mean it in that way—as to say

        2269
        that when a man retires it is felt that he has outlived his usefulness and that he is no longer capable of rendering fully efficient service. But I think this practice of appointing men, who have retired through age, to important and well paid public posts, is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. For instance, what would be said if a very high civil servant who had retired on reaching the age limit was appointed to be Commander-in-Chief of the British Army? The appointment of Lord Byng would be exactly comparable to that. The appointment of a civil servant (whose experience has been gained in an altogether different sphere) because he had shown great administrative ability in the work of which he had long experience and in which he had had a long training—it would never be tolerated for a moment that a man like that should be appointed to the head of the Army. That is what we are doing in regard to this appointment. The appointment of military men to the police was not approved, but was in fact condemned in the Report of the Desborough Committee, and the Government have accepted the recommendations of that Committee. That Committee stated the following:
        "We realise the importance of this question from the point of view of the control and efficiency of the police force, and we should not hesitate to recommend the appointment of Chief Constables from Outside the Service if we considered that the requisite qualifications could not be found within; but after a full consideration we recommend that no person without previous police experience should be appointed as Chief Constable in any police force unless he sustains an exceptional qualification or experience which especially fits him for the position."
        I submit that this appointment is not carrying out the recommendation of that Report, which, as I said just now, the Government have accepted. Let me sum up our objections to this appointment. The first point is that we do not consider that a man whose qualifications are wholly military, however high they may be, is qualified to take up a civil appointment. Then there is the question of age. It is important that a younger man should be appointed, a man with more vigour, more initiative, and, above all, a man appointed at an age when he can feel that he has a number of years before him in which to take root and do credit
        2270
        to himself in the post that he occupies. In the main those are our objections to this appointment. I believe that the Home Secretary has acted to the best of his judgment in this matter, but we do not approve of his judgment, and I am quite sure that the public generally do not approve. We think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. I have little hope that the Debate this afternoon will influence the Home Secretary to alter his decision, but, as I have said, the appointment of Lord Byng is likely to be of a temporary character, and I do believe that the public opposition to and the public criticism of this appointment will have its effect. If this appointment is not cancelled, I hope that when—it seems that it will not be very long—another Commissioner of Police is to be appointed, the objections that we have urged this afternoon will be taken into consideration, and an effort will be made to promote a man from the police to that position, for we believe that that will be not merely in the interests of police administration itself, but that it will give greater confidence to the public.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am glad that the time has come at last when I can make, on this subject, a fuller statement than was possible in reply to the various questions that have been put to me. If he will allow me to say so, the right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair attack on myself for the decision which I, after a very great deal of consideration, arrived at, and I publicly thank him for not having made any attack on the gentleman whom I have nominated as Commissioner. In fact, except in one remark that he made about "finding jobs for pensioned men," I really take no exception to his speech. I should like in this Debate to keep out very largely the character and position of Lord Byng. I want to answer the criticisms made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to give some history, almost from day to day, of the position. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as Secretary of State I am responsible for advising His Majesty as to the appointment of the new Commissioner. The appointment does not come under the Police Fund, and the appointment is an appointment by the King on the re-

        2271
        commendation of his Ministers. The Commissioner is paid not out of the Police Fund or the Metropolitan rate, but wholly out of moneys voted by Parliament.
        The right hon. Gentleman made an accusation or a contention that there had been an increasing militarisation of the police during the last two years. I have taken a good deal of trouble to find out the details about that. It is quite true that in the county police forces, the chief constables of which are appointed by the standing joint committees, there has been very largely a tendency, not only in the last 20 years but for many years, to appoint military officers. In regard to the boroughs, on the other hand, there is almost a certainty that a chief constable will be appointed from the police force itself. Since 1920 there have been 17 county appointments, of which only four have been military and 13 of men who have served in other police forces. In the boroughs there have been 48 appointments, and only one of them was an Army officer. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will say, "You are giving facts which will be used against yourself in regard to this appointment." I desire to give the facts first, and I want to be perfectly frank. For what it is worth, I give to hon. Gentlemen the benefit of the argument I have suggested. In the police forces throughout the country there has not been an increasing militarisation.
        In the London Police Force I have had to appoint one Assistant Commissioner, and it is true that I appointed a naval officer. In my time I have had to appoint three or four chief constables. There are five chief constables in London, and we have reserved an equality between ex-service men and policemen. There are today in the London Police Force, largely by my own appointment, five chief constables, two of whom have had military service, and three of whom have risen from the ranks of the police. On the whole I certainly have not attempted in any way—it has never entered the mind of the Government—to militarise the London Police Force during my time.
        Let me come to the position at the present time. I need not say a word on behalf of the London police. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted what
        2272
        a splendid force they are, but he made certain reservations, with which I must deal in a moment. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) knows, there is in existence a Police Federation with which I have worked in very close sympathy. It has been my privilege from time to time to meet the Federation. You cannot call it a trade union, but it is a Federation which is very near akin to the ordinary organisation of a trade union. I appeal to the hon. Member for Edge Hill, who knows the police force of London thoroughly, and who will confirm me when I say, that I have worked in the closest sympathy and harmony with the Police Federation, frequently meeting them in their conferences and in their general meetings, since I have been Home Secretary and have had charge of this great body of men. I should like to explain to the Committee that the Chief Commissioner is in very direct touch with the Secretary of State. He comes and sees me and has direct access to me whenever he wishes to see me. Equally, whenever I wish to see him I send for him, and we have, week by week, and sometimes day by day, long conferences as to matters which arise out of police organisation.
        Undoubtedly, at the beginning of this year, and even at the end of last year, there was a kind of sub-acid feeling growing in the public mind to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. There were accusations of various kinds against the police force, but there was nothing definite. These were matters which gave me anxiety, because upon the popularity of the police force depends very greatly their efficiency. You cannot have an efficient police force in a great city like London, properly organised and controlled, dealing with crime and so forth, unless that police force has the full confidence of the public as a whole. It is impossible to imagine the governing of 8,000,000 people and dealing with crime and with all the other things which are not crime with which police have to deal unless the police have the full support and sympathy—as they used to have 20 or even 10 years ago—and the affection of the people as a whole. In the course of various conversations with the Commissioner, he intimated to me as long ago as 22nd February this year that when his time came to an end, as it would

        2273
        come to an end in November of this year, he did not propose to apply to me for an extension. His period of service comes to an end in November of this year. He could apply to the Home Secretary for the time being, for an extension, which extension could be granted by the Home Secretary if he saw fit; otherwise, there was a pension of £1,000 a year, which the Commissioner would be entitled to take on retirement. He intimated to me in February of this year that he did not intend to ask for an extension.
        Mr. J. JONES: Why did you not tell us then?
        The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
        Mr. JONES: Order yourself.
        The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to indulge in that kind of talk, or I must ask him to withdraw.
        Mr. JONES: I will certainly withdraw, but I think the Members of this House are entitled to some respect from the Ministers of the Crown.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member addressed the Chair in a manner which could not be overlooked.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a curious commentary on the present accusation made against me that I announced the appointment of Lord Byng far sooner than was necessary. I am now accused of not having announced the retirement of Sir William Horwood several months before he retired at the moment the information was given to me. When the information was given to me, I naturally felt that the great responsibility during my term of office had been placed upon me of finding a suitable person to succeed General Horwood as Commissioner. It is not to be supposed that like a bolt from the blue I said: "General Byng is the one man for this post." I consulted with General Horwood as to the whole of the staff. We discussed from time to time the whole of the headquarters staff at Scotland Yard—all doing their duty admirably. I never complained of the way they carried out their duties. But it is one thing to be an Assistant Commissioner in charge of one department or another Assistant Commissioner in charge of another department, and quite
        2274
        a different thing to have a Commissioner with control over a force which the right hon. Gentleman knows numbers some 20,000 men. I reported—as, of course, I was bound to do so—the matter to the Prime Minister, and he and I discussed various names from time to time.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the dates?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was after February this year; between February and the date that Lord Byng was approached.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot you give the dates?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean? I see my right hon. Friend every day. Soon after General Horwood said that he was retiring, I said to the Prime Minister in course of conversation with him in his room: "General Horwood is retiring in November. We have to find another Commissioner." I really cannot satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to what particular day or hour this conversation took place.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to be misunderstood at all, but it is very important. The right hon. Gentleman himself made a point, when the question came before this House, that it was right back in February that General Horwood said he wished to retire. Surely, it was at that time, in February—on the 22nd February we have heard this afternoon—that the matter was discussed with the Prime Minister. Or was it discussed with the Primo Minister for weeks and on every occasion?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, when the hon. and gallant Member joins the Cabinet, he will know that there are the closest and most confidential discussions between the Prime Minister and his Ministers. I cannot say that I walked across directly from the Home Office and said, "General Horwood is retiring," but I told my right hon. Friend at the earliest moment that General Horwood would be retiring in November and that we had to look for a successor. I am not going to attempt to give a date, but we frequently dis-

        2275
        cussed the matter. I discovered an officer, and the Prime Minister concurred, who, I thought, would make an admirable Commissioner of Police. That officer, whose name I do not wish to disclose, is still a serving officer. His name was submitted to His Majesty who was prepared to confirm the appointment. That officer subsequently declined the appointment for reasons of his own. The Prime Minister and I consulted with some of the heads of the Civil Service as to whether we could get a good civil servant to take it. Again, I cannot give the date. I asked a very great friend of mine in the business world to come and see me. He came and saw me at my house, and I discussed with him the possibility of finding a great business man, a great organiser, to take over the management of this great force. Let me explain. It needs a great deal of administration and organisation to control this force, with all its ramifications throughout London. I could find no help in that quarter. There was one obvious difficulty in that quarter. No business man who controlled or was capable of controlling a business employing 20,000 men with all its vast ramifications would be likely to accept this post for £3,000 a year.
        An HON. MEMBER: Did you go to Trade Union officials?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: After that, various other suggestions were made, and we considered many high officers, and finally I sent for Lord Byng, whom I had never seen in my life. I asked Lord Byng if he would come and see me in the first instance. I wrote to him to say that General Horwood was resigning, and I wanted a new Commissioner. I still was not certain whether it would be wise to appoint a military man or a civilian, and I said: "There is no one I know of who can so well advise me of the military men available as Lord Byng." Lord Byng came to see me. It was the first time I had ever seen him in my life. He came to see me at the Home Office. We discussed the nature of the qualifications of the man for the particular post. He decided at once that he could not take it. He outlined to me what he thought were the qualifications of the man who could well fill this post,
        2276
        and, after half-an-hour's conversation, I began in my mind to consider whether Lord Byng was not the man. I suggested it, and he said, "No" quite definitely and firmly. He declined to take the post. And here I come to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) about finding jobs for pensioners. Lord Byng declined to take it because of his age, because of his right, having done a great deal of service in the war, having fulfilled a very high and a very onerous post in Canada, to rest, to live the remainder of his life in the way that he had planned out for himself.
        He advised me of, and gave me the name of, another officer whom I knew by reputation. He said: "I think he is much better for the post." I said: "Very well. I have asked for your advice, and I will offer it to this officer." I wrote to the officer, and he came and saw me. He was a serving officer of great ability and experience, and he at once said: "No. I am not going to give up my career. I cannot give up my career for this post." He therefore declined it. I then wrote again to Lord Byng. Here arises the beginning of that curious remark about which I have been twitted so much—"the stern call." I wrote to Lord Byng, and I definitely said to him: "I am not offering you an appointment so much as making a stern call to duty"—not a call to stern duty as some hon. Members have said. It is a misunderstanding. A stern call to duty was the only way of getting Lord Byng—to appeal to a man of his great position and great character, great ability, and great services to the country. It was only to make a call to duty that I wrote to Lord Byng, and Lord Byng wrote in reply and said he would accept the post, and serve to the utmost of his ability and put his whole soul into it. I then had a second interview.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You could not get business men in that way.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I know you could not get business men in that way. I come, if I may, to the reasons, why I thought it was wise to go outside—and in this matter, as I have explained to the Committee, I was acting in fullest

        2277
        accord with the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government—the ordinary ranks of the police force to get some such man as Lord Byng. I wish to read a few extracts from speeches made in this House on the 17th May last, one or two of which confirm in fact what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the feeling that was abroad in the minds of the people regarding the position of the police force. The hon. Member for Dundec (Mr. Johnston) who introduced the subject—and I have no complaint to make against him—began by saying:
        "It is our duty to offer a resolute and determined opposition to anything in the nature of a Cheka, or the Turkish system, or the Star Chamber method,…or Third Degree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1928; col. 1304, Vol. 217.]
        Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor)—I want to show the feeling that there was in the public mind; and these are representative men—came down to the House the same afternoon and said:
        "I myself have been satisfied that there is a case to be investigated"—
        I am not dealing with the Savidge case—
        "in regard to these suggested 'third degree' methods. I myself have known of cases which approximate to the 'third degree,' and I should be very pleased to give the Home Secretary, at the proper time, instances…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1928; col. 1319, Vol. 217.]
        More than that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), a man who has been Home Secretary and who has been in charge of and directly responsible for the police for nearly a year, in that same Debate said:
        "I am sure the Home Secretary must be aware that there has recently arisen out of various cases a growing dissatisfaction and may I say, a withdrawing of public confidence in regard to some of the methods adopted by the Metropolitan Police. I do not say whether that is rigid or wrong, but as the Home Secretary said in his closing sentences, so much depends upon the public having confidence in the Metropolitan Police that we cannot afford to allow an increase in this dissatisfaction or a further withdrawal of the confidence of the public in the Police Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1928; col. 1316, Vol. 217.]
        Later on in his speech he pressed for, a larger Commission of Inquiry in addition to the one which was to deal with the smaller point, and he said:
        "The issue with which we are now faced is the coming into our police administration
        2278
        of what has been characterised as third degree methods."
        He asked for an inquiry which should be comprehensive, and said:
        "Then probably we shall do something to restore public confidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1928; cols. 1317 and 1318, Vol. 217.]
        Those were the speeches made in this House by responsible Members at the time when I was endeavouring to find a successor to the present Commissioner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is himself a military man!"] Yes, he is himself a military man and, perhaps, I may explain to the House that out of the 10 Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, seven have been military men and the other three have not been through the armed forces at all. All have been appointed from the outside, and suppose there was never a more popular police officer than Sir Edward Bradford, the one-armed Commissioner of Police, who had been through the Indian Army, and who was beloved alike by the police force and the public. When the Prime Minister and I came to discuss the matter, we both thought it wiser, in these particular circumstances, to go outside and to get a man whose character, whose experience, whose ability and whose idealism would lift the whole thing above any mere petty disputes and would restore to the police and the public that confidence which I have been told on both sides of the House—paiticularly by the late Home Secretary—has been missing for a time. When I sent for Lord Byng the second time and he agreed to accept the post, I told him of my ambition, and I told him of the statements which had been made in this House in regard to the police. I do not see the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in his place, but I am told by one of his colleagues that he has, waiting for this other Commission, a large number of complaints which have been sent in to him by members of the public in regard to police action.
        We cannot allow that kind of feeling to continue—the kind of feeling that there is something wrong with the police. I do not believe there is anything wrong. I believe there never was a force of this kind of 20,000 men, taken on the whole, more admirable, better disciplined, and

        2279
        more desirous of doing their duty, but we have to consider not merely the police. We have to consider the public as well. We have to carry public favour with us. There must be public respect for the Police Force. I told Lord Byng that I thought he was the man to lead the force—it is no good attempting to drive a Police Force—to lead them, as he led the Canadian troops during the War. Ask anybody who served under Lord Byng and they will tell you that he was the idol of the rank and file. I want him to be the idol of the rank and file of the Police Force. There are in the London Police Force 8,520 ex-service men, many of whom must have served in the Armies under Lord Byng. Lord Byng will not merely be the head of the Force, but will be the protector of the public. He is not a "militarisation" man; he is the very last officer who could be accused of being a military man of the drill sergeant type. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, described the ideal man for the post as a broad-minded man, as a man who would deal sympathetically with men and not a martinet. The right hon. Gentleman described Lord Byng. The ideal which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed is Lord Byng. It may be said that he is older than other men who have been appointed to this office. I admit it, and both the Prime Minister and I knew that there would be an attack on us for having appointed a man of that age. I take full responsibility. I believe he is the man for the post. I believe he has those very qualities which the right hon. Gentleman described.
        The right hon. Gentleman asked me if there was to be a re-organisation of the Police Force. No, but there is to be a re-inspiration. There are many things that have to be dealt with in the Police Force. There are difficult questions to be decided. There will be the report of the Savidge inquiry; there will be the report of the Macmillan Commission, which I hope to receive before Lord Byng comes into office. It deals with street offences, a very difficult question indeed. There will be the Commission in regard to alleged third degree methods for which hon. Members opposite are pressing and which we hope as soon as possible to clear out of the way. There
        2280
        are questions of decentralisation in the administration of the Police Force, and there are very difficult questions of traffic control to be considered. May I say one word to hon. Members and the general public in that connection. I have formed a conclusion that a great deal of the lack of co-operation between the public and the police, so far as there is any lack of co-operation, has arisen from the increase in motoring. There is to-day a large section of the community who come in contact with the police and who are not criminals in the ordinary sense of the term, but are breaking various regulations. It is the duty of the police to see that those regulations are enforced and the man in a motor car—the lady also I am afraid—who is stopped and told to go this or that way, may indulge in a little "backchat" with the policeman. We all know what happens. It may be a hot day when the police uniform is unpleasant to wear, or it may be a cold snowy day, and there may be irritation on both sides.
        These are the situations where patience is needed on both sides and, since I have been Home Secretary, I have never ceased to impress on the police force the necessity of remembering that they are the servants of the public and that courtesy is due by them in all their actions to the members of the general public. At the same time, I should like to make an appeal to the general public to be a little more courteous to the police. Their job is not an easy one at all seasons and in all weathers when people are driving this way and that way. They have a most difficult task, and if the general public would only—let me say it quite frankly—use a little more courtesy and fewer attempts at corruption, it would be better. The policeman who accepts a bribe is, of course, wrong and is liable to dismissal, but the man or women who offers it is worse. I say quite frankly that, while the police are punished if they are caught in such cases, it would be a good thing if a few of the general public could be caught and were equally punished.
        Mr. WHEATLEY: Is there much corruption?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I think not. I have tried to go into the matter very carefully, because people have told

        2281
        me stories of that kind of thing—stories which will not hold water, I have investigated a good many suggestions made by various people, but it is very difficult, indeed, almost impossible, to get a man or woman to come forward and prove a case of that kind. They generally hear it from someone else. There is, however, that feeling which I have already mentioned and which has been referred to in this House, and I want to get rid of that feeling. I want to get the police back to their old-time popularity. That I believe Lord Byng will do. I propose not to fetter him too much in the early days of his appointment. He will, of course, be subject to the authority of the Secretary of State, exactly as I am subject to the authority of the House. I shall be open to be questioned in regard to all his actions, and I shall be responsible for everything that I permit him to do in that post.
        Finally, I want to say—and I say it quite respectfully to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that this appointment is one which is made by the Government and by the authorities and in a Parliamentary and constitutional manner. It must be the Government who makes the great decisions in this country. I agree that it is quite right for the Opposition, if they think fit, to criticise the action of the Government. I had meant to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite not to criticise Lord Byng but to criticise me. There is no need for me to make that appeal, the right hon. Gentleman has been so fair in his speech. If the Government have done wrong, we are responsible to the House of Commons. I am still quite unrepentant in regard to this appointment. Having given the matter the greatest possible consideration, I still believe that we have found the man for this post. We believe he will bring the right qualities to this great office, which is becoming more and more important as the years go on, with the increasing population, the increase in the Police Force, and the introduction of new methods of dealing with crime. All these things, as I say, are making the office more and more important. I believe we have found the man who will bring to it exactly those great qualities which the right hon. Gentleman opposite demands. Lord Byng has undertaken this great appointment not for pay
        2282
        or anything of that kind. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite realises that Lord Byng feels it to be a duty and feels it to be something which he can do for his country.
        I appeal to the House and the public at large to give him fair play and to give the police fair play. Give the police the chance which they have not had for the last year. Stop this carping criticism. If you have criticism, bring it to me. If you have accusations, bring them to me, and I will see that they they are probed to the very hilt. I would ask the public to try to realise the importance of the Police Force of London, and the magnificence of the character of the 20,000 men serving in that Force. I ask the House and the public to restore the Police Force to the confidence and affection which it used to enjoy, until the last year or two, and to remember that aspersions—ill-deserved as I am satisfied they are—which are often too lightly made, are always very seriously considered by a very sensitive body of men like the police. Now is the chance for re-inspiring that Force, and I ask the House and the public to take the chance.
        Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        5.0 p.m.
        I do this in spite of the Home Secretary's appeal not to indulge in carping criticism, but to accept his explanation of the reasons why he made this appointment. May I ask the Home Secretary to accept my assurance that I take up this attitude only in response to a stern call to duty, and just as General Lord Byng answered the appeal that the Home Secretary made to him, so the Opposition have to consider their duty and their right to criticise this appointment. I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in dissociating from our criticism any attack at all upon Lord Byng. We are quite prepared to concentrate on the Home Secretary, and he has told us that it is not merely the Home Secretary but the Government whose conduct is at stake. I am quite prepared to take him up on that issue, and to press this reduction to a Vote, even though it might have the unfortunate effect of putting the Government out of office. There have been certain reasons brought forward by

        2283
        my right hon. Friend which perhaps might bear a little elaboration, and I wish to add one more to the objections that he has urged against this appointment. That objection is that the appointment has been given to a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Upper House, and later I will ask the Committee to consider the constitutional aspect of such an appointment, but first I want to deal with the action of the Home Secretary in making a military appointment.
        He referred to the fact that there were seven Chief Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police who had been military officers, and out of those seven he picked one, Sir Edward Bradford, as being a most popular officer. I am at least at liberty to pick out one or two more who were not so popular as Sir Edward Bradford; nay, who were actual failures in the position that they had taken up. What about Sir Edmund Henderson, who, as Chief Commissioner, undoubtedly failed to maintain the traditions of the Army as applied to the administration of the police force? The Under-Secretary is going to reply, and perhaps he will make a note of that and tell us why it was that Sir Edmund Henderson so quickly passed out of office after entering it. Then what about Colonel Sir Charles Warren, an officer of the Army? Not even the Home Secretary will deny the statement that Sir Charles Warren was an egregious failure as Chief Commissioner of Police. There was yet another military officer, in the person of General Sir Nevil Macready, the unready? Does the Home Secretary think that his appointment justified the selection of a military officer for that post? How long were these three military officers in possession of that important post? Not one of them was in office sufficiently long to justify a pension being granted, even though it is the practice in most Governments to grant a pension on very short service indeed.
        Something has been said about the time that the announcement was made, and the Home Secretary has given us an explanation of how it came to be made on that day, the 2nd July. He said that Sir William Horwood had informed him in February that he intended to resign, that he looked about for a successor, and that it was not
        2284
        until nearly July that the Home Secretary was able to announce in this House that he had found a man, in the person of Lord Byng, suitable to the position, and that Lord Byng had agreed to take up the appointment when it fell vacant next November. But that is no reason why the Home Secretary should make the announcement in that particular week. Does it not strike the Home Secretary as rather peculiar that he should have chosen last week to make this announcement, just a few days prior to the issue of the Savidge Inquiry Report? Even if it was not the intention of the Home Secretary deliberately to make this announcement before the publication of that Report, he ought to have considered the consequences of choosing that particular time to make the announcement. He should have said to himself: "Well, if I make this announcement of Sir William Horwood's definite retirement and the appointment of a new Commissioner at this particular moment, just prior to the issue of the Report of the inquiry into a certain part of the administration of the Metropolitan Police Force"—for that is what it amounted to—"I may possibly be accused of trying to allow the present Commissioner's resignation to be announced prior to the issue of a report which may contain statements derogatory to his administration of the duties of his office." Did not that strike the Home Secretary?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What struck the Home Secretary was this, that if he announced it before the issue of the Report, he would be criticised, but if he kept it back till after the issue of the Report, he would also be criticised, so he did what seemed to be the right thing; he issued the announcement at the moment the arrangement was completed.
        Mr. NAYLOR: I do not understand the logic of the Home Secretary's explanation. He should have made that announcement at a time when he would have been free from the accusation of trying to cover the retreat of the Commissioner, who possibly and probably would be condemned in the forthcoming Report, and in any case the Home Secretary was bound to announce the retirement later. There is no doubt about that, but surely it would have been better

        2285
        to wait even after the issue of the Report of the Street Offences Inquiry, which may make even more serious reflections on the administration of the police force. [Interruption]. That inquiry may conceivably report to the extent of saying, that sufficient care has not been taken by those responsible for the administration of the Force, and that had that care been taken the necessity for the inquiry might never have arisen. The Home Secretary will forgive me if I say that he has not satisfied me as to the propriety of his making the announcement on that particular date.
        Does he definitely say that there is nothing wrong with the administration of the Force? Does he say that Sir William Horwood's period of administration, especially in the last two or three years, has been entirely satisfactory to him? I understand the Home Secretary to nod assent. Is that so? The Home Secretary does not nod assent, and therefore I have no answer to that question, but we can draw our own conclusions. I am not saying whether or not Sir William Horwood was a success in the position. I am trying to find out. I have no means of knowing whether he has been or has not, although I have some experience of the magisterial bench. I would not presume to judge the Chief Commissioner on his own record, but I say this, that at the age of 60, with 10 years' extension of office before him if he chose to accept it, if Sir William Horwood had been a success—and he is going to get a pension, whether he has been or not—why did not the Home Secretary say to him, "Sir William Horwood, you ask me to accept your resignation; I make an appeal to you, and I call upon you, as a very stern call to duty, to maintain your position"? The same state of affairs in the Metropolitan Police that caused the Home Secretary to make that striking appeal to Lord Byng could have been made to his predecessor, the present Commissioner, if there had been any desire on the Home Secretary's part to retain him.
        That seems to me the most serious aspect of the present position, and it lends colour to the belief that undoubtedly exists in the public mind that it was because there was something to be
        2286
        kept back, because things were not as they ought to have been during the present administration, that the announcement of the resignation and the new appointment was made at that most convenient time. I think the Hone Secretary's own statements in the different answers that he has given to questions from time to time justify that opinion. He said, in reply to questions put to him, that he felt that the new Commissioner was the one man who was going to put things right. Now, if the new Commissioner is the one man who is going to take a firm hold of the machine, and is going to strike out in the direction which is going to bring about a reform of the present administration, is not that an admission that the present administration is defective? I put it to the Home Secretary that he cannot escape the logic of that argument, and while I do not wish to argue against the appointment of Lord Byng merely because the present administration is not all that it might be, I certainly think the fact that the resignation has been put in in this way and announced in this way is worthy of more than passing comment.
        On the question of the appointment itself, I was much interested in the Home Secretary's statement of the trouble that he took and the endeavours that he made to secure the right man for this position, and I am astonished to find that in this progressive nation of ours it took the Home Secretary all that time, and he had to make so many inquiries, before he could find a man who was regarded as a fit and proper person to become Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He went to the Civil Service, and he could get no satisfaction there. He flirted with the Navy, and he could get no satisfaction there. With all that long list of Army officers on half pay and retired pay, he could only select an officer who, however distinguished he may be, has not shown any special qualification for the duties about to be imposed on him. He is actually on the retired list, and not merely out of work for the time being, and is receiving a pension. Yet he is the only man, out of all the hundreds of ex-officers and half-pay officers, who is capable of accepting this job. I take no exception to a military man, as such, and I would go so far as to say that, if I found an officer of the

        2287
        Army whom I thought would make a good Commissioner, I should consider that he ought to be given a chance, other things being equal, but he must have the necessary qualifications.
        The Home Secretary has not convinced me that Lord Byng has the necessary qualifications for this position. Lord Byng himself, judging from what was contained in replies of the Home Secretary to certain questions, seems to have some doubt about it. The Home Secretary mentioned that after much pressure, and after refusing the appointment, he said that he would take it. I can imagine the conversation running on the lines suggested by the Home Secretary's reply. He said that Lord Byng hesitated a good deal, and after a time said that he would take the appointment, but that he would resign within 24 hours if his faculties failed him. It seems to suggest that there is a flaw in this appointment on account of age, if the person who is appointed expects, on account of age, that his faculties may fail him, and that he may have to retire in four years without carrying out those reforms which the Home Secretary may think necessary. At the end of four years, Lord Byng will retire, and he will retire, we may suppose, on a pension. I suggest that that is not good business from the Government's point of view.
        When there are many men who are prepared and able to do the work, who are in the prime of life, and who could be expected to carry on their duties for 20 years or more, it is little short of a scandal that a man of the age of 66 should be appointed to this position. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has considered the legality of his decision. According to the Regulations, it is possible for a public servant to retire at the age limit of 60, and in this case it is possible for the service to be extended another 10 years by agreement between the holder of the post and the Home Secretary. Do the Regulations, however, make it legal to go outside the Service for an appointment of this kind, and to have that appointment made at the age of 66? I doubt whether that technical point has been considered by the Home Secretary. If the age of 60 is the normal age for retirement, subject
        2288
        to extension, it does not appear to me to be sound law that a man from outside can be appointed at 66.
        I just want to refer to the other objection that I have to the appointment—that the Home Secretary should have appointed as Chief Commissioner of the Police a Member of Parliament. That is a most anomalous position. The British Parliament consist of two Houses, and it is just as wrong to appoint a Member of the Upper House as it would be to appoint a Member of the House of Commons. The Home Secretary would not suggest for a moment that the appointment could possibly be given to a Member of the House of Commons. If not, how can he justify the appointment of a Member of the House of Lords, who is called upon to take part in the decisions of Parliament on matters possibly involving his own conduct as Commissioner of Police? I submit that if the Home Secretary has not consulted the Officers of the Crown in regard to that point, it would be advisable for him to do so.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) as to whether Lord Byng would be allowed to take any part in the Debates in the House of Lords, and I have received a letter from Lord Byng saying that he would never go to the House of Lords while holding an official position.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He is summoned to the House of Lords. He cannot escape it.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am trying to relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman, who asked whether Lord Byng would attend the House of Lords and take part in the Debates, and I am sure this House would like to know that, while he is Commissioner of the Police, he will abstain from attending the House of Lords.
        Mr. NAYLOR: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for his attempt to relieve my mind, but my mind is not in the least relieved. My point was a technical or legal point, but a very vital point nevertheless, for, as all lawyers know, legal points are vital, however insignificant they may appear. The point is that Lord Byng is a Member

        2289
        of the House of Parliament known as the Upper Chamber. He is summoned to attend the meetings of the House of Lords, just as we are summoned here. He has certain duties which he has sworn to perform, and to give this appointment to a Member of the Upper Chamber is surely foreign to all the traditions of the British constitution. The Home Secretary, I know, said last week that the Commissioner will not be allowed to reply to questions in the House of Lords. No one would suppose that he would, but the fact that he would not be permitted to answer questions is sufficient evidence in itself that he has no right to be a peer and Chief Commissioner at one and the same time. The letter which he has written to the Home Secretary is an honourable letter so far as Lord Byng is concerned, but I am not so much concerned about what Lord Byng is going to do in the matter, as to know what the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is upon the point which I have submitted. I want to know whether or not the appointment is strictly constitutional from that point of view.
        What I have said is the reflection of what the British public is saying outside this House. I have taken the trouble during the past week to go to various persons outside who may be regarded as representative of that class which we call "the man in the street," Conservatives and Liberals as well. I did that purposely to ascertain what the opinion outside was concerning this appointment, and I found in every case that the opinion was against the Home Secretary's action, described in words which I hesitate to repeat in this House. They were sufficiently expressive to enable me to say that they considered the appointment one of the most foolish appointments that has ever been made. If the Home Secretary will take the trouble to go to the rank and file of his party and not merely to consult the benches behind him, who are bound to him by chains of loyalty from which they cannot escape, he will find the same opinion; and, if the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) who is so anxious to get up, has had an opportunity of consulting persons outside, I am certain that their opinions, if the people can be taken as representative
        2290
        of the British public, must be against the appointment of Lord Byng.
        Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: One has listened with a great deal of sorrow to he speech of the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), because, if he parades himself as a reflection of the opinion of the British public, one can only think that he is an extraordinary illustration of a peculiarly small mirror which takes only a very small section of the public, and then says, "There you are; you have the whole of public opinion."
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Which section do you represent?
        Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I represent all the public who happen to be constituents of mine, but I attend this House as a public representative without regard to section. The view expressed by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark was a sectional view. Perhaps he is not entirely a stranger to that method of getting opinion which obtains the opinion desired. It is extraordinarily easy, if you are asking a man for his opinion, by the very least suggestion to get the opinion which coincides with that which you had intended to express, but it is not fair afterwards to say that that is a fair expression of the other man's opinion. I only want, to deal with one aspect of this question, that is, whether we are dealing with this matter in a purely cantankerous spirit and trying to say that we should never appoint a particular type of man to a particular appointment, or whether we are dealing with the appointment as a whole. Listening to the speech of the Home Secretary, it seemed to me that he has not merely been looking for a man with the qualifications for the job, but for the best man available to fill it. If you take that course, you cannot restrict yourself to one particular type. Nor can you say, "I am going to pin myself to the idea that a man who has had long police experience is the only man who should be appointed to a police appointment, and that I am going to restrict myself so that I get the best policeman available, and not the best citizen." If you are dealing with the choice one must consider what the conditions are, and one must consider also what the qualifications are not only of the particular man who is

        2291
        appointed but of the type of man if he is to be a successful man.
        In the first place, one has to deal with the conditions which exist at the present time. As the right hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion said, nobody can look around without being perfectly satisfied that public opinion is stirred upon the question of police administration in London. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable amount of disturbance in the public mind with regard to matters which have arisen recently and the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves is that time after time statements are made—by this person and by that person, nearly always in circumstances which prevent any examination into those statements—which, if they were true of the Force, would entirely undermine public confidence in it. There could be no greater disaster for this great Metropolis and for the country at large than that public confidence in the police force should be undermined. You have these suspicions stated from time to time without the smallest opportunity of inquiring into them. What is the type of statement? The statement that from time to time policemen do not refrain from saying in the witness box and elsewhere that which is untrue, wilfully untrue; the statement that policemen are receiving bribes; the statement that policemen are usurping their positions, are being officious, are interfering with the liberty of the people among whom it is necessary that they should play an administrative part in the work of the administration of justice or the enforcement of the law. Those statements are made broadcast; and then, from time to time, you get some sensational case which raises sensational criticism; and, if I may say so, one thing about sensational criticism is that it is almost always unfair to someone. It is almost impossible to have the type of sensational criticism which you have to-day of the actions of the police without incurring the risk of very great unfairness to one section of the community or another, and I am rather inclined to think that in the main the criticisms of unfair dealings made against the police are very unfair to the police themselves.
        2292
        As the Home Secretary has said, the police have an extraordinarily difficult task to perform, and it is not made easier by the fact that a great many of the regulations which they have to enforce, and a great many of the laws which they have to administer, concern actions in which a great many people see no particular wrong. That very fact gives rise very often to some of the most difficult situations in which the police force find themselves. When a policeman is interfering with a citizen for disobedience to some particular regulation about the breach of which there is no moral wrong, about which there is no particular public feeling, the policeman does not always realise how serious a moral wrong he commits if he takes from that person a bribe, which is all too often offered. The difficulties of the police force in these circumstances are extremely great, the temptations to which the men are exposed are very great, and it is virtually necessary that two things should concur: one is that accusations should not be lightly made against the police force, and another is that, when those accusations are proved, the men who are found to be guilty should be justly and properly punished for the infringement of the regulations which they are sworn to support. When you get this atmosphere of general criticism it not only makes the position of the police force difficult, but that difficulty is increased by the extent to which that type of criticism undermines public confidence. In these circumstances, it is vitally necessary that the very best man who is available should be appointed to a position of this kind.
        I want to say one word as to why in these circumstances a great military leader may and should be a very great success. I only judge this from the point of view of a civilian who has not seen a very great deal of military officers in connection with their own work. But there is one section of their work in which I have been privileged, on a few occasions, to see military officers carrying out their duties, and that is the work of courts-martial. I do not think anyone who has had even the slightest experience of the work which is done by military officers at courts-martial can have failed to realise this: That when military officers are called upon to perform the type of duty

        2293
        which a judge has to perform in connection with matters of discipline, breach of law, and so forth, one is struck with the essential justice of the mind of the officers who preside over those tribunals. That sense of justice is portrayed in this way, that there is probably no tribunal in the whole country which is so slow to convict as a courts-marital; and, indeed, that is one of the strongest characteristics of any judicial tribunal because the whole strength of the administration of justice in this country lies in the feeling that no man should be convicted unless every reasonable doubt of his innocence has been cleared away.
        Therefore, when you are dealing with men some of whom have come under a cloud of suspicion, the appointment of this type of man ensures that the characters of men shall not be lightly taken away from them. That is one of the first essentials of a man who has to administer, and may have to enforce, discipline in a great force. There is no doubt whatever about it. The Noble Lord who has been appointed to this office has that characteristic in a very large and very emphasised degree. Secondly, it must also be quite clear that when the offence is brought home he will not palter with the man who has committed an offence against the discipline of the force, who has brought disgrace upon it, and has to that extent lowered the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law. There, again, you will get in this appointment a man who will administer justice, tempering it with the right mercy, but at the same time being essentially just and essentially determined that everything which is a blot upon the police force shall be eradicated, and that there shall be no room for lack of confidence in the future.
        There is one final characteristic which, above everything else, is important. I was amazed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) saying that military office entirely unfitted a man for this type of position. The whole force and strength of a great military leader must lie in his power of inspiring devotion among the men he leads, and that is one of the things which is more than ever essential in a great force like the Metropolitan Police Force. You are putting a man over 20,000 men, over a force which in
        2294
        a few years will be 25,000 men. It is absolutely essential that that man should be capable of inspiring not only the devotion of those men to himself, but, through his own character, their devotion to the duty they have to perform. I venture to think that from that point of view no better choice could have been made than the choice which the right hen. Gentleman has made. If you once get that devotion to personality, that devotion to duty, that determinaion in the head of the force that these criticisms shall not be lightly regarded and that where there is force in them a just inquiry shall be made and where blemish is found blemish shall be eradicated, but, with it all, a determination to be just and to protect his men against unfair aspersions and a determination that his own devotion to duty shall inspire devotion among his men, then you will breed a confidence among the public which unfortunately many unfair criticisms seem to be dispelling, but which must come back whenever that devotion to duty is definitely and clearly shown.
        Mr. HAYES: I would like to refer briefly to what I think seems to have been rather the atmosphere created than the definite declaration of a position by the learned Recorder who has just sat down. He rather indicated in the trend of his speech that something was wrong either with public opinion or with the police service. As to whether public opinion is public or opinion is another matter. He seemed to indicate that whatever it was that was wrong, the only person who could be chosen to put it right was a highly-placed military gentleman—at any rate in so far as the observation was directed in support of the appointment of Lord Byng as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. If that be so, it is strange how such an atmosphere should have grown up when the force has for some years been under the control of very highly-placed military men. I should have thought, on the contrary, that it would have been reasonable to have argued, as this situation apparently arises from time to time, that what has been comparatively successful in the provinces might well be tried in the Metropolitan Police as in the provincial police forces. A very large number of the chief constableships are made from the ranks of the police service. Every-

