Sitting of 6 March 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Bromborough Dock Bill.
Metropolitan Railway (Various Powers) Bill.
Bills committed.
Barnsley Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Chesterfield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Maidstone Corporation Bill (by Order),
Mitcham Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Nottingham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Rawmarsh Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Rugby Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Torquay Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PEACE TREATIES.

    HUNGARY (BRITISH DEBTS).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire of the Hungarian Government the reason for their non-admission of British debts represented by claims against; the Hungarian Government and the city of Budapest; and will he instruct our representative in Hungary to protest against the dilatory methods of the Hungarian authorities in respect of the outstanding claims lodged with them by the British administrator of Hungarian property?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer
    I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a similar question asked by him on 4th December last. I should add that about 80 per cent. of the total British claims against the Municipality of Budapest have been admitted, and further admissions are coming in regularly. With regard to claims in respect of Hungarian Government securities, as no agreement has been reached with the Hungarian Government, steps are being taken to refer the matter to the Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary to adopt the course indicated in the last part of the question. But if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular cases of claims against the Municipality of Budapest, or of other claims, not being claims in respect of Hungarian Government securities, where there has been undue delay on the part of the Hungarian Clearing Office, he should communicate on the matter with the Administrator of Hungarian Property, who will be pleased to take up such cases with the Hungarian Clearing Office.

    FRENCH AND RUHR DISTRICT
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the French action in the Ruhr is causing supplies of coke and pig-iron to

    207
    be despatched from this country to Germany to the detriment of our own iron industry; that Bradford ironfounders may shortly be compelled to shut down in consequence; and if he can take any steps in the matter?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that there has been a considerable increase in the demand for coke for export, but I understand that coke manufacturers are fully alive to the necessity of meeting the inland demand.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that the shortage of coke in this country just now is not so much due to the ovens not being at work, as to the fact that the coalowners can get such high prices for their raw coal that it does not pay them to make coke?
    Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 1,100 tons of coal were exported from Maryport, Cumberland, last week, and the consequence of that is to produce unemployment at a quicker rate than the Labour Department with their schemes can meet it?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Obviously, I cannot answer about any specific case. There are a good many factors, I think, which contribute, and certainly one of the factors leading to an increase of prices is the increased demand.
    Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I shall mention this matter on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 2,500 ovens shut down which ought to be working, and making coke?

    RAILWAYS (BRITISH CONTROL).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the railway on the right bank of the Rhine which runs, or ran, through the British sphere is to be retained under British control; and whether approaches have been made to His Majesty's Government to surrender the control of the railways to the French?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The proposals for the final settlement of the transport question in the British zone,
    208
    which are still the subject of negotiations, do not provide for French control of any railways in the British zone.

    BRITISH TRADE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister what the Rhineland High Commission have decided as to the consignment of oxide of tin bought and paid for by an English firm and held up at Emmerich by the French?
    Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz has not yet reported with regard to this consignment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: As this has been going on for over a week now with great loss to the British importer, can any steps be taken to accelerate a settlement of this very important question?
    Mr. McNEILL: The Government are quite aware of the seriousness of the question and we have been doing all we can to accelerate it. But it involves a good deal of difficult and intricate negotiation. I do not think any time has avoidably been lost.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the hindrances which are being placed upon the Yorkshire woollen and worsted trade in the Ruhr by the French administrators in that part of Germany; whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of Sir Henry Whitehead, the president of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, to the effect which the French occupation of the Ruhr is having upon the Yorkshire woollen trade; and if he can have representations made to the French Government with a view to removing these hindrances to trade?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the difficulties of trading with occupied Germany in present circumstances. If British traders whose interests are adversely affected by the application of the existing regulations to contracts entered into before the recent occupation of the Ruhr will send particulars of their difficulties to the Board of Trade, with full details of the goods affected, steps will be taken to bring their cases to the notice of the French and Belgian authorities in the occupied areas with a view to facilities being accorded to them.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the occupation of the Ruhr a very good trade was gradually being resumed between the West Riding manufacturers and the South-West part of Germany and that since the occupation difficulties have been placed in the way of that trade which are making it impossible for it to be carried on?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think difficulties are placed in the way of many trades. As regards existing contracts, which stand on a peculiar footing, we are trying to make special arrangements which will enable these contracts to be dealt with.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DYE INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any power to supervise the regulations of the associations of dyers in this country in the event of their enforcing regulations which impose a handicap on our textile manufacturers; and is he aware that the Bradford Association of Dyers, by insisting that a minimum of six pieces of cloth should be dyed to any one shade, are hindering our manufacturers, since the custom abroad is to allow a minimum of two pieces to any one shade?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter appears to be one for discussion between the interests concerned.

    FOREIGN EXCHANGES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some foreign countries, acting probably with the idea of bettering their exchange position, are placing obstacles in the way of the payment by their nationals of debts to British traders by making restrictive and constantly varying regulations in regard to the transfer of money abroad; and, seeing that this is a serious handicap to the restoration of our foreign trade, whether he will, if given a specific instance, consider the propriety of making friendly representations to the country concerned on the subject?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am well aware of the difficulties which attend the recovery of debts owing to British traders in certain European countries, difficulties which are undoubtedly enhanced in many cases by Government regulations of exchange transactions. Representations have already been made in certain cases where exceptional difficulties have been occasioned by Government measures in the foreign countries concerned, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will submit particulars of the specific case which he has in mind I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to what further action in this direction can usefully be taken.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (PICTURE POST- CARDS).
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that picture postcards, executed in 50 different designs, with English texts, are being supplied by German manufacturers to stationers in Great Britain at the price of 2s. 6d. per gross; that the cards bear an imprint of a London firm as publisher but no imprint of the country of origin; and whether the merchandise marks legislation promised by the Government will contain provisions to stop the importation of unmarked goods of this description?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My attention has been drawn to an offer by a German firm to supply such postcards, the importation of which, if they are correctly described in the question, is prohibited under the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. I am informed that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are bringing the matter to the notice of Customs officers throughout the country with a view to action being taken should any attempt be made to import cards of the description in question.

    MONTHLY EXPORTS.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the total monthly exports from this country have increased or decreased since 1st November, 1922, and what are the figures of the increase or decrease?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer contains a table of figures; and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The table is as follows:
    The following statement shows the declared values of the total exports from the United Kingdom registered during the months of November and December,

    Month.

    Total exports during month.

    Increase (+) or Decrease (-) compared with the —

    previous month.

    corresponding month a year earlier.

    1922.

    £

    £

    £

    November

    …

    …

    …

    …

    75,639,000

    (+) 6,963,000

    (+) 2,921,000

    December

    …

    …

    …

    …

    67,362,000

    (-) 8,277,000

    (-) 1,216,000

    1923.

    January

    …

    …

    …

    …

    76,737,000

    (+) 9,375,000

    (+) 5,131,000

    The figures for December are affected by the interruption of trade caused by the Christmas Holidays.
    Particulars for the month of February, 1923, are not yet available.

    BROADCASTING APPARATUS.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what proportion of the broadcasting or listening-in apparatus now in use in this country was made in this country?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret that I have no reliable information on the subject.

    GAS CHARGES.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Departmental Committee, which was appointed to inquire as to the method of charging for gas on a thermal basis, will be available to Members?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Report is being printed, and will, I hope, be issued this week.

    FLOUR AND OFFALS.
    Major EDMONDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion the total amount of flour imported
    1922, and January, 1923, respectively; and, for each of these months, the increase or decrease compared with the total for (a) the previous month and (b) the corresponding month a year earlier:
    ported into this country bears to the total amount of wheat imported; what amount of offals, if any, are exported; and what proportion this amount bears to the total amount of offals obtained from wheat ground in this country?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Taking the mean yearly imports of wheat during the three years, 1920–22, and making allowances for the difference in stocks at the beginning and end of the period and for foreign matter contained in the wheat, the amount of imported wheat available for milling in this country may be estimated at about 4,678,000 tons: a year. Assuming a 70 per cent. extraction, this amount of wheat would yield 3,274,600 tons of flour. The mean yearly import of wheat meal and flour during the same period was 688,197 tons, or 21 per cent. of the estimated flour equivalent of the imported wheat. The mean yearly export of corn offals (mainly wheat offals) for 1920–22 amounted to 56,014 tons. In the absence of exact information with regard to the quantity of wheat ground in this country, it may be estimated, on the basis of the figures already given, with an addition of 1,395,000 tons of homegrown wheat, that the yield of offals was approximately 1,800,000 tons yearly, of which not more than about 3 per cent. was exported.

    PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION (GLASGOW STEAMSHIPS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will have inquiry made into the accommodation provided for steerage passengers in steamers plying between Glasgow, Belfast, and Dublin; and
    (2) if he will have inquiry made into the service of steamers between Glasgow and the Western Isles and also into the accommodation provided for the passengers on board those steamers?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The passenger steamers referred to are surveyed once at least in every year by the Government surveyors, and cannot ply unless they are found fit in every respect, including accommodation, for the service intended. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any specific complaint about any particular ship, I will have the matter looked into. The general adequacy of a service for the needs of a particular district or trade is a matter for the shipowners and not for the Board of Trade.

    MR. E. F. WISE, C.B.
    Major BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of Mr. E. F. Wise, C.B., acting Assistant Secretary at the Board of Trade, who has resigned from His Majesty's Civil Service in order to act as economic adviser in respect of foreign trade to the central union of the Soviet Russian co-operative societies (centrosoyus) and as a director of their London offices, he will say whether this gentleman has had official access to documents setting forth the claims of British subjects whose properties in Russia have been confiscated and disclosing their sources of information in that country; and whether he will be at liberty to communicate the confidential knowledge so obtained to his new employers and the Russian Soviet Government?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Mr. Wise, who was temporarily attached to the Board of Trade, has not been employed in the Russian Claims Department which deals with the claims to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. But as a member of the staff of the British Delegation at The Hague, Mr. Wise was in pos-
    214
    session of information compiled by that Department. No civil servant is ever at liberty to communicate any confidential information. This is expressly prohibited by the Official Secrets Act; and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the standard required of the British Civil Service in this matter has always been loyally maintained.
    Major BARNETT: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman approves of such appointments, and are civil servants, after they have occupied confidential positions like this one, at liberty to sell their services to the highest bidder?
    Mr. CLYNES: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Wise has served with great distinction and helpfulness to his country not only at the Ministry of Food, but in other Departments, and has not this appointment been generally welcomed by all who desire to see an early resumption of trade between this country and Russia?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In regard to Mr. Wise's services as a civil servant, I entirely agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). As far as I have known, the services of Mr. Wise have always been good services. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for South-Vest St. Pancras (Major Barnett), it is not for the Government either to approve or disapprove of appointments accepted by civil servants who have resigned. I would deprecate most sincerely the suggestion that any civil servant who leaves the public service, and takes up a. private appointment, is going to use confidential information for any purpose connected with it.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any reasons why butter, cheese and sugar and other consumable articles have gone up in price; and if any notice has been taken, by the officials who make out the cost-of-living returns from time to time, about the jumps in the food prices?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any recent movements in the

    215
    prices of butter and cheese of an unusual character at this season of the year. In the case of sugar the rise price in this country has followed the market movements in the United States where there is said to have been a considerable increase in the consumption of sugar. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that changes in the retail prices of butter, cheese and sugar are taken into account in the compilation, by the Ministry of Labour, of the cost of diving index number.
    Mr. THORNE: Do the gentlemen who compile these returns from time to time ever consult any of the wives of the working classes in any direction?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not sure of that, but I understand that very careful consideration was given to the original items under which the figures are fixed. The cost of these items is, I understand, collected from all over the country.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his own wife about this?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I always do, Sir.
    Major WHELER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as possible, consult with the Minister of Agriculture, so that we may get information as to retail prices, the lack of which is causing great inconvenience?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

    LASCAR CREWS (WAGES).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lascars sailing on British vessels and in what capacity; and whether he can state the rate of wages paid to lascars expressed in British currency?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will circulate a Table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information for which the hon. Member asks.
    Following is the table promised:
    The number of lascars employed on British ships at the time of the Census
    216
    taken on 19th June. 1921, was as follows:

    Deck Department:

    Petty officers

    2,911

    Others

    10,952

    Engine Room Department:

    Petty officers

    2,515

    Others

    16,546

    Stewards' Department

    11,317

    Total

    44,241

    The rates of pay for lascar crews vary according to the port at which the men are engaged. The following are the rates for crews engaged at Calcutta. The sterling equivalent is calculated at the rate of exchange of the 3rd March.

    Rating.

    Rupees per month.

    English currency.