        2295
        one associated with local government knows that, with very rare exceptions, those appointments have given the utmost satisfaction to the police service, and the general public, and the lesson of the provinces might very well be copied by the Home Secretary and his advisers in respect of the appointments in the Metropolitan Police. I heartily endorse what the Home Secretary said about having an understanding with the general body of police opinion, particularly in respect of the Metropolitan Police.
        I know that the Home Secretary has been at some great pains, at times amounting to personal inconvenience, in his desire to take a deep interest in the police service, and this has not always been so prominent in the case of the Home Secretary's predecessors in office. The Home Secretary, from the policeman's point of view, has gained a position which I should like to see maintained all the time, but I am afraid that the appointment that has been made recently will rather tend to weaken, not their confidence in the Home Secretary as such, but it will perhaps tend to make them feel that it is exceedingly difficult to get a Home Secretary who will see the policeman's point of view and the point of view of the public in civil administration purely, and especially in Scotland Yard administration. Anything which I have to say in reference to Lord Byng's appointment will refer not so much to the personal qualities of the Home Secretary as to his judgment in this particular case. I understand that Sir William Horwood will have completed 10 years' service in the Metropolitan Police Force as Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Police in October next. I think there was some suggestion that the appointment of Commissioner of Police was not subject to the ordinary police Regulations. I think it is clear that the statutory Regulations made by the Home Secretary apply to the Metropolitan Police. Regulation 94 declares:
        "That these Regulations shall apply to all police forces in England and Wales to which the Police Act of 1919 applies, but shall not apply to any men belonging to those forces which act exclusively as firemen."
        Therefore, the Regulations do apply to the Metropolitan Police, and under those
        2296
        Regulations the appointment of a chief officer of police is subject to the condition that on appointment he shall not be more than 40 years of age unless the Secretary of State, upon the recommendation of the appointing authority—which in this particular case is himself—he is satisfied that there are special circumstances which would justify the appointment being made of somebody over the age of 40. The Commissioner of Police is subject to the laws which govern the police forces, and the Commissioner is, in fact, governed in his retirement, if not in his appointment, by the Act of Parliament governing the police, namely, the Police Pensions Act, 1921, Section 2, under which the Commissioner may retire if he has concluded ten years' approved service, and is incapacitated from the performance of his duty by infirmity of mind or body. There is another condition under which he may retire, and that is where a member of the police force is compelled to retire under the Act on the ground of age. In this particular case the age question is governed by Section (1) of the Act, which says:
        "Retirement shall be compulsory in a police force for the Chief Officer of Police on attaining the age of 65."
        Therefore, when Sir William Horwood reached 60, he had not reached the age under which the law says he must retire, but he had, in fact, completed a sufficient number of years' service to entitle him to retire on a pension laid down in the Act of Parliament as if he had been returned as medically unfit. Perhaps I may refer the Home Secretary to the Pensions Act, 1921, where the scale lays down very clearly: That the basis of the pension shall be one-sixtieth of the pay for each completed year of service. So that on the ten years' period of service of the Commissioner of Police he would be entitled, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, to a pension of ten-sixtieths of his pay. I understand that his pay since the last adjustments were made will be at the time of his retirement £3,000 per year. From an answer which the Home Secretary gave the other day his pension will be £1,000 a year, and I should be very glad if the Home Secretary could explain how it is that the table of pensions in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, provides only for one-sixth of the pay to be the pension rate, whereas it has been practically declared by the right

        2297
        hon. Gentleman that the pension will be on the basis of 20–60ths, that is, based on 20 years' service. The right hon. Gentleman may have some explanation of that, but I find it difficult to understand the discrepancy, more especially in view of the fact that Section 25 of that particular Act of Parliament declares:
        "The rates and conditions of pensions of the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis shall be regulated by the provisions of the 1921 Act, and not by the provisions of the Metropolitan Police Staff (Superannuation) Act, 1875, subject however, to any special arrangement which may be made in exceptional circumstances in the public interest by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury."
        If the right hon. Gentleman says that this pension has been granted under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the Treasury, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to tell the House what are the special services which entitle the Commissioner to a pension based on 20 years' service amounting to £1,000, instead of a pension based on 10 years' service amounting to £500 a year. I do not raise this question in any spirit of endeavouring to deprive the Commissioner of Police of his pension, but I have in mind that if a little more could be added to the fund for the payment of pensions to the old widows and pre-War members of the police force, it would be very much appreciated. At a time when we find it so difficult to extract money from the Treasury to help these old people, I think a very careful scrutiny should be made when a pension of this kind is suggested.
        With regard to the appointment of Lord Byng, I understand that his Lordship will be 66 years of age in November, and, apparently, the Home Secretary relies upon his powers to employ Lord Byng as Commissioner of Police under the existing law which provide that he may give special permission for the age to be extended from 65 to 70. I know the right hon. Gentleman's own statutory regulations give him certain powers of appointment if the person appointed happens to be over 40 years of age, but there is nothing in those regulations that enables, the right hon. Gentleman to appoint anyone over the age of 65. The only provision for dealing with Chief
        2298
        Officers of Police over 65 years of age is the provision that enables the Home Secretary to extend the service of those officers. Lord Byng will have no police service to extend, and under Section I of the Police Pensions Act the extension from 65 to 70 is governed by these words:
        "Except that in special cases the chief officer of police, or, where the person concerned is a chief constable or assistant chief constable, the police authority may extend any such person's service for a further period, and in no case exceeding five years, on being satisfied that such extension would be in the interests of efficiency."
        I cannot discover anything in any Act of Parliament or the regulations which enables the appointment of a gentleman over 65 years of age to be made, nor any extension of the age limit to one who is not already serving at the time when he reaches 65 years of age. I raise this point not so much in regard to this particular because there are many in the police service which now numbers 60,000 men, and some of them have particular circumstances with regard to their service. The very ready argument is that if the Act of Parliament can be stretched to meet the special circumstances of special cases, there ought to be a little more stretching done when it becomes a question of some point affecting a constable or other subordinate officers connected with the service.
        With regard to the appointment of Lord Byng and the resignation of Sir William Horwood, I would like to make a few remarks upon the question of militarisation. One of the Inspectors-General of Constabulary, Major-General Atcherley, is an excellent police officer. The Home Secretary has stated that he does not know Lord Byng personally. I wish to state that I do not know Major-General Atcherley personally, although I know that there is a general opinion in the service that he is an excellent. Inspector General of Constabulary. Probably he had the same criticisms, levelled against him when he came into his present office because he was a General, but there is this evidence of our broad-mindedness: Major-General Atcherley has a period of 15 years' police service to his credit now, and he is undoubtedly an excellent police administrator.

        2299
        6.0 p.m.
        When looking round for a new Commissioner of Police I wonder how far the Home Secretary made a search amongst the inspectors of constabulary, and how far he examined the qualifications of the various chief constables in the country. I wonder how far the right hon. Gentleman was able to get into contact with real police service opinion in quarters which could have put before him the names of some very excellent and honourable officers in the service who have risen from the ranks. I cannot help feeling that the tendency to appoint Commissioners from the Army and the Navy is not untinged with some desire that social status and rank should attach to the office of Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. We have at the moment at New Scotland Yard, some eight or nine highly placed officers who have been members of the Army or the Navy, including two Generals and one Admiral—I do not know why the Admirals have come into the business—[Interruption.] The only thing that I can hope is that Admiral Collard was not invited to take charge of the Metropolitan Police. We have also a number of Colonels and Majors. The danger of that is not so much that they hold Army rank, because officers of the Army and Navy are no different from people who have not been in the Army and Navy from the point of view of their decency. No one has complained about that, and probably some of the most charming people in this House have been members of His Majesty's Forces. That is not what we complain about. What we complain about is that they have a military conception of what should be a police officer's duty, and that percolates through the various ranks down to the last-joined recruit. It may be that it is unconscious, but it percolates through. And the effect of such appointments is not confined to the Metropolitan Police, because, in these days of intense organisation in police administration, provincial forces send some of their members for a period of training at New Scotland Yard in various departments, and, if it be the ease that the military mind is having an effect upon the subordinate ranks, the result is to feed even the provincial forces with men with certain military
        2300
        ideas who, perhaps, would never have had such ideas if they had not come within the training of a force under the control of military officers.
        Since 1910 there have been no fewer than 38 appointments, and the strange thing is that they have been drawn from three distinct sources. They have been drawn from the Army; they have been drawn from the Royal Irish Constabulary; and they have been drawn from the Indian Police or administrative services and, perhaps, here and there, from Rhodesia, Nyasaland, or places of that kind. In the main, there are three distinct sources from which a fairly large number of new chief officers of police have been drawn, and to-day we have in the Provinces 45 colonels, majors and captains, while there are nine at New Scotland Yard, unless the number has been reduced by the abolition of the office of Colonel Partridge. There are about 54 in all. It does not stop at the Metropolitan Police. Only last Tuesday the Buckinghamshire Standing Joint Committee had to consider the appointment of a Chief Constable of the county. They had 150 applications before them. A large number of, these came from officers of the Police Service in different parts of the country, but the short list, the six selected to appear before the Standing Joint Committee, included only one police officer, the deputy-chief constable of the county, a very excellent officer, as evidenced by his selection for the short list. The remainder were colonels——
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I do not think that the hon. Member can do more than refer to any questions connected with the provincial police services by way of comparison. The provincial police do not come under this Vote.
        Mr. HAYES: I can assure you, Mr. Herbert, that I shall not take advantage of the Debate to get in other matter that would be out of order. I merely want to point out that there must be an effect upon the provincial areas, because the Home Secretary must give his approval to or withhold it from the actual appointment which the Buckinghamshire Standing Joint Committee made last Tuesday. I do not know whether he has given his approval, but, whether he has or not, there has been chosen

        2301
        from the six selected applicants, a gentleman against whom nothing can be said apart from this question of his military service. He joined the Army in 1905, and is still an officer of His Majesty's Army, and one of his qualifications for appointment was, apparently, that he had been studying police methods under the Chief Constable of Plymouth, in the hope of securing this post. It rather indicates that the Chief Constable of Plymouth might have made a better Chief of Buckinghamshire than his pupil. If this gentleman has been in fact studying since 1924, I do not know how he was doing his military duties, seeing that he was then, and still is, an officer in the Army. In any case his age, namely, 42, is two years over the limit under the police regulations. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will examine this appointment with the same care with which he examined the appointment that was made some time ago in Cumberland, of a gentleman who happened to be rejected because of certain reasons, although he, too, was in this short list. I mention that as showing the danger of the spread of military appointments.
        I close by referring, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) referred, to the Committee of 1919, which went into this question of whether it was good for the police service and for the public generally that arrangements should be made for absorbing officers from the Army into the higher police posts. That Committee was composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and I think that everyone who has taken note of its work will agree that it did its work very impartially; I do not think that any party bias at all was shown by the Committee or any of its members. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) was a member, as were also Sir James O'Grady, who is now Governor of Tasmania, and Lord Gorell. Lord Desborough was the very able Chairman of the Committee, and another member was Sir James Remnant, to whom I should like through this Debate, to offer my congratulations on his taking his seat to-day in the House of Lords. Another Member of this Committee was a late respected Member of the House of Commons, Sir Henry Craik. The Committee went into this question very carefully, and they urged the Home Secretary
        2302
        to whom they reported to accept their opinion that it really was not good for the police administration of this country that the importation of military officers should be looked upon as a good thing for the service. They wanted the police officers in the country to feel that, by assiduous attention to their duty, by the improvement of their education and capacity, by the growing confidence that the public would have in them, they would at any rate become entitled to expect appointments to be open to them in the higher ranks of the Service, and, what is more, the Committee wanted to get rid of that little mocking tone which does exist, though one does not like to hear it, when these appointments are made. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example; he will appreciate the humour of it. A highly placed Metropolitan Police officer said to me, "If we go on like this, we shall change our name from New Scotland Yard and shall soon be designated the Army and Navy Stores."
        Viscountess ASTOR: I want to congratulate the Home Secretary on his magnificent appointment and I want to congratulate the country on having a man like Lord Byng. We are indeed fortunate to have people of such public service and such public spirit as Lord Byng. In listening to this Debate I have been very much impressed by the attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). It was not in the least violent; it was considered and reasoned, and, like the attack of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), it was on three grounds—in the first place, that Lord Byng was a militarist; secondly, on account of age; and, thirdly, I think, on the question of looking for a job. I should like to tell the Committee the kind of militarist that Lord Byng is. Like the Home Secretary, I am not a personal friend of Lord Byng, and have only seen him once in my life, but I happened to get to know in a very curious and intimate way what kind of man he was.
        During the War we had at our base a great Canadian military hospital, and, after Lord Byng had been appointed to the command of the Canadian Forces, the men were always coming back and talking about him, and I used to ask why

        2303
        it was that, more than any other General in France, Lord Byng seemed not only to inspire devotion, but to have the quality of making men want to do what is right. I once asked a Canadian chaplain, and he said, "Well, you see, General Byng is very unlike most people I have ever met. He is one of those rare people who are always in touch with the things that are higher, and, when he has made his arrangements, and the men are to go over the top, General Byng locks himself up and prays."
        That is the kind of militarist that Lord Byng is. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh at that, but I do not think that the people of the country will laugh; certainly the women will not laugh. [Interruption.] This is not an anecdote: I am saying it to refute the story that Lord Byng is a militarist, a stern disciplinarian who will bring a military mind to bear. I know perfectly well what the implication of the term "a military mind" is, and how it is used to denote a man who only thinks of discipline and making men do things, instead of a man who, like Lord Byng, makes men want to do what is right. That is why I, personally, rejoice that Lord Byng has taken over this very difficult task, and I have no hesitation in saying that I rejoice that Sir William Horwood is going.
        Mr. BROAD: If the Noble Lady is so intimate with Lord Byng, may I ask if it is not a fact that Lord Byng was the leader of that great movement to make military practices and training the great feature of the physical training in our schools?
        Viscountess ASTOR: I am not intimate with Lord Byng. As I have said, I have only seen him once in my life, but this is what I heard from men who had come back and had been thinking things out. It is their opinion of Lord Byng, and I think far more of the opinion of those men who fought and bled than of that of the men who did not. If he is a stern disciplinarian, I am glad, because I know that it is good for men and women to have stern discipline. I am all for discipline; I am all for obedience; and I am perfectly certain that the Front Opposition Bench would
        2304
        like more obedience and discipline in their party. Far from being a militarist, however, Lord Byng happens to have exactly the qualities that are needed at this moment. As for the question of age, that is just a question of outlook. An old mind does not necessarily go with age. Look at the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). He, I believe, is 73, but he is one of the most alert members of the House of Commons. Really, age is only a question of outlook. Some of the most prejudiced, narrow-minded men that I have ever met have been young men, and some of the wisest, most broad-minded and most alert have been old men. It is not, therefore, a question of age.
        On the question of militarism I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and would be against a militarist in the sterner sense that he means; and I certainly should be against a tired and weary man, or against a man who was hunting for a job; but hon. Members opposite do not understand, because they want jobs. Lord Byng wants to give up a job. It is not a question of his wanting a job; he is not a job-hunter; and I think that that is a poor argument—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite think more of money but Lord Byng is thinking of service. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks from the fullness of his heart. Another thing with which I agree is that every man who enters the Police Force ought to have the desire to get to the very top. That, probably, is the aim of a great many people in all walks of life, but, although we may want to get to the top, there are very few of us who have those qualities which put us at the top, and I am perfectly convinced that, if there had been a man in the Police Force of the character of Lord Byng, he would have been appointed. It is quite obvious, however, that there was not such a man. The hon. Member for Edge Hill said we could take lessons from the borough police, but they are under their municipality, while the Metropolitan Police are under the Commissioner. The character of the Commissioner is of far more importance than any one single thing to do with this police.
        I said I was glad Sir William Horwood had gone, and I will explain why. I am not frightened of it. There has been a lot of sham about this Debate. No doubt

        2305
        hon. Members opposite are glad, too. When Sir Nevil Macready left the police force he saw that there were things to be done. There is, as the Home Secretary said, a rather uneasy feeling throughout the country, but I believe it ought to be more against the laws than against the police trying to administer the laws. I do not believe a company of arch-angels could administer some of our laws justly, because the laws are not just. We want to make things better. Sir Nevil Maeready said 1,200 women in the Metropolitan area were arrested on the word of the police as prostitutes. You cannot arrest persons for being prostitutes. They are arrested under a faked charge of annoyance and condemned, and they have to go through life as prostitutes. There is no other profession open to a woman who is once branded as a prostitute. Those women were arrested on a faked charge. Sir Nevil Macready knew that, and he said that if he had his way he would not let a policeman arrest a woman in that sense.
        Mr. HAYES: He had his way.
        Viscountess ASTOR: He left just at the time. That is why he left, and that is why I say I am glad Sir William Horwood is going, because he knew that. There were two Committees that said things were wrong and ought to be changed, but, instead of attempting to change them, he has done everything he could to get rid of the few women who were there. Had our House of Commons Report been carried out, we should never have had this Savidge scandal to-day. I am glad he is going.
        Mr. HAYES: It was not his fault that the law remained as it was. It was his duty to see that his officers carried out the law. If the law was wrong, why blame him or the police?
        Viscountess ASTOR: I am not blaming the police. If Sir William Horwood had been like Sir Nevil Macready he would have protested and said, "The law is wrong and my police cannot carry it out," and he would have asked for women police to do the job which, as the hon. Gentleman and I know, ought only to be done by women police, trained and qualified. It is asking the men to do an impossible thing. It is putting
        2306
        them in a very difficult position. If they fail, it is not their fault. It is the fault of the law. Sixty years ago Josephine Butler said you could not have a law which was unfair to even the lowest and most despised of the community without reflecting on the whole community. That is exactly what has happened. We have been pressing for equal lays. What we have got is equal injustice both for men and women. I am delighted that all this has come out. We need a clearing out. We need to see what is wrong in our laws, and we need a man of high moral sense to stand there and help the police. I do not think anyone wants to see the police militarised or changed very much, but there are some respects in which there ought to be a change, and I rejoice to think that Lord Byng will bring that sympathy, tact, understanding and real inspiration that he has brought to every body of men with whom he has had anything to do. We have only 159 women police in the country. Now that we have got this changed outlook in the last 10 years, this uneasy feeling has been growing. It has just corns to a head. I believe there is growing a higher outlook throughout the community ever since women have been in public life. There is a larger and a better outlook. I congratulate the Home Secretary and the country on having secured a man like Lord Byng. There are some Members of the Opposition who are always looking for what is evil and failing to see what is good, and making it very difficult for men like Lord Byng to enter public life by making charges against their characters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have read their speeches in the Press. They have said we were appointing one might almost say an opponent of the police. A great many hon. Members opposite have been going round the country trying to work up this feeling against him, but give the country a chance to support him.
        Miss WILKINSON: The Noble Lady, like many others of her party, is very keen on iron discipline when it is exerted on someone else. I really think her attitude towards Lord Byng is a somewhat sentimental one. The average Tommy knows nothing about a General except his name. There is one thing we know about Lord Byng, that he has been

        2307
        conspicuously in favour of the militarisation of the boys' training corps. That is a very disturbing fact. In one thing I profoundly agree with the Noble Lady, and that is that Sir William Horwood has left. We feel that his whole administration has been one of reaction. In the Savidge case I think it was Sir Archibald Bodkin who said the same rules were in force that had existed for 100 years. Surely the whole attitude of the police towards crimes and misdemeanours has altered in the last 20 or 10 years. There has been quite a change in the public attitude towards what are known roughly as sexual crimes and misdemeanours. We now realise that these are often matters for the doctor rather than for police methods, which are perfectly simple when dealing with burglars, for example. Surely at this time when the whole public attitude towards women, towards children, towards crimes against children and towards children's offences are altered, we want at Scotland Yard a man who represents the new idea, and who can modernise our police. The whole attitude of the police towards the public needs modernising and it is required to bring in the medical, and esnccially the psychological attitude towards what is sometimes mistakenly called crime.
        We are all profoundly disturbed at the police methods with regard to the Pace case. Public feeling was revolted at the fact that children of two, six and eleven were kept at the police court for 11 hours and endeavoured to be used to nut a rope round their mother's neck. I felt, when reading the account of the proceedings, that they ought never to have been allowed there. They will carry to the end of their days, in ways we cannot understand, in their unconscious mind, the awful effects of what they had to go through in their tender infancy. I am not saying these are matters that can be altered in a moment. At this moment, too, you have the bringing of women into public life. These women are responsible electors. They are profoundly disturbed at the attitude of the police towards children, and the rigid attitude which was maintained during that case.
        I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether at this moment he is in line with public opinion when he appoints
        2308
        a military man, and an old man, to this important position. I do not want to say anything against Lord Byng as a person, because I know nothing about him, but I do want to say that no one can escape the influence of environment, and when a man has lived his life subject to military law and subjecting others to military law, it is surely the most natural thing in the world that he should think that an order, that a command, that rigid discipline, such as that for which the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has pleaded, are the things above all else that concern everybody. When we are dealing with a new attitude, a new outlook in public affairs, surely a man whose mind and life are attuned to the military idea, is just the wrong kind of person to be brought in to deal with these delicate matters. At the very best, a man of 65 must necessarily be a stop-gap. I do not know whether the Home Secretary intends that Lord Byng shall be regarded merely as a stop-gap, but I suggest in all fairness that it is not treating the public rightly at this moment to put in someone to act quickly, on emergency, as a stop-gap, and then to bring in someone later on. This moment is the time when a really radical alteration of the police, force should have been carried through. Therefore, to put in an old man, and a military man, merely as a stopgap, is not treating the matter with that broad public spirit to which one had looked forward in matters of this kind.
        I agree with the hon. Member for the Sutton Division with regard to the necessity for new ideas in connection with the women police. I do not know Lord Byng's attitude towards the women police and towards women in public service, but I can only remind the Noble Lady that the lady whom she quoted, Miss Josephine Butler, had most disastrous experiences in dealing with the military. I do not want to pile upon Lord Byng's shoulders the sins of military men 50 years ago, because even the British Army may have altered, but it is a fact that in the highest places Army officers wanted maisons tolérées during the Army occupation in France. I am quoting circumstances immediately following the War. Women have very little for which to thank the military mind. We believe that at this moment the whole question

        2309
        of women police needs to be considered in a very different way from that in which it was considered by Sir William Horwood.
        I cannot help wondering, sometimes, when one sees those unfortunate police women, in their unfortunate uniform, made to look almost like caricatures of male members of the force, whether we shall ever get a really sensible woman brought in to tackle this question. I could supply the Home Secretary with photographs of police women in Germany, where they have an excellently designed costume which, without making them seem a caricature of the male force, is a dignified costume and treats the women as a separate but very necessary part of the police force. I am not one of those who think that women can in every way do the duties of men police. I have always stood out against the extreme feminist attitude that women can necessarily perform the same duties as men. I do not believe that it is possible, but I do say that at this moment when we are getting rid of a man who has taken up a stonewall attitude towards women, to put it no higher than that, we ought to have a young man, a modern man, a highly trained man to come in and put the whole thing on a proper basis.
        There is a very important point which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman has not considered, and that is the attitude of many thousands of trades union men and women towards the further militarisation of the police force. Our experiences during the general strike are still in our minds. I had a good deal of experience and I saw something, and I raised questions in the House with regard to the brutality of the police in certain areas—not the local men who knew the circumstances but the imported men—and the general feeling there that the desire of the Conservative party and of the Conservative Cabinet was to militarise the police in order to hold up the workers of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] I am saying what the trade unionists of this country have said in resolutions.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to the police in the country who do not come under this Vote.
        Miss WILKINSON: I am pointing out that it is unfortunate that there should be an appointment of a military man and that it is unfortunate from the Home Secretary's own point of view, because if he denies the allegation to which I have alluded, and he says that it is completely unfounded, he is giving colour to the allegation by appointing a military man. However, since the appointment of Lord Byng is an accomplished fact, and the right hon. Gentleman's majority will certainly back him up, I do appeal to him that this question should be, regarded from the highest public point of view, and that having got Lord Byng in for the time being, he should get someone who will go into the whole question of the police and their relation to the public from an entirely different point of view, in order that we may have more modern and more humane ideas brought in than we have had in the past.
        Commander BELLAIRS: This is sup posed to be a Vote of Censure on the Home Secretary for appointing Lord Byng, but I am afraid the Home Secretary must be puzzled to discover what is the precise indictment brought against him We have listened to a number of speeches which have covered a variety of points. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), for instance, who may claim to represent the police to a large ex tent——
        Mr. HAYES: I do not claim to represent the police.
        Commander BELLAIRS: At any rate, the hon. Member has had considerable experience of the police. He devoted the major portion of his speech to the question of a pension to the outgoing Commissioner, who leaves in November. That had nothing to do with the question of a Vote of Censure on the Home Secretary for appointing Lord Byng. When we look at the state of the Opposition Benches on this occasion of a vote of censure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at your own benches!"] We are not moving the Vote of Censure. We have confidence in the Home Secretary. We regard the whole of this agitation as bogus, and therefore there is no need for the party to be present. I regret very much that the Leader of the Opposition is ill, because he has occupied the position of

        2311
        Prime Minister and he knows the difficulty of making these appointments. He knows the importance of having a man with prestige, and who has been tried in difficult circumstances, and I would have liked to have had his guidance on this occasion.
        Turning to another point of criticism, I heard one hon. Member making a great deal of the point that Lord Byng is a member of the House of Lords. What difference does that make? We have had Lord Roberts and Lord Wolseley at the head of the Army, Lord Beatty at the head of the Navy, and we have also had Lord Cavan at the head of the Army. They have not taken part in politics. Why, then, should not Lord Byng, who has given an undertaking not to attend the House of Lords, be the Commissioner of Police? I heard one argument used, that we were bringing in outsiders. That was a very dangerous argument to use by hon. Members who may occupy the position, some day, of heads of great Departments. Suppose the civil servants began to say that you must not bring in outsiders. We politicians are outsiders when we come to govern the great Departments.
        To say, as was said by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that military training unfits a man and leads to absence of initiative, is quite untrue. The whole aim and object of Naval and Army officers is to develop initiative, and any man who comes in as head of the police would also have that object in view. With regard to the question of experience, I have often heard the argument about experience used in this House. Have hon. Members ever watched the patriarchal goldfish in its glass prison, knocking its head against the glass prison, in spite of all its past experience? I have on a previous occasion in this House quoted a story of Frederick the Great, who said that he had a couple of mules in his army who had been through 20 campaigns, but they were mules still. So much for the value of experience.
        Supposing the Home Secretary had accepted the argument that he must never go outside the police force to make an appointment. That would have left six or eight men from whom to choose in the upper ranks. If he went below the
        2312
        senior ranks he would probably have the senior men disgruntled, and that would be a very serious thing in the police force. I am not at all sure that the men who are being talked about do not desire to have a man from outside of the great prestige of Lord Byng brought in as head of the force. I think it is exceedingly likely that they do. The Home Secretary has to consider not merely the police, but Parliament and the public as well, and he must have a wider range of choice than six or eight men who may be among the leading men of the police force.
        Mr. HAYES: There are 32 superintendents in the Metropolitan Police.
        Commander BELLAIRS: There are four Assistant-Commissioners and two Deputy-Commissioners, and then, I suppose, you would come to the others mentioned by the hon. Member. Surely, the wide range which is offered by the whole of the British Army and in other directions must lead to the selection of a better man. It is one of the most difficult things in the world to choose the best possible man for a position, and it is a responsibility which cannot be divorced from the Executive. It is a responsibility which cannot be shared by Parliament. The instant that any member of the Government shares his responsibility with Parliament, he loses responsibility altogether. He must take the responsibility on himself. That is what the Home Secretary has done, and I believe that the appointment he has made has the complete confidence of the country. We all recognise that Lord Byng has made a great sacrifice in taking this position, and that no monetary consideration would possibly appeal to him. I think hon. Members opposite will agree with that.
        I have heard the question asked on the Floor of the House as to whether there are no men capable of taking this job in the police force. No one denies that there are thousands of men in the police force capable of doing the job, but the man capable of doing the job is not necessarily the best man. That is the point. Lord Byng happens to be the best man that could have been selected. I remember reading once that the Cabinet sent for the great Duke of Wellington and asked who was the best man to take Rangoon. The Duke replied,

        2313
        "Send for Lord Combermere," and the Prime Minister said, "We always understood that you did not consider Lord Combermere very efficient, but rather a fool," and the Duke replied "He is a fool, a dammed fool, but he is good enough to take Rangoon." In selecting the man for head of the police it is not sufficient to select the man who is good enough but the man who is best fitted for the job. There is only one point on which I should be inclined to reproach the Home Secretary, and that is that he has been far too accommodating in answering questions by the Opposition at Question time. After all, the Home Secretary takes the responsibility for the appointment, and if the Opposition challenge the appointment at Question time all that the Home Secretary need reply is that he has selected the best man.
        If the Opposition wish to challenge it they should take the course that is open to them, the course they have taken today, and move a reduction in the Home Secretary's salary. The Opposition at Question Time are not entitled to canvass the qualities of the man who is appointed. If they disagree with the appointment they should put down a vote of censure. If the qualities of men who are appointed to situations are open to be canvassed at Question time it is possible to canvass the appointment of diplomats, and governors, and the appointment of generals and admirals. What would be the effect on the man whose qualifications are canvassed in this way? Does anyone think that if everybody who is appointed to a position is going to be assailed in the way in which Lord Byng has been assailed, that they will accept appointments in the future? It will restrict the area from which the Government will be able to make selections, and, therefore, I say that it is not possible for a Minister at Question Time adequately to defend his action. The best answer he can give is to say that he has selected the best man and, if the Opposition wish to challenge it, they must put down a vote of censure.
        Let me refer to the question of the age of Lord Byng. There appears to be confusion of thought in the minds of hon. Members opposite. Different qualifications are required for people in a competitive profession, and people who are
        2314
        administrators. For the purpose of competition, either in business or war, nobody denies that you must have young men, but the position to which Lord Byng has been appointed is administrative and it is not necessary that the man selected should be a young man. If we were to apply the principle to this House which was applied to the Roman Senate, we should exclude all men over 60. I happen to have two to three years to spare, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench are both young, because a man is as young as he feels. It is a great pity that the Opposition have raised this Debate for they will find as time goes on, after Lord Byng has occupied his position, and has achieved great success, that they have done their best to hamper him in his future work by attacking him on his appointment. I congratulate the Home Secretary from the bottom of my heart for having made the appointment and for the fine defence he has made of it to-day.
        Mr. J. JONES: We have listened to some of the most extraordinary speeches which have ever been delivered in Parliament. The first speech I had the privilege of hearing was by one of the leading ornaments of the legal profession. I believe the hon. and learned Member sits for the Norwood Division, and I wondered as he was speaking what he would say, what the legal profession would say, if one of the big plums in that profession was given to somebody outside. We should find the Law Society calling a special meeting, and protests would ring throughout the length and breadth of the land. Even the Government would not be safe. Then we had an hon. Member who belongs to the Navy. What would he say if some future First Lord of the Admiralty appointed as head of the Navy one of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Force? Every quarterdeck would ring with thunders of denunciation and this House would be allowed no rest because it had dared to interfere with the historic traditions of that great Service. Then, again, suppose some future Labour Secretary of State for War who was very pacific in his ideas as to the future of relationships between countries, appointed one of the Quaker members of the Labour party as Commander-in-Chief of the

        2315
        British Army. How would all the colonels and generals of the Army feel about that?
        Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. Member asks me what I should feel in regard to such an appointment as head of the Navy. If it was the best man for the job, I should have no feeling against it at all, and I would point out to the hon. Member that Admiral Blake was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet at the age of 65, and won victory after victory, although he had never been a seaman.
        Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Member has left half of his history books unlearned. Some of the great Commanders-in-Chief of the Navy were men who came from the mercantile marine. That was before the Navy became a profession. But what would happen to-day if a man from the mercantile marine was appointed as head of the British Navy? The true blues in the Fleet would immediately have blue fits. The same thing would happen in any of the services and professions; there would be great indignation and many protests. I want to deal with this matter, however, from another point of view. I do not know Lord Byng from Adam. Indeed, I know more about Adam than I do about Lord Byng, but I cannot understand how rules and regulations can be changed to suit a particular purpose. When the ordinary members of the police force want rules and regulations altered they have an awful job. The laws of the Medes and Persians would be more easily altered than some of the rules and regulations of the police force. But when it suits the convenience of a Government and a party they can easily forget all about rules and regulations, and simply make it what they want it to be for the time being.
        In view of what has happened recently an experiment of this character is the worst kind of experiment that could be made. All the great cities and towns in the country have some control over their own police force. Through their watch committees they have the right to decide who shall be the chief officer of their police, but here in the greatest city in the world, a country in itself, as far as conditions and circumstances are con-
        2316
        cerned, the people of London who have to find about £3,500,000 a year for the police force, have not a single voice as to who shall be head of this great civic force, and, after all, it is a civic force. We have always been led to believe that the police were not a military body and were not subject to military law. Gradually, however, we can see this growing up. In any industrial trouble military law dominates the situation as far as the attitude of the police and the public are concerned, particularly in the industrial parts of London. This is the time when a change might be made, and instead of having this force dominated by one man, instead of having a military man at the head of the force, it should be reorganised, so that the people who find the money shall have a say in the appointment of the man who is to be the head.
        In spite of all the back-handed compliments which hon. Members opposite have been paying to the police force they are, in fact, telling them that they are not fit to occupy the higher positions in their own service. There are 60,000 men in the force, and we are told that there is not one man amongst them who is fit to occupy the chief position. And 60,000 is a large number to select from. There were only 12 to choose from when Christianity was founded, but the best man to lead was chosen. Who will do the work even if Lord Byng is appointed? We know who will do the work. It will not be Lord Byng. His reputation stands high among a certain section of the community, but the real administrative work of the police force will be done by men who are quite as capable as Lord Byng will ever be. What hope is there for any man joining the police force? They have to be physically fit, and pass an examination. They have to undergo training, and yet, when they have done all this, they are to be told, after 30 or 40 years' service, that they are not fit to occupy the higher ranks of the service to which they have devoted their lives. That is the biggest insult the police force has ever received.
        7.0 p.m.
        We are not afraid or ashamed of this protest. I do not care whether Lord Byng is here or not. I have never seen him in my life, and I am not anxious to see anybody whom I have never met before. I do want to say that as far

        2317
        as we are concerned we are putting this down as a matter of principle. I am one of those who in another place on the other side of London have always advocated the principle of promotion, for men who have rendered service for many years in various departments, such as town clerks, borough engineers, etc. If we have men in our own employ to hand—and we ought to have or we do not know our job—we think they ought to be fit to take the higher job. It is an insult to our intelligence to say that we have not among the 20,000 men in the Metropolitan Police and the 60,000 men in the police force in the country, one man fit to take this job. I am not blaming Lord Byng, but I say that among the 80,000 men to choose from it appears to me odd that Lord Byng should be the only brand plucked from the burning. If the Home Secretary takes that view, then the Lord help us when Lord Byng goes to his future home, for there will be no one to take his place. He will, in four years' time, be 70 years of age and will probably retire, and the next four years will have to produce a genius. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe it. If the Government put their wits to work, a man could be found in the police force capable of doing all that Lord Byng will be called upon to do.
        Captain O'CONNOR: Unlike the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I think the police force of London ought to congratulate themselves and the Home Secretary, who has only made up his mind after such great care as he has obviously taken, in making this appointment. It is no insult to the police force but rather a compliment that a man of such distinction and outstanding personality as Lord Byng should be deemed to be a satisfactory holder of the office. It would be extraordinary if the appointment of a gentleman of the age of 65, and a reluctant gentleman at that, had not roused some criticism and some inquiry, but I think the Home Secretary may congratulate himself that with the whole battery of opposition turned upon his appointment nothing more relevant or material has been found against his appointment than what we have heard in the Debate this afternoon.
        2318
        I blame the Home Secretary for two things: first, for not having taken a definite stand on the subject. He ought to have said, "This is my choice. He is tie best man I can find, and I take the full responsibility for it." I know he said that finally, but I do not think the matter was one which admitted of being bandied about at Question time. The Home Secretary was ultimately right in saying that the whole responsibility was his. From all the speeches we have heard this afternoon, there does not appear to be anything really material in opposition to the particular selection which he has made. He may feel well satisfied with the result. But there is another feature which I feel ought to be made a little more plain to the House. It is not uncommon for foreigners, especially, to say that this nation is a nation of humbugs, and a humbug I apprehend to be a person who will not face inevitable facts. Throughout the Debate there has been a reluctance on the part of the House to face certain plain facts. You do not bring a man of 65 into the Metropolitan Police, and a reluctant man, if everything is plain sailing in a body of that sort. Then why make this farce and pretend that everything is plain sailing when everybody knows it is not? Has there ever been a period in the history of the police force in this country when at one and the same time three special Commissions have been necessary to investigate the relations of the police and the public? I think it is a unique experience in the police of this country. I do not think it has ever appeared to be necessary in connection with the provincial police and for many different reasons, one being that in the main they are under the control of Watch Committees, as the Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) pointed out, and they are therefore under more direct control than I fear is possible in the case of the Metropolitan Police under the control of the Home Office.
        But, apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman—I trust I misunderstood him—seemed to suggest that the criticisms made of he Metropolitan Police Force had been made with a certain amount of levity. I hope he did not believe that. When he looks at his concluding remarks, I think he will see that they did not really represent what was in his mind.