    Deck Dept.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Deck serang

    60

    4

    1

    3

    1st tindal

    37

    2

    10

    1

    2nd tindal

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Cassab

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Winchman

    28

    1

    18

    0

    Lascars

    25

    1

    13

    10

    Lascar boys

    12

    0

    16

    3

    Bhandary

    25

    1

    13

    10

    Topass

    22

    1

    9

    10

    Engine room dept.

    Fireman serang

    60

    4

    1

    3

    1st tindal

    35

    2

    7

    5

    2nd tindal

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Donkeyman

    28

    1

    18

    0

    Oilman

    26

    1

    15

    3

    Fireman

    23

    1

    11

    2

    Coal trimmer

    18

    1

    4

    5

    Bhandary

    25

    1

    13

    10

    Bhandary's mate

    10

    0

    13

    7

    Stewards' dept.

    Butler

    70

    4

    14

    10

    2nd class butler

    50

    3

    7

    9

    Baker

    70

    4

    14

    10

    Chief cook

    70

    4

    14

    10

    2nd cook

    40

    2

    14

    2

    3rd cook

    25

    1

    13

    10

    1st class pantry-man

    40

    2

    14

    2

    Saloon boys

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Officers' boys

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Mess room boy

    30

    2

    0

    8

    Butcher's mate

    25

    1

    13

    10

    Scullion

    24

    1

    12

    6

    Saloon topass

    22

    1

    9

    10

    Bhandary

    25

    1

    13

    10

    BRITISH SHIPPING (TONNAGE).
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of shipping produced in British shipyards during 1913 and 1922, respectively?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: According to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the total gross tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards launched in Great Britain and Ireland in each of the years 1913 and 1922 was as follows:

    Tons (gross).

    1913

    1,932,153

    1922

    1,031,081

    MEXICO.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of imports and exports between Mexico and Great Britain and the United States, respectively, in the years 1913, 1921, and 1922; and whether he is aware that there is a general consensus of opinion that recognition of the Government of Mexico would lead to an increase in British trade and to a diminution of unemployment in Great Britain?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to see whether recognition cannot be given to Mexico and thus encourage trade between this country and Mexico?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the whole Mexican position has been under consideration for some considerable time.
    Following is the information promised:
    The following statement shows the values of the trade of the United Kingdom and the United States, re-
    218
    spectively, with Mexico during the years specified.

    Year.

    United Kingdom.

    United States.

    (1) Total Imports from Mexico.

    £

    £

    1913

    1,880,000*

    16,818,000†

    1921

    9,859,000*

    30,968,000†

    1992

    8,604,000*‡

    30,147,000†‡

    (2) Total Exports to Mexico.

    £

    £

    1913

    2,498,000

    9,888,000

    1921

    4,716,000

    57,594,000

    1922

    2,301,000‡

    24,812,000‡

    *Values as declared at the ports of the United Kingdom.

    †Values as declared in Mexico United States currency converted to sterling at the average rates for the respective years.

    ‡Provisional figures.

    The second part of the question deals with matters of opinion on which I am not prepared to pronounce.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DIRECTOR OF STAFF DUTIES DEPARTMENT.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of officers, of what grades, and the pay and allowances of these grades respectively, in the Department of the Director of Staff Duties now and in 1913?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The reply to this question consists of a list of titles and figures, which, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    The officer staff of the Directorate of Staff Duties is composed at present as follows:
    1 Director with pay and allowances of £2,103 a, year.
    6 General Staff officers, 1st Grade, with pay and allowances of £1,335 a year.
    10 General Staff officers, 2nd Grade, with pay and allowances of £990 a year.
    7 General Staff officers, 3rd Grade, with pay and allowances of £790 a year.
    1 Attached officer with pay and allowances of £700 a year.
    1 Quartermaster with pay and allowances of £720 a year.
    The corresponding staff in 1913 was
    1 Director, £1,500 a year consolidated;
    3 General Staff officers, 1st Grade, £800 a year consolidated;
    9 General Staff officers, 2nd Grade, £650 a year consolidated;
    7 General Staff officers, 3rd Grade, £500 a year consolidated;
    1 Quartermaster, £300–£15–2400 a year—
    and part of the time of an Assistant Adjutant-General, whose total pay was £800 a year.