        2319
        Then there is the criticism directed against various police matters in this House, and I assure him that it is directed with the most deep sense of responsibility and not in any casual or light spirit or by people who have not made a point of trying to know something of what they are talking about. I think it is right that he should know some of the things that have after investigation given serious cause for alarm. I mentioned the fact that three Commissions were sitting at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is alleged that third degree methods are not uncommon in Scotland Yard. The case investigated by the Savidge Tribunal, which one would not dream of commenting upon at the moment, could not possibly have occurred as an isolated incident. It must be a case which is not uncommon in Scotland Yard. The right hon. Gentleman must have in his mind the Goodwood convictions of a couple of years ago, a case in which provincial policemen, of whom the country cannot be sufficiently proud for their sense of duty, made it their duty to lay information against and bring up for conviction members of the Metropolitan Police Force sent down to Goodwood. He must know it is not merely a matter of one man's or two men's, rumours, but it is currently rumoured among taxicab proprietors that lubrication has to be employed to get their taxicabs passed by Scotland Yard. It is not tittle-tattle. If the right hon. Gentleman will approach any taximan in the ranks in any part of London, he will give him his personal experience in this matter.
        It is flagrant that women are arrested and charged as common prostitutes, and it is permitted to put up in that phrase to the tribunal the whole of their previous characters as in a lightning flash. That is not permitted in any other kind of offence. Only a few weeks ago a woman was charged by a policeman and was found on examination to have been a complete virgin, an occurrence which ought to have been impossible if such a charge was to be preferred against her. There are instances almost ad lib. that can be given. There is, for instance, the case of any man who goes down to the Derby on Epsom Downs. He will find
        2320
        gipsies, cheerfully roping off portions of the Downs which they have no earthly right to do and sticking up notice boards and charging from 7s. to 10s. for permission to introduce a motor car, and he will find the Metropolitan Police complacently standing by and assisting to regulate the traffic. All these things will not brook denial. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a case given to me by a responsible Chief Constable of a county who was asked by a Judge at Assize how he came to have arrested certain receivers in London. He had sent in to London to arrest certain receivers. The Chief Constable's explanation was that he was not taking any chances. Too many receivers had got away when he had communicated through the ordinary channels with the Metropolitan Police.
        There are many other matters which obviously and quite plainly require investigation. Believe me, my criticism is not so much against the man in the street. I think at the present moment he is the victim of a pernicious system, and a great deal of this corruption begins at the very top. When you have suspicion of those at the top, that suspicion percolates right down to the man in the street, and he very often gets a good deal suspected in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman knows if he will refer to his dossier, that on the 25th July last year I gave him detailed particulars of a person who was committing an offence, particulars of which could have been furnished to him on inquiry by almost any person who moves about in the ordinary way in London. He had the particulars before him. That person has now been brought to justice, but for a whole 12 months the flagrant violation of the law went on, and, when that person was brought to justice, it was not by the particular police whose duty it was to bring him to justice, but by another body altogether.
        I think it right to have said these things to indicate that there are good grounds for saying that reasonable people feel that public confidence has been shaken to a certain extent in the Metropolitan Police. For the task of restoring that confidence, you cannot use ordinary methods and say that you will go by the ordinary routine of promotion. Exceptional methods have to be used, and the real question for decision this afternoon is: In the employment of exceptional

        2321
        methods and in the search for the exceptional man, are you to exclude the Army and Navy? The whole reasoning of the Opposition seems to me to be that there are two sources of supply to which you must shut your eyes, and those two are the Aimed Forces of the Crown. I do not suggest that there are any exclusively good reasons why a man should be chosen from either of those forces, but there are many reasons which can be advanced for suggesting that they might be a very good place to look for the right man. What I am concerned with is that the House of Commons as a whole, in spite of any carping criticism which may have been directed, should feel that in Lord Byng the Home Secretary has got the very best man in England available for the job, and, as a House, we wish him God-speed in his difficult task.
        Mr. SAKLATVALA: Unfortunately by the interruption of the Amendment the subject under discussion is separated from the main question of the Home Secretary's general policy, about which I hope that I shall have an opportunity to speak later. I do not object to the age of a man. At 66 or 86 he may be quite competent for one particular purpose. But the Home Secretary himself has said that he invited Lord Byng to give his general advice on the qualifications for this position, and that Lord Byng himself replied that, knowing his own physical weakness, he had decided that the time had arrived when he should lead a retired life. It is not a question of the age of 66 which we are technically considering, but the age of 66 considered in conjunction with the admission of a patriotic gentleman like Lord Byng, who would not have withdrawn from public service unless he had made up his mind. With regard to membership of the House of Lords I have a different view. My complaint is not so much that the Police Commissioner may sit in the House of Lords: my complaint is that policemen should be considered as robots, and should not have the political rights that leaders in the Navy and Army have.
        The real crux of the question that we are discussing is the restoration of public confidence. A lot has been said about public confidence being shaken. The illustrations given so far are of some people who want to drive faster than is
        2322
        good for them or for others, and of people who want to drink more than is good for them, or want to kiss their girls in public rather than in private, or on their feet instead of on their faces, or something like that. But that is not all. I think the Home Secretary will realise that in the 8,000,000 population of London there are 70 per cent. who belong to the working class. That 70 per cent. realises, rightly or wrongly, that the great class struggle is still developing, and that the police forces are used in that struggle as if they were the servants of a particular and privileged class. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) just touched upon that point, but did not emphasise it sufficiently. The Home Secretary cannot deny that, apart from motorists who want to drive faster, or people who want to lead a gay life, the 70 per cent. of the population of London has lost its confidence in the police forces in great industrial struggles. The erection of a new watch-tower in Trafalgar Square and the appointment of Lord Byng are not going to restore confidence among the 70 per cent. but are rather going to weaken confidence, and will aggravate the situation rather than ease it.
        Mr. BROAD: I am very sorry that the discussion, especially from the other side of the Committee, has been so far from the real question at issue. We were very delighted to hear from the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Aster) what a fine and amiable gentleman Lord Byng is and what a fine character he has. But we are not concerned with the mentality or the character of Lord Byng, who may be all that it is claimed he is. What we are concerned with is the mentality of the Home Secretary. When we speak of the military experience of Lord Byng, it is not because we wish to find fault with it, but because there is, and there has been, an obvious policy, as far as the police of London are concerned, that the administrative head should be an ex-Army man. We in London are very unfortunate. Although we have to pay what, I believe, is the heaviest police rate in the country, we have no voice in the management of our police.
        In many respects we are very dissatisfied with the control of the police by the Home Secretary. I am not refer-

        2323
        ring to the men in the Divisions. As far as they are concerned, from the Superintendents down to the latest recruit, I, as a Cockney, say that I do not think the police have ever had such a high tone or that we have had men of such high character as we have to-day. But there is something rotten right at the core. This, I think, is largely due to the fact that at a late age in life the Government transplant into the most responsible position a military man who knows nothing of the business. As one who is interestd in dogs, I know that it is very hard to teach old dogs new tricks. In this matter one would think that the Home Secretary was collecting fossils rather than looking for a vigorous man with an incisive mind who could find out what was rotten at the core. It is to that we object. Because of his age and experience Lord Byng is far from being the right man for the position.
        And there is something else. The Home Secretary thought that he was opening his mind when he told us about the steps that he took in his selection of a new Commissioner. Too little candour spoils a case. The Home Secretary told us that he consulted the retiring Commissioner of Police, Sir William Horwood, and that is as much as he told us of any inquiry as to a suitable man in the whole of the police forces of the country. Sir William Horwood is leaving under very peculiar circumstances indeed. I wonder, did he fall or was he pushed? Was he urged to go or was he urged to stay? He was not urged to stay; he is not urged to stay. I do not want to attack the character of Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood. He might be a very fine man, and it may be the Home Secretary who is wrong. Evidently the Home Secretary had not a lot of confidence in Sir William Horwood or else he would have told Sir William Horwood that he desired him to remain. Yet he is the only man whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted as to finding a suitable successor amongst the police. He was the very last man who ought to have been consulted.
        I say to the Home Secretary that he ought to have found time, amidst his many spectacular efforts, to have inter-
        2324
        viewed the higher officers of the Metropolitan Police and of the municipalities and county boroughs. But no! He asked Sir William Horwood, and being satisfied that Sir William Horwood could not recommend a man for the job, the Home Secretary went outside the force. That is not good enough. He could not rely for an impartial and unbiased opinion from the retiring Commissioner, who was retiring at an age much earlier than that at which most men retire from such positions when they have good health. The Home Secretary has appointed an amiable gentleman, we are told. I do not mind whether he is amiable or not. A man who has known nothing of the police force at all is to come in, and he is to familiarise himself with everything connected with the police and to put matters all right. The position is absurd. All that the new Commissioner can rely on, at his age and with the time available, is the reports from the very men over whom he is placed. It is a most disheartening thing. Can we expect that an atmosphere will be created in which even a most capable old man can act satisfactorily? The Home Secretary puts him in this place because there is something wrong, and he has to rely on those who are stated to be wrong in order to put things right. The decision is wrong, and its effects will percolate right down through the police.
        This is what is wrong with the police. The ordinary civilian is much more law-abiding than he ever was. Most of the breaking of the law which has demoralised the police is amongst the well-to-do. Not from the pavement came the bribes, but from the motor car, the owners of which are anxious to escape "damages." There are places in the West End where old gentlemen with diseased minds can go for alcoholic or other inspiration. Those are the places where the corruption of the police has gone on, for high police officers have been seen among them. If the Home Secretary had been honest and candid with us he would have told us what he found wrong and why he had found it necessary to appoint from outside a man who from every other point of view is unsuitable for the position, but who, because of his high social standing, will have an authority which no man of lesser

        2325
        standing, however capable he might be, could have. The whole thing is wrong. The Home Secretary told us that this appointment was made on higher authority than his own. The higher authority acts only on the advice of the Government, and the Home Secretary is responsible. It is not a question of having recommendations from higher sources, and it is not good enough for the Home Secretary to bring in that reference. He and his Government are responsible.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member made some reference to higher authorities. What does he mean?
        Mr. BROAD: When the Home Secretary was first questioned on this decision, he said that the appointment was made by a higher authority than himself. I want to know what higher authority there is than a Minister of the Crown? [HON. MEMBERS: "The King!"] The appointment is made by the King, yes, but according to what we believe in this country the King, as a constitutional monarch, acts only on the advice of his Minister, and it was a great indiscretion on the part of the Home Secretary to bring in any such reference. The right hon. Gentleman must himself take the responsibility for what is a very misguided decision. He knows full well that he himself, after four years' experience of the office, would not be able to go to Scotland Yard and take control.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One or two questions have been asked in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) made some inquiries as to the appointment of the Commissioner. The Commissioner of Police is in a different position from the chief constables who are chiefs of police in counties or boroughs. The Commissioner of Police is a Justice of the Peace and is appointed under an Act of 1829. I am advised that there is no restriction at all as to the person who may be appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, nor is there any restriction as to age in that Act. The only serious point that has been raised is that which deals with the question of pensions. As I explained to the Committee a little time ago, the matter of pensions has never been raised by Lord Byng, and no pension has been agreed upon. No pension can be
        2326
        granted to him at any time except by special arrangement sanctioned by the Treasury. No such application has been made. With regard to the question of Sir William Horwood, I understand that the position was—it was in the time of one of my predecessors—that Sir William Horwood desired to know exactly what his pension would be, and an arrangement was then made that his term of office should cease in November, 1928, unless it was extended by order of the Secretary of State, and that his pension should be £1,000 a year. This appears to have been an arrangement made by the then Secretary of State and sanctioned by the Treasury in exactly the same way as I have stated.
        As to the other speeches that have been made, one of the most important was that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), who has made several quite serious allegations. I needly hardly say that I hope he will send full details to me, as it is a very serious matter both for myself and for the present Commissioner of Police that charges should be made on the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will send as full details as he can, and I will cause a full inquiry to be made into them. There is only one point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) to which I want to refer. I think he must have misunderstood what I said on a previous occasion, or else I have misunderstood what he has said to-day. I have never said—certainly I have never meant to imply—that His Majesty the King is responsible for this appointment. Again, I state that under the Act of Parliament the appointment has technically to be made by His Majesty the King, the Commissioner being in a different position from that of chief constables appointed in the county and borough forces, but, of course, the appointment is made by His Majesty on the submission of the Secretary of State.
        Mr. BROAD: I am prepared to accept that statement, but I think the right hon. Gentleman used rather an unhappy expression on the previous occasion.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Miss Wilkinson) and my Noble Friend the hon.

        2327
        Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) appealed to me with regard to the question of women police. The Committee knows that I have not been backward in trying to improve the position of the women police, and I shall be most grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East if she sends me the promised photograph of the German women police. If I can improve that small detail of the uniform, I shall be delighted to do so. I think the hon. Member will find that as soon as Lord Byng arrives there will be that new spirit introduced into the Police Force for which she is pleading. I have not taken all this trouble and gone through a good deal of obloquy in order to appoint, as has been suggested here, an old man solely because he is an old man with a certain position in the Army. That is not the case. I have tried to get a man full of ideas, full of energy, full of idealism, and I think that, after Lord Byng has been Chief Commissioner for six months, the hon. Member will find those ideals in evidence, and that
        they will justify the appointment I have made. I will only say again that the responsibility for the appointment is primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and that I have appointed the best man that I can find, whether he is a military man or a civilian, and I ask the Committee to ratify the appointment.
        Mr. HAYES: If I put down a question, will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the terms of the appointment of Sir William Horwood and also the terms in respect of Lord Byng's appointment and in regard to pension?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as the first point is concerned relating to Sir William Horwood, I have no doubt that I can get the information at once, and, as far as Lord Byng is concerned, there are no terms whatever as to pension.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,536,160, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 231.
        Original Question again proposed.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, in
        2330
        order to convenience hon. Members opposite who may wish to put it down again.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    HOME OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £283,588, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."—[Note.—£150,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I understand that in order to speak on this Vote it is necessary that I should move this Amendment. It is a rather strange journey from Scotland Yard to the factories and workshops of our country where millions of our people, engaged in daily toil, are suffering from the disadvantages which I propose to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State this evening. This Vote covens the work of the Factories Department of the Home Office, and I do not think there is a better test of the efficiency of that Department than the number of accidents to workpeople in our factories and workshops. I propose to quote to the hon. and gallant Gentleman figures which I have been given, to show that all is not well with the Factories Department of the Home Office. I do not think I could draw a better picture of the situation than by quoting the figures relating to accidents for the last and previous years, In 1926 there were 139,963 accidents in the factories and workshops of this country, of which 806 proved fatal. In 1927, the number had grown to the colossal figure of 156,974, of which 973 proved fatal. That is to say, there was an increase in one year of 17,011 in the total number of accidents and of 166 in the number of fatalities.
    In passing, may I remark that the human mind, somehow or other, is always much more disturbed and more easily aroused with regard to such a matter as the appointment of a Commissioner of Police for London than a problem like that presented by these figures. After all the appointment of a Commissioner of Police is a very small matter indeed, by comparison with what we are now discussing—a problem which affects
    2332
    several millions of our workpeople. When we discuss the appointment of a single individual to the position of Commissioner of Police, the whole of Great Britain seems to be roused to fury. It is strange beyond comprehension how the human mind can be excited in that fashion over an issue of that kind, and yet be so dead to this issue which, in my view, is much more important. I understand, however, that the Home Office are quite alive to the fact that there is an increase in the number of accidents, and I have here a copy of a circular which the Home Office issued to employers, dated 16th May, 1927. I want to know what results, if any, have accrued from the issue of the circular which states:
    "I am directed by the Secretary of State to say for the information of your association"—
    that is the employers' association—
    "that he has been much concerned to learn from the Chief Inspector of Factories that progress in the development of 'safety first' arrangements in factories continues to be disappointingly small. As he has pointed out, in Parliament and elsewhere, the needs of such an arrangement in industry as elsewhere is great. The total number of accidents reported to the Factory Department shows no sign whatever of any substantial reduction."
    The Home Office is therefore fully aware of what is transpiring in connection with what I regard as the alarming growth in the number of accidents in factories and workshops; and I do not know if I will annoy the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department if I connect the increase in the number of accidents with the totally inadequate number of inspectors employed by the Department. I am not going to say a word against the personnel of the inspectorial department of the Home Office. What I am going to argue—and I feel I am on sure ground in doing so—is that there is a distinct relationship between the number of accidents on the one hand, and the number of inspectors employed and the number of visits paid to factories and workshops on the other. We have been told again and again in this House that in spite of the number of unemployed persons there is a substantial increase from year to year in the total number of persons employed in this country.
    What has happened in regard to the number of inspectors employed to look after the interests of those persons

    2333
    engaged in our factories and workshops? In 1914 there were 222 inspectors, and that number has dwindled since, until, at the end of March, 1923, the number stood at only 206, or a decrease of 16 I have no doubt at all that the best employers in this country do their duty according to the Rules and Regulations issued by the Department; but there are some employers who take no heed at all of the law of the land in this respect, and who do all they can to escape their responsibilities. In such cases we must rely entirely for the safeguarding of their workpeople and their protection in life and limb upon the visits of the Home Office inspectors and the enforcement of the law. There is therefore a great responsibility on the Home Office in this connection. Let us see what has actually happened. There has been an outcry for an increase in the number of female inspectors, and I notice that the number of such inspectors has remained almost stationary for seven or eight years. I urge that there ought to be an increase in that respect, too, because there has been a substantial growth in the number of women in industry; and as their interests are particular, more women inspectors ought to be employed.
    Before I pass from this point, may I say how delighted I was that the Home Office instucted Sir Malcolm Delevingne to deliver a speech at Geneva in favour of a "Safety First" Convention. We are glad that the British Government, whatever its political colour may be, should send its representative to Geneva to try to secure the adoption of an international convention by all the industrial countries of the world in favour of "safety first." But I would urge this point on the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is very little use asking for an international convention in favour of the prevention of accidents when we in this country are not doing all we could, and all we ought to do, to prevent accidents to our own workpeople. I do not care for the missionary who goes to a foreign land when he ought to be trying to convert his own people at home first. I am glad to notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to assent; and I would urge that while he should use all the talent and administrative ability of Sir Malcolm Delevingne and his colleagues
    2334
    to preach the gospel of "safety first" throughout the world, he should, first of all, see that a sufficient number of inspectors is employed in this country to prevent unnecessary accidents.
    I pass to the next issue which I want to raise with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It will be remembered that we passed an Act of Parliament in 1926 prohibiting she use of white lead in painting for interior purposes. We had a great struggle with the Government because they declined to adopt the convention which meant prohibition on all counts. I think the time has arrived when we ought to know the result of the operation of that Act. I do not think we are asking for the information too early. I know that the Rules and Regulations under that Act took some time to issue. I know that the Government consulted the employers; I do not know if they consulted the operatives. It probably would be a new departure for this Government if they did so. I am a little alarmed at the figures relating to lead poisoning generally. There is an hon. Member here representing the pottery workers of Staffordshire who will be able to speak with more authority than I can on various aspects of this question; but the figures relating to lead poisoning of all kinds, with which I have been supplied, show that in 1922 the number of lead poison cases reported to the Home Office was 247, with 26 deaths. The number grew until in 1924 it reached a peak figure which was very alarming indeed. I am pleased to see that the number of deaths in 1927 was reduced to 14, but the reported cases number 249 for 1927, or an increase of two over 1922.
    8.0 p.m.
    When we come to the case of the house painter there is a very sad story indeed. It is in that connction that I would like information as to the effect, if any, already ensuing from the passing of the Act of 1926. With regard to lead poisoning among house painters, the figure in 1922 was 40 cases with 12 deaths; but in 1927 there were 98 cases reported and 21 deaths. I say that that is indeed an alarming condition of affairs. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether he has a sufficient number of inspectors to see that the Act of 1926 prohibiting the use of white lead in paint for interior purposes is carried out? I am sure

    2335
    he cannot reply, at any rate, that the inspectorate is adequate for this purpose; and in order to test him further I would put these additional questions: How-many offences have been notified under this Act, and how many convictions, if any, have been obtained? I notice that the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) put a question the other day in relation to lead poisoning; and the reply of the Home Office was to the effect that for the first five months of 1927 there were 33 cases reported, and 40 cases for the corresponding period this year. I take it that those cases cover people employed in the pottery trade as well, where lead poisoning is more prevalent than in any other industry. It is well, therefore, to put once again the question to the Home Office as to what is being done to administer and carry out the provisions of these Acts of Parliament, which were designed definitely to prevent cases of the kind that I have mentioned.
    I will pass to another subject. In 1924, when Great Britain was sane and we had the most intelligent Government of modern times, there was appointed a Committee to inquire into artificial humidity in textile and non-textile factories; and I would like to know what has become of the recommendations that were made by that Committee. I do not know whether some of those recommendations cannot be put into operation without an Act of Parliament; but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us. In passing, let me say that a great many of the difficulties to which I am referring would have been cleared away once and for all if the Government had carried out their promise to give us a Factory Bill; but that promise, like many more, has been broken. When the General Election comes along we shall not forget their shortcomings in that connection. It seems to me that the Home Office really ought to deal at once with the question of humidity in textile factories, because I noticed the other day that the mortality and sickness figures of some of the approved societies covering textile operatives were really alarming: and some of the diseases that were shown in the statistics that I saw were attributable in part, I understand, to excessive
    2336
    humidity in textile factories. As I have said, it would be well if we could get to know what part of those recommendations have been put into operation, if they can be put into operation without an Act of Parliament.
    I come next to the case of nystagmus, which is a disease that affects the eyes of coal miners. I am very pleased that the number of new cases of nystagmus is apparently declining. I have looked up the figures, and I find that the old cases in 1914 were 3,215, and at the end of 1926 they had grown to 8,270; but those are old cases. It is the new cases that interest me most, and they are in fact the best indication of how far the disease is getting hold of the coal miners of this country. [Interruption.] These figures are not on a percentage basis, but merely figures dealing with a number of cases. It is a terrible thing to say, but because such a few miners are now employed, the number of these cases is declining; and it almost leads one to say that one wishes they could all be taken out of the pits; then there would be no nystagmus at all. In 1908 the new cases were 386; in 1914, 3,218; and in 1926, 1,771. That, at any rate, shows a decline, whatever the cause may be, and I am reminded, quite rightly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the pits were stopped for seven months in 1926. I would like to know, therefore, what are the figures for 1927, as I think they would give a much better indication of the real position. In 1924, when we were at the Home Office, I, personally, met the Mining Association of Great Britain and the Miners' Federation on this very important point, and I am wondering whether anything has been done since to prevent this disease spreading and to deal with it better under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Some cases, to my knowledge, are not properly dealt with.
    I will only just touch upon the question of silicosis. I understand that the Home Office is already conducting an inquiry into this question, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is just about time that something was done. I could give him a single case to illustrate my meaning. There are coal miners suffering from silicosis who are told that they are not entitled to sick-

    2337
    ness benefit from their approved society, because, in the opinion of the society, they are entitled to workmen's compensation. On the other hand, silicosis among miners is not yet scheduled, I understand, for workmen's compensation purposes, and these people, in some cases, may therefore not get any benefit from anywhere. The Home Office ought really to deal with this problem, which is urgent because of the increased suffering among coal miners from this disease.
    I promised that I would not keep the Committee for very long this evening; but I must touch upon one further disease which comes under the purview of the Factories Department of the Home Office, and that is anthrax. In 1922 there were 45 cases of anthrax reported to the Home Office, and five deaths, and I am pleased to say that the figures declined in 1927 to 31 and two respectively. I gather that the Home Office recently appointed a Committee to inquire into the cost of disinfecting East India wool, the wool that is responsible very largely for a number of anthrax cases in this country. I am told that there have been cases down Bermondsey way where men have contracted this disease from hides and skins, and I believe I am right in saying that the Government disinfecting station at Liverpool has no control at all over the hides and skins which caused the outbreak down in Bermondsey. What I would like to know from the Home Office is whether it is not possible to secure the disinfecting of all these materials before they leave the port of export. I was familiar some time ago with the draft Convention that was drawn up to try and get international action in connection with this problem; and it would be well if we were told what really is the international position in regard to anthrax. In particular, I would like to know what has been done in connection with the Committee appointed some time ago to inquire into the disinfecting of East India wool, which is responsible very largely for this very terrible disease.
    We are always in the unfortunate position—and I do not want to attribute blame to anybody, as it is in the nature of things, I suppose—of never being able to get the Report of the Factories Department for the preceding year in time for our discussion in the House of Commons.
    2338
    I wish some means were forthcoming whereby the details that we would like to analyse and criticise could be before us in a debate of this kind, and I will repeat, therefore, that my comments tonight are more in the nature of queries. I say finally that I am really alarmed at the growth in the number of accidents in he factories and workshops of this country. It is not good enough that in this day of enlightenment, of better medical service, and of better safeguards in cur factories and workshops, that the Home Office should have to register a growth of 17,000 odd accidents in 1927 over 1926. That figure alone, in my view, warrants me to-night in moving that the sum which has been put before the Committee be reduced by £100.
    Mr. HOLLINS: I wish to call the attention of the Home Office to several very important matters relating to the industry which I represent and to other industries as well. The first question is with regard to the very cumbersome method which surrounds the operations of the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act of 1918 and the subsequent Acts; the second point has to do with the period of time beyond which no person suffering from lead poisoning may claim compensation; and the third point that I wish to raise is the question of the appointment of certifying surgeons. With regard to the first point, the method of getting an order for any industry under the Silicosis Acts is very cumbersome and takes time, energy, and expense that it ought not to take. My own society in 1906 gave evidence before the Home Office Committee, which was inquiring into industrial diseases, and the medical opinion of that inquiry was to the effect that silicosis ought to be scheduled as an industrial disease. In 1923 we approached the then Home Secretary, and he gave us to understand that a prima facie case had been made out for an Order to be made under the Silicosis Act to apply to the pottery industry. We have, however, had to wait over 20 years since our first application in 1906, and for five years after the Home Secretary had admitted our claim for an inquiry before we can get within sight of the Order being made The Silicosis Act can only be applied to those industries that make application, and for which the Home Secretary makes an Order, Committees

    2339
    have to be appointed and investigations made, and the greatest difficulty is the obstructionist methods which can be adopted either by the employers' representatives or by the workers' representatives. In the three industries which up to the moment have been before the Home Office inquiry, there was only one happy result.
    The employers in the metal-grinding industry obstructed the Committee, and the Under-Secretary, who is the Chairman of the Committee making an inquiry into the Pottery Industry, knows the great difficulty which we are now having; the employers have withdrawn, and are not willing to take any further part in the proceedings. In both the metal-grinding industries and the pottery industry the employers are opposed to partial compensation. Owing to the cumbersome method and the waste of time involved in obtaining an Order for an industry, there is a very meagre fraction of the total number of workers affected who have been brought under the scheme since the first Act was introduced. We feel that the only proper method is to have the disease scheduled as an ordinary occupational disease. It can still be made possible to have an arrangement for joint committees and an expenses fund under Section 47 of the Compensation Act, and it will not alter in any shape or form the position with regard to administration. Applications must be made by organised bodies; but there are thousands of unorganised persons outside the scope of any possible inquiry. There has been a case recently where two girls died from silicosis, and they had no possible claim for compensation, because there has been no Order made for the application of the Act to their particular industry. The process is so slow and tedious, that one cannot conceive that all the industries will ever be covered by the application of this Act. The only solution that one can see is that silicosis ought to be scheduled as an industrial disease. If the Committee of 1906 had given a proper decision, they would have recommended that the disease be scheduled, but economic causes were brought to bear, and they thought that it was not expedient, and they withheld giving a decision for scheduling the disease.
    2340
    I want to touch upon another important matter which affects the workers in lead processes. It is not possible for a worker who may have left a lead process or whose factory has given up the lead process, to claim compensation after he has left that process, or after the lead has not been used in the factory, for a period of 12 months. Lead poisoning is a cumulative disease, and one never knows when the effect will show itself. We have had cases where persons have shown symptoms of this disease several years after they have left the lead process, and they have not had an opportunity of making an application for compensation. We have a typical example in my own industry. A man worked on the lead process for 40 years, and his firm decided to have a leadless process. After working at this process for two years, the man died, and the post-mortem showed that he had lead poisoning, but there was not the slightest possible chance of the widow receiving compensation, with the result that the insurance company was so sympathetic that they made an ex gratia payment. An extension of the Order should be made so that, if the period is not wiped out entirely, it ought to be extended to a period of three years or five years.
    On the third point, in regard to certifying surgeons, we have had a deplorable experience in my industry. In 1906 it was decided that the woman scourers should be periodically examined. Although we have had thousands of examinations, there has only been one case of a suspension under that Act. The present method of appointing certifying surgeons is not a proper method to adopt. The best medical practitioners may be appointed, but they are not appointed because they are experts in the knowledge of lead poisoning, silicosis, anthrax or other industrial diseases. In our particular industry they are paid 1s. per examination, with the consequence that we have known of cases where 20 workers have passed before the certifying surgeon in as many minutes. It is impossible for anybody to make an examination of workers in so short a period of time. We feel, and it has been held in my own society for many years that certifying surgeons should be whole-time men without private practice. This has had a trial in the Refractories Industries

    2341
    scheme, when the tuberculosis officers made the examinations in the first instance. Afterwards permanent full-time men were brought in, and it was found that the examinations were more efficient and the data more valuable. I hope that the Home Secretary will give his attention to the points I have raised, namely, the expensive and tedious method of getting an Order under the Silicosis Act, and the necessity of silicosis being scheduled as an industrial disease. We feel, further, that the period of making claims for lead poisoning should be extended or taken out of the Order. Lastly, the certifying surgeons should be full-time men with expert knowledge of the people and the disease with which they have to deal.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think I shall be expressing the feelings of all Members of the Committee when I congratulate the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) upon his maiden effort. The speech which we have been privileged to hear is one of those which we should do well to multiply, because every word showed that he was closely and practically identified with the human problem; we should benefit by many similar speeches. I hope the hon. Member will be long spared to help us to deal with these very thorny human problems. I wish to refer to the question of nystagmus. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench suggested that progress was being made, instancing the reduction in the number of new cases in 1926 as compared with 1914. But I think that, on closer examination, the figures for 1926 will not be found to indicate a real decrease in the number of men suffering from this horrible disease, but that the reduction was due wholly and solely to the fact that the majority of collieries were closed for seven months in that year. If the Under-Secretary can tell us when he replies what the figures were for 1927 it will give us a clearer idea of whether the numbers are on the decrease or increase; and perhaps he will also say something about the steps the Home Office are taking with a view to reducing the very large number of old cases and preventing the occurrence of new ones.
    Next, I want to draw attention to two cases which have been brought to the notice of the Under-Secretary during the
    2342
    past few weeks. In the first case I think the Home Office might have stepped in to prevent an unfortunate workman from suffering undue hardship and injustice through the action of the clerk to the magistrate; in a particular town. I brought the facts to the notice of the Home Secretary but he informed me that as it was a matter of law he could not interfere. I will briefly state the circumstances, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give us some idea of whether the Home Office can prevent the recurrence of such cases by disseminating, by circular or otherwise, such information as may be necessary to secure uniformity of action throughout the country. In this case an individual was sentenced on the 9th July, 1927, to six months' imprisonment for having deserted his child. At the end of the period of imprisonment a maintenance order was made against him for £1 per week. The man was released from prison on 10th December, after which he had to find work. Out of his first week's wages he made a payment of 7s. 6d. to the collecting officer for that district, and out of the next week's wages he made a payment of 18s. On the very day on which he made the payment of 18s. he was apprehended on a warrant issued by the clerk to the magistrate of the Longton Court, Staffordshire, for arrears of maintenance. That warrant was issued without any certificate having been given by the collecting officer of the Doncaster, West Riding Court, which I believe is the ordinary method employed throughout the country. This unfortunate person who was complying with the order which had been made against him was apprehended on a warrant issued at a Court 80 or 90 miles away. He lost some five or six days' work.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I do not think the hon. Member can raise this question on the Home Office Vote. It concerns the administration of justice, and, if an error has been made in the issue of a warrant, the remedy is to apply to the Courts. It is not a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to transgress your ruling, but I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote will agree that, unless the case is set forth, I shall not be able to suggest what action should be taken to prevent this happening in the future. It is not my in-

    2343
    tention to make an attack upon anyone who is administering the law, but merely to show that under the existing practice an unfortunate person who is complying with a maintenance order of a Court can be apprehended upon a warrant issued at a Court 100 miles away, although no arrears exist under that maintenance order. I know the hon. Gentleman has no power to interfere with the administration of the law, but what I submit is that if a maintenance order against a person has been made by one Court no other bench of magistrates ought to be permitted to issue a warrant for his apprehension without a certificate from the collecting officer, who, in each case, is the clerk to the magistrates in the Court where the maintenance order was made. Could not the Home Office circularise all benches of magistrates and intimate to them that in a case of this kind no warrant should be issued by any second Court unless a certificate has been received from the first Court showing that arrears exist? I think the Home Office have the power to circularise magistrates without interfering with the normal methods of administering justice. In this particular case this man was apprehended. He lost six days' wages. He was let out on bail for a month, was called upon to appear again at the Longton Court, and had to pay the arrears.
    The point is this: When an order is made no poor person would know to whom he has to pay the sum per week which had been fixed, whether he has to pay the money at the Court which fixed the maintenance order or whether he would have to pay that sum at any other Court. Unless the Home Office take the step I am suggesting, any woman could get a warrant issued and a man could be apprehended, although not in arrears to the extent of one single penny piece on that order. I think the case referred to is within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will look into it and insist upon the various benches of magistrates being circularised so that there may be uniformity of action throughout the country.
    Another case which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman concerns a bench of magistrates. Here, again, I have no desire to transgress the ruling
    2344
    of the Chair which has been given on so many occasions, but when poor persons are unfortunate at law and the financial barrier prevents them from seeking justice by an appeal to the higher Courts, the only person to whom they can appeal is the Home Secretary. In the case I have in mind there are three brothers who set up a petrol filling station. Only one name was attached to the agreement purchasing the petrol pump. These three brothers were prosecuted for selling a different kind of petrol from that named on the pump. The Merchandise Marks Act distinctly states that:
    "A person means a manufacturer, dealer, trader, proprietor or any body of persons, corporate or incorporate."
    In this case, the three brothers were fined £20 each. It seems to me that that was a misinterpretation of the law, and in a case like that, I think, the Home Secretary has power to intervene, and he should see that even-handed justice is meted out. I know the usual course is to appeal against any harsh decision, but, if the financial position of the individual concerned is such that he cannot afford the costs of an appeal, then obviously he must suffer an injustice. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into this case, and, through the mechanism of the Home Office, see that the Act of Parliament is carried out fairly and impartially. If the Parliamentary Secretary will do that, I shall feel that it has been worth my while to bring this case forward. After all, there are many individuals who cannot afford to follow the law through all its normal courses to a logical conclusion. The Home Secretary is in charge of these things, and I think he ought to be a post on which the unfortunate can lean in order to secure justice at the hands of the law.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I think the Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for introducing the question of factory legislation. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been connected with factories for a number of years, and we have our own special notions as to what is needed in connection with factory life. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) for the information he has given to the Committee about the pottery trade, because there are pieces of in-

    2345
    formation in his speech which are worth a great deal. As one connected with the textile trade, I want to say that we are not sufficiently staffed with factory inspectors. I am speaking about a part of the country which I know best, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I want the Under-Secretary to take cognisance of some of the things which, if carried out, will be of great advantage.
    In the West Riding of Yorkshire, we have 2,595 factories, 1,870 workshops, and 70 warehouses, making a total of 4,535 buildings to be inspected. These factories cover an area of 153 square miles. In 1923, for these 4,500 factories and workshops we had only two full-time inspectors and one half-time inspector; they had to see to all the registration and that the regulations in regard to cleanliness and health were carried out in that huge area, with its large number of factories and workshops. I say that it is impossible for two whole-time inspectors and one half-time inspector even to attempt the inspection of such a large area, and such a large number of factories. I went into the factory when I was 10 years of age, and I never saw an inspector come round to any factory in which I was working. In view of the great risks, the danger of running machinery, and the various difficulties which crop up, such a small staff of inspectors is totally inadequate for the work. I am sure that if we had a more adequate inspection of factories there would be fewer accidents.
    It is a well-known fact that a large number of accidents in factories are caused by the breaking of the regulations. I know that some of the regulations are irksome from the point of view of production, but it is the duty of the Government to see that we get more inspectors. When you go into a factory, you sometimes hear the scream of a girl who has got her hand in a machine, or you may come across the case of a man who has been caught in the shafting, and you hear the remark that "another good man has gone west." I want to see the machinery thoroughly fenced.
    There are many things which ought to be done for the comfort of the workers. I have in mind something which occurred during the War, when it was found neces-
    2346
    sary to increase the production of certain articles. At that time, we were pressed to allow the women to work on night work, and, when this was allowed, it was only on condition that proper safeguards should be adopted, and that proper accommodation should be provided for the cooking of the meals. In that instance, proper facilities were afforded for the women to obtain their food during the night, although it did not matter much how the people who worked in the daytime fared. After the War, the buildings which were used as special accommodation for the women were pulled down, and the space was used for putting in new machinery. These things are all wrong, and it is very often the small things which make life worth living. It is bad enough to go to work at 7 o'clock in the morning and work on until late at night. I know that in our textile factories no adequate provision is made for the eating of the meals. It may interest the hon. and gallant Gentleman to know that I have had thousands of meals sitting on the cleanest part of the floor that I could find in the building. There was no place in which to get a meal; the only thing provided was a steam kettle where we could brew our tea, and you might go anywhere and get your meals.
    I would urge the Under-Secretary, who, we believe, has these things at heart, to use his influence to see if he cannot get some method adopted whereby adequate provision may be made for people to get their meals in a decent way. The only places in the West Riding of Yorkshire in which it is compulsory upon firms to provide adequate eating and cooking accommodation are places where anthrax wools are bandied. In those places suitable accommodation must be provided for washing people's hands, with towels, nail brushes and places where people can eat their meals and have them cooked. In all of the other factories there is no accommodation, and no compulsion to provide it.
    I was rather interested in the figures submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton with regard to cases of anthrax, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary to give me the figures. I ought to say that from 1914 until last year I was a member of the Departmental Committee on Anthrax,

    2347
    but I do not get the figures now as I used to do. I see that, in 1927, 19 cases from wool were reported, three from horse-hair, nine from hides and skins, and one from other industries. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he could give us the figures showing how many of these cases were fatal and how many were non-fatal. In 1927, as I have said, there were nine cases of anthrax from hides and skins, and I think that something ought to be done in this respect. I do not know whether it is possible—I hardly think it is—to disinfect the hides in the country of origin, but I am quite sure that it is possible to disinfect the wool in the country of origin. I know that the number of cases of anthrax has largely decreased as the result of the operation of the very fine Government disinfecting station which has been set up at Liverpool, but that only deals with Persian and Egyptian wool, and there are any number of dangerous wools. There is goat hair, and camel hair, and there are all kinds of wools which are dangerous.
    When I was a member of the Committee, I was very much interested in the efforts that were being made at Geneva to try to get compulsory disinfection in the country of origin agreed to. I know that at that time India and some other countries stood in the way. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be able to tell us what has happened in regard to the proposals that have been made. I would like the Home Office to interest itself, if possible, in the question of the inspection of the material that is used in the production of shaving brushes. We used to have any number of cases sent to us of people who had got anthrax as a result of shaving with an anthrax-infected brush, and I should like to tell the Undersecretary, incidentally, that, as a member of that Committee, I was trying for three years to get a resolution sent to the Home Office in favour of the compulsory disinfection of foreign shaving brushes and the material used in their manufacture. I was not, however, able to get a seconder for that resolution until a friend of a member of the Committee happened to get anthrax as a result of using one of these foreign brushes, and then I had him falling over me to second my resolution.
    2348
    I do not know whether the Home Office are aware of the tremendous danger that the public are running from the use of shaving brushes made from what is called Chinese tail or mane hair, which is a material liable to be infected with anthrax. It gets to this country in a round-about way, and is made into the cheapest imitation badger hair shaving brushes, and from them it is very easy to get this dangerous and loathsome disease. I know that at the Government disinfecting station at Liverpool these shaving brushes and the material from which they are manufactured can be disinfected. The Committee proved that it was possible to get these brushes and materials disinfected and made safe.
    My most important point of all, however, is that I want to impress upon the Home Office—and I am sure that any hon. Member with experience of factory life will agree—that the factory inspectorate in the whole country is quite inadequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton gave the figures, showing that there are somewhere about 200 inspectors for the whole of the factories and workshops in Great Britain. That is not enough, especially in view of the risks to which so many millions of our people are being subjected in the factories. It needs but a girl's hair to be drawn into an unfenced machine, and there is danger of death; or a girl's finger may get fast and her whole arm go into the machine. Those who have lived in factory life have seen so much of these dangers that we want to minimise them. I urge upon the Government to increase the number of inspectors, so that at least, while our people are earning their living, they shall not have to run the risks that they have been running.
    Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to deal with one or two points that have been raised in this discussion, and to reinforce to a certain extent the requests that have been made to my hon. and gallant Friend for some information with regard to the work of the Home Office in connection with the matters that have been mentioned. I should like to add my own request to that which has already been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that the Department might arrange to have the Annual Report of the Chief