    ARMY COUNCIL.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the personnel of the Army Council and the total pay and allowances of the above, now and in 1913?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Army Council consists of three Ministers, four military members and at present two joint secretaries. It consisted in 1913 of three Ministers and four military members. The aggregate salaries amounted to £17,500 in 1913, and are now £28,861, including the salaries of the joint secretaries, who in 1913 were not members of the Army Council.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the cost be reduced in the near future?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: A good deal of the additional cost will be found, if the hon. Member will look at my answer, to be due to the fact that the secretaries were not members in 1913, and their pay is not included.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Have these two secretaries been added?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that these members of the Army Council are not paid as members of the Army Council?

    WAR OFFICE (OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS).
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers employed at the War Office are in receipt of pensions (other than War pensions) and military pay; and if he will grant a Return giving their names and the amount of such pensions and pay in each case?
    Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: Two officers employed in the War Office under special conditions are at present in receipt of pay at £2 17s. 9d. and £1 18s. 9d. per day respectively in addition to retired pay of £120 per annum. Instructions were given some time ago for the retired pay to be suspended from 1st April next. In the circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is unnecessary to make a formal Return.

    TROOPS (NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Mr. FRANK GRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House of the number of troops now stationed in Northern Ireland, and the purposes for which they are stationed there; whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the troops; and, if so, at what date?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The number of troops at present is 10 battalions, but by the 1st April next it will be five battalions only, in each case with the proportionate ancillary units. Troops are stationed in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in order to occupy existing military accommodation and to discharge appropriate military functions.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are these troops paid for by Northern Ireland, or by this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Northern Ireland, for military purposes, is part of this country.

    APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (R. H. HAMMOND).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Robert Harold Hammond, No. 4,684,145, enlisted in August, 1922, when his age was only 17 years and 8 months; that, prior to his attaining the age of 18 years, his widowed

    221
    mother sent his birth certificate to Pontefract and applied for his release on corn-passionate grounds; that his release I as been refused, although he had work to go to and is the only breadwinner of the family; and will he state why a youth whose age is known to the Army authorities as being under 18 years of age is retained in the Army?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances of this case. Hammond, when he enlisted, misstated his age, and the general rule in these circumstances is that the recruit is held to serve unless either he is under 17, or his discharge is specially sanctioned as a concession on grounds of extreme compassion. I am not prepared to alter the general rule, but I will inquire further into the reasons for which Hammond's discharge on compassionate grounds has been refused, and will communicate again with the hon. Member.

    MILITARY MISSION (PARIS).
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the nature of the emergency which necessitates the retention in Paris of a staff directed by a major-general; and why this mission is maintained, in view of the fact that the presence of a single lieutenant-colonel in Paris previous to 1914 was considered sufficient to deal with the elaboration of plans necessitated by the imminence of a European war?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The staff referred to, directed by a major-general, forms the British Section of the Allied Military Committee of Versailles, which, under the Presidency of Marshal Foch, is responsible for keeping the Allied Council of Ambassadors in Paris informed of the progress made in execution of the military clauses of the various Peace Treaties, and for advising on measures required to carry out the terms of treaties.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: In view of the fact that Paris and London are so close, is it not possible to refer these questions to London for consideration and only send over from London to Paris when an emergency arises?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think that would be practicable. The
    222
    work in Paris is much heavier than in London, but in spite of that fact, the French find it necessary to keep a full general in London with three officers under him.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that no notice is taken of this mission in France, and would it not save expense to do away with it?
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that the attitude of the French Government relating to the Ruhr was taken in opposition to the wishes of our Government, and is it necessary to keep this staff in Paris, which is really backing up the French attitude?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

    BRITISH CEMETERIES (ARRAS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that for nearly three years a British firm has been looking after the British cemeteries in Arras, France, and that the contractor engaged a number of British ex-service men to do the work, who took their wives and children out with them; that the last two contracts have been given to a Belgian firm and, consequently, about 90 ex-service and married men will be discharged and will have to be sent home, which will add to the number of men out of employment in this country; if he can state the reasons why the Belgian firm has received the contracts to look after British cemeteries; and if he will take action in the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. All the British military cemeteries in France and Belgium are cared for, not by contractors, but by British ex-service men in the direct employ of the Imperial War Graves Commission who have no intention of making any alteration in the practice. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    If, however, the hon. Member is referring to contracts for the construction of cemeteries, I would point out that a British firm, who was the lowest tenderer, has just received a contract for the construction of 22 cemeteries, and I trust,

    223
    therefore, that no British workmen hitherto employed on such work will be discharged.
    The Imperial War Graves Commission would, however, be obliged if the hon. Member would communicate the details of any cases he may have in mind in order that inquiry may be made.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    MEDALS.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a Territorial soldier who serves 11 years and 11 months in the ranks and then is granted a commission is entitled to receive the Territorial efficiency medal on his completion of the necessary 12 years' service; and, seeing that the granting of this medal is one of the original conditions under which the man was enlisted, will he make inquiries?
    Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I do not think that any special inquiries are necessary. The appropriate reward for long and meritorious service in the commissioned ranks of the Territorial Army is not the medal, but the Territorial decoration, towards which half of previous service in the ranks reckons as qualifying service.
    Captain SHIPWRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider the case of the Territorial soldier who signed the Imperial service obligation up to the end of 1915; and whether he will extend the date for the grant of the Territorial war medal to the end of 1915 in the case of those who subsequently served overseas, thus differentiating between the conscripts and the volunteers?
    Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The Army Council do not propose to vary the conditions under which the Territorial war medal is granted. They do not think it desirable, in the matter of the grant of war medals, to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory service?
    Captain SHIPWRIGHT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the men who were conscripted in October,
    224
    1918, receive two medals to-day, while the men who enlisted in the Imperial Service in 1914 and served two years and ten months fighting receive only the same medal, and are entitled to no other? Is not that an injustice?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Territorial war medal was specially instituted to recognise the freely accepted obligation for oversea service in time of peace, and I am afraid that it would not be suitable to extend it to the kind of case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that ex-service men are more interested in getting work and meals than in receiving medals?

    CADET CORPS (GRANT).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason for the withdrawal of the Government grant from cadet corps; what was the expenditure involved and whether, in view of the educational and national value of the movement, he will reconsider the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies of a week ago. I much regret that I am not able to reconsider the decision.
    Mr. BRIANT: Can my hon. and gallant Friend promise to give any assistance in the direction of equipment?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The grant of equipment has only been sanctioned for one year.
    Mr. BRIANT: Can the Under-Secretary say exactly what that means? Does it mean for this year?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes: it means for this year, at a cost of about £10,000.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CLUBS.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what grants from the United Services Fund for the establishment of clubs for ex-service men have been made; and how many of these clubs have since ceased to exist?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 19th February to the hon. Member for East Fife, to the effect that grants to these clubs are a matter for the United Services Fund and not for the, War Office. I gather, however, from pages 4 and 5 of the Report of the fund for the year ending 30th September, 1922, that during the year in question over £1,027,000 was expended in 6,455 grants to clubs and other similar objects, and that only 49 out of 3,477 clubs assisted by the fund ceased to exist.
    Major WHELER: When is that fund going to be used up and how much longer is it going to be kept back?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety among disabled ex-service men, temporarily employed in the Civil Service, who have not passed the examination for permanent employment; and whether, since the recruitment of boys from school into the permanent Civil Service will interfere with the possibility of continued employment for these men, he can make any statement on the present policy of the Government in the matter of Civil Service recruitment which will make the position of the disabled men clear?
    Captain KING (Lord of the Treasury, in, the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer): No arrangements have been made for the recruitment to the clerical and departmental clerical classes of boys from school, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, special steps have been taken to enable disabled ex-service men, temporarily employed in a clerical capacity in Government Departments, to obtain permanent posts therein. My right hon. Friend fears that he cannot undertake to go beyond these arrangements, but I would like to point out that 26,849 disabled men, comprising 14·6 per cent. of the male permanent staff and 11 per cent. of the total permanent staff, male and female, were permanently employed in the Government service on the 1st Febru-
    226
    ary. I think it would be agreed that the latter percentage compares very favourably with the 5 per cent. required of employers generally for inclusion on the King's National Roll.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, LINLITHGOW
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that ex-service men who occupy small holdings at Parkhead, Linlithgow, are paying in some instances £4 per acre for land which was formerly valued at 30s. per acre; whether any complaints have been received with regard to the condition of the roads in the vicinity and the difficulty experienced in transport; and whether it is proposed to improve the hut accommodation at present provided for these men?
    Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The rent paid by the former tenant under a pre-War lease was 35s. per acre. The new holders pay an average rent per acre of 23s. 1d. for land and, in addition, 31s. 2d. for repayment of loans for buildings. The Board have agreed to provide road metal for the repair of roads, but the holders have not fulfilled their undertaking to cart and spread the metal supplied. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make some inquiry into the complaints made by these ex-service men to ascertain whether the facts are as stated, end deal with the matter when he has made inquiries?
    Captain ELLIOT: I have already made inquiries into the facts as stated, and I do not find, for instance, any single case of a, payment of £ an acre being made by these ex-service men.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiry into the allegations made with regard to the condition of the roads in the vicinity and the difficulty of transport and the appalling conditions under which these men are living on the allotments?
    Captain ELLIOT: I will certainly look further into the matter, but there is a quite definite statement as to the fact that the men have not carried out their side of the undertaking.