    2349
    Inspector of Factories issued in time for this Debate each year. I have just got from the Library the latest Report that is available, and it is the Report for the year 1926. The Report for 1927 was, I believe, presented to Parliament yesterday, and, of course, has not been printed. That, obviously, does not give the Home Office a fair chance, because this is the one opportunity in the year when we can recognise the excellence and value of the work of the Department, and when some kind of notice of it may be obtained in the Press the next day as the result of the Debate. If the issue of the Report is delayed until the last minute, no one is able to read it until the holidays are upon us, and that is not the time that we generally devote to such purposes. The Report, therefore, does not receive adequate notice.
    I am not going to ask for any more figures, but I should like to have some of those that have been asked for, and particularly those with regard to lead poisoning. The latest figures given in the Report for 1926 are certainly disconcerting. It is true that there were fewer cases, but there were something like double the number of deaths from lead poisoning in the last year reported upon as compared with the previous year, and that is a matter that needs clearing up. Probably we shall hear a better account in regard to last year, but certainly in 1926 the number of deaths was something like twice that in the year before. It is a very pertinent question to ask how far the Act of 1926 has had time to take effect. It is, no doubt, too early to get definite information on that point, although, if the Home Office can give us any information in that direction, we shall be glad to have it.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quoting me, I should like to make it perfectly clear that the figures I quoted were not the figures for 1926 and 1927. I gave the figures for 1922 and 1927 in order to get a comparison, and in that case the number of deaths had very nearly doubled, but the number of cases in 1926 was 90, of which 18 were fatal, while in 1927 there were 98 cases, of which 21 were fatal. That was among house painters.
    Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: As I have said, it is impossible really to judge of the effect of the new Act and regula-
    2350
    tions within a year of their introduction, but it is quite right that any suggested reports should be passed on to the House, so that year by year we can sec whether the provision is right. The general line was to prohibit painting by women and young persons, and then to give power to the Home Secretary to issue regulations. That, I maintain, is the right method. I object to prohibition wherever it is possible to avoid it. Prohibition is the last resort, and it is a confession of feebleness and weakness. Prohibition means that you have not faith in the individual, and, therefore, you have to come down upon him with a Prussian method of prohibition. The result is that you lose the private initiative which is the most essential factor in getting real protection. Initiative and responsibility thown upon employer and employed, each to do his part, are infinitely more effective than any rules of prohibition.
    9.0 p.m.
    Therefore, we want to work up as much as possible the question of education and inspection, because the methods of the Home Office Inspector are not those they might be imagined to be. They are not those of the schoolmaster, but those of the adviser and the friend. The inspector is one of the most valuable administrators we have, and one of the most valuable forms of education we have. It is in that sense that we want to see whether we have a sufficient number of inspectors for this kind of work. It is not that we particularly want to ferret out the misdeeds of bid employers. In this world, men are bad from ignorance or from their surroundings, and, in the case of a bad employer, it is largely because he is ignorant or because of his circumstances. Very often, he can only make both ends meet with difficulty, if at all, and cannot think of improving a system which he knows to be bad, but the inspector can come along and help him to put things right. I have here the actual official numbers of the inspectorate. In 1914, there were 222 authorised staff inspectors and assistants; in 1921, 211; and only 205 in 1926. That was excluding Ireland, so I am not sure whether the staff has been very much reduced. You cannot expect to get efficient and thorough inspection when you have people who only inspect from a distance. You must delegate the people who are on the spot and can drop in here and there when they know things

    2351
    require to be looked into. You have already under the law a certain amount of sanitary inspection, and the sanitary inspectors and medical officers of health have to furnish copies of their annual reports. That shows that they do a certain amount of work which is given to them locally, and, through them, a certain amount of improvement takes place in minor things. I want to extend that. I believe you can extend it very considerably in the larger cities and boroughs, where you can use the local medical officer of health more and more. I cannot enlarge on that topic, because it requires legislation, but it has to be remembered when you are considering the inadequacy of the inspectorate and the actual official reply that you cannot afford to have more inspectors. I think you are on the wrong line if you are seeking to increase the centralised bureaucratic inspectorate. You want to open up the factory system, which is at present a closed book, to local people, who would gladly take an interest in it. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins), whom I should like to congratulate on his very well-informed maiden speech, suggests that the certifying factory surgeon should be a whole-time man. I am afraid, if he really goes into the matter on a wider basis, that he will find that is quite impracticable. Certifying factory surgeons have to be dotted about all over the place. They ought to be given the opportunity of being more useful than they are at present. The certifying factory surgeon only has certain inspections detailed to him when called for by the factory inspector. He cannot be expected, therefore, to sift through the whole of the cases that could be improved, because he only has cases of definite illness or cases that require attention as understood by the lay inspector.
    I should like to have some account of the extremely beneficent welfare work in the factories which has been extended so very much since the War. It is a very hopeful work, which was instituted during the War in the Department of Munitions, largely by one of the factory medical inspectors attached to the Ministry for the purpose, and the Home Office have followed it up since. My
    2352
    latest information is that statutory welfare orders have been made for 14 industries so far. I should be glad to know if they have been extended or are going to be extended further. It can only be done gradually as industry is prepared for it, but there is a very great deal of hope from it. I have always taken intense interest in the Factory Department of the Home Office. It is nothing less than a second Ministry of Health, on which the health and efficiency of the nation depend. I am very glad to add my tribute to the work of the Home Office and I shall certainly oppose the Amendment to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
    Mr. JENKINS: I should like to refer again to the question of silicosis and to point out the necessity for the Home Office to take some steps in connection with the mining industry. We have been appealing to the Department for a large number of years asking them to schedule silicosis as an industrial disease. They say they are only entitled when they have found 80 per cent. of silicosis. I have in the last fortnight got an analysis from a number of collieries. I will not give their names though I have submitted them to the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Mines. I find in these four collieries the percentage of silica are 32.4, 60.9, 75.9 and 76.2. In each of these cases the men are unable to follow their employment. Nothing has been done by the Home Office since the introduction of machinery for boring, although when boring is going on in narrow working places, with little or no ventilation, the dust comes back to the men, with the result that we have a large number of men in the coalfields, particularly in South Wales, who are unemployed through working under these conditions. Unless something can be done to improve matters I am certain that there will be a great outcry in the mining industry. Up to the present time the Home Office have taken no steps, except to say that they are making inquiries.
    I maintain that the inquiries which they are making are not satisfactory to the mining industry. I know of men of my own are who, when we were young men together were strong, healthy and robust and who after 15 or 16 years' work subject to these conditions of dust, have become unable to follow their em-

    2353
    ployment. I know of a large number of men who have died before they were 50 years of age through working under conditions where rock dust, containing silica, prevails, and yet no compensation has been paid to their unfortunate widows or dependants. No compensation is paid to the men who are unable to follow their employment through the same cause. We have made an appeal recently and we find that the Home Office have appointed a medical man. One medical man for the whole country is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the mining industry and other industries and to investigate and make reports on cases. The Home Office ought to appoint larger staffs of medical men to make investigations in regard to the dust caused by boring.
    I should like to call attention to the fact that a number of men, with whom I have come into contact, who have worked on screens, where the dust comes from the screens of coal, are unable to follow their employment in consequence of developing chest trouble, due to the dust which they have inhaled. None of these men is entitled to compensation. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office that he should give instructions that that kind of work should be forthwith investigated. Reference has been made to the question of nystagmus. We are, however, entitled to compensation in cases of nystagmus. In regard to the diseases produced, by dust, we submit that if the men are unable to follow their employment as a result of working under these conditions, and it can be proved that their incapacity is due to the dust, they ought to be entitled to compensation. The same conditions should apply to coal-dust as apply to any other dust in connection with the mines. The Home Office should take steps to ascertain how men are affected by following their employment. There may be other diseases due to this kind of thing, and the medical men ought to make special inquiries.
    There is one further thing that the Home Office ought to do, and that is to inquire into cases where colliery companies have become bankrupt and have not insured their men. The Home Office ought to take steps to make sure that every colliery company and every other company insure their men in some form
    2354
    or other. If the men are not insured, the Government ought to take steps to see that they are insured. We have in South Wales at the present time a large number of men who are unable to draw unemployment payment or sickness benefit, because it is said that they are entitled to compensation, but the companies concerned have become bankrupt and no compensation has been paid. We have had fatal cases. I know of one case where a husband and a son in Pontrhydyfen lost their lives and no compensation was paid because the colliery company had become bankrupt. There was no way of securing compensation, because no dividend was paid after the bankruptcy proceedings had taken place and the Receiver had been put in. Here is a case where a family has been broken up through the breadwinner and the eldest son being killed in the mine and no compensation has been paid, simply because the colliery company had become bankrupt and had not insured. It is the business of the Home Office to attend to these matters. They ought to take an interest in these questions and see that the workers are protected. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to convey to the Home Secretary and to the Mines Department the three suggestion which I have made, namely, that in regard to silicosis the percentage should be taken off altogether, that even men working on the surface should be scheduled to receive compensation and that steps should be taken to make sure that every colliery company and every other company should be insured in some form or other, or, if that does not happen, then the Government ought to take steps to see that the men are protected.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: It is very interesting to have a chance to discuss the Home Office Vote, particularly in connection with factory legislation. I speak as an old certifying factory surgeon of over 20 years' experience, and I have, therefore, some knowledge of what obtains in the textile mills. There has been a complaint to-night, and a justifiable complaint, as to the small number of factory inspectors. We recognise that, considering the number of textile factories in this country, it is a physical impossibility for the inspectors adequately and thoroughly to inspect all the factories and workshops under their

    2355
    control. During the War, the Home Office took what I regard as a very retrograde step. Hon. Members above the Gangway will know that up to that period practically all accidents were notified to the certifying factory surgeon, who had to visit the factory, to see the identical place where the accident occurred, to get a report, then proceed to see the injured person and get his or her report and then, finally, to issue a report to the factory inspector and so to the Home Office.
    By that process two or three very important things were done. In the first place, we were sure that the mill authorities reported the majority of their accidents, because they never knew what doctor a particular patient might go to and news of an accident might leak out and get to the factory surgeon. Therefore, they were compelled to follow out the Regulations and to report more closely their accidents. The second good point was that it enabled them to forward true accident reports. On more than one occasion I found in my investigations that the report sent to me by the mill authorities was not accurate. They said that an accident occurred at such-and-such a place, but when I visited the mill and saw the machinery and visited the patient I said that the accident could not have happened in that particular place. There was one interesting case which I remember very well. When I had inquired into the matter thoroughly I found that the accident had happened in a particular part of the mill where the guard had been removed, and removed by the patient. The manager said: "I am very sorry. I did not know that." I said: "Have a look round." We had a look round, and we found that the guard had been removed from every mule in the mill by the workers. It was a new guard, which they did not like. They said that it was more dangerous with the guard than without it and, consequently, every man had removed the guard on his own responsibility. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members to bear in mind when cases come forward of unfenced machinery and an accident has occurred, that unfenced machinery is not always due to the fault of the employer. It is sometimes the fault of the workers. They do not like the guard and they remove it.
    2356
    The Home Office decided to do away with this reporting of accidents to the certifying surgeon because it cost the country the enormous sum of £7,000 per annum. They said: "We will save this £7,000 and in future accidents shall only be reported to the factory inspector," who may live five, 10 or 15 miles away, "and when he gets this report he shall decide whether it is a case on which to inquire or not." It is quite possible to so report an accident as to create a false impression in the report, and it is possible that there are many accidents which ought to be inspected by the factory inspector which are not inspected. Therefore, I say that the Home Office took a retrograde step by cancelling the reporting of accidents to certifying surgeons. This procedure was to the advantage of the Home Office, to the advantage of the workers and to the advantage of the mill, and I hope at some time or other they will reconsider the provision and see if they cannot go back to the old style of reporting accidents. It had another important effect. The mill authorities knew that the factory doctor might be in the mill any day, and it kept them up to the mark. The factory doctor was in reality a sort of unofficial inspector and if he saw things which were not right he would say, "You must not do this, or I shall have to report the matter to the factory inspector." Under this system they were able to do much better work with their present staff than is being done at the present time.
    I ask hon. Members above the Gangway to bear in mind the fact that factory legislation is principally for the benefit of the workers and that unless the workers co-operate with employers it is impossible to get the full benefit of the provisions. The question of nystagmus has been referred to. The figures are going up. I have been particularly interested in a phase of the question which was brought to my notice 12 or 18 months ago. For some reason or other I was looking at the figures for Belgium and I found that there was not the same rate of increase in nystagmus as in this country, but with another peculiar condition. In Belgium they only get compensation for nystagmus for a certain definite time and at the end of that time, when compensation ceases, for some remarkable reason the cases improve. That reminds

    2357
    me of the old days of the "railway-spine," when people following railway accidents got concussion of the spine, and they never got better until the case was settled by the companies. Sir William Thorburn, an eminent surgeon, who was probably the greatest expert on railway spine in Europe, came to the conclusion and advised all his clients that the patient would never get better until the claim was settled. They were not malingering, but there was some psychological condition which prevented these people getting better until their claim had been paid, and as soon as the railway companies paid this compensation they got better. I wonder whether in this country in the case of nystagmus the same thing might not occur and that instead of saying that the man shall be paid so much per week that it would be better to give a lump sum by way of compensation which might have some effect on the recovery of the patient.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Do you think that as a medical man?
    Dr. DAVIES: I am arguing this from a medical standpoint, and I am simply saying whether it might not be tried as an experiment judging from the analogy of the railway spine. We really do not know the influence of the mind upon the illnesses of the body, and if we have the fact that in Belgium after the payment of compensation ceases there is a more rapid recovery it shows to my mind that there is possibly some psychological effect there. It is a matter for investigation as to whether the same thing might not happen here in the case of nystagmus. I do not say it would, but it might be considered. The question of silicosis has been mentioned, a subject which is very important and is becoming more important every day. I think this question has been grossly neglected in this country.
    It really is rather astonishing, considering our huge mining industry, employing an enormous number of men, that a medical man should only have been appointed a few months ago by the Government for the first time, to advise them on the medical conditions affecting this industry. They have been running the mining industry for years and years
    2358
    without the slightest medical supervision. Another remarkable point is that if a child wishes to work in a factory or workshop it has to be examined by a certified surgeon, who certifies if the child is fit to work or not. That is not the case so far as the mines are concerned, and, over and over again I have refused to pass children for work in the cotton mills because they were not strong enough, and all they have done is to laugh at me and go and get work in the pits, where they were allowed to go without any examination at all. That is in this up-to-date country; and how the hoi. Members representing mining constituencies have allowed this to continue for all these years is beyond my comprehension. They could have brought the subject up year after year.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the inspection of mines has been transferred to the Mines Department which was set up. Is not that so?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The inspection of mines has nothing to do with the Home Office.
    Dr. DAVIES: I am rather puzzled, because medical questions have been brought forward in the Debate, and the question of silicosis has to do with the Home Office.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Perhaps I might explain the difficulty. The power to make schemes under Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in relation to silicosis in any industry is vested in the Secretary of State, but the inspection of mines has nothing to do with the Home Office. That is a matter for the Mines Department. Therefore, apart from the question of making schemes for the mining industry with regard to silicosis, anything else is out of order.
    Dr. DAVIES: I was not suggesting anything with regard to the inspection of mines. I was suggesting that children should not be allowed to work in the mines until they had been examined by a certifying surgeon.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: There, again, that is not a matter for the Home Office.
    Dr. DAVIES: I apologise. I will leave that part of the subject. I understand that the question of silicosis is a matter for the Home Office. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Jenkins) gave me the impression that silicosis was much more prevalent than it used to be. The hon. Member is aware that silicosis by itself is not a very dangerous disease. The worst it does is to cause shortness of breath and perhaps a little difficulty in breathing. Where the danger is is not in silicosis itself but when it gets contaminated or infected with tubercle, and when you get this combination it is extremely dangerous and fatal. Considering the risks miners run in working in this rock dust, it is full time that stringent regulations were made by the Home Office to deal with the problem. We have to bear in mind that certain people are perhaps more liable to infection by tubercle than others and, therefore, in any scheme brought up to deal with the matter, the health of the miner prior to and during his employment is a very important subject. In any scheme brought forward to make it a scheduled disease, I presume the Home Office will have some control.
    I am personally convinced that the examination of the patient for silicosis should not be given to ordinary medical men, but it should be done by Home Office specialists, because it is extremely difficult to diagnose accurately, especially in the early stage. It is very essential to have an expert radiographer, and the Home Office should consider the advisability of appointing a few specialists in this particular disease who could go round the country examining patients at different mines at definite regular periods. It is no use waiting until the man cannot work; he should be examined regularly. It is not necessary to visit all the mines, because there is a variation in the amount of silica, and you need simply examine the mines where there is a large amount of silica. Coal dust itself does not produce silicosis; in fact, it does good, because it lessens the liability to consumption. Colliers are amongst the healthiest people in the country. Statistics prove undoubtedly that colliers are less subject to pulmonary tuberculosis than any other grade of workers except agricultural workers. To show that a miner's life is a fairly healthy life, apart from accidents, I have statistics show-
    2360
    ing that, among those occupations which are more fatal than a miner's, are the following: bread and biscuit bakers, fishmongers and poultry mongers, tobacconists, cotton workers, textile dyers and bleachers, hairdressers, waiters, seamen, etc.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering away from the one point of silicosis with which alone the Home Office can deal.
    Dr. DAVIES: I was dealing with the health of the miner and showing that the coal dust is not the dangerous factor, and I was saying that one need not examine every workman in every pit, but one should simply decide according to the proportion of silicia in every pit. By doing that, you would improve the health of the miner and prevent a certain number of deaths by getting a man away from these pits when he is in a recoverable state. By so doing, the Home Office would to a certain extent, justify itself.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I want to take the somewhat unusual course of calling attention to a part of the Home Office administration on which the Home Office is warmly to be congratulated. There is a museum in London which shows an extraordinarily interesting collection of safety appliances for machines, and also possesses a number of diagrams of very great interest and value to those engaged in industrial occupations who are prepared to study them. I want to pay my tribute to that part of the Home Office work, and I hope it will be developed. It would be a very good thing if it were possible to see that every director of a large works and every manager of a department should have the opportunity of seeing this Home Office collection, in order that what is new in the way of safety appliances and in the prevention of disease should be thoroughly known to all those who, either by control of works or of the workers, occupy a responsible position in works' organisation.
    With regard to the inspectorial department, I do not want to traverse the ground already covered as to the number of factories and the inadequate number of inspectors. Everything has been said on that that can be said. I want to make a plea to the Home Office to adopt a method which will give us in the

    2361
    majority of cases a rather different type of inspector. Many years ago there began a principle of giving factory inspectorships to men with actual practical experience in the factories themselves. Unfortunately, of late the tendency has been rather to take academic qualifications than practical qualifications and to lay rather more stress on a man's knowledge, say, of Shakespeare or the Norman Invasion than his knowledge of machinery and factory life. I suggest to the Home Office that they might revert to the old method with considerable benefit, and that it would be better perhaps if some of these academic qualifications were made slightly less onerous and more regard was paid to the actual, practical, living knowledge of the factory economy itself.
    The principal thing to which I want to refer—and I believe that the matter could be dealt with by administrative order by the Home Office—is the practice of what is known in Lancashire as shuttle-kissing. We never can get a body of medical opinion to say that the practice is dangerous. Yet nearly every weaver over 20 years of age in Lancashire has either very badly decayed teeth or is wearing artificial teeth. Surely there is a connection between this constant kissing of the shuttle, with the drawing of the weft and the dust into the mouth, and this extremely high average of decayed teeth amongst weavers. Whether it be the case or not—and from my knowledge of Lancashire I say it is the ease, whatever doctors say—that this custom is injurious to the teeth, it is a disgusting, dirty and dangerous habit. It often happens that in the case of an influenza epidemic a weaver will go off work with influenza. What is known as the sick weaver takes his place, uses the shuttles and very quickly goes off work with influenza. It often happens that two, three or even four weavers use the same loom, use the same shuttles and go off work one after another. I have said it is a dirty habit, because it is impossible for that shuttle to remain absolutely clean and, when the moist lips are pressed against the side of the shuttles hundreds of times a day, one can easily imagine what the result is.
    Further, there are cases where colours are used which are of a very free type. I remember what were known as bleeding
    2362
    colours. The yarn was dyed in such a way that immediately moisture touched the yarn the colour would run. The result in a piece of cloth, when it had been woven, was that the weft gave a rainbow effect caused by the bleeding of that dye. Any weaver who used weft of that kind had his lips and mouth dyed by the colour that was used. I have seen weavers with their lips, teeth and inside of mouth green and blue and red, and the whole of the arm covered with a kind of fine dust that "runs" when perspiration takes place. One can understand what it means to a person drawing that kind of thing into the mouth day in and day out.
    I suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) will find that the dye is not really dangerous, unless it be connected with tubercle or something of that kind. Whether it be dangerous or not, it is so dirty and disgusting a practice that it ought to be stopped at the earliest possible moment. I took the opportunity a few weeks ago of sending to the Home Office in a matchbox a collection of material that had come from an automatic shuttle sucker—a suction machine that operates without the application of the human mouth. I think that that material alone would have convinced any reasonable person that the practice of shuttle kissing ought to be stopped. I do not want to labour the point, but I very distinctly remember a case that happened in my youth, when I was working in a mill, of a man who was afflicted with a very loathsome disease. He went away from his work and the man followed him on his looms contracted the same disease.
    Nothing ought to stand in the way of a replacement of the shuttles by hand-threaded shuttles, if that indeed can be done. I say that the Home Office knows that it can be done, because years ago then; was an agreement on the Committee, on which Home Office representatives with representatives of the workers and the employers sat, that shuttles of the hand-threaded type did exist, that they were practical, and that there was no reason why they should not be used to replace the old shuttles in the course of a few years. Unfortunately since then the employers have retracted a little from their position. I ask the Home Office seriously to consider the making

    2363
    of an Order which would do away with this dangerous and disgusting practice in Lancashire and replace the present type of shuttle with a shuttle infinitely more healthy for the workers. If the Home Office will make inquiries in the town of Colne they will find a firm which uses an artificial silk weft. This weft is, of course, a very highly polished weft, and it was found that in the ordinary mouth-suction shuttle there was a great danger of weavers cutting lips and palate with this extremely hard weft. When the weft is now put into the loom, hand-threaded shuttles are issued with the weft. So that you have the extraordinary fact that a difficulty is being raised that these shuttles do not exist, and at the same time, when the danger is so great that an employer wants to get out of a difficulty, he at once finds a way out by supplying a hand-threaded shuttle.
    This is not a party political question. Any man or woman who goes through a Lancashire weaving shed and carefully examines the teeth of the weavers will unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that there must be something in the trade which accounts for the extraordinarily bad condition of the teeth of the workers. My desire is to get the Home Office to take such steps as will begin the process of introducing hand-threaded shuttles. The weavers of Lancashire are not an unreasonable body of people. In fact, if anything, they are too quiet and do not make fuss enough in order to get rid of their grievances. They would be the last body of people in the world who would object to anything in reason if the old type of shuttle could be fairly worked out. But they are entitled on the merits of the case and on the basis of the agreement come to by the Committee to which I have referred, to expect that the Home Office will take decided action which will begin the introduction of the hand-threaded shuttle and will mean the death of the old shuttle in the course of a few years.
    Any practical man in the trade, particularly those who were on the Committee of which I have spoken—I was a member of it myself—knows perfectly well that there are many shuttles that can be used and that can be threaded with the hand as quickly, after a little
    2364
    practice, as they can be threaded with the mouth; and knows perfectly well that in every respect these shuttles are as good as the old type. I hope that the Home Office will make up its mind once for all and get rid of a practice which is dirty and dangerous and ought not to exist in the present state of technical development, when a substitute is certainly available if the trade desires to use it.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I want to revert to the subject of silicosis, which has already been discussed by three hon. Members. I am sure that the Undersecretary will realise how serious is the interest taken in this subject. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the effect of this disease in the mining industry and to the inquiry upon silicosis that is now pending in the industry. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that not only will a very broad view be taken by this inquiry of what constitutes the mining industry, but that the inquiry itself is to be speeded up. The hon. Gentleman knows better than most Members what a dreadful disease this is, and in what a lamentable position these men are when once they are suffering in an acute form from the disease. I confess to a very real pleasure in looking back over the past four years and to the fact that the administrative regulations for this disease have been steadily improved. In particular I welcome the further regulations which have been developed in relation to the metal-grinding industries, so far as disease is concerned.
    I want to draw attention to a class of sufferers arising out of the application of the 1927 silicosis scheme as it applies to the metal-grinding industries. I understand from the regulation that only those sufferers from silicosis will be eligible for benefit under this scheme if they were actually working on grindstone machinery on and after 1st July, 1927. I take it—and I shall be very glad if the Under-Secretary will give me information on this point—that no matter how long before 1st July, 1927, men may have been using the sandstone grindstone, if after that date any new process was substituted they would not, however acute was the silicosis from which they suffered, be eligible for any kind of compensation. I should like to direct at-

    2365
    tention to a specific case in order that we may have a reply from, the Home Office as to what is intended with regard to a particular class of cases. I received a letter this morning from a constituent of mine who has for 30 years been engaged in this particular industry and has been using the sandstone machinery. I understand that on the very day on which this particular scheme came into operation, the employers substituted for the sandstone a more modern type of machinery for dealing with this class of work. I hope it is true that this new type of machinery has the great merit of preventing the development of silicosis.
    Be that as it may, I have received complaints that in the Sheffield district there was round about 1st July, 1927, a very considerable removing of the sandstone machinery from this particular industry. Thus in giving this illustration I am really referring to what may conceivably be a large number of potential cases of silicosis. I understand that this particular man, who the local doctor says is suffering from silicosis, and who for 30 years has habitually used the sandstone, has since the 1st July, 1927, been using some new kind of machinery which does not come within the Schedule of the Act. I understand that this man cannot have a medical referee, and is altogether outside the scope of the provisions of the Act. I can hardly think that when this regulation was devised, it was contemplated that one of the effects of the scheme would be to cause old methods of grinding to disappear and new methods to be introduced. I am quite sure that if the Home Office had had that point of view in mind, they would have made this regulation retrospective so far as silicosis cases are concerned.
    Without trespassing any further upon the time of the Committee, I would press the Under-Secretary to give us some assurance that where new mechanical processes have been brought into the metal-grinding industry since 1st July of last year, and cases of silicosis arise, the sufferers may have some claim, at any rate, upon the consideration of the Government. In pressing for an answer in regard to this particular case, which is a type of a whole class of possible cases in the Sheffield district and in other
    2366
    parts of the country, I would venture to put forward the suggestion that when the present inquiry into the question of silicosis in its relation to the mining industry has been completed, care will be taken to give the widest possible interpretation to the retrospective character of the legislation, so that we may not have a whole series of very distressing cases actually put outside the law owing to the narrow operation of the legislation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be impressed by the fact that of the wide range of possible subjects that we might have discussed this evening, four hon. Members have already chosen to address themselves to this relatively small subject. I, therefore, hope that he will speed up this inquiry, and that we may have special care taken with regard to the respective character of this legislation.
    Lieut-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will not think that I am ungrateful if I commence to urge the appointment of a larger number of medical men to carry out research work and inspection. I am not going to deal with the general inspection of collieries, but I desire to call attention to the dangers that are arising from the changes in the working system which have taken place during the last 10 or 15 years. I wish to point out that it is within the province of the Home Office to schedule diseases in order to give the workmen the right of compensation. It is for this; reason that we are urging that there should be a greater number of medical men to conduct research, go down to the collieries and consider the conditions as they exist from day to day. We have a very large complaint to make with regard to some of our collieries. The collieries in the South Wales district are subjected to very high temperatures, and they are now using stone-dust in order to prevent explosions taking place, because of the dangerous nature of the coal-dust. Men are complaining that diseases are being caused owing to these new changes in the operations in our coalfields. We hope that the policy of appointing technical experts to consider existing conditions on the spot will be developed in the future. I endorse all that has been said with regard to the necessity for the Home Office to see that some provision is made. The hon. and

    2367
    gallant Gentleman's Department is in charge of workmen's compensation, and for that reason I am appealing to him to see to it that the colliery companies should have forced upon them compulsory insurance.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring to his first point; that, really, is outside our province.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am trying to keep in order. I see that the Chairman has his eye upon me. I am going to point out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Jenkins), the piteous and terrible condition of our men who have been mutilated while following their occupation. The colliery companies are allowed now to carry on some form of insurance within their own orbit. A large number of men have lost limbs or eyes in the course of their employment and have been taken back to perform light duties, receiving half compensation and half wages. When the colliery company goes into liquidation and the colliery is turned over into other hands, the new company does not undertake the liability with regard to the compensation of these men and the result is that we have two or three very sad instances of men being deprived both of light employment and of compensation. These men are left with nothing to depend upon and I trust that this matter will receive the attention of the Home Office. I do not want to enumerate cases, and I need only say that when a company goes into liquidation, these men only receive perhaps about one-fortieth or one-fiftieth of what they ought to get, having regard to the injuries sustained by them in following; their employment. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise the necessity of applying compulsory insurance to all colliery companies.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I wish to refer to the new draft regulations which are about to be issued by the Home Office, one of which has already been the subject of an interview between the Deputy Chief Inspector and myself in reference to the use of the oxy-acetylene welding machine in ships and elsewhere. This question arises out of a fatal accident which occurred on the Mersey in the
    2368
    time of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor in office. In one of the large docks in Liverpool, two men lost their lives through an explosion in a confined space. The men had been sent into this confined space to do a welding operation and finding the air very foul, they allowed the oxygen tube to run and left it running too long with the result that when they went to perform the welding, a terrific explosion took place and both lost their lives. The proposed new regulations, which, I believe, are based upon that accident, provide that prior to a welding operation by the oxy-acetylene machine, there must be, first of all, a purifying of the air in the space where the machine is to work and during the operation there must be a continual supply of fresh air. That Regulation is all very well as far as it goes, but, as a practical man, I know what will happen. I have already told the deputy chief inspector, who is responsible for the carrying out though not for the making of the Regulations, exactly what will happen in most cases. I urge now in the House, as I did in the Home Office, that instead of making a Regulation for the supply of air in confined spaces, the use of the machine in confined spaces ought to be totally prohibited. Our members in the Mersey district are determined that they are not going to work the machine in confined spaces. Of course, in the rest of the country attention has not been drawn to the excessive danger. I suggest the advisability of making provision that nothing but an electric welder should be used in cases of this kind. Acetylene welding is carried out on a piece-work schedule and a man is sent into a confined space to do a job which would perhaps work out at 10d., 1s., 1s. 4d. or perhaps 2s. Under the new Regulations he would have to see the foreman labourer first and get the air plant put on to the job before he could begin. This, of course, would take a considerable time, and the job itself might only occupy a quarter of an hour. In nine cases out of ten the man will take the risk before he will lose the time necessary to get the air machine put on to the job. As a practical man who has supervised work of the kind in a large department, I know that is what will take place. The question has been put to me: What is

    2369
    going to take place if a welding operation is found necessary in a confined space—say, in the struttbox of a ship of war—if you are not going to allow a welder to go in and if the job cannot be done without a welder? On an occasion of that kind, if there is not an electric welder available, it must be done with the acetylene welder, but those cases would be rare and we could rely upon the Regulations being carried out in those cases. The man would take the precaution of getting the air machine erected and having a proper purifying process carried out before he went into the confined space. But, taking the ship-repairing yards and docks of the whole country, I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should prohibit the use of the acetylene welding machine in these confined spaces, and should insist on the electric machine taking its place.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I apologise to the Committee for asking them for a moment to turn their attention from matters connected with home affairs to another matter which, however small it may appear at first sight, concerns the liberty of the British subject. I have addressed certain questions to the Home Secretary concerning the deportation, as I have described it, or the repatriation as the Home Secretary has described it, of a coloured British seaman named John Zarlia. This coloured seaman has been domiciled in Liverpool for 10 years and is employed on the Elder Dempster Line sailing to and from West Africa. He has married an English wife and has an English child. I know that by many it is regarded as undesirable that a coloured man should marry a white woman. That may be true, but I hope the Home Secretary is not going to quote that view in defence of the action which he has taken. This man was called up during the War for service in the Army and was given exemption on the ground that his work was of national importance. He has contributed to the national health insurance scheme for a number of years and, when he was repatriated to West Africa, he had not received one penny of benefit on account of the insurance premiums paid by him. That, of course, is a small matter compared with the main issue, but when the House of Commons entrusted the Home Secretary with powers to deport undesirable aliens, it not only
    2370
    entrusted him with the right to deport those who could not trace their British nationality, but it entrusted him with the duty of exercising that right in a reasonable, fair, and just way.
    Under the strict letter of the law, the Home Secretary, no doubt, was fully empowered to deport this man. He could say to him: "Prove that you are a British subject," and, seeing that this coloured seaman was unable to do so, although he came from West Africa, a British Colony, the Home Secretary repatriated him. I have just returned from a visit to West Africa, and I can assure the Under-Secretary that there are hundreds of thousands—millions—of British subjects who never could prove their British nationality. I had a native West African servant, and I asked him how old he was. He said that he did not know, and when I asked how that was, he said that there was no registrar of births when he was born. A large number of these men cannot read or write, and certainly they are unable to understand the procedure if they may be called upon to prove their British nationality. Will the Under-Secretary take this case into fresh consideration. I do not want him to tell me that it is impossible to do anything. I believe the Home Office have made a great mistake in this ease. If a man is an alien, if there is any ground whatever to show that he is an alien, I should be relieved, because I should feel that the Home Secretary had not committed the injustice which I believe him to have committeed. But this man was domiciled in Liverpool; he has a wife and child there who are now receiving 15s. a week from the Liverpool guardians and already they are beginning to suffer extreme poverty and are pawning their household goods, all because the Home Secretary believes, without any evidence, as I submit, that this man is an alien.
    A great deal has been heard in thin House from time to time about the principles which have gone to build up the British Empire. Some of them are open to question, but there is one principle at which, I venture to say, no one would cavil, and that is that every British subject, whether coloured or white, whether literate or illiterate, shall enjoy the same

    2371
    protection of the British laws as a more influential citizen would enjoy. If this man had been in a position to invoke the aid of the law, I submit that a writ of habeas corpus would have been issued against the Home Secretary to prevent his deportation to West Africa, and certainly against the Elder Dempster line for returning him to that country against his will. He is now living in a British Colony on the charity of a friend; his wife and child are suffering poverty in Liverpool, where they are maintained by the rates; he has lived for 10 years in this country; he was called up during the War, and exempted on the ground of his employment being of national importance; he was a contributor to the National Health Insurance scheme; and on all these grounds I submit that there is strong prima facie evidence that this man is a British subject. If the Home Secretary rests upon his right to ask him to produce the technical proofs of British birth and citizenship, he is not excercising the powers that this House gave him as the House expected him to exercise them.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I wish to follow the fashion of touching upon one or two matters relating to the Factory Acts, but I trust that that will not vitiate my right to speak on the general question of the policy of the Home Secretary. I would like to draw attention to a recent event in one of the Battersea factories, where two girls have recently died, supposedly from natural causes, but where previously five other deaths had occurred, of three girls, one man, and one boy, from the same causes. I should also like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that nothing has been done under the Compensation Acts for any one out of these seven families, because of the ignorance of the authorities and the recent finding of the coroner's jury. It has now become a fashion that in all these local accidents, where deaths occur in factories, the juries are composed of local trades people and manufacturers' friends, and they go out of their way and vitiate the position of the Compensation Acts.
    The CHAIRMAN: If a jury bring in a verdict, I do not see that the Home Secretary can do anything to alter it. It is beyond his power.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am only drawing attention to the neglect of the factory inspectors to find out the evils from which the workers suffer, and, on the other hand, the prejudice created by the juries which interfere with the operation of the Compensation Acts.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot connect the action of these juries with the Home Office. If these unfortunate persons' families have a claim, they can make a claim at law, whatever the coroner's jury finds.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I agree, and I thank you for this ruling, because at the present moment this false superstition is hindering the poor people from lodging their claims, and your verdict to-night will be of very great assistance to them. I would draw attention to another point. Recently, under Home Office Orders, the borough councils have been entitled to levy a charge on the street traders. In the Act it is specifically provided that this charge is to he made to the street traders for services rendered by the council in the way of clearing refuse. Now there are cases where the street trading does not entail any refuse, cases, for instance, of a woman selling sweets at a stall out of glass bottles or out of tins, and putting them in bags. There are cases in which as much as £5 a year is charged by a borough council on these street traders, and the Home Office take no precautions to see that the Act——
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the Home Office issue licences for these traders? Where does the Home Secretary come in?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: The Home Office empowers the borough councils to make this charge under certain conditions, and the Home Office does not see that the charges made by the councils are in conformity with the Act. To come to the larger question, I may point out that it is rather unfortunate that the discussion to-day has not centred upon the entire class war policy, as I may put it, of the present Secretary of State. Has the Home Secretary entirely forgotten that during the excitement of troublous times four miners were sentenced to long and rigorous imprisonment for four years, and that they are still held in

    2373
    captivity when there have been frequent demands from working-class organisations for their release? Apart from that, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Home Secretary somehow or other has installed himself as the leader of a deliberately carried out class war in this country, and he is utilising his office and all the resources at his disposal for purposes other than the legitimate functions of a Home Secretary. One of the things that he is very fond of doing is to take action, not in order to prevent any real disorder, or to expose any real criminality, but in order to create prejudice against working-class political organisations, and in order to support Conservative party propaganda and to supply copy to the newspapers.
    Recently, we had an example, when a lot of fuss was made about two £10 notes being placed in a Russian bank and found upon Irish gunmen. A great effort is made, the machinery given to the Home Secretary for legitimate purposes is wrongly used, the Home Secretary lends the support of his authority, and he makes an emphatic pronouncement in this House, as if some great foreign conspiracy were existing in this country, and as if Irish gunmen were directly paid by a foreign Government to commit crime. He creates a political stunt, and avoids the issue for the time being, and, after a lapse of time, quietly comes down to the House and says that there was nothing much in it; but for a given time he allows the Conservative Press and organisations to make as much out of it as they could.
    Then there is the other usual policy of the Home Secretary, which he never gives up, possibly because he cannot. It is a typical example of the existence of a class war in a capitalist system, and, as a Minister of the State, he places himself practically at the head of the capitalist group or section of society to conduct a class war upon the working-classes. We had the revelation of £28,900 passing through one bank to various persons and organisations, and so on. There, again, the Home Secretary was conducting a propaganda on behalf of his party, as well as on behalf of certain sections of the Labour movement in order to create a wider misunderstanding between one or two sections within the Labour movement itself. He employed a large number
    2374
    of police officials, he employed men paid by the State, he employed the machinery of his office, and he did everything, not in order to trace any act of criminality or to institute any legal action because of any illegal or improper act but simply for the purpose of creating this newspaper copy and these political stunts, and a sort of vendetta against the Communists.
    The Home Secretary uses his machinery similarly to follow up almost every kind of meeting organised by the Communist party or by members of the Minority Movement. There is hardly a meeting held in any part where the Home Secretary does not post his men, who go there and speak to the landlady or the restauranteur to ask who had taken the room, and so on. This is not the ordinary function of the Home Secretary. It may be a very good job for a party organiser, or an electioneering agent of the Conservative party for Fascist supporters, and so on, but he should not engage the machinery given to him by the State for the protection of the State. There are what we call private detective companies who can do all this kind of detecting.
    I submit that this activity of the Home Secretary has not only not been discontinued but is almost on the increase. On certain occasions the Home Secretary, from the purely class war point of view, feels dissatisfied with the foreign policy of this country, and immediately he takes it upon himself wrongly to use his Department in order to create a situation in foreign policy which would not be likely to occur if the Foreign Office were left to carry out its legitimate functions; and somehow or other all these activities of the Home Secretary are concentrated against one particular foreign power, namely, the Soviet Republic of Russia. Directly and indirectly, in season and out of season, the Home Secretary keeps himself ever active with this particular political problem which is purely sectional and of no national importance.
    He does not stop there. The Home Secretary keeps himself very busy about the contents of letters and of telephone conversations. The Home Secretary continually uses his organisation for the purpose of keeping himself aware of the contents of correspondence and telephone conversations. That makes even the