  SCOTLAND.

    ESTATE CHARGES (ORKNEY).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether a reply can now be given to the memorial from the County Council of Orkney with regard to the skatts payable to the Crown or the donatories of the Crown from lands in the county of Orkney?
    Captain ELLIOT: I am informed that the request of the county council as to the period over which the existing Superior Duties are to be averaged for purposes of redemption Las been largely met by a decision of the Treasury to extend the period in the case of sales during the past and the current years from 7 to 15 years. The Government is not prepared to promise legislation to give effect to the other claims made in the memorial, which are similar to claims that have been put forward and rejected from time to time in the past.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the Secretary for Scotland deny the justice of this claim?
    Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland has considered the matter, and come to an arrangement with the Treasury whereby part of the claim is met. The Government are not prepared to promise legislation as to the other part.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the benefit of the English Members, tell the House what is a "skat"?
    Captain ELLIOT: "skat" (Norse, skattr—tax, tribute) is an incident of the udal tenure payable by udallers in respect of their lands to the earl or to the Crown in right of the bishop. It is an annual payment made in agnitionem dominii, but not a feudal burden—the udallers holding tanquam optimœ maximœ. Though not a fen-duty, it is a Charge on the estate.

    WOMEN FRANCHISE.
    Mr. JAMES STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that in a municipal burgh the registration officer is required to see that a person who has more than
    228
    one qualification for the local government franchise is only registered once for such franchise in such burgh; and whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the franchise legislation so as to secure that females, who can only vote once at a Parliamentary election, will only be registered once?
    Captain ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, as far as concerns town council elections in any burgh, or parish council elections in a burgh comprising a single parish undivided into wards. Legislation to provide that no woman shall be registered for more than one Parliamentary constituency (apart from a university constituency) is not at present contemplated.
    Mr. J. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, apart from females who are entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors in respect of a university qualification, he can state the number of females in Glasgow who are registered, or qualified to be registered, in more than one Parliamentary division; whether he is aware that such females, although registered more than once, are only allowed under the present Statutes to vote once at a General Election; whether he has any information whether any females voted at the last General Election more than once; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Captain ELLIOT: The estimated number of females referred to in the first part of the question is 11,396. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information that any females voted more than once (excluding votes in respect of university constituencies) at the last General Election. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What steps are taken to prevent voters voting twice?
    Captain ELLIOT: That is a very large question, in which the whole of the Representation of the People Act is concerned.

    SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the introduc-

    229
    tion of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill this Session, consolidating and amending the enactments relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales, he is prepared to introduce a similar Measure dealing with salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland, and giving effect to the proposals contained in that final Report of the Scottish Freshwater Fishery Committee which reported in 1919?
    Captain ELLIOT: It is not regarded as practicable to add such a Measure to the existing programme of legislation for the present Session.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that legislation on this subject is long overdue for Scotland. Will he undertake to consult, the inspector of salmon fisheries and the Scottish Angling Association and other bodies concerned on the subject?
    Captain ELLIOT: It is a question of consulting the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, as it is a matter of Parliamentary time.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Why should not Scotland have differential treatment?

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING (PATROL VESSELS).
    Major WARINGasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health where the patrol vessels have been stationed during the month of February; the distance sailed by each; and the number of cases of illegal trawling detected during the month?
    Captain ELLIOT: During February the five cruisers of the Fishery Board for Scotland were stationed as follows:

    "Brenda"—South-east Coast.

    "Freya."—Moray Firth.

    "Norna"—Shetland, Orkney and North Coast.

    "Minna"—West Coast (excluding Firth of Clyde).

    "Vigilant"—Firth of Clyde.