    2375
    home life of a large number of citizens of this country almost impossible. In those homes wives give up writing to their husbands on their private affairs, and husbands give up writing to their wives in endearing and familiar terms, because they know for a positive fact that the contents of all those letters will be known to outsiders. Just as the Home Secretary may be fond of his class, there is yet a large amount of solidarity and fellow-feeling amongst the working class, and though the Home Secretary gives his orders those orders, when all is said and done, have to be carried out by members of the working class, and he must be under no misapprehension that they are not as faithful to their class as he tries to be faithful to his, and though they carry out their orders we know a great deal about them when they are unwillingly carrying them out.
    The Home Secretary goes beyond even the legitimate lines of decency. He knows that in the correspondence or in the telephone conversations there is nothing illegal or criminal. He may start on an investigation, I dare say, and if he keeps it up he finds there is nothing, but whenever he can find that some mischief can be created against an individual either in his political organisation or in his business then, somehow or other, the information gained by the, Home Office under the false excuse of collecting information to preserve law and order always filters out into certain quarters where political damage or even economic damage may be done to certain persons. I submit that the Home Secretary, if he is very keen on founding a new order of Fascists in Great Britain, should resign his official position and carry out the other job. After beginning an investigation and after finding that there is nothing in the nature of criminal action to be taken in regard to it, the right hon. Gentleman should stop making big newspaper stunts out of it, and stop by all means persecuting individuals privately in order to prevent them from joining certain political movements which are inconvenient to the right hon. Gentleman and his own particular class. It is quite in keeping with all this that in the earlier part of this afternoon we had an atmosphere of suspicion about the right hon. Gentleman's appointment of Police
    2376
    Commissioner. It is the Home Secretary's policy, which is imbued with a military spirit and is of a Fascist nature and of a political kind, that is chiefly responsible for suspecting the new appointment made by the Home Secretary.
    Again, I put it to the Committee that it must not be considered that I am trying to expose all these matters on account of fear or anger. I feel certain that the partisans, political followers, and society friends of the Home Secretary will yet live to see the day when they will be exceedingly sorry for the precedents which the Home Secretary is setting up. As a member of the Communist party, I am not afraid of anything the Home Secretary may do, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that what he does may be done even with greater enthusiasm by some future Home Secretary in other directions. From that point of view, I ask this Committee to review the whole policy of the Home Secretary and consider whether he is remaining impartial, whether he has become the agent of the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express," whether he has become the leader of a secret Fascist movement, and the breaker up of working-class trade organisations, and whether he has become the chief intriguer in trying to widen the breach between the two sections of the Labour party. When those points are put forward, I think the Committee will conclude that a great deal more attention is wanted in this respect, and the right hon. Gentleman should give up his official position as Home Secretary and stick to these other jobs.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: A very large number of questions touching on industrial matters have been raised, and I will do my best to try and reply to all of them. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in opening the Debate, made some reference to the number of accidents, and he endeavoured to draw the conclusion that, because the number of accidents for 1927 was higher than for 1926, therefore we were to some extent going backwards. I agree as to the figures, but I would like to remind the hon. Member, and my argument is reinforced by what was said by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that 1926 was not a fair year to take for comparison. If you are going

    2377
    to make any comparison of figures—and, personally, I always think that comparisons of figures are open to objection, because they can be made to mean many things—the two years that you ought to compare are 1927 and 1925. In 1925 there were 159,693 accidents, of which 944 were fatal, as compared with 156,974 in 1927, of which 973 were fatal. Therefore, I do not think that, on figures alone, any great case can be made out against the Factory Department of the Home Office.
    On the other hand, as regards the strength of the inspectorate, I am quite ready to agree that there is a very slight reduction as compared with the pre-War staff. One hon. Member drew attention, I think quite rightly, to the fact that the pre-War staff included the Irish staff, and that is now gone; but, even allowing for that, there is a slight reduction. I agree also, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree, that the existing position is not satisfactory, and I hope it may be possible for us to obtain an increase of the existing inspectorate. I would, however, remind the Committee of two things. One is that there has been no slackening off in regard to the inspection of factories. Our inspection of factories has been more complete and thorough than in previous years, and, if there has been any slackening off, it has been in regard to the inspection of small workshops, where there is not generally the same risk.
    I would also point out that this question is and must be to a large extent mixed up with the question of the Factories Bill. That Bill, for reasons which it would be out of order for me to mention now, has been held up for the moment—I hope only for the moment; but, of course, when it reaches the Statute Book, it will carry with it obligations on the Factory Department which will necessitate an increase. In order to show that we really have this matter at heart, and, as the Committee know, I have the matter at heart, my right hon. Friend has promised in the Autumn to set up a small Committee to go into the question of the staffing and organisation of the factory inspectorate in the Home Office, and I hope that I may be the Chairman of that Committee. Therefore, I can assure the Committee that the matter will not be lost sight of.
    2378
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) made some reference to the type of inspector appointed. The inquiry in the Autumn will not specifically deal with that question, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the head of the Department is primarily responsible, as it is quite right that he should be, for selecting the type of inspector appointed. I do not, however, quite agree with the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made. I do not think it is really the case that we are paying more attention to a knowledge of Shakespeare and matters of that kind. I agree that we are possibly giving more attention to technical knowledge, and; I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that technical knowledge is becoming more and more necessary, and that where, in days gone by, you could take a man from an individual factory, with some considerable experience, and he would make quite a good factory inspector, it is now necessary in many cases for a man to go through some special educational training in order to obtain the necessary technical knowledge, and it is vital in the interests of the workers themselves that he should have that knowledge.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is not practical knowledge just as necessary?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, but, as the hon. Member knows, the acquisition of a great deal of technical knowledge requires study as well as practical experience.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I have had some considerable experience of dealing with these questions, and there was a specific recommendation that there should be a liberal sprinkling of men and women who know the practical side, because, after all, the technical man does not know what parts of the machine most need fencing, and it is necessary that practical men, who, perhaps, on account of their education, may be barred from the higher posts, should have the opportunity of giving practical assistance to the inspectorate.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I fully appreciate what the hon. Member says, and I am quite certain that that point will be borne in mind. I only want to emphasise the fact that industry is becoming more and more highly technical, and

    2379
    that therefore it is necessary to get a type of man who, naturally, would have a better standard of education than prevailed 25 or 30 years ago. Then the hon. Member for Westhoughton asked about the result of the circular that we sent out in May of last year, dealing with "Safety first." As the hon. Member knows, that circular contained a draft Order. That draft Order has not up to the present been put into force, because the most effective type of safety organisation is the one which rests on a voluntary basis. But, as the result of that circular and that draft Order being sent round, various industries had their attention called to the matter, and at present we have received very satisfactory assurances from National Light Castings, the Railway Companies', Association, the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, and the Engineering Employers' Federation that they will take the question up, and we have been assured that the matter is bearing fruit by reports that we have received from our inspectors. So far as that side is concerned, satisfactory progress is being made. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) made some reference to shaving brushes. As regards the general question of their being a danger, I suppose he realises that the power to prohibit the importation of the particular kind of brush is already a matter within the power of the Ministry of Health.
    Various points have been raised with regard to industrial diseases. Several hon. Members have dealt with the question of lead paint. That particular disease is one which it is very difficult for us to follow up individually by means of inspection, because a great deal of the work is house work, and many of the jobs may last for only half a day, a day, or two days, and we must to some extent rely on the industry itself. Bearing that in mind, a proposal was made to both sides of the industry to co-operate with us in carrying out the regulations. That co-operation has been given and the figures that have been read out were in themselves proof that the position is improving. So far as nystagmus is concerned, I have not the figures for 1927. The Home Office are only concerned with
    2380
    nystagmus from the point of view of compensation and not from the point of view of prevention. That is a matter for the Mines Department, and I cannot deal with it. We only get the results of these cases from the insurance companies, and we naturally get them a long time after the occurrence, and we do not for a considerable number of months get a connected series of figures of this disease. For that reason, I have not the 1927 figures, though I tried to get them the other day. No one has raised any point so far as the Home Office administration of nystagmus is concerned, and I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with it. I want to make it quite clear to the Committee that this is one of those unfortunate questions where you get and must get dual control, and it is only on the compensation side that the Home Office are concerned. The hon. Member for Shipley asked me what was going to be done in regard to the report on anthrax. Perhaps he knows that the disinfecting station in Liverpool is beside my own constituency, and, therefore, I am very well acquainted with it.
    Mr. MACKINDER: So am I.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I fully endorse everything that the hon. Member has said in regard to the excellent work that is being done there, but he will realise that it is not possible for that station to deal with the disinfection of hides. No satisfactory system of disinfection of hides has yet been discovered, although inquiry is being made into the matter. My hon. Friend may rest assured that, as far as we are concerned, we will prosecute those inquiries. The Report as to the further scheduling of wool for disinfection is now in the hands of my right hon. Friend. It is in the Press but has not yet been published. Therefore, I am not certain that it would be in order for me to disclose the contents of the Report, but I can tell him that from the point of view of additional expense it is extremely reassuring, much more reassuring than some people thought it would be. What action my right hon. Friend proposes to take on it I cannot say at the moment, because he has only just received it. It was only two days ago that I saw it. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter will have very sympathetic consideration. So far as the international aspect of the question is con-

    2381
    cerned, Australia and India have always refused on this question to co-operate, and so long as they continue to refuse to co-operate it is really impossible for us, internationally, to deal with the question. Whether it will be possible in the light of the new Report which we have received to make any further progress, I cannot say, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton knows as well as anybody that we cannot make any progress so long as these two big Dominions decline to take any part in the matter.
    On the question of silicosis, I have had a great many points put to me. The question is one of very considerable perplexity and difficulty. I should like, in passing to congratulate the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) on his maiden speech. I am glad that he has had the opportunity of making that speech in my presence, because he has for many months past worked on a Committee with me, and he has been of very great assistance to me on that Committee. He knows as well as I do the enormous difficulties surrounding this question. When Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was envisaged—in fact, Section 47 was taken from the earlier Act of 1918—I do not think it was realised the length of time that would elapse in connection with these inquiries before a scheme could be made for a particular industry. I quite appreciate the exasperation which may arise in certain cases owing to the length of time that has been taken, but it is very difficult to avoid that under the existing system. Whilst my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider whether he can amend or improve or expedite matters, it is quite likely that it will entail legislation and, therefore, I cannot discuss it in detail to-night. One hon. Member asked me, I think it was the hon. Member for Neath (Mr Jenkins) why there was a limit of 80 per cent. He is under a misapprehension. There is no limit of 80 per cent. so far as compensation for silicosis is concerned. There was a specific limit of 80 per cent. put into the scheme, not for the purpose of keeping out people who ought to be in, but for technical reasons, and the necessity for distinguishing between the case of the refractories industries and that of the firebrick industry. It is purely a
    2382
    technical point, and if there is any misunderstanding I hope this will clear it up.
    The hon. Member for Neath asked whether it was not possible to do something to deal with the question of the bankruptcy of employers in workmen's compensation cases. I fully appreciate the position of the particular industry he mentioned, but he knows quite well that certain provisions do exist in the Workmen's Compensation Act for dealing with bankruptcy which, in themselves, may be described as adequate, but if we are going to adopt what he proposes—a scheme of compulsory insurance for compensation—it would entail legislation, and I should not be in order in discussing the merits of legislation on this Vote. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for Preston on the question of shuttle kissing, he probably remembers that my right hon. Friend told him that he would be quite prepared to consider this question in a Clause in the Factories Bill if he could have some general assurance that it was desired by the vast majority of the workers concerned, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give him any such assurance, or more information on this point, I am certain that my right hon. Friend will consider it very sympathetically.
    Mr. SHAW: I will give that information at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raised two questions which are really outside the Vote. To one of his questions he has already received a reply, and at the moment I can add nothing to it because he did not give me notice that he was going to raise the question this evening.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I gave notice to the Home Secretary that I intended to raise the matter.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has been called away and he did not mention the particular point to me. With regard to the other question raised by the hon. Member, the position is one outside the scope of the Home office at the moment. It is a question of law which the Home Secretary has no authority to determine. If the Longton Justices have gone wrong in

    2383
    law they can be corrected only by a higher court. The Home Secretary does not exercise any control over Justices of the Peace in this matter, and as long as the maintenance order exists it is a dispute between two private parties, in which the Crown is in no way concerned, which may come up again at any moment before the Justices and possibly before a higher court. In these circumstances the Home Secretary has no jurisdiction. On the general question which he raised in connection with this point, I will look into it and see if the Home Secretary has any standing in the matter. If he has I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider it. I am not satisfied at the moment that my right hon. Friend has any standing. It is probably a matter for the Law Officers of the Crown or the Lord Chancellor.
    The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) raised the question of the position of certifying surgeons and I, to some extent, am inclined to agree with some of the strictures he passed. He will remember that at the inquiry on which we are both engaged, evidence has been given which bears out to some extent what he has said. He will also probably realise that, if we are to alter the whole system of certifying surgeons, there, again, legislation is required, and it is not a matter which I can discuss in detail to-night. There is also a very important matter, which not only arises generally as to certifying surgeons, but particularly in regard to silicosis, and that is that there is a good deal of truth, as we know from our evidence, in the statement that the certifying surgeon in normal circumstances is not competent to examine silicosis cases. One of the difficulties of silicosis has been that it is a disease which is very difficult to diagnose. It is very often necessary to have a radiograph, and, while the certifying surgeon is in the existing position, he has no power to get such a thing, though the medical referee can. If we are to alter the whole position of the certifying surgeon, and have a full-time medical expert on a definite salary, you have got to make some alteration, and either have some kind of Home Office medical staff or something of that kind. Quite apart from legislation, that would also require
    2384
    some compensation fund or medical fund into which employers would all pay, so that you could pay the staff of there men for the services they render, which are at present paid for by fee. The matter is extremely complicated.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Why not put them on the certified staff?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: That would be altering the whole present system, and would introduce certain complications. The matter is extremely complicated, and not only does it require legislation, but it needs an alteration of the existing practice. While it will have to be looked into, and is being looked into at the moment in connection with the inquiry into silicosis, it is not a matter on which I can come at present to any definite decision. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) raised the question of oxy-acetylene welding. I happen to be well acquainted with the accident in question, because one of the men was a constituent of mine, and it occurred just on the edge of my constituency. I quite agree with what the hon. Member said. I would remind him that the particular Regulation to which he refers was the result of a recommendation of the Departmental Committee on shipbuilding accidents. It has now reached an advanced stage, where it will have either to be put into force or have a further inquiry made into it. While I am glad to look into the point, I am not prepared to give any definite undertaking on the matter at the moment.
    The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) pursued the question with which he has been bombarding my right hon. Friend for several weeks past at Question time—the question of his friend Mr. John Zarlia. I do not know the real reason behind the hon. Member's questions, though I have had several conversations with him on the subject. It is really a most astonishing thing that he, with previous experience in the Home Office, should stand up in this House and say that any man should be allowed to come to this country and, if he says he is a British subject, it is our business to find out if he is not.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am saying that a British subject should be called

    2385
    upon only to give such proof of his citizenship as is available, and that an illiterate African, where there is no registration of births, who can hardly write his own name and can only say where his father and brothers live, cannot give the definite proof of citizenship that others can give.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: This particular gentleman is not so ignorant as the hon. Member seems to suggest. It is not possible to accept that explanation.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: This is very important. There is no evidence of birth or other documentary evidence of origin obtainable by British subjects in West Africa. How then can this man or any other British coloured subject prove his nationality? Are all British West Africans to be treated as aliens if they cannot produce documents which are not available?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: There is a system in the West African Colonies by which, if an African seaman desires to obtain a British passport, he may do so. I do not know the provision under which he obtains one, because that is a matter outside my particular Department, but I presume that if that system exists the question of being able to prove where he was born is not insuperable. Under the Registration of Coloured Seamen Order of about three years ago, which has the approval not only of the Board of Trade but of the British seamen themselves, it was arranged that all coloured seamen, if they desired to land in this country for discharge—not simply to take a walk and remain on the ship's articles—must obtain a certificate of identity. There are excellent reasons why that should be so and why our seaports should not be crowded with a number of coloured seamen who might or might not be aliens. That order has applied to the West Indies and to India, and both in the West Indies and in India, if a man desires to obtain a certificate of identity for use in this country, he may do so.
    It has never applied in the West African colonies because the only large line bringing coloured seamen is Elder Dempster's, and we have had a standing agreement with them for many years,
    2386
    which has worked extraordinarily well, that where coloured seamen are carried by them they almost invariably repatriate them if the men are not required in their own yards or on the Mersey-side for she re purposes. They have now arranged that the men shall be signed on for the round voyage at their African port and not in Liverpool. Therefore, there is less; reason than ever to arrange that these men should have certificates of identity, because there is no normal reason why these men should desire to land for discharge in this country.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: What about the case where a man has a wife and child in Liverpool, has been domiciled in Liverpool for 10 years and his wife and child are being maintained at the expense of the Liverpool Guardians, and he has contributed for many years to the National Health Insurance scheme?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The question of National Health Insurance contribution has nothing to do with it. Any alien is liable to contribute to National Health Insurance, as the hon. and gallant Member ought to know perfectly well. The fact that this man married a woman really has nothing to do with the case. My right hon. Friend has considered the case very carefully, and he is perfectly satisfied that the man is not a British subject. As I have said, the proof lies on the man and not on this country. If it is once to be established in this House that anyone can come here and say that we have to prove that he is not a British subject——
    Captain GARRO-JONES: It is a grossly inadequate reply.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend is not able to reconsider his decision.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: He is afraid to own his mistake.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £383,488, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 212.

    Division No. 276.]

    AYES.

    [7.36 p.m.

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

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Shinwell, E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Kennedy, T.

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Kirkwood, D.

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Lansbury, George

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromley, J.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lunn, William

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Mackinder, W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    March, S.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maxton, James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whitley, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wright, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.

    Hollins, A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Apsley, Lord

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

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

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

    Astor, Viscountess

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Owen, Major G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Pilcher, G.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Berry, Sir George

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bethel, A.

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Harland, A.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Rye, F. G.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Buchan, John

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Burman, J. B.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Savery, S. S.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

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

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

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark

    Skelton, A. N.

    Christle, J. A.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cope, Major Sir William

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Livingstone, A. M.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Curzon, Captain viscount

    Lumley, L. R.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McLean, Major A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Drewe, C.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otlay)

    Duckworth, John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wells, S. R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Ellis, R. G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    England, Colonel A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Mitcheil, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

    Withers, John James

    Fielden, E. B.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Finburgh, S.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Forrest, W.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wragg, Herbert

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

    Gates, Percy

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

    Division No. 277.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shinwell, E.

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

    Hollins, A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barnes, A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barr, J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Townend, A. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Duncan, C.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edge, Sir William

    Murnin, H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Sexton, James

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Apsley, Lord

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Harland, A.

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

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

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

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Bethel, A.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Drewe, C.

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fleiden, E. B.

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

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

    Finburgh, S.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Buchan, John

    Forrest, W.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Burman, J. B.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Cautley, Sir Henry s.

    Gates, Percy

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lougher, Lewis

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    2388

    2389

    Lumley, L. R.

    Preston, William

    Templeton, W. P.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Ramsden, E.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Tinne, I. A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Salmon, Major I.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wells, S. R.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Oueen's Univ., Bettast)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyan

    Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Oakley, T.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Womersley, W. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Penny, Frederick George

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Pilcher, G.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Major Sir William Cope and Captain Margesson.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. KELLY Mr. KELLY rose——
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  NAVAL PRIZE [TRANSFER OF FUND].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to make provision for the winding-tip of the Naval Prize Fund and the dissolution of the Tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that for that purpose there should he transferred from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer—

  (a) the right to receive any sums which otherwise would be payable into the Naval Prize Fund under Part 1 of the Schedule to the said Act;

  (b) the liability for all such costs charges, expenses, and claims as are mentioned in Part II of the said Schedule, and as would otherwise be chargeable on the Naval Prize Fund;

  and that the sums required for the payment of the costs, charges, expenses, and claims, liability for which is so transferred should be charged on and be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, and that in consideration for such transfer there, should be paid out of the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer the sum of one hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred pounds."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Lieut.-Colonel Head-lam, Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.

  NAVAL PRIZE [TRANSFER OF FUND].
    NAVAL PRIZE BILL,
    "to make provision for winding up the Naval Prize Fund and the dissolution of the tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill No. 174.]

  POOR LAW ACT, 1927.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Orders, dated 18th June, 1928, entitled (1) the Bedwellty Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order (No. 2), 1928; (2) the Chester-le-Street Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order (No. 2), 1928; and (3) the West Han Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order (No. 2), 1928, be annulled."
  This matter has been before the House now on a good many occasions. We have had to debate each area separately, and this is the first opportunity we have had of seeking to present an Address covering the three areas affected, and thus; of discussing the full policy of the Minister as applied to these three districts. We are now moving towards a period when, I take it, we can assume that there will be, as a result of the

  2391
  Government's policy, a change in the structure of local government in this country; and I venture to submit that this Motion provides the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary with an excellent opportunity for stating his policy towards these three areas. I mention that, because I think no one can review the Debates that have taken place in the past on the application of the Guardians Default Act to these three areas without realising that the Minister has usually ridden off by taking full advantage of what I can only describe as the public prejudice surrounding these areas, which the Press have largely created; and I feel that even this House—because I have been present on all the occasions when we have debated West Ham, Bedwellty, and Chester-le-Street—has never yet discussed the conditions and the circumstances of these localities really with a view to getting at the facts. We agree that they represent three of the worst areas in this country. The poor, of course, have very few friends, and find it very difficult to get friends. The circumstances of these localities have produced a situation which, I frankly admit, is unprecedented, and, instead of facing up to the situation, the Government have enlarged individual cases, and have tended to obscure the real circumstances surrounding the problem.
  With all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I regret that the Minister should not put in an appearance when this question is being discussed. So far, the Parliamentary Secretary has been largely responsible for giving the Government's reply to past Prayers, and his case has consisted in the main of taking individual quotations from particular guardians and holding these quotations up to ridicule. He has selected special cases of abuse; and I ask hon. Members where there is any administrative system that has not produced cases of abuse? Our Debate in the early part of this evening has been on a system of which, on the whole, we are very proud in this country, but, nevertheless, weaknesses develop, and I do not feel that West Ham, Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street have ever had a fair consideration in this House when the Minister of the Crown has depended upon cases of abuse rather
  2392
  than on the primary facts of the situation. When we deal with the main factors in administration the Minister's case again has largely depended upon merely a comparison of the total cost of one administration against another, without in any way considering the human results that have been effected by these figures. Nor has he dealt with the constitutional issues involved. I hope that to-night the Parliamentary Secretary will not confine himself to exploiting the prejudice of the House on this subject. I trust that he will not build his case on individual cases of abuse, but that he will address himself to real circumstances underlying the economies that the appointed guardians have obtained. I do not challenge the fact that there has been a large reduction in the cost of the areas, but I would ask the House to consider the price at which these reductions have been obtained, and the constitutional issues involved by the abolition of certain organs of local government in this country.
  I propose to refresh the memory of the House of the circumstances which led up to the development of this policy. Prior to the passing of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Minister came into violent conflict with the West Ham Board of Guardians. I mention that board, because it was on the action of the board that he eventually passed his Act. When the Act was before the House, in July, 1926, the Minister stated that it was purely a temporary Measure. Two years have passed in regard to that union, and the Order which is now before the House extends the period of power to the appointed guardians for another period of six months. It is a strange and significant fact that the Minister has admitted in his White Paper on the proposals for the reorganisation of local government that West Ham does not fit in with the general scheme. Therefore, we have reached this position, for two years in that particular area, and for a lesser period in Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street, this policy has been adopted, and the Minister is no more in a position to communicate to the House a permanent solution of these very grave necessitous areas than he was when he introduced the Bill as a temporary Measure. Is that intervening period nothing has been done by the Government to solve the very grave economic problem in areas like West Ham and

  2393
  Bedwellty. Instead of devising a policy to meet the difficulties of those areas, all that has been done under this new administration with appointed guardians has been to devise a policy of starving and terrorising by scientific administration thousands of people who are living in difficult circumstances.
  I used those words fairly deliberately. Why do I do that? Those who are not actually responsible for any administrative machinery are not able to put their case in statistical form. None of those who represent the areas concerned has access to the information which would enable us to demonstrate the truth of the general statements made. I recognise that for every individual case of hardship we could quote the Minister could quote some other instance countering it, and I do not think one gets very far by quoting one case against another where thousands of people are involved. But in this House we are all more or less connected with public work, and we can form an intelligent and, I believe, a reasonably correct view, from our own observations, of the working of an administrative system. According to the flow of people to us, the similarity of cases, and the facts submitted, it is not difficult to detect whether the administrative system is producing certain results, and I am certain that every Member who represents one of these areas, if he has approached the problem with understanding, must be convinced that over a period of two years there has been a steady and continuous and, if I may describe it as such, a brutal operation of the administrative policy of withdrawing and depressing relief in many deserving cases.
  I have made that broad statement recognising, as I have said, my inability to support it with statistical evidence on account of not having access to the information. I shall have to content myself with taking the figures of the guardians themselves, submitting the broad, unchallengeable facts of their report to the House, and asking hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. I think everyone will admit that those who, are challenging this policy are at a great disadvantage in that respect. Taking the last report issued by the guardians, we get in the table on page 4 the direct results of their policy in
  2394
  figures. They mention that for the week ended 24th April, 1926, just before they took office——
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a point of Order. Is it permissible for hon. Members to read newspapers during a speech?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; it is one of the rules of the House that that is not allowed.
  Mr. W. THORNE: He was reading details of the cases sent to him.
  Mr. J. JONES: I am not reading a newspaper. I am reading a report of the appointed guardians for West Ham published in the local press.
  Sir C. OMAN: Is not that a newspaper?
  Mr. JONES: I want to know if it is wrong for me to read a verbatim report of the board of guardians at present existing, because I have not had a chance of getting any other evidence 2 If I am wrong, I think I can memorise what I want to say, if I get a chance to say it. I apologise if I have broken any rule.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members may, of course, have a newspaper from which to quote in a speech.
  Mr. BARNES: On page 4 of the guardians' report referring to West Ham, which was recently published, the guardians quote these figures, which give a broad comparison of the result of their work with the situation when they took office. The total number of cases for the week ending 24th April, 1926, was 27,853. The number of persons involved in these cases was 66,116. The total weekly cost of relief or that period was £28,055. On the 26th May, 1928, after two years of the administration of the board of guardians, the number of cases was reduced from 27,853 to 9,433—a reduction of 18,420 cases. The number of persons involved was reduced from 66,116 to 21,313—a reduction of 44,803 persons involved. The total weekly cost was reduced from £28,055 to £5,769. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought those figures would draw a cheer from the hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Starvation!"] I do not propose to deal with the interruptions, and I shall merely state the facts. Analysing the figures further, the number of cases remaining

  2395
  amount to one-third of the original number. The number of persons involved has been reduced by one-third, and the actual weekly cost has been reduced by one-third of the actual amount disbursed by the late board of guardians.
  I want to ask the Minister a direct question. The reduction is 18,420 persons, and the assumption behind that is that those 18,000 persons were getting relief to which they were not entitled, or, in other words, they were malingerers. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister of Health to prove that they were malingerers. It is not our liability to do that, and we have not the facts. The appointed guardians are handling the machine, because the right hon. Gentleman has taken away the constitutional rights of the people of the locality, and therefore the only people who can give the facts are the appointed guardians. Therefore, the responsibility of proving that those 18,420 persons are malingerers rests upon hon. Members who support the Government and not upon those who are challenging the policy of the Government. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to prove that such a large percentage as that have been deliberately abusing the system of outdoor relief in this country. The fact that the weekly cost of relief has been reduced from £28,055 to £5,769 a week suggests that in the two years that have passed since the appointment of the new guardians 18,000 malingerers have been eliminated, but nobody believes for a moment that that total represents the percentage of malingerers among the working classes. If the Government are trying to convey to this House that those figures represent an improvement in West Ham, I want to ask the Minister why he has quoted this statement in the White Paper that deals with the reorganisation of local government. On page 23, dealing with a certain situation in different county boroughs and with the effect of the scheme, the Minister says:
  "It is found that in eight places, excluding West Ham.…"
  Why should the Minister exclude West Ham, of all the county borough areas in this country? Does not that in itself suggest that West Ham is in a category
  2396
  of its own? We are dealing with an immediate position, and, if West Ham is in a special category of its own, and if this new scheme of rating cannot possibly cover it, what reason have hon. Members to draw from the Report of the guardians the inference that the position has improved in the West Ham Union area to the extent suggested by these figures? Later on the Paper states:
  "The case of the West Ham Union is quite exceptional."
  We recognise that it is exceptional; we state that it is exceptional; and, because it is exceptional, these figures demon-strata beyond doubt to any reasonable person that these economies have been derived from a brutal policy, and do not in any way suggest that they come from any increased prosperity in the locality. In the Report of the guardians—and I should like to quote this paragraph, although I am sorry to trouble the House by doing so, because this matter is so important that I think I shall not be occupying time unnecessarily—they say:
  "The guardians consider that the strict administration of out-relief to the able-bodied unemployed has supplied the financial inducement to seek work, and is the direct cause of the reduction in the numbers from 15,700 in April, 1926, to 2,806 at the date of this Report. There are still many of these 2,806 who require urging to obtain work."
  In two years, the figures have been reduced from 15,700 to 2,806, a reduction of 12,894 able-bodied persons, and the guardians consider that of these 2,806 persons a number only require urging to obtain work. What is there in the general situation in regard to unemployment in this country that really conveys the impression to Members of this House that in the West Ham Union area persons only have to be urged to obtain work and work is waiting there for them? Can the Minister of Labour justify that position? Do his facts with regard to the West Ham Union area justify that position? Does the general situation throughout the country suggest that there has been that improvement in the industrial situation? Again, is there any Member of this House who believes that if the general situation of the country is worsened—and it is worsened, for in the last five weeks there has been an increase of 116,000 in the number of persons

  2397
  registered for unemployment, while since March there has been an increase of 200,000, and there are still 1,250,000 persons registered as unemployed—is there any Member of this House who considers that, if that be the general situation of the country, West Ham alone has escaped it? West Ham has not escaped it, because hon. Members well know that, if there is any unemployment, it will centre in an area like that much more strongly than elsewhere, and those of us who represent this area consider that it is an insult to our intelligence, and an insult to the intelligence of the House, that we should receive a Report stating that these persons have only to be urged to obtain work and that is the end of it. Those of us who have to meet numbers of persons who call at our houses daily know that that is not the case. I live in my Division and am very familiar with all the circumstances. When those of us who represent the Division have people coming daily to our homes in a distracted state, not knowing in what direction to turn, and making all kinds of appeals to us, which we cannot possibly carry out, to get them employment, what on earth is the use of the guardians making to us a statement of this description? I would ask hon. Members, although we may differ from them, at least to have the fairness to appreciate the facts I have stated.
  In order not to avoid any of the issues involved in this Report—and I am confining my case very largely to the Report itself—I wish to refer now, in dealing with the question of unemployment, to the statement of the guardians on page 5 of the Report. In two paragraphs they mention this point. The figures are given in Table II of the Appendix, in which they answer, as they think, the challenge made in this House that persons who are coming off relief are not obtaining employment. From September, 1927, to 28th April, 1928, they carried out two three-monthly tests, and discovered that out of 1,157 cases ceasing to apply for relief, 896 were accounted for as obtaining work. Comparing that with the table on page 1, in which the return of cases is dealt with, I find that 2,920 cases were removed from the register. I ask again what has become of the 2,032 cases the guardians have not accounted for?
  2398
  When you are dealing with thousands of cases there is a certain percentage always coming off relief into employment, but if unemployment is increasing or is stationary, there must be other persons passing out of employment. Why is it that every person who obtains employment is accounted for and yet we have in these statistics no indication of persons who are losing employment in other directions and becoming destitute? The guardians are saving, roughly, £1,000,000 a year. We are paying back 1s. 10d. in principal and interest in respect of past borrowings. Under this new reorganisation scheme, under which the Government are providing relief for the workshops, though they cannot find any relief for the workers who work in them, we are only getting 9d. in West Han and 9.7d. in East Ham, compared with the 1s. 10d. we have to repay as the result of that debt.
  I should like to state the constitutional position. Under this Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, it is rather an ironical position that, during this period when we are extending the franchise to those who previously did not exercise it, we have abolished the franchise in these areas. It is all very well for hon. Members who disagree with the policy of these guardians. I do not suppose a board of guardians of that kind are more free from abuse than Conservative administrations. We have plenty of instances where Conservative administration is honeycombed with abuse and looking after their friends, but they do it perhaps in a little more scientific manner than we have learnt so far. Nevertheless, in these areas the vote has been abolished on the ground that the policy adopted by the elected authorities is wrong. I say, quite definitely, that the policy of the Labour party should be different from the policy of the Conservatives, otherwise there is no reason in our striving to obtain Labour representation in these areas. By their action, the Government have deprived these areas of the advantages that flow normally from Labour administration, which is based upon different ideals and theories in regard to the standards of life. It is wrong, and we must challenge it, to negative advantages of that kind by the action of a Government who obtained their power on entirely different grounds from those which have produced the

  2399
  existing situations in West Ham, Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street. This House has built up its position on the principle that there should be no taxation without representation; that taxation and representation should go together. If the present Government had said to West Ham, Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street and other poor areas, "You are not able to carry your local burden. The circumstances are quite beyond your control. We will take over the entire charge of every able-bodied unemployed person who is out of work through no fault of his own. We will make it a national charge and relieve the locality entirely from the burden," then they would be justified in laying down the scales and determining the rates of the relief to be distributed. But they have not done that; they have withdrawn the constitutional rights from the people of the localities affected, and at the same time they have placed financial obligations upon them. Instead of relieving the areas of their financial obligations they have imposed financial obligations upon them while they have denied to them the right of representation. We desire to enter our emphatic protest. We think that this administrative policy is particularly brutal. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but we are dealing with human material, men, women and children, and we see the results of the Government's policy in the daily life of our districts.
  What are the facts in relation to the appointed guardians and the people in regard to whom they are administering the Poor Law system? On the one hand you have the well-trained individual, the expert, the professional type of man, with a large salary, comfortably placed so far as the economic-position is concerned. I want hon. Members to realise what the professionally-equipped mind represents behind the administrative machine. On the other hand, in places like the West Ham Union area you have a population largely composed of casual workers who have not had the opportunity to equip themselves mentally or physically. You have the £20–a-week person taking it out of the person who, when he is in work, earns £2 or £2 10s. a week. That is a despicable system to be supported by Parliament, and in our prayer we ask Parliament to end that policy.
  12 m.
  Mr. BARKER: I beg to second the Motion. I regret that a matter of this importance should be brought on at this late hour of the night, but the Government are entirely responsible for that; not the Opposition. When the question was before the House in February last the Parliamentary Secretary gave as the reason for superseding the Bedwellty Guardians their unwise and foolish policy. It is not the guardians who are the culprits in this case, but the Government. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th February this year is a statement of the loans made to the Bedwellty Guardians. The first loan was made on 10th July, 1922, and amounted to £60,000, and the thirty-first loan was made on 9th March, 1927. They totalled £1,099,000. Twenty-three of these loans were sanctioned by the present Minister of Health, and they amount to £819,000. On each occasion that a loan was granted the scale of relief was revised by the Government. If the Bedwellty Guardians were administering their great trust unwisely and foolishly, why did the Government continue to sanction these loans? The case does not bear investigation for a moment. The Government were quite aware of the situation in Bedwellty; they knew that it was the unparalleled state of depression and unemployment in that area which was entirely responsible for its condition. The Minister of Health has published two reports from the appointed guardians. I propose briefly to deal with them. The first report was issued on 31st September last year, and stated that:
  "For the purpose of meeting immediate requirements and paying some of the debts previously incurred the appointed guardians borrowed from the Ministry of Health the sum of £75,000, which increased the loan debt to £1,071,425. It is to be regretted that up to the date of this report it has not been possible to liquidate a portion of the debt or pay the interest thereon; but the financial position of the union is improving."
  That is the statement made by the newly appointed guardians after they had been in office for about nine months. They admitted that they could not reduce the amount of the loan; that they could not pay the interest and that they themselves had had to increase the loan debt by £75,000. This very fact in itself is the strongest vindication of the old board of

  2401
  guardians, and it is the best testimonial to the efficiency of their work. We had yesterday another report from these Commissioners which says that it has not been possible to pay off any of the loan debt of £1,071,000. That is the second admission in the second report that they have not been able to reduce the debt due to the Minister of Health during the half year under review. They add:
  "But since the 31st March last we have paid the sum of £15,000 to the Minister of Health on account of the arrears of interest due."
  They have already had £75,000 and paid £15,000 in reduction of the interest, and so they are still £60,000 in arrears compared with what they were when they took over the control of the area. The whole thing is preposterous in the extreme. The idea that these men were necessary to save the area is pure humbug. The arrears of rates collected are £4,000 more than they were a half year before, and with this comes the threat that, unless these rates are paid, there will be a heavier rate levied. They cannot collect the rates they are levying today, and they are a scandal to this country. The rates in this area are simply outrageous. They are 300 per cent. higher than they were before the War, and the assessment has been raised by 40 per cent. There are thousands of working men in these areas who have to pay 15s., 17s. or 18s. a week rent and rates out of their scanty earnings. I have stated in this House over and over again the financial position of this area. The guardians themselves owe over £1,000,000. It takes over £1,000 a week to pay the interest on this vast sum of money. The waterworks supplying this vast area are over £1,000,000 in debt. There is another £1,000 a week. Every local authority in the area is submerged in debt. In Abertillery the debt is £200,000. In Blaina it is £100,000. The area has been deliberately stranded by the policy of the Ministry in putting the burden of unemployment upon the unemployed themselves and trampling upon the helpless. I make no apology for standing up here to-night at this late hour to defend the people of this area. I would rather be in bed myself, but I will not shrink this duty at whatever cost. I say it is absolutely wicked to treat the people
  2402
  of this country as they are treated in these necessitous areas. I am not going to rely upon my own statement only, but will use the little time at my disposal in placing upon the records of the House some of the statements by people that live in the area. The "South Wales Argus" of 6th July, 1928, says:
  "The number of sub-normal children, whose condition is due to impoverished family circumstances, has doubled since the investigation conducted in July last by Dr. Eyres and Dr. Rocqu Jones."
  I have another statement here from Dr. Rocqu Jones, who is the county medical officer, a man well known in South Wales and very highly respected. His report states:
  "Out of a total of 3,245 children examined 423, or 13 per cent., are sub-normal.…In addition, a large number of the children bore indications of definite mal-nutrition.
  We have another report by Dr. Marie Scott, who is assistant medical officer of the Monmouthshire County Council. In her report, which is published in the "South Wales Argus" on 6th July last, she says:
  "At present there is much poverty in the county of Monmouth and the standard of living is low."
  I shall show why it is low. Dr. Scott says.
  "The percentage of still-births is high—456."
  Then we hive another statement made by Dr. Rocqu Jones, who says:
  "Of the sub-normal children, in 253, or 7 per cent., the condition was directly due to poor family circumstances, due to the present abnormal industrial conditions."
  We have the evidence of independent medical men testifying to the condition of this area. The area is reeking with disease. There are thousands of smallpox cases, and it is estimated that the County of Monmouth has spent £100,000 during this period of depression in combating this terrible disease. This used to be one of the healthiest counties in the whole kingdom, but the prevalence of disease synchronises with the terrible conditions under which people are living. We have cither testimony. Here is a resolution passed by the Blaina Council of Evangelical Free Churches:
  "That this council desires to express in the strongest possible terms its entire disapproval of the totally inadequate sum of

  2403
  relief given during the past few weeks to very necessitous cases in this district, and urges with all earnestness that 6teps should be taken immediately to modify the dire distress of these persons, upon humanitarian grounds."
  That is signed by Mr. R. L. Davis, the hon. Secretary of the Evangelical Churches Association. I have here a paper signed by a number of clergymen. I think that a copy has been sent to the Minister. The signatories include two Anglo-Catholic clergymen, a Roman Catholic priest, two Presbyterian ministers, a Wesleyan minister, a Baptist minister and quite a number of clergymen, who are absolutely horrified by the condition of things existing in Abertillery to-night. They say in this report:
  "We view with grave concern and increasing anxiety the conditions prevailing in this area. We would respectfully point out that three of the pits in the locality which give employment to about 2,500 men have been idle almost continuously for the past three years. Of these men, a large majority have exhausted their savings. The number of men receiving unemployment benefit at present is about 3,500. A very large proportion of these, as well as the aged, the sick and widows, who are dependent upon Poor Law relief, are living on the fringe of dire poverty, and we are convinced that nothing short of Government intervention can adequately meet the situation."
  That is not from the Labour party. That is not from the Communist party. This is not from any biased party at all, but it is the testimony of the clergymen living in those areas. They go on to give illustrations of the low standard of life prevailing in the areas. Here is the case of a widow and six children whose rent amounts to 15s. The total income of the family is 36s. a week, and the weekly sum available for food, clothing, fuel and light for the whole family is 21s., or only 3s. per head. Other cases that they give are: parents and two children, and the amount per head is only 3s. 3d.; parents and one child, and the amount per head is 38. 5½d.; husband and wife and the amount per head is 4s.—these are weekly payments—and here is the case of an old age pensioner and his wife, each of whom has to live on 2s. 6d. per week. These are the cases and the figures given by these clergymen. In this document, which has been submitted to the Government, they make certain suggestions
  2404
  with reference to relieving the situation, and it is only fair that I should give the House the benefit of their suggestions. They say that they want to secure the extension of the Old Age Pension Act in order to include the wife of the old age pensioner at the time that the pension is payable to him, if he is the first to attain the age of 65, the provision of schemes of relief work, to establish subsidiary industries, and the provision of work of afforestation, as the hillsides which were well wooded before the War are now bare. These are some of the suggestions which these clergymen have made in order to try and meet the situation.
  I have a few personal cases here, and I must ask the indulgence of the House while I recite them. They show conclusively how the Commissioner Guardians have been able to reduce the cost of outdoor relief. The cost of an indoor patient in the Bedwellty institution is £1 0s. 3½d per week. What do the Guardians allow for persons who are outside? I have here the case of Lewis James. His unemployment benefit was stopped in 1926, and all that he now has is Poor Law relief amounting to one guinea. He has no other relief. There are six in family and they live in apartments, for which they pay 4s. 10d. per week. These cases are eloquent testimony to the tyranny that is being exercised by these Commissioner Guardians, and they show how these Guardians are cutting down their expenditure by starving the people. Here is another ease—the case of Richard Jones. His total income is 26s. per week, on which he has to keep a family of six. His youngest child is 12 years of age, and the rent of his house is 7s. 2d. per week. In another case the man gets 25s. a week—all in kind. There are seven persons to be maintained and there is no unemployment benefit and no monetary relief. The rent is 10s. 9d. per week and the man is under an order to pay the current rent and one shilling a week off arrears. He cannot comply and expects eviction. That is the condition of things for which the Minister of Health is responsible.
  This area is full of unemployed. There is no possibility of getting employment.

  2405
  The Ministry have put heartless and brutal men on to administer relief—because no human being with any heart would ask women and children to live on the wretched pittance I have just described. What are the Ministry going to do with the situation? At the eleventh hour of their Parliamentary life, are the Government going to do anything to lift the burden off the poor people in these areas I We ask them earnestly to come to the relief of the areas concerned and to make block grants which will wipe out these loans. Every penny that these people can get is absorbed in paying-interest on money borrowed, under the sanction of the Ministry, for the purpose of maintaining the unemployed—a liability which ought to have been borne by national funds. The way in which this Government have handled the problem of the poor, is this most distressing period of our history will be an everlasting disgrace to them. There never was a finer body of men and women in this country than the people of the western valleys of Monmouthshire before this calamity came upon them. Nearly half the people owned their own houses and they had hundreds of pounds in the co-operative concerns. To-day they are beggared and penniless. Doubtless we shall presently hear from the Parliamentary Secretary an analysis of the statement issued by the guardians. The only consolation the Minister can find in that report is that they have reduced the relief to starving people. I think I have given the House enough evidence to show how they have economised. They have economised at the expense of the life of the people.
  Mr. LAWSON: It is a great pity indeed that the speech to which we have just listened could not have been heard by a fuller House, with a larger attendance in the Press Gallery. We expect no sympathy from the Minister. In fact I have, long ago, given up expecting even a serious answer from the Minister. It is a pity that the story told by my hon. Friends could not have been heard by a full House in the daytime, so that it would have been reported in the Press. My hon. Friends have this advantage over me, that at least they have their Reports in their hands. This is the fourth time that the Ministry has continued the appointment of these guardians in Chester-le-Street, and on no occasion have
  2406
  I been able to get a Report in order to consider what has been the result of the administration of the guardians in the Chester-le-Street union. Why is it that those guardians do not issue their Report in time for this Debate? Is it deliberately kept back? Is it a calculated thing, or is it because they are more inefficient than the other guardians? The right hon. Gentleman probably has the Report in type before him.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood) indicated dissent.
  Mr. LAWSON: Well, I have reason to believe that he had it in type before him on the last occasion, and on one occasion I put a question to the Speaker on this matter. I think it is high time that the Minister brought pressure to bear on these people to do their duty sufficiently well to give us a Report, in order that we might know at least what we are voting for when we are asked to consider their term of office. In the best interests of the House of Commons I think we ought to have this Report. Hon. Members do not know what they are missing. I have here the last Report, and it is a very considerable contribution to the comic literature of this country. Let me read some of the selected items for the benefit of the House, to show the spirit in which these people deal with the poor inhabitants of the Chester-le-Street Union. They say:
  "For some years there have been large advances in social legislation, and the necessary corollary of the increasing extent to which the State, directly or through the local authorities, provides for the needs of the individual has been a weakening in the bond of responsibility which has united the British household"—
  That sounds; like Mr. Bounderby or Alderman So-and-so—
  "and particularly in the sense of responsibility by parents for their children's welfare and well-doing. In the last few years the administration of the local authorities has in many cases been such as to destroy family life and the responsibilities of parents, and even to create by its results an impression that this was the object deliberately sought by the administration."
  So they go on in that strain. One could make selections and go on to the

  2407
  fifthly and the sixthly on the lines of the old Scottish preachers, but there was a good deal more sense in what those preachers said than in what is said by these gentlemen who are acting here. My hon. Friends have told a serious story. In Chester-le-Street the guardians have a maximum scale of 12s. for a woman and 2s. for each child, and they give nothing whatever to able-bodied men. A man came to see me some weeks ago, and on this occasion I wrote to the Ministry. I do not as a rule do that, because I think my hon. Friends will agree with me that we have been compelled to act as it were surreptitiously to get such relief for people as we could. We dare not write to the Minister about them now; we dare hardly mention eases publicly, because immediately the little that they have is taken away. A man of 65 came to me. He had not been working for a long time and could not get relief. He asked to be put in an institution, and they would not allow him to go there. He came to me in desperation and said that it was either the river or the workhouse. I had to ask the Minister to take steps to put the man in the workhouse. They then said that he had been offered the workhouse three months before, but the man had asked repeatedly for it and had been refused. The appointed guardians not only reduced the scale to 12s., but they say that a considerable increase has occurred in the number of male inmates of Poor Law institutions; that the accommodation has been severely taxed, and that the accommodation of the cottage homes is insufficient, so that arrangements had to be made with another institution. They have forced people back to the workhouse, and now, when they apply to be sent there, some of them are not allowed to go. Not only is 12s. the amount of relief, but the guardians visit the people's homes, they make investigations in districts; they have a sort of inquisition before they will give even 12s. Do hon. Members understand what that means?
  I have had to bring here on several occasions the case of a child who died. There was a conflict whether the child
  2408
  died as the result of malnutrition. The doctor who dealt with the child had no doubt as to what was the cause of the death. But this cannot be denied. Along with others, I visited the mother, and one had only to see her to realise that she was denying herself of food for the child. With 12s. for herself and 2s. for each of four children, she had £1 a week. But the husband was there. He had served four years in active service at the front. He had no unemployment benefit and no relief. He had to get some food to keep him alive, and the mother had been robbing herself so much that she was actually in need of food. Indeed, the rector of Chester-le-Street sent her to a convalescent home because she was suffering so much from malnutrition. Who are, the people getting the 12s. a week? They are not questionable people, they are some of the best citizens of this country. The guardians themselves have never even made a charge against them. They say that this scale is a kind of rough-and-ready scale, and that it not kept to rigidly.
  That is their statement in their last report. I challenge the Minister to make an investigation. I make the statement that 12s. is the regular amount that is paid; that they pay no more except in rare cases, and that sometimes they pay less. We could give many instances of the kind which my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) has quoted. The 12s., of course, is for the woman alone. Out of that they have to pay rent and to buy food, clothes and boots. As a matter of fact, there is no rent paid, there are no boots bought and no clothes are bought; they have to get those things as they can.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: What does a single woman get?
  Mr. LAWSON: A single man or woman gets no consideration at all. An able-bodied man gets 12s.
  Mr. J. JONES: Wait till the next war comes.
  Mr. LAWSON: It is not given in money, it is given in kind. I saw the value that was got in that particular family, and I have seen it in others. It is astounding how much food they get for the pound, they are so economical. Of the people who administer relief on

  2409
  this scale two of them have £500 a year; yet they have never had a single day's experience in public life. There is not a single person in the North of England who would have selected these, at least two of these, people for the work, or would have thought of them for the job. In the institution the old men used to get two ounces of tobacco a week These economists have reduced it to an ounce. They used to get a little bacon in the morning. They have taken away the bacon. Is not the Ministry proud of its representatives? Bumble is a back number. Of course, I know that the chairman of these guardians is an ex-clerk of some experience, and is the person who dug up the Vagrancy Act of the last century in order to punish certain men. I am sorry we are limited for time in this matter.
  HON. MEMBERS: Go on.
  Mr. JONES: We have lost our last trains, so we can go on all night.
  Mr. LAWSON: We want the Minister to speak. We have a Prayer here tonight; but we are not praying, we are not pleading. We do not expect anything here to-night. The Government, without making the slightest attempt to cover it up, have put three Conservatives in charge of a Labour area. They have done the same in various other areas. We are not surprised, but it is a pity for this great country that that should be the spirit in which things are done. It will justify our people in showing the same spirit when we get power. [An. HON. MEMBER "You never will!"] The Chester-le-Street people have repeatedly asked for further information, and the only time when the guardians issued a report was when they published one in a great hurry through the medium of the Conservative Press. The Govern-thought this course would stampede the Labour movement throughout the country, but subsequent elections at Chester-le-Street have shown that people of all classes are opposed to the policy of the Government, and now you can scarcely find a candidate who dare stand up in support of the Government policy. We are not pleading, or praying, but we do not expect the Minister to reply in his usual light-hearted manner. I do not suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary or hon. Members opposite care twopence about the poor people, but we shall get
  2410
  our chance in spite of the lies which have bean told, and the British public in the course of time will have an opportunity of judging, not upon the stories which have been told, but upon what they know is happening in those areas to the shame of the Government in charge.
  Sir K. WOOD: The matter which we have to determine to-night is whether in the case of the Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street, and the West Ham Poor Law unions the Orders which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has made continuing in office the appointed guardians shall be annulled or not. Those Orders have been made under an Act of Parliament which was the subject of considerable discussion in this House, and it is only in three cases that my right hon. Friend has had to put into operation the provisions of that Act. I do not propose to-night to recall in any detail the circumstances of those three particular cases, which, in the judgment of the Minister of Health and this House, warranted those Orders being made. I think, however, it should be said that, with the exception of those three cases, so far as I am aware, there has been no ground whatever for interference with other boards of guardians up and down the country, and I am glad to think that, although boards of guardians are administered by all sorts and conditions of people belonging to various political parties, no action of this kind has been necessary in any other part of the cousntry. Therefore, we are now dealing with three cases only, and it is to those cases that I propose to address myself. I think every hon. Member who has listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), must have been impressed, and must feel a very large amount of sympathy——
  Mr. J. JONES: We do not want soft soap; give us the facts.
  Sir K. WOOD: Undoubtedly, the conditions which have prevailed in Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street have been very bad for some considerable time, and those districts have been very hardly hit by unemployment. The condition of those districts was undoubtedly very much aggravated by the coal stoppage

  2411
  and the general strike, and, so far as the administration of Poor Law-relief in those areas is concerned, it requires a proper measure of sympathy. At the same time the difficulties in both of those areas were considerably added to by the foolish policy of the late guardians. While I have heard with, I hope, respect, the statement that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) read, which represented the views of a number of clergymen in the district of Bedwellty, I notice that among the many requests that they made, certainly no request was made for the return of the old guardians to office. As far as Chester-le-Street is concerned, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has asked about a report. There is, of course, no obligation on the guardians in these particular areas to issue a report.
  Mr. JONES: His master's voice.
  Sir K. WOOD: They are in the same legal position exactly as other guardians in the country. They have issued two reports. I have no other report in my possession, but if my right hon. Friend does receive one it shall certainly be made available to this House in exactly the same way as other reports have been made available. The last report, and other information which I have been able to gain, shows that, following the appointment of these boards of guardians, considerable reduction in expenditure has taken place, and certainly, so far as the Department is concerned, there have been very few cases of complaint indeed. There are the two cases which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has mentioned to-night and has put before the House many times before. The case of the child was replied to many months ago, and in the other case, of a man who said he could not get admission to the workhouse, a complete reply was made a long time ago. In the second case, about the workhouse, an offer was made to the man—[HON. MEMBERS: "To go into the workhouse?"]—but he declined to accept it. Both these cases are very old ones and I notice that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has not put any further ones before the House.
  Mr. JONES: What is the good of putting cases to you?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that 12s. a week for a woman and 2s. a week for a child?
  Sir K. WOOD: As to Bedwellty the guardians stated that they hoped to reduce the sum owing to the Minister or, at any rate, to pay interest thereon. That sum was a very considerable one and amounted to over £1,000,000, very largely borrowed, in circumstances that I will not go into tonight, by the old guardians. Since then a sum of some £15,000 has been repaid by way of arrears of interest and the guardians will be able to meet current interest. Very few cases of complaint have since that time reached my Department. Therefore, so far as both those two matters are concerned, that is the position under the appointed guardians. I will state later what is the policy and intention of the Ministry of Health in regard to the three cases. I would like more particularly to deal with the case of West Ham which is not in the same position as the other two cases.
  The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) who opened this Debate referred to certain paragraphs in the report of the West Ham Board of Guardians, which is certainly a very noteworthy report.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you notice, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is not answering the question about 12s. a week for a woman and 2s. a week for a child? [Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members expressed a great wish to hear the right hon. Gentleman, and now that he is speaking they should listen to what he has to say.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: He is not answering.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: He will not tell us what we want to know about the 12s. a week for a woman and 2s. a week for a child.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the good of letting him speak? He is not answering the cases.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are far too generous, Mr. Speaker.
  Sir K. WOOD: A most notable part of this Report has not been referred to to-night. The hon. Member who opened the Debate referred to the figures of out-relief.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: These people are starving to death.
  Mr. JONES: You would not keep a dog on it, never mind a man.
  Sir K. WOOD: From 28th May, 1927, to 26th May, 1928, a very considerable reduction in the cost of relief in cash and kind took place. To my mind, the newly appointed guardians are not to be condemned on that account. I remember the last occasion when we debated the question of West Ham the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said that if Sir Alfred Woodgate showed that 10 per cent. of the men put off relief obtained regular work he would admit that the guardians had done a good piece of work. Page 5 of this Report shows a very remarkable statement of what has been achieved in this particular connection, because it will be seen from the number of these cases that have been taken by the board of guardians for a period from 30th September, 1927, to 28th January, 1928, that of 615 cases ceasing to apply for relief, 441, namely 71.7 per cent. have obtained work, and in order that there should be no doubt about it and no questions such as were put on the last occasion, of this number who obtained work, the names and addresses of employers in 315 cases, namely, 71.4 per cent., have been noted. Then, for the second period, from 4th January, 1928, to 28th April, 1928, of 542 ceasing to apply for relief 455, or 83.94 per cent., have obtained work, and of this number who obtained work the names and addresses of the employers in 349 cases, namely, 76.7 per cent., have been noted.
  Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) talked about 10 per cent. getting regular work. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement in this House that these people have got regular work? Are they not casual workers?
  Mr. GROVES: On ice-cream barrows.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have no hesitation about answering that question at all. Directly the hon. Member is given figures he asserts that they are wrong.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman quoted a statement by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, by
  2414
  which I understand he said that if the guardians could provide 10 per cent. of these people with regular work they would have done something very satisfactory. Will the right hon. Gentleman (Sir K. Wood) assure the House that these people have obtained good regular work and are not casual workers little better than if they had no work at all?
  Sir K. WOOD: That people who have casual work in this country are no better off than those who have no work is a new aspect. [Interruption.] I want to reply to the question if I can. Obviously, I cannot say without notice what is exactly the term or period which they work, but, if the hen. Gentleman desires it, I can inquire. A statement of that kind certainly does not detract from the remarkable work of redemption which has been accomplished. When one realises what has really been done by the guardians in this connection, I say that many of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen are very unwarrantable. I do want, finally, to say that, so far as West Ham is concerned, undoubtedly destitution has been diminished.
  Mr. GROVES: Increased.
  Sir K. WOOD: The effect has been that in many cases men have been restored to the rank of self-supporting citizens. In the other two cases, both of them in coal-mining areas where difficulties are very great, economies which were secured immediately after the appointment of the new guardians have been maintained and the spread of pauperism has been checked. Before I sit down, I should like to say that it is the belief of my right hon. Friend that no advantage can be gained and a great loss can be sustained in the three localities concerned if these Orders are revoked. The gentlemen who are carrying out their business in connection with these three unions deserve that their action should be encouraged by this House, and I ask the House to reject this Prayer and continue these guardians in office for a further period.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has assisted his case by his speech, I want to assure him that he has intensified the opposition. What is the case before us? The first part of this case was that the Govern-

  2415
  ment took credit for the fact that they have suppressed only three boards of guardians and that the Ministry of Health has found no need for interfering with the responsibilities of other guardians. But, as a matter of fact, the suppression of these three boards of guardians was a bludgeon with which the right hon. Gentleman smote the other boards of guardians, with the result that in the whole of the South Wales area to-day the relief scale is fixed by the standard in Bedwellty. Boards of guardians who are nominally free are paying rates of relief which are even worse than those obtaining in Chester-le-Street. That is the weapon with which the Minister of Health armed himself. It is a weapon used to terrorise boards of guardians into restricting their expenditure at whatever cost to the destitute population.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted some words used by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. What did he say? He said that if the guardians found 10 per cent. of the out-relief cases regular work they would have justified their existence. We have no proof that the appointed guardians have found a single man work, regular or casual. None of the cases quoted in the report were cases of men whose jobs had been found for them by the board of guardians. I am prepared to say, and I ask the Minister to disprove, that the kind of work that 98 per cent. of them have got is casual work which may be a day and a half per week or less. When I am told it is a strange revelation that I should regard that as worse than out-relief, which I do—a thousand times worse—I reply that it is really monstrous to drive people off the Poor Law and expect them to live on the wages earned by casual jobs that may amount to no more than a day and a half per week.
  I now wish to deal with the general case. The right hon. Gentleman asks for the continuance of the three boards of guardians for a further period. I am going to say that the members of these three boards of guardians are utterly unfit to carry out the responsibilities and duties that guardians have to perform. None of these guardians are guardians of the poor. Their primary duty is to be guardians of the better-to-do ratepayers of the area. In the recently-issued report
  2416
  of the Bedwellty Guardians, the note struck in the first paragraph is a note about financial economy:
  "Since the date of our last Report, we have continued to exercise strict supervision over the expenditure in all departments with a view to economy.…"
  I am not surprised that there is an hon. Member over there who is shocked. It is shocking. The boards of guardians are boards of guardians of the poor. Their statutory duties are to the poor, not to an economical and economising Minister of Health. Their primary responsibility is to the poor in their areas. Is there an hon. Member who can challenge that^ You will find in the reports of these appointed boards of guardians nothing which shows that they have any regard for their primary statutory duties. They have been put in office—dug out of their obscurity at the Tory clubs——[Interruption.] I am prepared to await denial of that. Dug out of their obscurity at the Tory clubs and put into a position of authority, not for the purpose of succouring the poor, but entirely for the purpose of cutting down expense, regardless of consequences. The report from Bedwellty makes it clear that the board's primary concern is with economy, and it goes on to show how it has been able to economise by reducing in-maintenance charges—the provision of clothing, necessaries, and so on, of inmates of indoor institutions—from 10s. per week to 8s. 7d. per week per head in 18 months. If you reduce the in-maintenance charges in institutions—
  ".…provisions, clothing, necessaries, warming, cleansing, lighting, outfits, burials, drugs, and surgical appliances"
  down to 8s. 7d. per week from 10s., you are doing it at the expense of the comfort of the inmates. I find that this precious board of guardians, in its mad pursuit of economy, has succeeded in reducing similar charges in children's homes from 10s. 6¼d. to 9s. 7½d. That reduction per child per week has been made at the expense of these children. I do not believe that it is possible to reduce the figure of 10s. 6¼d. over all these items of expenditure by 11d. per week without in some way injuring the interests of the children in

  2417
  these homes. If hon. Members opposite would run an institution at that price, and live in it themselves, they would have a right to come to this House and talk. The difficulty we have on this side of the House is that of understanding the mentality of hon. Members opposite. They can understand the mentality of the boards of guardians, I cannot. It is impossible to reduce the in-maintenance charge per child in children's homes from 10s. 6¼d. per week to 9s. 7½d. without doing it at the expense of the inmates of these homes. I think that is an obvious fact. If hon. Members opposite can maintain in their own small institutions young people at that cost per head, they are extraordinarily fortunate, but there is nobody on that side of the House who does it or dreams of doing it.
  The West Ham Board of Guardians is governed by the same kind of spirit. Its primary consideration is not the problem of real destitution so much as reducing the debt which has been accumulated during the period when previous boards of guardians were in office. You can see what is the real view behind this Report. It is the view which is behind the Report of Chester-le-Street—that there is something morally wrong with the poor—that if a man is poor he must be a rotter. That is the implication. It is the view of 1834 that the poor are poor because of their vioiousness—that poverty is sent to punish unworthy citizens. That is the view which describes the West Ham Report. It states the number of people who have got work, but there is not a word about the people who have not got work. Take the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary to-night—on page 5—"615 cases ceased to apply for relief; 441 had obtained work." One hundred and seventy-four cases had gone somewhere. They have not applied for relief.
  Mr. BARNES: They would have been refused.
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The probable cause was that the policy of the board of guardians was such as to deter them from applying. They probably applied before and were refused. But with all the guardians' investigations and resources they could only show that about 70 per cent. of those people who applied for
  2418
  relief had sot work. What about the other 30 per cent.? Not a word about them. What is the implication, the fair inference one can draw from that, other than that the 70 per cent. were people who were shirkers, that as a result of this policy of deterrence they have been driven into the streets and have found work? if they had some shred of human sympathy, they would say something about the 30 per cent. they have lost—that they are glad to lose, because it means a certain amount of less expenditure. On the very same page, there is a return made by the relieving officers on the 7th April of this year:
  "This return gave a total of 2,903 men and 438 women, and of these 2,209 men and 202 women were reported to be undoubtedly fit to work. Their officers further reported that of those unemployed on out-relief fit to work 370 men and 36 women were, in their opinion, not genuinely seeking work. Test work will be provided for these men."
  Of the 2,903 men, it says that 370 were not genuinely seeking work. That leaves 1,839 men who by implication were. That is the real situation in West Ham. The great majority of these 80 per cent. are men who were seeking work. With all their investigation, they are not prepared to claim that more than 20 per cent. were not genuinely seeking work. What are they doing for that 80 per cent. of people who are desirous of obtaining work? They are doing their best to drive them and their families to desperation. Of course you can get rid of them through boards of guardians. The Minister's discretion, which was invented in the Unemployment Insurance Act, is a splendid way of reducing unemployment figures. If you use discretion and deprive people of benefit, generally speaking you have no more trouble; they do not come to the Exchange again. The policy that is being adopted of refusing people out-relief, wherever it can be done, and offering people the workhouse to the destruction of family life, is a policy that will naturally be reflected in the figures. You will, of course, have a reduction in the number of cases applying for outdoor relief, but that does not prove that destitution is any less. It proves nothing except that the boards of guardians have been successful in depriving people of even a little public assistance.

  2419
  We are told that they have got work. I wish hon. Members opposite would try to understand the elements of this question. I put it once before. To-day, 1,250,000 people are unemployed. The supply of labour to-day is bigger than the demand, and there is bound to be unemployment. You may, by a miracle, take a million people out of the Poor Law and put them into work to-morrow, but, given the present state of supply and demand, you will have put out another million. These are the elements of the case, and to assume that merely shifting workers about in West Ham is increasing trade is fantastic, and hon. Members on the other side of the House know that it is absurd to suppose it. These men having been driven to scramble for casual work for their existence at the expense of other people, have got it. It means that in some adjoining union, or perhaps the same union area, casual workers who were looking for work would have got it had there not been the supply from. West Ham Guardians, and to assume that you can deal with the problem in this way is, of course, not merely wrong; it is ridiculous. This method of dealing with a serious problem is one which is unworthy of any great political party. Why, the Bedwellty Board of Guardians admitted very early in their report the tremendous financial difficulties with which they were faced. These financial difficulties were not made by the Bedwellty Board of Guardians. Those financial difficulties, as this report shows, were made in the adjoining areas, and the situation was created by the economical conditions which prevailed. The same is true in Chester-le-Street. Everyone who knows the county of Durham to-day knows that Durham is half dead economically, and, whatever you may do by Poor Law administration, you are not going to take another man down the pit. In West Ham, you have a problem which has not altered much since Charles Booth's great investigation into London life and London poor.
  Those are three centres which happen to be particularly good illustrations of the economic problems of our time. Admit if you like, I will admit, that West Ham Board of Guardians in the old days, and the Chester-le-Street
  2420
  Board of Guardians, and the Bedwellty Board of Guardians, were guilty of indiscretions. Let us admit, if you like, that they made mistakes. Let us admit that there were people getting money, who under strict administration ought not to have got it. Let us assume that, if you like. Is that any stronger reason for suppressing these boards of guardians, than it would be if my right hon. Friends on this side were over there, and were suppressing boards of guardians when there were hard cases on the other side. For every case that you bring me from these three areas of extravagance, I will bring you cases of niggardliness on the part of Tory boards of guardians. We can easily parallel every case you bring from West Ham and any other board of guardians, but I say I would rather err on the side of generosity than adopt the policy that is adopted by certain boards of guardians. This method is the worst possible method. The Tory Government, which has expressed regard for the forms of democracy, faced by a problem which has always been complicated, took what it thought was the easy line, and took powers to themselves to destroy the well-established power of local boards of guardians. I do not believe that any amount of maladministration can be so bad as to justify the Government in depriving citizens of their rights of self-government. That is what has been done. I am not denying that there were not difficulties, but what I am saying is that there is a bigger problem that lies behind all this, which this suppression of boards of guardians does not touch, which the continuance of these appointed boards of guardians in the three areas for the next ten years will not touch—this problem of economic disorganisation. To suppress labour boards of guardians does not do it, but one thing I think it may do is to bring a little nearer the day when other men will try newer and better methods.
  Sir K. WOOD Sir K. WOOD 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, 114; Noes, 46.

  Division No. 278].

  AYES.

  [1.9 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Applin, Colonel Ft. V. K.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

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

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Harland, A.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crott

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bowater, Col, Sir T. Vansittart

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Buchan, John

  Halt, Captain H. P.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Christle, J. A.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Templeton, W. P.

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

  Looker, Herbert William

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Herman

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Lumley, L. R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Hervyn

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Wells, S. R.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fielden, E. S.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Finburgh, S.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Radford, E. A.

  Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Barr, J.

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Welsh, J. C.

  Duncan, C.

  Lawson, John James

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Whiteley, W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Montague, Frederick

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Scurr, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Groves, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Prestor)

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Question put accordingly.
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. BUCHANAN)(seated and covered): On a point of Order. You are putting together three Questions which ought to be taken separately. In other words, I want to submit to you that it is the right of any Member, if he wishes, to choose to vote in favour of one of these Orders and to vote against another. I ask you to allow any Member to exercise the option to vote for or against each of the three. I ask you if it is not your privilege to put these three Ques-
  2422
  tions separately in order that the House may vote on each.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the case. I am only putting the Motion that was moved by the Mover and Seconder.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: May I submit this to you? When the right hon. Gentleman was replying, he deliberately selected West Ham as a different case from the other two, and in his speech he stated that West Ham was clearly a different type of case. Therefore, if an

  2423
  hon. Member wishes, surely he ought to be allowed to exercise his option in each of the three cases. Therefore, I ask you if it is not the case that a Member has the right to claim the right to vote for each individual case.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is not the case on this occasion, because, as I say, I am only putting the Question that was moved and seconded, and I cannot put the Questions separately.
  The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 279.]

  AYES.

  [1.19 a.m.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Stephen, Campbell

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Barnes, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Barr, J.

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

  Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Welsh, J. C.

  Duncan, C.

  Lawson, John James

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Windsor, Walter

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

  Montague, Frederick

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

  Groves, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Balniel, Lord

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Harland, A.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Brass, Captain W.

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Buchan, John

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

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Bunnan, J. B.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

  Christle, J. A.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Templeton, W. P.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Looker, Herbert William

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Colfox, Major William Phillips

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Kantian

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lumley, L. R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Cope, Major Sir William

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  MacIntyre, Ian

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Watts, Sir Thomas

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

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Wells, S. R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fermoy, Lord

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Radford, E. A.

  Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Raine, Sir Walter

  SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes after One o'Clock.

  KING IBN SAUD (CONVERSATIONS).
  KING IBN SAUD (CONVERSATIONS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EMPIRE PRODUCTS (DISPLAY CARAVANS).
  EMPIRE PRODUCTS (DISPLAY CARAVANS).
  IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURES.
  IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL PRIZE FUND.
  NAVAL PRIZE FUND.
  INVALIDING AWARD.
  INVALIDING AWARD.
  DOCKYAED EXAMINATIONS.
  DOCKYAED EXAMINATIONS.
POST OFFICE.
  CHEQUE SYSTEM.
  CHEQUE SYSTEM.
  DELIVERIES, RURAL DISTRICTS.
  DELIVERIES, RURAL DISTRICTS.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATIONS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATIONS).
  OUTLAWRY OF WAR.
  OUTLAWRY OF WAR.
  INDIA (ARMY CANTEENS).
  INDIA (ARMY CANTEENS).
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
TRANSPORT.
  RIVER THAMES (PETROL TRAFFIC).
  RIVER THAMES (PETROL TRAFFIC).
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE).
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE).
  RIVERS POLLUTION.
  RIVERS POLLUTION.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  FACTORY INSPECTION, WORKINGTON.
  FACTORY INSPECTION, WORKINGTON.
  INFORMATION BUREAU, GIRLS.
  INFORMATION BUREAU, GIRLS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  MINERS (BENEFIT).
  MINERS (BENEFIT).
  ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD REMNANT.
Sir James Farquharson Remnant, Baronet, C.B.E., having been created Baron Remnant, of Wenhaston, in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by your Lordships on March 22 last be dispensed with and that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2aaccordingly.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROADS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to restrict the breaking up of roads for the purpose of laying down and repairing pipes, wires, and apparatus; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORTHING EXTENSION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill; Bill reported without amendment.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS: MINORITIES AND CONVENTIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any further information on the position of minorities or on the ratification of Conventions at Geneva; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said; My Lords, the Question that I am seeking to raise before your Lordships is one of much nicety and complexity. It concerns a problem that has come to the front in a special manner since the Peace Treaties, because those Treaties, by altering some frontiers and rearranging and extending others, have made the question of minorities one of extreme and immediate importance. In one sense the question of minorities is an old one and has been with us for centuries in Europe, but in its present phase it is a new question, dependent, as I shall show, almost entirely, though not in all cases, upon the terms of Treaties which give to minorities rights, as I

933
think, guaranteed by us and by those of the Allied and Associated Powers who signed the Treaties. I may say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, who I understand is going to answer me, that I do not seek to bring anything like an indictment against the League of Nations. On the contrary I am a strong supporter of the League in other directions, and I think that in this difficult case they have done what they can under the conditions obtaining, though there are certain points to which I shall call attention later.
What I want to have considered is the attitude of the Government on these questions—I do not speak of the Government qua Government, but as representing, as it must in questions of this kind, the national interest of Great Britain as a Great Power. I say this because noted that in the interesting discussion that we had a short time ago on the Trianon Treaty and the questions raised between Rumania and Hungary, it was said that this House had not much to do with the attitude of the League of Nations itself. That may or may not be true, but the question raised then and the question that I raise to-day are not immediately questions of the conduct of the League of Nations but of obligations that this country has undertaken and the manner in which they have been fulfilled. There is one other point that I should like to make clear. As the noble Lord will know, I put this Question down several weeks ago, before the noble Lord, Lord Newton, had put down his Question regarding minority interests as between Rumania and Hungary. Not only do I not complain of that—I could have no reason for doing so—but the very thorough and exhaustive examination by Lord Birkenhead on that occasion in his speech regarding the differences between Rumania and Hungary makes it quite unnecessary to seek to raise that question again. There are just two points that I should like to mention before I leave this matter. I think it was shown in that debate that what had passed with a view to bringing about a settlement between those two countries had really been a long-drawn-out failure. After a long series of attempts nothing was done. Perhaps I may add again that this was an example of the Council, instead of
934
performing an administrative act, embedding itself in questions of politics and in political dissensions.
Finally recourse was had to Article 11 of the Covenant. This is a most important Article in itself, but it is not intended to be applicable to these minority questions. I do not deny that possibly a minority question might raise itself into a question coming under Article 11, but Article 11 is not directly in point. If, when a question of minority rights is raised, it is put on one side under the provisions of Article 11 because one of the parties refers to that Article, you are liable indirectly to stop the whole course of minority procedure, and I am sure that nobody would desire to do this who understands the difficulty and complexity of these questions at Geneva. It is quite reasonable that there should be these difficulties and complexities. On one side you have provisions in a Treaty which are intended to protect the rights of minorities and, I think, do protect those rights to a very large extent; and on the other hand you have the claim of the national sovereignty, which is always a potent claim, which dislikes the whole idea of a minority subject to special provisions and protection, whereas those provisions, as I shall point out, undoubtedly imply and, indeed, in terms enact that, where those protective obligations are inconsistent with national legislation or official administration, then the latter must give way. That is a strong point, as the noble Lord opposite will understand, but it is in the forefront of the Minority Treaties, and when we have an obligation of that kind in the forefront your Lordships will always protect yourselves by saying: "We would obey the regulation which we find in the Minority Treaties but we claim under the powers of national sovereignty within our Legislature to treat this matter as we like."
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, has had a note of what I intend to say on the minority question. The minority question is one which affects minorities in rare or in religion. I will take the words from the definition clause of the Minority Treaties. Probably the noble Viscount (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) would know the exact number of these Treaties better than I do but there

935
are between fifteen and twenty of them. In substance, though not necessarily in terms, they are all in the same form and therefore it would be only necessary to call your Lordships' attention to a typical Treaty in order that the argument I am endeavouring to put forward may be understood. The importance of this question may be further gauged by the fact that on statistics which have been carefully prepared and collected—this must no doubt to a certain extent be a matter not of absolutely accurate statistics but of the nearest possible statistics that can be obtained—the minorities which are protected by the Minority Treaties are in the aggregate between 32 millions and 35 millions. The two estimates have been given by different people.
I have gone through all the statistics. I have them here, but I need not trouble your Lordships with them because statistical accuracy is not obtainable. It is sufficient to show by particulars such as I have given the great importance of the proper protection of minorities under the Minority Treaties. A population on the whole not much less than the population of this country is affected. Not only that, but they are affected in a way that requires settlement under the new regulations which have succeeded the War and before a really peaceful spirit can generally be said to have settled down in Europe. I am not suggesting the alteration of those Treaties. I think it is far too early to make any suggestion of that kind. But, taking that view, it is more important that those who have minority rights solemnly granted to them by Treaty to which this country is a party, should have the advantage of those rights, which have been given to safeguard their lives and interests.
The principle, I think, was very admirably stated to the Second Assembly by the then representative of Great Britain, Lord Balfour. Lord Balfour took a great part in the early years of the life of the League and of the Council of the League. What he said is so important that I copied it out in reading again through the speech which he made to the Second Assembly of the League in 1920. He said:—
"We have set up a machinery for the protection of minorities and we mean that that machinery shall work."
I do not suppose any one would dissent for a moment from that statement, but the words I want to call attention to are these: "we mean that that machinery shall work." The question which has been raised and ought to be carefully considered in view of our obligations, is whether, after experience and experiment, the machinery does work so as to give the protection to which the minorities are entitled.
I am afraid that in many respects the machinery wants alteration and the alteration is a thing which I should hope this country would take part in planning out. It does not, however, affect the principles of the Minority Treaties themselves. I think that something should be done in order to make the protection of these minority rights more assured and less open to friction and dispute. For that purpose you want to arrive at two results. First of all you must have a method by which those rights, if called in question, can be decided one way or the other—that is, between the minority and the national government. That, I think, is quite clear. Secondly—and this is hardly less important—the minority should be satisfied, whatever the decision come to may be, whether in their favour or against them, that their interests have had proper, impartial and fair consideration. Although I do not want to criticise those who give the consideration, I shall be bound to point out, when I come to deal with the matter, that in my view at the present time the minorities have some reason to say: "Whatever our rights may be we should be satisfied that, if they are to be enforced, the method of enforcement is satisfactory."
I may give one other fact in passing. I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, is cognisant of it and certainly the noble Viscount (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) is. Professor Gilbert Murray, who then, I think, represented South Africa, took a very foremost part in helping to formulate the machinery by which the minorities could be protected under the Minority Treaties. The main proposals were partially accepted in 1922 and 1923, but since that time, so far as I know, very little change has been made, although I think experience and experiment have shown that changes must be made if the minority rights are to be effectively enforced. I think it would be the shortest way now if I called your

937
Lordships attention to a typical Minority Treaty in order that I may show what, at any rate in my view, the position is, and then I will make suggestions as to any ameliorations in procedure—there is no amelioration necessary, I think, in principle—which I hope this Government may do its best to bring about at Geneva.
I have with me a valuable book on this subject by Mr. Mair, who is assistant in international studies at the London School of Economics. I only want to refer to it because it contains, printed in a convenient form, a typical Minority Treaty. There are three or four points in that Treaty to which I know the attention of Lord Cushendun has been drawn because I was able to send him the notes from which I am now speaking. The first of them is Article 1, and it is an extremely important Article, although I do not think it has been sufficiently insisted on as a direct consideration. The State—that is, the State where the minority rights are given—the State
"undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 2 to 8 of this Chapter"—
they are the real Articles which define the position of the minority in the State—
"shall be recognised as fundamental laws"—
Then there is this provision, which I think will strike any one who knows the difficulties that surround this question as being of the greatest importance:—
"and that no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them."
That means that the international protection and the international rights conferred upon the minorities cannot be overridden or interfered with by internal legislation.
Your Lordships, of course, know that there is considerable jealousy over any interference with internal legislation within the area of a sovereign state. We can all understand that, although I think in some cases there must be some such obligation, but what is stated here positively and distinctly in this case, where certain minorities or a large number of minorities were placed for the first time under new sovereignty, is that their international protection is to prevail as against any attempt to diminish or weaken it by internal legislation. I have
938
a recollection that that point was raised in the Rumano-Hungarian case, but I have said already that I do not intend to go back on that case. It is a prominent matter in a large number of these minority discussions, discussions that are not all published, although a great number of them are dealt with at Geneva largely through the Secretariat and the Council. Here we have this specific statement that internal legislation by any State is not to override the international obligation or the international rights which the minority have had conferred upon them.
I do not wish, of course, to read the terms of the Minority Treaty. It is between the State on the one side and the Allied and Associated Powers on the other and, of course, we were one of the Allied and Associated Powers. The provisions all tend in this direction, that there shall be no inequality in the sense of harsh treatment of the minority which has the protection of a Minority Rights Treaty. Whether in language, in social status, in education or in law, they are to have equal treatment and equal rights and, indeed, are in every way to be regarded in the same way as other nationals of the State. We are all agreed that that is a most important and necessary provision, having regard to the terms of the Peace Treaties and the number of minorities who are now resident in these different countries. I must, however, call your Lordships' attention a little more definitely to Article 12, because Article 12—it is the same Article in all the Minority Treaties—confers a most important obligation which the signatories to the Treaty (and we are one of them) have to see carried out in relation to these minorities. The country affected agrees that—
"the stipulations in the foregoing Articles,"
the stipulations for the protection of minorities—
"so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities"—
those are the three classes I refer to—
"constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations."
I want to make a statement on that point. I think that apart from the League of Nations it would really be impossible to devise any method by which protection could be given under

939
these Minority Treaties. Attempts were made to give protection, as we know historically, when there was no League of Nations, but they failed and to my mind it is one of the great advantages of the League of Nations, one of the reasons why we should support it to the utmost, that any matter of this kind where a solemn international Treaty has been entered into—and it is a very solemn Treaty indeed—can be referred to the League of Nations to see that the conditions are carried out. The conditions cannot be modified without a majority of the Council of the League.
There is one other provision in the Article to which I wish to refer. I will not detain your Lordships by reading more than I need. That provision is that where discussion arises between parties who are entitled to bring the matter forward—I am obliged to put in that limitation because I think further powers in that respect ought to be given, as the reference in all cases is to Article 14 of the Covenant—if either party asks for it, it is an absolute obligation that such dispute shall be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant. That is a most important provision. It brings to the front what I think every speaker in this House expressed as his view in the Rumano-Hungarian case that in all matters of this kind, which are matters of interpretation of an agreement and the facts relating to them, it is most important that we should remove the dispute, whatever it may be, from the political arena and have it settled in a judicial manner by an impartial Court. I may say in passing, merely to make my point quite clear, that that application, if one of the parties desires it, is applicable not only to questions of law but also to questions of facts. Indeed the whole question of protection under these Minority Treaties can be brought in that way before the International Court at the Hague. The only difficulty is that at the present time the parties who can do that do not in my opinion include all the necessary parties. On that I wish to say a word later.
I want now to point to what I may call the difficulties which have arisen in
940
putting into force this clause for the protection of minorities, and here I must say I think that after experience and experiment reform and change are necessary. It is in this direction that I hope the Government may exercise its influence. In the first place, the aggrieved minority, who obviously are the persons or parties especially interested, cannot approach the League at all. There is no machinery whatever by which the aggrieved persons can approach the League directly. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, will agree with me in that. There is machinery by which you may ask some other country to take up your case or something of that kind, which is entirely different. But the ordinary principle ought to prevail and there ought to be machinery by which the aggrieved minority should be able to bring forward their case and state it—do not say whether before the Assembly or the Council of the League—before the competent body which is to give the decision. But they are not really recognised as competent parties to the process at all.
They have to stand on one side to a very great extent, and entirely so far as their right is concerned, while matters are discussed in which they have critical and immediate interest. They take no part and are not allowed to take any part in the examination of their grievances. In the ordinary way in the examination of grievances the best opportunity is given so that the aggrieved people themselves shall be able to explain any question which may arise. But these people do not know, and they have no chance of answering, the case for the defence—that is, the case for the country in which the particular minority is situated—nor do they see the case for the defence until it is given in the judgment. They cannot in fact take any part at all in the negotiations or the consideration. When Professor Gilbert Murray—I merely mention this by way of illustration—was seeking to lay down what he thought would be a convenient procedure, he proposed that the Council should have power to send an individual to the spot to see whether the complaints were justified or not. That would be a very convenient procedure in some cases, but I will not go into details because it was not adopted.
Then, Members of the Council who are really interested—although they are not interested against a particular minority they have the same minority questions in their own sovereign areas—of course are biased. I do not want to make any attack. I want to see whether we can reach a solution which will properly safeguard the national sovereignty on the one side and the right which has been given to the minority on the other, regarding their race, their language and their religion. To put it quite shortly, what I want to know is this. Cannot these questions be brought directly before the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, and cannot one of the parties be, as they ought to be, the aggrieved persons themselves, and the questions decided on judicial grounds? It is all a question as to whether a Treaty has been observed or not. That, I agree, may be a question which raises a good deal of interest and what we call partiality or bias. But that is always the issue, and surely there can be no better tribunal to decide such a matter. I hope as a result of experience and experiment that a system of this kind may be adopted.
A Congress of National Minorities was held at Geneva in 1925. That Congress asked for three things in order that their rights might be properly protected. Apart from the wider questions to which I have referred, I would also ask Lord Cushendun in regard to these three matters whether further consideration might not be given to the procedure in connection with these minority questions. That is enormously important if you are to have a generally friendly and peaceful attitude throughout Europe—not created at the moment; it can only be created after a long process of careful and sympathetic treatment. One of the things that Congress asked for was the publicity of documents.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Who asked for that?
LORD PARMOOR: The Congress of National Minorities which sat at Geneva in 1925. The noble Lord will see it in the notes that I sent him. At the present time I do not think there is any part of the procedure at Geneva which is less public than that dealing with minorities. I found great difficulty indeed in ascertaining
942
the necessary facts; although after I had placed this Motion on the Paper of your Lordships' House a mass of information was sent to me which I should not otherwise have obtained. Secondly, and this is a point to which I have already referred, the Congress of National Minorities asked that minorities should be treated as parties to the case. It seems to me obvious, I must say, that this should be done in the cause of justice. Thirdly, they asked that any Member of the League, whether a Member of the Council or not, should have the right to bring a case before the Council and so start it on its way to the Permanent Court of International Justice. At the present time that can only be done by a Member of the League who is also a Member of the Council. Surely the question arises, why should not any Member of the League, any Member of the Assembly, be allowed to take a step of that kind?
I will not go into such matters of detail as those connected with what is called the Committee of Three, because I do not think that your Lordships' House is a place in which detailed procedure can be properly discussed. What I have dealt with are substantial matters of principle, not of detail—matters which I think ought to be dealt with in order that minorities may substantiate their rights in the manner stated by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. May I call your Lordships' attention to his statement?
"We have set up a machinery for the protection of minorities and we mean that that machinery shall work."
It is not very likely that machinery of that kind should, in the first instance, be found to be perfect and complete and not capable of adjustment and amendment, and I hope the influence of His Majesty's Goverment may be used in the direction which I have indicated.
Some minorities are not under the Minority Treaties. For instance, the Germans in the South Tyrol have not the advantage of the protection of Minority Treaties. I do not want to go into questions which may involve possible difficulties between different nations. I have been speaking generally and I am very anxious to avoid any reference to particular cases. That is why I am glad that the case of Hungary was discussed the other day. But Signor Tittoni, who

943
was, I think, Prime Minister of Italy in 1922 or at any rate held high office, in speaking on the point which I have been discussing, said, in 1919—that is very near the time—that though Italy was not bound by Minority Treaties to apply their provisions she was under a moral obligation to do so. As I say, I do not want to go into particular cases, and I am not anxious, because I know the noble Lord does not place much weight on their opinion, to refer to a resolution recently passed by the General Council of the League of Nations Union, but surely we should all sympathise with Signor Tittoni's statement, and hope that whatever the present conditions may be those views may ultimately prevail. The same view was taken by successive Prime Ministers. Signors Giolitti and Bonomi. That is all I want to say on the question of minorities. I only want to say one or two words on the other question which I brought to your Lordships' notice, the question of Conventions.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Before the noble Lord leaves the question of Minority Treaties—I do not wish to leave anything that he said unanswered if I can meet him—I do not know what he means with regard to the Italian question. What does he suggest that we can do with regard to any question between Italy and some part of the Italian Dominions?
LORD PARMOOR: My view is, quite frankly, that in the absence of Minority Right Treaties we have no position or power to intervene directly in a matter of that kind, and that is why I expressed the hope that Signor Tittoni's view, which he expressed at the time that the arrangement of the new Italian frontier was made, would ultimately prevail as regards the treatment of Germans in the Southern Tyrol. I am much obliged to Lord Cushendun for asking that question. Where we have no Minority Treaties the position is of course essentially distinct. In the case of Minority Treaties we have in terms come under certain solemn obligations and we do not wish to escape from them—we cannot do so whether we wish it or not—and it is as regards the position of minorities under Minority Treaties that I am really addressing the House and the noble Lord this afternoon. I mentioned
944
the Italian position because I felt, and I do feel, that it is of the utmost importance that ultimately and in the long run the statement admirably made by Signor Tittoni should be the governing factor in the dealing by the Italian Government with the Southern Tyrol. I do not wish to divert attention beyond that point.
I want to say one word on Conventions. I thought at one time that it would be necessary to take up a little time in discussing Conventions, but the course of modern history on the Conventions point has lessened very much what I have to say. Your Lordships will recollect that one of the most important documents ever produced at Geneva was the World Economic Report. M. Theunis was the President of the Committee, and the preamble of that Report, signed by M. Theunis himself, is of the very greatest importance. To summarise it quite shortly, it said that under modern conditions industrialism could never reassume its pre-War status unless by the sweeping away of all unnecessary obstructions and interventions which interfered with the interchange of industrial products between different countries, emphasising the view that you must regard all industrial countries as one unit if you want to get the best industrial results.
I notice that in The Times, to-day, there is a statement headed "Freedom of Trade: League Convention to be signed to-day." The League Convention to be signed to-day was based upon the Report of the World Economic Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibition and Restrictions between the various industrial countries. The correspondent continues:
"All that remains is the signing of the Convention, which will take place tomorrow."
I presume that means to-day, or yesterday. I am glad to see, although I am sometimes critical of the action of the noble Lord and of the British Government, that it is stated that we are going to sign, and sign unreservedly. Then the correspondent goes on:—
"The result of the Conference is regarded by those competent to judge as a marked step towards the freedom of trade."
I must say that I think that is an enormous advance in the right direction, and

945
one by which the League of Nations can primarily claim the honour of having initiated a great forward movement. I hope that after that is signed there will be a real advance in getting rid of obstructions which do good to no one but on the other hand interfere with the freedom of industrial exchange. That is the first Convention, and it is no longer necessary to call further attention to it. I am delighted to read that it has been unanimously accepted, and that it is to be signed to-day, and signed by us unconditionally.
The other matter I can deal with very shortly, because it has already been discussed, certainly a year and a half ago, and it is the Eight Hours Convention. It really is a scandal, I think, that we are still withholding our signature and approval from that Convention. It started about nine years ago, there being a number of meetings and especially a London Conference at which full understanding, as we thought, was come to with regard to its meaning and intent. I want to say a word upon a particular point. If you want free international trade you want equality in international conditions of labour. That is, I think, one of the most important matters of the day and of the age. You want to level the conditions of international labour up to our level in Great Britain and to a higher level, and if you do that you will get great results. You do not get what I may call the prejudice of underselling by means of goods produced by labour living at a low standard and paid at a low rate of wages, and in international trade that ought to be prevented, as it is sought to be prevented by these international Conventions from the International Labour Office. If you think of the world as an industrial unit surely this is of the utmost importance. It is of increasing importance, and the efforts of the International Labour Office in that direction should really have the strenuous support, it seems to me, of all people who have at heart the unity of industrial effort and the common advantage of labour throughout the world. I not only find no fault with international capital, I believe it is necessary; but I think international labour is equally necessary for the protection of the working classes, particularly for those in this country who have a high standard, and necessary in order that international exchange may be
946
carried out, not to the disadvantage of some parties, but to the advantage of all. I beg to move.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, the noble Lord has made an interesting speech with regard to Minority Treaties, but I am a little doubtful as to the particular points on which it is necessary for me to say anything by way of reply, though it would not be very difficult perhaps to make some comments on his speech. I confess that I am still not very familiar with the atmosphere and procedure of your Lordships' House. I have been more accustomed to the necessity of rising to repel an attack, or something in the nature of an attack, but that is just what the noble Lord has very kindly avoided to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I say that on matters of this kind, which are national matters, one does not rise to make an attack, but to suggest what is best for the country as a whole.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I am not complaining at all of the noble Lord, I am rather trying to excuse my own inexperience. It appears to me as if I had to come down to the House this afternoon to engage in a pleasant little conversation with the noble Lord on this question of Minority Treaties, and I welcome the opportunity of doing so; but not only is there nothing in the nature of an attack to repel, but there is nothing really which calls for any sort of reply from me, with one exception. I must say I was a good deal surprised by what the noble Lord said with regard to Italy, and that is why I interrupted him in order to make sure that I was not forming a false impression as to-what was passing through his mind. The noble Lord explained that when he referred to Italy in connection with the subject of minorities all he meant was that some speech which he had quoted from an Italian statesman, made some time ago, announced a general course of policy which would be followed by the Italian Government, and the noble Lord expressed a hope that that policy would be carried out.
Is not that a rather strange step for the noble Lord to take? He cannot

947
divest himself altogether of responsibility. He is an ex-Minister of the Crown. What would he think if a member of the Legislature in Rome were suddenly to begin discussing some statement by the Prime Minister in this country, and in a rather patronising way to say that that announcement by the Prime Minister in this country had his entire approval, and that he hoped very much it would be carried out? I think myself that it is really a very unwarrantable interference with the domestic affairs of a friendly nation, with which we have no concern whatever. The noble Lord quite frankly said that there was no question of Minority Treaties there, it was merely that the Italian Government are fortunate enough to have earned the approval of the noble Lord, and he thought, I suppose, that it would be gratifying to the Italian Government that they had his approval. At all events, so far as I am concerned I do not intend to make any comment of that sort at all.
As regards the Minority Treaties generally the noble Lord said that he had no intention of making any criticism of the League of Nations, and at a later part of his speech he intimated that what he had in mind in raising the question at all were the obligations of His Majesty's Government. I listened with great attention to the rest of his speech, and I must say I found it very difficult to gather what he thought were the obligations of His Majesty's Government in this respect, and especially what obligations, if any, have not been completely implemented by the Government of this country under the Minority Treaties up to the present time. I thoroughly agreed with one thing that was said by the noble Lord when he expressed the view that Article 11 of the Covenant should not be in any way associated with the Minority Treaties procedure; in that respect I entirely agree with him. As he is aware, some attempt has been made to use Article 11 by way of bringing into play the Minority Treaties machinery, and I agree with him—I am glad to have his support in that view—that that might lead to very unfortunate results. I think the Council have done right in laying it down that that attempt ought not to be encouraged, and that they could not allow themselves to be influenced by it.
948
The noble Lord says that because he does not suggest any revision of the Treaties it is all the more important—because the time has not come for revision of the Treaties—to see that the machinery is effective for carrying out the purposes of these clauses. He quoted a statement by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, at an earlier period that it was the intention that this machinery should work. But there were two things conspicuously absent from the noble Lord's speech, which I was waiting and expecting to hear touched upon by him, but which he passed over entirely in silence. I thought that when he brought before your Lordships' House the question of Minority Treaties he would have some example to give us of the breakdown of those Treaties—some example to show that the procedure, which he has told us is in his view unsatisfactory, had proved insufficient for the purposes for which it has been devised. Now, with the exception of a passing reference to the Rumanian and Hungarian question, info which I do not wish to go, he never gave the slightest hint that the Treaties as they stand and the procedure which has been followed are not amply sufficient for the purpose in view. I think that this was a very great omission on his part because, unless you can show that machinery of this kind, which is not of very old standing, has in some way been proved to be insufficient, I should have thought that there was no case whatever for attempting at so early a period to devise any improvement or alteration of it.
The noble Lord, with two exceptions to which I shall refer in a moment, really did not suggest any great improvement in the machinery that exists. He was, of course, in this difficulty, that, although he might indicate changes such as those that were asked for by the Congress at Geneva to which he referred—changes resting on purely theoretical grounds—while it was not difficult to bring those forward, he has no experience to point to as showing that these particular changes, if they were carried out, would really effect any improvement in the procedure. I am not prepared to admit that the procedure requires any reform or addition. I do not wish to make any dogmatic assertion of that sort, because I really do not know that I have a sufficiently intimate knowledge

949
of all the workings of the procedure in the different countries where Minority Treaties are in force to justify me in making any such positive statement. Certainly until it can be shown that the Minority Treaties as a whole have failed, and failed conspicuously, to produce the protection of the minorities for whom they were devised, I think it would be very objectionable to attempt revision of the procedure now, and quite unnecessary.
The noble Lord was quite mistaken in one very important respect. He was quite mistaken, as I intimated to him, I think, in the course of his speech, in saying that the minorities themselves have no means of making their case known to the Council. That is really a complete misconception. A Report was adopted in 1920 by the Council to the effect that minorities themselves, or States not represented on the Council, were not debarred from bringing to the notice of the League any infraction or danger of infraction of the Minority Treaties and the procedure that is now in force, under the Committee of Three to which the noble Lord referred, is that any minority that thinks itself aggrieved has the right to present a petition to the Council. That petition is examined by the Committee of Three, consisting of the President and two other Members of the Council, and according to the judgment that they form of the justice or otherwise of the petition that has been presented they may move the Council to take it into consideration. Unless they do this, the petition is not, of course, considered by the Council itself.
The point on which I chiefly differ from the noble Lord is this. He seems to think that, in order to carry out these Minority Treaties, it is desirable that there should be the greatest possible freedom of approach to the Council, either by petition or otherwise, that every aggrieved minority should have easy access to some tribunal, either the Council or the Permanent Court, and that there should be the greatest possible publicity allowed. That was one of the points on which the noble Lord laid stress. I am bound to say that I take a very different view. The noble Lord must be perfectly well aware that it would not be difficult for these Minority
950
Treaties to be used for purposes very different from that for which they were intended by the framers of the Peace Treaties. It might perfectly well be that they could be used for irredentist propaganda for raising all sorts of minor questions with which they were not intended to deal; and if on any occasion some perhaps quite inconsiderable minority were to raise some case in which they alleged that their rights under these Treaties had been violated, very likely without any evidence whatever to support them, and if that sort of thing were to grow general, it would probably make these Treaties impossible to carry out and would also be a source of friction and of bad blood, not only between minorities and their own Governments but between one Government and another, in cases where one Government makes representations on behalf of a minority of their own race under another Government. All that sort of case might very well develop into a cause of friction and become objectionable if it were not very much safeguarded by some such procedure as is at present in force under the œgis of the Council of the League.
I do not at all say that the present procedure is the best possible and that it may not prove in the future to require alteration, perhaps to meet circumstances that have not yet arisen, but I certainly do think that it would be a very great mistake, when no real breakdown of these Treaties has been shown and therefore no case has been made for any alteration of procedure, to agitate the question at the present stage. Even if it were to be done, I do not quite know what steps the noble Lord thinks that His Majesty's Government in particular could take. They have no separate responsibility in the matter. They have responsibility, of course, as a Member of the Council which has guaranteed these Treaties.
LORD PARMOOR: Surely they have an obligation as parties to the Minority Treaties?
LORD CUSHENDUN: Yes, as parties, but not parties acting alone. Our responsibility is shared with a number of other Powers and we cannot act separately. We cannot take action except in agreement with a number of other Powers. The noble Lord has not made any suggestion as to what exact

951
step we should take. I gather generally that he thinks that the procedure is open to improvement. He has not made any definite proposal as to what His Majesty's Government would do. I can imagine several ways in which they might approach the question if they were convinced that justice and right required it to be done, but that would demand very careful consideration. I do not know that there has been as yet devised any procedure or precedent by which one of the contracting Powers under these Treaties other than the State responsible for the minority could be guided as to what action to take in the matter. However, I put the case on higher ground than that. Of course, I admit that if there was any crying case for reform of procedure, no doubt the way of doing it could easily be devised, but I do not think, so far as we are concerned, we have any special responsibility in the matter. Nor do I think that any case has been shown which would justify us in approaching our co-signatories and asking them to combine with us in devising some better and more effective machinery.
The noble Lord, in addition to his reference to these Treaties, spoke on the question of Conventions. I was very glad to find that one Convention referred to in the Press this morning has his entire approval, and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary for me to say anything about that Convention. The only other one to which he referred was a very old friend—the Eight Hours Washington Convention. All that it is possible for me to say to him in reply to his speech is that the policy of His Majesty's Government has in no way changed from that which was laid down by the Minister of Labour, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary, in the debate in the House of Commons last February. The matter was very clearly and, I venture to claim, very convincingly laid down, and if the noble Lord wants to refresh his memory—
LORD PARMOOR: I have refreshed it.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Then I am afraid there is nothing I can do further to enlighten him. The only thing I could do would be to point out what the Minister of Labour then said, and to add that, really, there has been no great change of conditions since then and that
952
we are practically in the same position. But there is one observation I should like to make on this subject. The noble Lord, and those who act with him politically, have rather frequently pressed for the ratification of this Convention, and have expressed their dissatisfaction with the desire of His Majesty's Government to have it revised. What is the objection—that is what I have never been able to make out—to revision? The real fact is that this Convention was drafted at Washington, I think ill 1921, as I am informed rather hastily drafted, at any rate it was drafted necessarily without any experience of post-War conditions of industry which could act as a guide in framing the terms of the Convention. It was very soon found when it was examined by those best qualified to judge in this country that the actual terms of the Convention were very far from appropriate in many instances to the industrial conditions of this country.
The Government have never at any time been opposed to the principle of that Convention. They have expressed their agreement with it time after time, and I cannot understand the attitude of those who think that because the principle is unexceptionable therefore a country like this, very highly industrialised, with very complicated industrial conditions, ought to sign merely as a token of its agreement; that we ought to ratify a Convention of that sort not only without satisfying ourselves of its suitability but when we know quite well that in important respects it is very unsuitable. Surely it is the most reasonable thing that we should say: "Well, let us, instead of indulging in a great number of interpretations—for that is the alternative—and a great number of reservations to show what we mean by the Convention, get the actual text such as we could accept without reservation and then we are perfectly ready to ratify it." That, it appears to me, is the only course for any nation like ourselves to take. It really does not lie in the mouth of the noble Lord, or in any of those who resist revision, to criticise the Government for refusing to ratify, because the answer is perfectly convincing and quite straight. If you want us to ratify, join with us in demanding a text which would be admittedly

953
suitable to our conditions; if you do not do that, then we cannot ratify the Convention as it stands.
Our case has been, if anything, strengthened since the debate to which I have referred, because, since that time, the governing body have adopted a general procedure for revising Conventions. All the International Labour Conventions contain a provision to the effect that they shall come up for reconsideration at least once within a stated period of years. I need not elaborate that. The fact that the governing body have now devised a definite scheme of procedure for revision strengthens our case, I think, when we say: "Let us at all events adopt that procedure and revise the text and then we will be perfectly willing to ratify." I am not suggesting there is any real change in this respect, because I must repeat that the policy of the Government was laid down by the Minister of Labour and to that I have really nothing to add.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not rise to gratify my noble friend by making an attack upon him which, I understand, is what he earnestly desires should be done.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Not from you.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much gratified by the implied compliment from my noble friend. I do rise to say one or two things arising out of his speech. In the first place, I really hope the Government will not think that the uneasiness caused by our attitude on the Eight Hours Convention is confined to members of the Labour Party. There is a considerable amount of uneasiness on that point and I can tell my noble friend quite shortly what it is. I do not want to go into it at any length. I see that my noble friend Lord Lytton has a Notice on the Paper in which he desires to raise the question specifically. I do not want to anticipate that debate, and I should not have said a word about it normally but for the debate that has arisen.
Broadly speaking, the uneasiness is caused by this. We signed this Convention in Washington—that is to say, we voted for it, which is equivalent to signing a Labour Convention, for it has
954
the same effect. We voted for it, and not only voted for it, but voted for it after express instructions so to do from the Government at home. Having done that, there has been—I do not want to go over the history of the matter—more than one occasion on which in public utterances of responsible Ministers hopes have been held out that if this or that were done some step forward would be taken, either actual ratification of the Convention or some material step forward towards it. Then, when it has come to the point, it has turned out that it has been impossible to take that step. The result has been—I am sorry to say so, but I think it is true—deleterious to our prestige and position in connection with these international gatherings and it is not rendered less serious by the constant claim we make that we are so very scrupulous in the way we discharge even the lightest international obligation. I do not want to go into that further, because it is a long and complicated question, but I should not like it to be thought that uneasiness Over our political attitude on this, apart from the industrial effect of the Convention, which is another matter altogether, is confined entirely to members of the Labour Party.
Beyond that I have nothing but praise for the attitude of the Government on the question of the ratification of Conventions generally. I think that our Delegate, and particularly Sir Austen Chamberlain, has taken a very useful part in pressing on the League of Nations the importance of not making Conventions or coming to agreements and then leaving them in the air, and that it is very important that when the League agrees upon a Convention, or puts one forward, or advocates it, it should be signed and ratified as soon as possible because otherwise it gives an impression of futility. I am very much gratified to see—in consequence, I venture to think, very largely of the attitude which the British Government have taken up on that subject—that it was announced only at the last meeting of the Council that the Opium Convention had now been ratified by a sufficient number of Powers to come into force. I think that is a very satisfactory result, and I trust that the Government will go on with their admirable work in that direction.

955
As to the other question which has been raised, the question of minorities, I am not sure that I can quite subscribe to my noble friend's doctrine that we have no special responsibility in the matter. It is, of course, quite true that our responsibility is the responsibility of a Member of the League and of one of the Permanent Members of the Council, but after all there are only five Permanent Members of the Council. Our responsibility, therefore, is that of one of the five more important Powers on the Council, but it is rather more than that, as my noble friend knows quite well. For various reasons our influence is very important in these matters. Therefore, since our influence is very great so is our responsibility. We cannot quite say that we have no more to do with the question whether these things work well or not than one of the smaller Republics of South America. That really is not the position. We are much more responsible and have a greater duty to discharge in this matter.
I do not gather that my noble friend Lord Parmoor advocated any alteration in the Minority Treaties. That certainly would be a very laborious negotiation to undertake and I agree entirely with what Lord Cushendun said, that it would be a great mistake to try to uproot these Treaties which have been so recently signed. Moreover, there is not the least probability that the other parties to them would agree to any considerable modification even if it was desirable. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Cushendun that there is not any case at present for any change in the Treaties, but the question of the procedure by which these Treaties are worked at the League is rather a different matter. My noble friend must be well aware that there have been several debates in the Assembly, and I dare say in the Council also, raised by various countries who think that the present procedure is very unsatisfactory and inadequate, I think myself the question is an extremely difficult one and I am not going to express any decided opinion as to whether there ought to be a modification of procedure at present, but I do think it is a matter that requires very careful weighing and I do not gather that my noble friend Lord Cushendun disagrees with that.
956
At present the procedure, as I understand it, is this. A petition from a minority is sent to the Council and it is considered in the Secretariat. I do not think—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that every such petition goes to any Committee at all. It is only certain petitions that do reach the first stage—namely, the Committee. I rather think they have to be sent there by direction of the Council. I do not think they go automatically. Then, when they get to the Committee of Three, the first duty of the Committee of Three is to consider whether any answer is required, whether the matter is sufficiently serious to take up at all. If they decide that it is, then before the matter is further considered they ask the Government of the country concerned whether they desire to make any observations on the petition or whatever document it may be. All that seems to me to be quite legitimate and right, but I think there is a weakness after that stage in the procedure. The answer from the Government of the country concerned goes to the Committee of Three, the Committee of Three being a special Committee appointed for each particular petition and not a standing committee. The answer of the Government in question is not communicated to the minority, on the formal ground that the minority are not parties to the matter at all. The parties to the discussion are the Government of the country concerned and the Committee of Three, as members of the Council who have to consider whether the matter is worth considering and worth bringing before the Council. These are the parties contemplated by the Treaty.
Therefore no information is conveyed to the minority, formally at any rate, though very often they acquire knowledge as to what is the answer of the Government to their complaint. That means that the matter has to be dealt with without knowing the criticisms the minority have to make on the answer of the Government concerned. I think that is the procedure which certainly requires careful watching. It may be that if, as I agree it is, it is carefully administered by the Committee of Three no injustice is done, but it is evidently a little awkward that the League may have to decide or may be asked to decide without really knowing the full facts of the

957
matter in dispute. At the same time I do most heartily agree with my noble friend that this is an exceedingly delicate matter. Instead of protecting a minority we may easily incite a minority to be unreasonable and that will end in a much greater misfortune for the minority than that from which it was previously suffering. I agree that the greatest care and caution must be exercised and that you must weigh one against the other, the advantages of complete publicity and complete examination against the danger of creating difficulties in the Governments of various countries. On the whole I am bound to say that in my judgment no sufficient case has been made out for any modification of the minority procedure, but I do feel—and I do not gather that my noble friend disagrees with me—that it is a delicate matter which ought to be carefully watched. I trust that my noble friend will give it his closest attention and that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State will do so also, because I am sure it is well worth while as an important part of our duty.
There are only two other observations that I desire to make. I do not quite agree that Article 11 can never be used for the purpose of minorities. Article 11 is designed to bring before the League any question that is likely to produce unrest among nations. It is impossible to say that the real apprehensions of a national minority belonging to a neighbouring country may not produce such unrest. And in that case I certainly think it is a matter in which Article 11 may be properly employed in order to bring the question before the Council. I certainly should regret it very much if the Council laid it down absolutely—I do not think they have yet laid it down—that Article 11 was not suitable for that purpose. I think it would be going beyond their powers to do so, and I am sure it would be unfortunate. But that, of course, is not to say that you are simply to get round the fact that there is no Minority Treaty applying to a particular country by using Article 11 instead of the provisions of the Minority Treaty. It is a question of degree in each case, and I certainly should not be prepared to say that in no case must Article 11 be used for the purpose of bringing before the Council a real and serious apprehension of a minority.
958
I only want to add one word on the very delicate matter of the Tyrol. My noble friend said that he did not think we had any right to say anything at all about the Tyrol and its government I cannot subscribe to that. When the question of handing over the Tyrol to the Italian Government was considered at Paris, very strong representations were made by Austria against that being done. It was said: "This is a very ancient part of the Austrian dominions. It is very strongly German in its national feeling. It has a great history of struggles for independence against countries of a non-German character." And they made a very strong case against its being handed over to the Italian Government, right or wrong. In consequence, I forget exactly who it was that said it, but somebody, speaking on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers, pointed out that the Italian Government intended
"to carry out a wide and liberal policy towards its new German subjects in respect of language, culture and economic interests."
That was, in effect, I will not say a pledge but an assurance given by the Italian Government to the Powers who were settling this matter that they were going to carry out what may be called a liberal policy in the Tyrol. If it can be shown that they are not doing so, I cannot admit that the signatories to the Treaty of Versailles or of Trianon, whichever it is, are without the right to address representations of remonstrance to the Italian Government. Whether that should be done in a particular case is a matter which must be judged on the actual facts; but I certainly could not accept the view that it is altogether a national matter and not in any respect an international one.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Before the noble Viscount resumes his seat might I ask him whether he acknowledges any limit at all to that principle? Does he seriously maintain that for all time to come, because an announcement was made that a liberal policy was to be pursued, this or any other country would be justified in making protests to the Italian Government if at any time, in our judgment, we do not think they are carrying out their promise to maintain a liberal policy? Is that to go on for ever and to give us a continual right to interfere

959
in the internal affairs of another nation?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am certainly not prepared to say that it is to go on for ever. These things like everything else are questions of degree. But it seems to me that if a country comes to an international Conference and receives a certain territory on the faith of an assurance given to that Conference then those who signed the Treaty which gave them that territory have the right at any rate for some period—indeterminate I agree—to say: "You really got this territory on a certain assurance. You are not carrying out your assurance. We think that is a very undesirable and unfortunate state of things." Whether it is desirable to make that representation must depend on the facts. I quite agree that you would have to have a very strong case and that a number of other circumstances would have to be considered before you made any such representation. But to say that we are not entitled to make it seems to me to be going a great deal too far.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are one or two points on which I should like to make an answer to the courteous speech of the noble Lord opposite. Although I cannot agree with the inferences he has drawn in respect of certain matters, I do not want to reopen the Italian question. I said that I thought it was surrounded with very great difficulties. But I do not differ from the view put forward by the noble Viscount, that you cannot in the circumstances submit that under no conditions are we responsible at all. You cannot, as it were, shake off all responsibility when it is to be exercised under conditions. I purposely did not attempt to go into the case, because I thought this was not an occasion when such a question could be raised. But on the general principle, so far as I understand what the noble Viscount has said, I certainly agree with him and that is the view I desire to put forward. It is clear, of course, that on these international questions we do not divide ourselves in this country according to the Parties to which we belong. It would be very unfortunate if we did, and I am sure the noble Lord would not desire it on international questions.
960
Therefore I agree with what the noble Viscount has said regarding the Eight Hours Convention. I am not sure, however, that the noble Lord stated the position quite clearly. Surely, the question of the meaning and understanding according to what was said on one occasion by the Prime Minister was settled after the London Conference, I think about 1925 or 1926. With regard to the other point, I am not quite sure that I am correct, because anything the noble Lord says on a matter of this kind makes me doubt whether my memory is accurate; but surely the principle of the ten years' revision is part of the Convention. You do not want to advocate revision in order that we might have it at the end of ten years; but I think I am right in saying that all these Conventions, this Convention among them, come up for revision aften ten years. But that is no reason whatever for the delay which has taken place. The real point which the noble Lord has put forward is that there are some persons in this country, interested persons, who do not desire a universal eight-hour limitation. I think that is right, and I acknowledge and admit it. But I think, as the noble Viscount has said, that—I was going to say a majority but it is very difficult to talk of majorities and minorities in these matters—there is a very large proportion of public opinion which desires the adoption of the Eight Hours Convention.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Nobody more desires it than the Government.
LORD PARMOOR: If the Government desire it, which I am delighted to hear—I often hear that they desire things but we do not seem to get them—I cannot understand any argument which the noble Lord has put forward against showing that desire by means of signature and ratification. I think it is only ratification that is wanted: I am not sure, but I think that the signature has been given. That is the more important as the noble Viscount has pointed out that other ratifications in large numbers have been given conditionally upon this country or rather the British Empire, as it is called, ratifying. For instance, the Germans have ratified unconditionally as matters stand, but I think France, a very important country in a matter of this

961
kind, has ratified but the ratification is not to come into force until this country has also ratified. I take it that the noble Lord has said that the Government want to ratify. Then why not?
LORD CUSHENDUN: It is not a question of whether anybody else is prepared to ratify as soon as we do, but it is a question of whether the text of the thing is suitable. The text of the Convention is not suitable to British conditions, and therefore we will not ratify it until it is in a form which may be suitable to our conditions. It may be suitable for other countries—for Germany, for instance—but it is not suitable for us.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry to be argumentative, but I should have thought that the noble Lord had given the best possible reason why the Government did not ratify. He stated that there was something in the terms and conditions and provisions of the Eight Hours Convention which did not suit this country. That is a matter which has been discussed and considered, and if that is so, how can he come down here and say that the Government want to ratify? They do not want to ratify.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I should like to put that right, though the noble Lord may wish to make a small debating point. I should have said that the Government are anxious to ratify a Convention which is suitable to us. I ought not, perhaps, to have said that they are anxious to ratify this particular Convention, which is bad drafting from our point of view.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to take advantage of a small debating point. It is sufficient for my purpose that this Eight Hours Convention as it stands is not one which this Government will ratify. I think that is quite clear. He may say that you can devise one which the Government will ratify. I dare say, but this particular one will not be ratified, and I assume ought not to be ratified by the Government if they hold the view which the noble Lord has stated. I think he will accept my assurance that that in my opinion is a point of real substance, and not a debating point at all. As regards the matter of revision, I think, although I am not quite certain, that the ten years provision
962
in regard to revision would apply to the Convention if ratified as it now stands.
On the other point I want to say a word or two with regard to the minority question. The reason why I did not mention particular cases was that I was anxious that the matter should be discussed without a word of what I may call the prejudice of particular cases. It is a very unpleasant thing to have to criticise particular cases on these international questions if you can avoid it. I think, as the noble Viscount pointed out, there is a clear defect in the procedure which does not allow the persons or parties really aggrieved to be thoroughly heard and to be parties to that procedure, and you can hardly find fault with minorities if, in those circumstances, they are not satisfied that their interests have been understood and sympathetically considered. That is one of the essential features of really settling any question of this kind—namely, that both parties should be satisfied that they have had a full and straight hearing. I regard that as more important than the noble Viscount does, but I agree that you do not want to stir up matters of this kind. I think the time has come when this country might initiate, as it undoubtedly could, a reconsideration of the points that I have mentioned.
There is one other matter only. Surely the noble Lord does not mean that we have not a great, what I call special, obligation under the Minority Right Treaties that we have signed? I thought it was stated, and stated rightly, that since America is not a party to these Treaties, and did not sign these Treaties, our name, which comes first after America, gives us not only the ordinary obligation of a signatory but really makes our obligation of a special character. The noble Lord, who has been at Geneva, I am sure appreciated that our authority there is very great as regards influence and leading on matters of this kind. You cannot divest yourself of your influence even if you wish to do so, and I hope that we shall never wish to do so, but will use it in the right direction.
There is one matter on which the noble Lord did not touch my point, and that is the Committee of Three. It does nothing to allow an aggrieved party to see that his own case is understood and appreciated, and until you do that I am afraid that a large measure of existing discontent

963
will still continue to exist. As I have said, I should have thought that cases of that kind were sufficiently obvious, and I did not refer to them because I did not want to raise the sort of question which is always raised on these occasions if you seek to bring in particular nations and particular cases. I thank the noble Lord for his answer, although I hope that what he said at one part of his speech—namely, the words "no reform"—will not be the text on which His Majesty's Government will act, but that they will really look into this critical and complicated question and see what is best to be done.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Does the noble Lord press for Papers?
LORD PARMOOR: No.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POISONOUS GAS IN GERMANY.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the explosion of poisonous gas which recently occurred on Stolzenberg's premises in Germany; what is the business carried on by this firm in and since 1920; when, where, and by whom was this poisonous gas manufactured and stored, and when and how did it come into the possession of Stolzenberg's firm and for what purpose; how much of this gas was destroyed in the explosion and how much remained on the premises unexploded; have the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles been complied with which provide for the surrender by Germany for destruction of the then existing war-material, including poisonous gases, and which specifically prohibit the manufacture, importation and use of poisonous gases in Germany; have these provisions been altered since the Treaty, and, if so, when and how; what powers of examination and control over the manufacture, storage and use of poisonous gases in Germany are possessed by the ex-Allied Powers and are these powers being exercised: whether any effective schemes for repelling air-raids on a large scale accompanied by the discharge of poisonous gases have been prepared and worked out by His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing on the Paper in my name. Towards the end of May last the public of this country were shocked by the announcement of a serious explosion of poisonous gas, known as phosgene gas, at Stolzenberg's factory in Hamburg. Many of us were aware that the Treaty of Versailles had absolutely prohibited the manufacture, storage and use of poisonous gas in Germany, and the inquiry naturally arises as to how and when the poisonous gas in question got into the possession of Stolzenberg, and for what purpose it was stored by them. A certain amount of official information has been given since the date of the explosion, but before I refer to it I would like to call your attention to the main provisions of the Treaty of Versailles on this subject of poisonous gas. Article 169 says this:—
"Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty German arms, munitions and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."
I should explain that the Treaty allowed certain specified amounts of arms, munitions, and so on to be retained by Germany, but there was no provision in the Treaty for permitting the retention of any poisonous gas, and the result was that these poisonous gases, according to the Treaty, should have been destroyed at once. Then there is Article 171, which says:—
"The use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials or devices being prohibited, their manufacture and importation are strictly forbidden in Germany."
That is an absolute prohibition of the manufacture, storage and use of these poisonous gases. Since the explosion occurred we have had statements made both in Germany and in this country which show that the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles have been very widely modified and the situation so created is, I think, a very serious one.
In the first place, there was an official German report on the explosion, which was published by Wolff's Telegraphic Bureau on June 1 last, and secondly there was an important answer given by the Foreign Office representative in the House of Commons on June 11. Let me

965
refer first to the German report. It says that this phosgene gas at Stolzenberg's premises was part of the German war material surrendered at the end of the War under the Treaty, and it was sold by a Bureau de liquidation to Stolzenberg's for commercial purposes. But the report contains two rather significant statements. In the first place, it says that it could not be definitely ascertained whether the gas so sold was expressly exempted from destruction at the time. In other words, they are not able to tell us whether there was any authority for the exemption of this gas from destruction. Secondly, they tell us that the Hamburg Senate had ordered the destruction of the remainder of Stolzenberg's socks. Upon that two questions arise, which I have put on the Paper. The first is: By what authority, if any, was this phosgene gas exempted from destruction? The second is: What is the business of the Stolzenberg firm, and for what industrial purposes did they want to get this poisonous gas into their possession?
So much for the German report. I turn to the answer given by the Foreign Office. It appears from that answer that correspondence has for some time been passing on the subject of the manufacture and use in Germany of poisonous gases between the ex-Allied Powers and the German Government., and also between the German Chargé d'Affaires in Paris and the Conference of Ambassadors, and the answer states that the net result of that correspondence is that, while the manufacture, storage, import and export of phosgene gas for war purposes is prohibited in Germany, the manufacture of phosgene gas for industrial purposes is permitted, but is confined to three named factories, and it is not to exceed in amount nine tons a day, or, in other words, 3,285 tons a year. There is, as far as I know—certainly the Foreign Office did not tell us—no restriction whatever on the import of phosgene gas for industrial purposes, although there is this restriction on manufacture. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us whether there is any restriction upon the import of phosgene. These are somewhat alarming facts, especially if it be the case, as I understand it is, that our Government have no power whatever of inspection or
966
examination to see that those provisions limiting the amount of gas which can be manufactured and stored are observed. I venture to ask whether the Government have any such power of inspection or examination to see that those provisions are complied with.
There are other and even more serious matters which arise out of that Foreign Office answer. The answer referred to Articles 1, 2, 3 and 8 of a German law known as the Law on War Material, July 27, 1927, and if any of your Lordships desire to see that law it will be found printed in extenso in the Board of Trade journal of May 17 of this year. That law is a very lengthy one and exceedingly ingeniously framed, but I can give a short summary of its provisions as regards poisonous gases. By Articles 1, 2 and 3 of that law the manufacture, storage, and sale of poisonous gases in Germany and the import and export of such gases into and from Germany is absolutely prohibited. But when you come to see how that prohibition is qualified there is rather a remarkable result. This prohibition only applies to poisonous gases intended for war purposes. Your Lordships will observe that the words are not "capable of being used for war purposes," but if it were desired to show that this provision of the law is being broken you would have to show that the poisonous gas is actually intended for war purposes, which would be difficult, if not altogether impossible. And even as regards poisonous gases intended for industrial purposes there is only one gas on which there is any restriction, and that is phosgene, and the manufacture of phosgene is confined in amount.
It may be said—I am not sure whether it is true, but I have heard it said—that the only gases useful for war purposes as well as for industrial purposes are chlorine and phosgene, and it would be impossible to place restrictions on the manufacture of chlorine gas, because it is an article of such very wide use in commerce. If that statement is correct I suggest that the proper, and indeed the only, effective form of restriction would be to prohibit absolutely the manufacture, storage and import into Germany of all poisonous gases, with the exception of phosgene and chlorine, and to limit the manufacture and import of

967
phosgene. I throw out that suggestion for the consideration of the Government in case they have occasion to revise the rules under which poisonous gases are permitted in Germany. I have looked further into that German law, and there is one article of it which is not referred to in the Foreign Office answer, and so far as I know has never been called attention to in this country. That is of very serious import. I refer to Article 6. The effect of that Article is to enact that the provisions of Article 2 of the law which prohibits the manufacture, storage and sale of war material for home use are not applicable to orders given by German official Departments.
What does that mean? On the face of it, it suggests that the German official Departments can give orders for the manufacture, storage and use of poisonous gases to an unlimited amount and in any place they like, whether such gases are intended for industrial purposes or not. If that is the real meaning, and I confess that I cannot see any other meaning, it gives rise to very serious considerations. It means that, whereas by the Treaty of Versailles the manufacture, storage and sale of poisonous gases were absolutely prohibited, and very properly so, considering what we suffered in the War from the production by Germany of such gases, they have passed a law, I hope without the assent of His Majesty's Government,—perhaps we shall hear that—which allows German official Departments to order, manufacture, store and use poisonous gases to any extent that they think proper. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to clear up that point and to say whether that interpretation is correct. I shall be only too glad to hear that it is incorrect, but if it is correct it seems to me that steps should be taken to see that both this country and other ex-Allied Powers should protest against such a law being accepted in Germany or anywhere else.
Such are some of the considerations that arise from the recent explosion in Germany, but there are far larger considerations involved than those that have arisen out of the Stolzenberg explosion. We all earnestly hope that the determination of the nations of the world to eliminate all possibility of war in the future as a means of settling international disputes may have its full and
968
complete effect, but we cannot, I think, shut our eyes to the appalling consequences that would ensue if, in spite of our hopes, war should break out and poisonous gases in large quantities should be discharged from the air on centres of population. I believe that it is no exaggeration to say that if a nation had a great fleet of aeroplanes, constructed it may be for commercial purposes, and a great store of poisonous gases, they could by a swift and sudden stroke within a few hours destroy the lives of millions of the civil population of the country that was the object of attack. No doubt the country attacked would be able to a certain extent, by the use of anti-aircraft guns and opposing aeroplanes, to act in its own defence, and in the case of our country we are well assured that there are no more skilful, courageous and splendid airmen than we have and no better men in the world. But, if the attacking force came in sufficiently great numbers and with little or no warning, the wholesale destruction of human life would be inevitable. Reprisals might be made, and probably would be made, but the effect of those reprisals would only be to add to the sum total of human destruction and populous cities would become cities of the dead.
Those considerations lead me to ask the Government two questions. The first relates to the world at large, and the other specially concerns the safety of this country. The first question that I would ask His Majesty's Government is this: Have His Majesty's Government taken, or are they taking, in concert with the other nations of the world who are Members of the League of Nations, steps to prohibit absolutely the use of poisonous gases in war? So far as I know, this has not been before the League of Nations, but I venture to suggest that as a precaution—I do not say that it is a complete one—it is vitally important, if we can, to induce the League of Nations to prohibit absolutely and entirely the use of poisonous gases in war. That is one question. The other is this: Have His Majesty's Government worked out any scheme for repelling air raids in this country on a large scale, accompanied by the discharge of poisonous gases? I need hardly say that I do not anticipate that His Majesty's Government would disclose those steps. It would be extremely unwise

969
and improper to ask them to do so, and naturally they would not comply. But I venture to ask His Majesty's Government most seriously whether this point has been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence or by the Cabinet as a whole, and whether adequate schemes are being worked out. The other part of my Notice is a Motion for Papers, and the Papers that I ask for comprise the correspondence that is referred to in the Foreign Office statement in the House of Commons on June 11—namely, the correspondence between the different Governments for the purpose of limiting and defining the use of poisonous gases within the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, even at this late hour I do not apologise for saying one or two words upon a subject which. I believe to be the most important of any of the subjects that face us. It is a subject about which I know something. During the last years of the War, first under the Ministry of Viscount Rothermere and later under Lord Weir, it was my duty to consider the plans of operations for the bombardment of Germany, and consequently the technical side of questions regarding air raids came before me very acutely. This accident at Hamburg has in fact shown what may be done by the escape of poison gas in a town, and the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the account of it was how extremely fortunate Hamburg had been. The gas escaped at the edge of the town, a breeze sprang up which carried it away from the town and later, apparently, rain fell and helped to damp it down. If I may, I should like to remind your Lordships of the affair by a very few extracts from the accounts in The Times.
On May 22 the following account appeared:—
"Meanwhile the gas continued to move south. Passing through the streets and over a tract of land much used by holiday makers, it reached the open country, leaving a trail of victims in its wake. Its effects are stated to have been felt up to six miles away. Many cattle were overcome by it and have since had to be slaughtered. … The danger, however, is not over, for phosgene, which is heavier than air, keeps to the ground level, and there are many 'pockets' of gas still hanging about in the district. The best thing that could happen now would be a heavy fall of rain, which would neutralise it, but a change of wind might redistribute it and produce fresh disaster."
970
Then came the later communiqué of the 23rd May:—
"It is realised that if the wind had been blowing from another direction and there had been no rain a very serious disaster would have occurred. The experiences of the affected area are widely described in the Press as a foretaste of the fate of civilian populations in the next war, and the occasion is used as propaganda, on the one hand for pacifism, and on the other hand for the movement, of Nationalist origin, in favour of militarism and civil defence measures on a large scale against gas attacks by hostile aircraft."
That is a short resumé of what happened in Hamburg. That was extremely fortunate for Hamburg. But what would have happened if it had taken place in the centre of the town? If in another war—if we are to have another war—a bomb of gas is dropped in a centre of this kind what is to happen if a breeze does spring up? The only difference in effect of a breeze is that it will blow it from one street into the next leaving a trail of dead and gassed people as it goes.
Very few people have considered what a very deadly thing this is. I will take as an example an area with which we are all familiar. I am not going to give my own figures. Take a triangle composed of the centre of London, from Chalk Farm in the north to Clapham on the south and the docks in the east. That triangle really contains most of what is important in London. It contains the most densely populated areas and the most important areas. The total amount of phosgene gas to produce a lethal atmosphere over the whole of that area up to forty feet is under 2,000 tons. From the war figures, 2,000 tons was a negligible amount for an enemy to be able to put in. That amount could be put in by enemy aircraft at the present time. Much more so on the Continent than here you have civilian aircraft very largely increased, and the principal difference between the civilian passenger aircraft of modern construction and the bombing machines is the cargo. You have merely got to put on a machine-gun, take out the passengers, take out the luggage and put in bombs, and you have a bomber. I saw in the newspapers three or four days ago a record of a machine which had flown from Brussels to Cologne and took, besides her own pilot, fifteen passengers and 2,000 lbs. of luggage

971
freight. Convert that into bombs and you see that it would not require a very great number of aeroplanes to come over with 2,000 tons of gas and scatter it over London. It is a terrible and horrible thought that this danger might be hanging over us. In season and out of season I have preached it ever since the end of the War. In France, M. Michelin has done it with more effect, and in Belgium M. Brifaud, I think, has probably convinced the Belgians. Apparently we still remain unconvinced.
Up till now I have been dealing only with phosgene gas. Phosgene gas for the purposes of war is as out-of-date as the blunderbuss. Let me read something to show the sort of gas they are going to use. I am going to refer to the more modern gases, those which have been brought up-to-date. The gases which I have in mind are gases whose base is arsenic and they are brought over in liquid form so that they do not have to have any specially strong containers. They are blown up into a fine smoke by a small amount of high explosive. This is what is said about them:—
"In man, slight and transitory nasal irritation is appreciable after an exposure of five minutes to as little as one part of diphenylchloroarsine in 200 million parts of air, and as the concentration is increased the irritation shows itself sooner and in rapidly - increasing severity. Marked symptoms are produced by exposure to one part of diphenylchloroarsine in fifty million parts of air, and it may be stated in general that this concentration forms the limit of tolerance of ordinary individuals for an exposure lasting five minutes. … The Germans state that diphenylcyanoarsine is an even more powerful irritant than diphenylchloroarsine. These substances are generally used to cause such sensory irritation that the victim is unable to tolerate a respirator, and they are therefore often followed by an attack of asphyxiant gases."
There you have the modern gas. Translate those figures into the ones I gave you—2,000 tons to a concentration of one in a million. It comes down to only forty tons of this new gas.
It will be answered: "Oh yes, but you are assuming that each bomb is most carefully spread in mathematical precision all over the area." I agree. But double, treble, and multiply by ten, and you still have only something in the nature of 400 tons to do the thing ten times over. It is not a matter only of people who are going necessarily to be killed. Even a
972
bad attack of gassing would not be very pleasant.
"A remarkable feature of the severe gases is the intense mental distress which accompanies the symptoms. Even slight cases feel and look miserable until the irritation passes off, and the picture of utter dejection and hopeless misery furnished by severe cases has no counter-part in any other type of gas poisoning. Occasionally the physical depression results in the temporary loss of mental control and men have been known to act as though driven mad by their pain and misery."
That is a danger which is menacing us now. Think of it in other terms. How does it compare with the raids with which we are familiar and the use of high explosive? Consider one type of bomb we were using. We knew pretty well what the result of it was going to be. We know better now because a Commission went over to Germany to find out exactly what our bombs did. We had guessed pretty well what they had done from what we knew the Germans had done to us.
Take the bomb I have in mind—one of our largest bombs. Assume that it dropped in Piccadilly Circus and that it made a direct hit on the Criterion. It would probably have demolished that building. Everybody in the building would probably have been killed, and a few outside might have been killed or hurt. The danger from destruction would then have been over. If the bomb dropped in Piccadilly Circus and did not hit any building the casualties would be far fewer. Even so, once the explosion had occurred the danger would be over. Consider that same bomb filled with this poison gas that I have just been talking about. You would get an atmosphere which would kill every man, woman and child in an area from Regent's Park to the Thames. The figures I have given are not exaggerated. I would to God that they were, but they are not. The book I have been reading from is not a book picked up casually anywhere. It is a book published by our War Office as the Manual of Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare. It is published at 9d. and I would suggest that it should be given away. If every adult in this country were to read that, you might have such a wave of indignant and righteous horror that people would do anything to make some agreement which would put

973
these things under international control and prevent their use in future warfare. That is one suggestion I put forward.
What else can we do to prevent this? Let us see what we can do. The noble Lord who asked this Question pointed out that the Treaty of Versailles prevented the making and storage of these gases. He has pointed out that German legislation has modified that. I am sorry to say that in my view it does not make a bit of difference what Treaties you have, or what regulations you have, because I do not think that they matter at all. As a chemist it occurred to me that it would be perfectly impossible that these two gases could not be made, and made in large quantities, at the last moment, but in order to be quite certain I wrote to one of our biggest industrial chemists, a very highly technical man, who also has the advantage of knowing the actual works that there are in Germany, their capacity, and how they work. I mentioned to him three of them, not because I believe for a moment they are carrying on any sinister brewing of poison gases—on the contrary—but because they are perhaps the three best known firms, and are of the highest integrity. They are Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik, of Ludwigshaven, Meister Lucius, of Hoechst, and Bayer, of Leverkusen.
I wrote to him and I asked him if in his opinion, knowing these works, it would be possible for these people to manufacture these poison gases if they switched over from their ordinary legitimate work to their manufacture. This is the answer I got:—
"From what I can gather, the two 'gases,' diphenylchloroarsine and diphenyl-cyanoarsine could be produced in large quantities very readily, since the reagents necessary for their production are amongst the commonest used in manufacturing chemistry—namely, aniline, sodium nitrite, sodium arsenite, sodium bisulphite, sulphur dioxide and sodium or potassium cyanide.
"The plant that is used for this manufacture is similar to that used in the coupling stage of the manufacture of azo dyes, and, in addition, tiled lined iron vats are mentioned as necessary, but these are usually readily available in a dyestuff factory.
"It would appear that the production of these two bodies is not a tedious process, but probably a matter of two or three days from the beginning of the diazotisation of aniline to the isolation of the final product would be ample. If we assumed that the three firms which you mention would be
974
prepared to discontinue their ordinary manufacture of azo dyestuffs and turn the whole of their resources on to the manufacture of these two 'gases,' it would seem to me that in a week they would be able to produce 100 tons a day of the diphenylchloroarsine. From this the diphenylcyanoarsine is obtained in apparently theoretical yield by treating with sodium or potassium cyanide."
If that is true, or if anything like it is true, that in a week's time they could produce 100 tons a day when all they need theoretically for London is 40 tons, what is the good of having people who are going round to inspect and to see how much they have? It is like telling a man he may keep fire and oil, but that he must not keep boiling oil. He does not boil it until he wants it hot. They are not going to turn over their works until the last moment, but if they were ever evilly disposed they might do so and in a week's time would be turning out 100 tons a day of these gases. I do not think you are going to get much further with that.
There is another possibility, and that is reprisals. It is poor consolation that the only answer we can find to the destruction of half civilisation is that we should be able to destroy the other half. Surely there must be something better than that. The matter does not end there as far as reprisals are concerned. When one is considering a bombardment of Germany one of the first things to take into account is the question as to how easy it is to get into Germany and how easy it is for Germany to get to us. We are not in a position for reprisals. Geographically we are wrong. We have got our big centres, London and some of our big ports, right on the edge of our frontier because we are a very small island. Germany has her centres well inside her territory. The result is that the Germans would be in a better position to bombard London from the edge of German territory than we should ever be to bombard German centres from the edge of English territory. Even when we were operating as far up as Nancy and Belfort-Verdun in French territory we were at a disadvantage with regard to Germany. I do not say now, and I do not suggest now, that Germany is anything but a friendly country, but one has to look to what may happen in the future. Is there anything to prevent Germany taking a half-way

975
aerodrome somewhere in Belgium? If she did so, she would be in a position to bomb us and we should be in a very poor position to bomb her.
And the matter does not end there. Germany has far more machines than we have. We have not got the machines. It is idle to take merely the so-called war machines and say there is a certain number of them in Germany and a certain number of them here. Civilian machines count just as much. They can be converted, and the effect is that Germany is in a very much better position than we are. What else can we do to stop it? What else has been suggested to stop it? Defence squadrons of scouts. They are useless. The War proved that a determined attack could always get through. There may be casualties, but the attack will get through. Furthermore, the manœuvres over London last year, if any further proof were wanted, have shown that. I seem to be in rather good company when I make that statement, because I read in The Times last week—on July 6—this:—
"Sir Samuel Hoare, Secretary of State for Air, speaking on 'Disarmament and the Church' at the Anglo-Catholic Anniversary Congress at the Albert Hall yesterday, emphasised the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations machinery to deal with a sudden mobilisation of an air arm in cases of future international disputes. He said that while in each successive year since 1925 we had reduced the amount of Air Estimates, the other principal Powers of the world had steadily increased their expenditure on air armaments. In France, for example, the figure for 1928 was some 45 per cent. greater than that for 1925, while corresponding increases in the cases of Italy and the United States were 56 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively. He was convinced that a general guarantee that depended for much of its success upon a period of delay would, by itself, be insufficient to deal with a sudden air attack delivered at a nation's heart."
It has been proved over and over again that scouts cannot keep out a determined bombing squadron.
Furthermore, nobody would suggest in these days if it came to a question of war that there would be one solitary raid. You cannot keep the scout up in the air the whole time. He has to come down for petrol. I do not say that this is a fact, but I should think it was doubtful unless the scout was up in the air and the enemy attacking force was signalled before they crossed the coast,
976
that he would ever be able to reach them at all before they got to London. Coming at the height of modern bombers, I very much doubt whether he would ever have the time to do it. That certainly would never keep them out. So we are back in the position that here is a hideous danger and there seem to me to be only two possible ways out. One is to give it the greatest publicity that you can all over the world so as to get people to realise the danger that they are in, and get them to come together and say that they will not have this hideous danger again in their midst. That seems to me at present to be probably the most practicable and the most lasting suggestion. In the meantime there are other suggestions. There must be many, of course, and I cannot believe that there is no answer to this danger. Having written a good deal about it I have received a very great number of suggestions, some of which seem to have a certain degree of possibility of success. But I do not know to whom to send them. Officials seem to take no interest in them. It seems to me that there might be got together a body of people with really big scientific brains to try to tackle this enormous question, to take an interest in it and to see whether some solution cannot be found. But it must be done now. If you ask any expert he will agree with me that at this present moment London is at the mercy of any nation that is close enough and is evilly disposed enough to come and obliterate it. London could be absolutely and completely obliterated. Therefore, we must do something now, "or it may fall we have slain our sons as our fathers we have betrayed."
LORD RAYLEIGH: My Lords, I associate myself entirely with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said about the impracticability of preventing the manufacture of these noxious substances in Germany or, indeed, in any other country. The chemical processes involved are simple. Take, for instance, the mustard gas which was the most noxious of the gases used during the War, and, perhaps, the most noxious gas in the strict sense of the term which could be produced even now. The materials required for producing it are chlorine, which is made from a solution of ordinary salt; sulphur, which we dig

977
out of the ground just as it is; and ethylene gas which we can readily produce from alcohol. Those substances have merely to be worked up in a very simple way with which I will not trouble your Lordships, and you have mustard gas, the most deadly, perhaps, of the purely gaseous substances, as it might be used in an attack on Landon. It is evident that you cannot prevent the Germans from having salt. It is evident that you cannot prevent them having sulphur. It is evident that you cannot prevent them having alcohol. It seems to me, therefore, to be worse than futile to attack the problem by way of prohibitive regulations.
Is it possible or desirable, then, to do anything? I want for a moment to remind your Lord ships of an incident in the War at an early stage which I think it is instructive to recall in this connection. You will remember that there was no protection of our harbours against the attack of submarines. I ventured to ask a highly-placed naval officer who was in power at the Admiralty—naturally, I shall not mention his name—why nothing of the kind had been done and the answer he gave was that for his part he had not regarded the effective range and number of submarines to be such that they could, from the German bases, reach our harbours. Therefore, the time for doing anything was not ripe and the attention of himself and his colleagues was concentrated on other matters. The result was that they did nothing. What happened when the sincerity of that conviction was really put to the proof? The moment war broke out I think I shall not be exaggerating when I say that our naval officers in command of and responsible for the safety of our ships were at once in what I might call colloquially a "blue funk" when they were in harbour. That danger which had appeared so remote in time of peace immediately and without anything fresh having happened, or without any new light on the matter being available, became at once actual and formidable. I think that is an analogous case.
We shall probably be told by the noble Marquess who replies for the Government—at least what I have learned from conversations I have had rather leaves me with the view—that the gloomy
978
apprehensions of the noble Lord are really not well founded and that the time is not ripe for such steps as he has suggested to be taken; but, as in the case of submarine attack, you are more likely to be impressed by a threat when it has actually materialised than you are when it is only in remote prospect. What, then, can we do now? It seems to me that one of the things we can do is to make preparation in case of need for evacuating London. People will say, of course, that you cannot evacuate London, the dimensions of the problem are so gigantic. I want to point out that when the attack actually occurs, if it does occur, London will be evacuated, possible or impossible. People will flock out of London. The only question as it seems to me is as to whether they will flock out of London irregularly, trampling upon one another and starving, perhaps, in the country when they get there for lack of any systematic method of supplying their needs; or whether they will flock out of London in a comparatively orderly and effective manner, such as might be secured if proper plans for mobilising them out of London were worked out now. That, I venture to think, is a suggestion which is not impracticable and which involves in the main only paper work as to how to make the best use of the available resources for getting the people out of London in the greatest possible numbers and in the smallest possible time, and how to provide some means of keeping their bodies and souls together when they are got out of London. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion, for what it may be worth is that something should be done for making gas proof the more vital buildings which are necessary for carrying out administration. This, again, may not be a very expensive or difficult matter and I submit that it should be done now. There is no doubt that if these buildings were carefully secured against the entrance of poison gas, at any rate a very considerable breathing space in every sense of the word would be obtained and the danger would not be so immediate of all administrative work being suddenly cut off at the centre as would otherwise be the case.
My third suggestion is relevant to the point made by my noble friend who last spoke—namely, the use of these arsenical

979
gases which are far more poisonous than the truly gaseous substances which were in use during the War. These arsenical gases are not gases in the true sense of the word but are rather of the nature of finely divided smoke, consisting of solid particles. It has been discovered, and the fact is used in industry, that such smoke may be aggregated with almost miraculous rapidity. The process was discovered in the first instance by Sir Oliver Lodge and has since been developed by him and his assistants in connection with various industrial processes. It consists in suspending highly electrified conductors in the air to be cleared. The theory of the process does not here concern us, but the fact is, and here is the important point, that the smoke aggregates very rapidly and settles down on the conductors which are discharging into the surrounding air. It seems to me that vital areas might to a certain extent be protected in that way. I do not suppose that casual ideas of that kind, thrown out here, are of any value, beyond mere suggestions to be developed, and it is only in that sense that I have put them before your Lordships. Another suggestion, which is due to my noble friend who has just spoken, is that it might be possible to some extent to suck these gases away through the sewers of London, which might be adapted for that purpose. Of course that raises technical questions far beyond anything which can be discussed here, and I merely mention it as a vague idea, in the same sense as I have mentioned my previous suggestion. Those are the only remarks with which I would trouble your Lordships this evening, but I associate myself with what was said before about this being a question of extreme gravity, even although the whole thing may not be quite so bad as the most extreme pictures would suggest.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I only rise to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord opposite in many particulars. The part to which I would refer more particularly is the question of Air policy, to which I have devoted a certain amount of study. I agree with practically everything that was said by the noble Earl, and by the last speaker. I think, however, that while they have painted a true picture they did not do quite sufficient justice to the deterrent effect of an Air Force in
980
this country for the purpose of defence. The very horrors that they have described are sufficient to prevent any hostile power from lightly attacking a country possessing an efficient Air Force. It is upon that line that I am sure the Air Ministry will always work—namely, the provision of an adequate Air Force to act as a deterrent; but I will admit that that is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. I agree with the description given of all the horrors, but although the suggestions made by the two noble Lords are very ingenious, I think it will be agreed that they are not likely to be very effective. I certainly think, however, that any steps which are considered practicable should be studied early on, and that work should start at once, but in my view the suggestion which fell from Lord Halsbury is the only one at all practicable—namely, that we should give full publicity to this state of affairs and let everyone know the facts, and then we may excite public opinion sufficiently to render possible some sort of international agreement to make these horrors impossible.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sorry that my reply to this Question has to be made at so late an hour, but I shall try not to detain you at any great length. I say this because a good many of the speeches dealt with topics which do not arise directly out of the Question on the Paper, but have, in the manner which prevails and perhaps happily prevails in your Lordships' House, wandered over a very wide field. My noble friends behind me have dealt with certain subjects of the very greatest importance, which they themselves recognise, and which deserve a very careful reply. I am not prepared at this moment to deal with all the topics which Lord Halsbury and Lord Rayleigh have raised. After all, one ought to be very careful in what one says upon topics of that description. There is much truth in what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said. There are great dangers. The horrors which he depicted are not without foundation, but there are other dangers. There are dangers of over-alarming the public mind and even of panic. I do not think there is any occasion for panic or for over-alarming the public mind, and I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if any words fell from me which would lead

981
to that conclusion. I might even say that Lord Halsbury might reflect upon that consideration when he speaks on these occasions, because every word spoken by responsible men and men of knowledge like himself in this House, cannot be without very grave effect outside.
I therefore do not propose to deal with that part of the debate. I will only say this, that I think any one who listened to Lord Rayleigh, who speaks from a position of great scientific knowledge on these subjects, must recognise that although the last word of science has not been said in the attack, so also the last word of science has not been said in the defence, and there may be many methods to mitigate the possible severity of the attack which have not yet been discovered or perhaps, if discovered, may not be dealt with. Therefore, although I do not of course criticise those speeches, yet I would ask to be excused from replying to them in detail without the advantage of that careful consideration beforehand which would be due, considering the importance of the issues which they raise. The noble Lord who has just sat down will, I am sure, support me when I say that these things are well known in the Service offices of this country, and that even the citation which Lord Halsbury himself made of the Secretary of State for Air's speech, shows how acutely sensitive the responsible Government Departments are to these very considerations. They are matters, of course—I was going to say of hourly consideration—of constant consideration. They are matters which are always before their eyes and no praise is due to them for that, because of course it is their duty and what they are there for.
I turn then, if I may, to the Question on the Paper, and I am going to give an answer to every one of the Questions—the best answer I can—but I would say to begin with that there is a limitation on my capacity for giving full answers, in that all these subjects to which the noble Lord refers are at the present moment the subject of diplomatic discussion with the French Government, and while that discussion is going on it is impossible to speak positively or quite freely. I am sure my noble friend, understanding these things, will recognise that
982
that is the case. Therefore he will excuse me if in any particular I do not go so fully into the matter as he would wish. Before I actually approach his Questions I will make one further general remark. My noble friend knows, because he quoted it, that there has been a report upon this explosion made by the German Government. That has been published, and the noble Lord is aware of what was contained in the report. Now, I deprecate the sort of air of suspicion which some of those who deal with these topics adopt towards the German Government. I do not think that is right. Of course, it is our business to see that the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles are fulfilled, but we must treat the German Government, which is a friendly Government now, as a Government of good faith and good will, and we must accept prima facie, of course, their assurances and the reports which they present to their own Parliament. I see no reason why we should not.
I have one last general observation to make. As things stand, these matters of the German armaments and the obligations upon Germany under the Treaty have passed from the direct control of the Allied and Associated Powers to the League of Nations itself under the powers of Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles; and, therefore, although of course, as a Member of the League of Nations, we have both the right and the obligation to play our own part, the matter is no longer in the condition in which it was a few years ago. Then there was the Commission of Control in Germany, which was furnished by the Allies: now that is no longer the case. That control has disappeared, and, in conformity with Article 213 of the Treaty of Versailles, the supervision of the Articles providing for German disarmament has passed away from the Allies to the League of Nations itself. It is only through that great organisation, and by the machinery which that organisation provides that the matter can be approached.
LORD DANESFORT: May I ask whether the League of Nations have any machinery for exercising that supervision under Article 213?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish my noble friend and colleague, the

983
Chancellor of the Duchy, were still here; he would have replied at once to that question. I do not know whether they have actual machinery, but, of course, they have the capacity for creating that machinery at any moment, and very likely they have the actual machinery itself. Now I will answer the noble Lord's specific Questions. The first Question is whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the explosion of poisonous gas which recently occurred on Stolzenberg's premises. The answer is: Yee. The second Question is—
"What is the business carried on by this firm in and since 1920?"
The answer is: The firm of Stolzenberg does not appear to have started business until 1923, but it has since then been engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. It was mentioned in the spring of 1927 in the British and German Press and in the Reichstag in connection with the establishment of a poison gas factory at Trotzk in Soviet Russia in 1923. Certain other alleged activities of this firm are at present the subject of diplomatic correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the French Government.
The third Question is:—
"When, where, and by whom was this poisonous gas manufactured and stored, and when, and how, did it come into the possession of Stolzenberg's firm and for what purpose?"
The answer is: According to an official report published by Wolff's Telegraphic Bureau (of which a translation was sent to my noble friend) all the phosgene stored on Stolzenberg's premises in Hamburg came originally from war stocks belonging to the old Army. The exact circumstances in which it may have passed into Stolzenberg's possession are unknown. The sale of certain war stocks of phosgene appears at one time to have been authorised by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control, but the archives of that body are stored in Paris, and the question whether or not any part of the war stocks in question can have passed legitimately into the possession of the Stolzenberg firm is at present the subject of diplomatic correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the French Government.
984
The fourth Question is:—
"How much of this gas was destroyed in the explosion, and how much remained on the premises unexploded?"
The answer is: According to the official report the container which exploded held 10,400 litres of liquid phosgene. At the moment when the report was issued (that is to say, on June 1, twelve days after the explosion) the stores on the Stolzenberg premises were said to consist of two containers, holding 10,000 kilogrammes each, and 3,000 steel bottles, with, in all, 55,000 kilogrammes of phosgene.
The fifth Question is:—
"Have the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles been complied with which provide for the surrender by Germany for destruction of the then existing war material, including poisonous gases, and which specifically prohibit the manufacture, importation and use of poisonous gases in Germany?"
Answer: The Commission of Control was withdrawn at the beginning of 1927 because the ex-Allied Governments were satisfied that these provisions, among others, had been executed by the German Government. This question is at present the subject of diplomatic correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the French Government.
The sixth Question is:—
"Have these provisions been altered since the Treaty, and, if so, when and how?"
Answer: Inasmuch as certain chemical products utilisable as poison gas are normally used in the ordinary course of industrial production, the German War Material Law, in which the Treaty stipulations have been elaborated and defined by agreement between the ex-Allied Governments and the German Government, permits the manufacture of these products in specified quantities and circumstances.
The seventh Question is:—
"What powers of examination and control over the manufacture, storage and use of poisonous gases in Germany are possessed by the ex-Allied Powers, and are these powers being exercised?"
Answer: No such powers are now possessed by the ex-Allied Governments, the investigation of alleged breaches of the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles having passed to the Council of the League of Nations on January 21, 1927.

985
The eighth Question is:—
"Whether any effective scheme for repelling air raids on a large scale, accompanied by the discharge of poisonous gases, has been prepared and worked out by His Majesty's Government?"
Answer: The development of this organisation is, of course, a matter which is engaging the continuous attention of the Air Ministry and War Office, and the noble Lord will be aware that a considerably increased provision has been made during the last few years for the defence of this country against air attack. Little more than five years ago there were only five squadrons of the Royal Air Force available for this purpose. As a result of the scheme of expansion approved in 1923, which will ultimately provide a total of 52 squadrons, that number has already risen to 31. Considerable progress has also been made in the provision and training of anti-aircraft units on the ground, such as guns and searchlights. Finally, a great advance has been made in securing the most effective co-ordination of our available resources by concentrating in a single Command under an Air Officer Commanding in Chief responsibility for the whole system of air defence.
In addition to the Questions that appeared upon the Paper, my noble friend has favoured my advisers with a further supplementary Question—namely, What is the effect of the German Law on War Material of July 27, 1927, in respect of Clause 6? The answer is that the effect is not so wide as my noble friend suggests. The effect of these passages is merely to give the German Government the necessary facilities for arming the German Forces to the extent laid down in the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent agreements with the Military Commission of Control. Obviously, for instance, it would be absurd if orders given by the German Ministry of Defence were not to be excepted from the operation of Clause 2 of the War Material Law, which states that "war material must neither be manufactured, stored or sold for home use." If you allow certain forces under the Treaty, they must be permitted to arm them.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but does that mean that the German Government
986
can manufacture and store poisonous gases which are for war purposes?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It means that they are strictly limited in respect of all armaments under the Treaty of Versailles and by agreements of the Powers, and that the very limited forces which the Germans are permitted have been allowed to be armed, which is not unreasonable. My noble friend finally asks for Papers to be laid. I understand that the Papers that he wants are those referred to in the correspondence mentioned in the reply given by my right hon. friend Mr. Locker-Lampson to Sir William Davison in the House of Commons on June 11—that is to say, the exchange of Notes between the German Chargé d'Affaires at Paris and the Conference of Ambassadors.
LORD DANESFORT: I added the correspondence referred to in that answer between the ex-Allied Powers and the German Government. If that has already been published—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure. The text has not, I believe, been published, and in that case I see no reason why the Papers should not be published if they interest the noble Lord. I think that I have now dealt with all the topics raised. I apologise to your Lordships for having detained you at such length at this hour. The matter is of very great importance, and I certainly do not complain of my noble friend having raised it.
LORD DANESFORT: I have to thank the noble Marquess very much for his very clear statement in answer to my Questions. I think there is only one point that he did not really answer, and that is the question, which was not on the Paper, whether the British Government would do their best with the League of Nations to get recorded an absolute prohibition of poisonous gases in wartime. I do not press the noble Marquess at the moment, but that is a point which I trust the British Government will bear in mind. After what the noble Marquess has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Proceedings of yesterday with respect to, ordered to be vacated, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
CLEETHORPES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

BEDFORDSHIRE, ETC., ELEC TRICITY (LITTLE BARFORD GENERATING STATION) ORDER 1928.
Special Order in respect of the compulsory acquisition of lands for a generating station in the parish of Little Barford, in the rural district of Eaton Socon, in the County of Bedford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BRIGHTLINGSEA ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Brightlingsea, in the County of Essex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NEW MILLS ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of New Mills, in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
To be read 2aon Tuesday next.