    In addition, His Majesty's trawler "Exe" was engaged in the Moray Firth area. Six cases of alleged illegal fishing wore detected by the cruisers during the month. Information as to the mileage steamed by each of the cruisers is not at resent available.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the Secretary for Scotland appointed an inquiry into illegal trawling?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the speed of the vessels is sufficient to enable them to catch the illegal trawlers?
    Captain ELLIOT: Obviously their position is rather that of prevention than of cure. We desire to prevent illegal trawling rather than to catch those who have committed the crime.

    EYEMOUTH HARBOUR.
    Major WARINGasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the estimate for the improvements to Eyemouth harbour has been greatly reduced; and will he, in view of the urgent necessity for improvement, consider recommending the adoption of the scheme?
    Captain ELLIOT: No revised estimate of the scheme of improvements formulated in 1921 and then estimated to cost £195,000 has been submitted to the Fishery Board for Scotland, but if the reduction referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is due merely to falling costs of labour and material, I fear it will be insufficient to bring the cost down to such a figure as to make it a practical proposition at the present time.
    Major WARING: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?
    Captain ELLIOT: I shall be very glad to look into it privately with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we can subsequently consider the question of a deputation.

    DEER FORESTS.
    Major M. WOODasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if the Government has yet decided whether they are to carry out the recommendations of the Deer Forests Committee, which reported in November, 1921; and whether any of the suggestions for immediate action made by the committee have been adopted?
    Captain ELLIOT: Legislation would be required to enable effect to be given to the main recommendations and sug-

    231
    gestions of the Committee, and, as I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western Aberdeen on the 27th February, my Noble Friend is unable to give an undertaking that legislation on the subject can be included in the programme of the present Session. The practicability of obtaining information as to stocks by voluntary returns is being examined.
    Major WOOD: Has there been any definite decision to legislate at all on the matter?
    Captain ELLIOT: Yes, obviously one of the things asked for was the returns on the subject, and we wish to get the returns in before considering the question of legislation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that six committees have reported on this subject for over 20 years, and that even now farmers are having their crops eaten up wholesale by deer?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Was not legislation promised last Session by the Secretary for Scotland, and are not the signatories to the Report gentlemen of all shades of political opinion, which shows that legislation would probably be non-contentious?
    Captain ELLIOT: However non-contentious the legislation, it would be taking considerable risk to promise to add to the heavy programme of the present year.

    FREE SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Major M. WOODasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether there are any education authorities in Scotland who have not carried out their obligations under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to provide free secondary schools; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the authorities concerned?
    Captain ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the third paragraph of the Department's Circular No. 20, issued on 13th January, 1920, a copy of which I am sending him. So far the Department have not found it necessary to call upon any Authority in terms of the first sentence of the third paragraph thereof. If, however, the hon. Member has in his mind any case in which such action seems to
    232
    him desirable, my Noble Friend will be glad to look into the matter, if the necessary information is furnished him.
    Major WOOD: Cannot I have an explicit answer to a very straight question? Have any authorities not carried out the law laid down in the Statute?
    Captain ELLIOT: No authority has defaulted so as to make it necessary for the Department to take action in the matter.
    Major WOOD: Have they defaulted in any way?
    Mr. NICHOL: Is it not the case that in Glasgow proposals have been put forward to charge fees in many secondary schools which were free up to the present year?
    Captain ELLIOT: I must ask for notice.

    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, whether, for the convenience of agriculturists, he will introduce a Bill to consolidate all the Acts relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland?
    Major DUDGEONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that there is a strong desire in all agricultural organisations in Scotland for an Act to consolidate the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts; and if he can state that a Bill with this object in view will be introduced at an early date?
    Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend proposes to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts in another place at an early date.

  HOUSING.

    SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations, made by the Committee of representatives of Scottish local authorities appointed to advise with the Scottish Board of Health in regard to the amount of the State grant required to meet the annual deficit on future local building schemes, as to

    233
    the necessity for the payment of a minimum subsidy of £6 per house in the case of the larger and more populous districts in Scotland, and of a larger amount in the case of the smaller burghs and districts; and whether, in view of the higher cost of building in Scotland, he is prepared to give effect to the Committee's proposals?
    Captain ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, my Noble Friend is arranging to receive a deputation from the committee referred to this week.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the committee in question was composed of the principal housing experts in Scotland?
    Captain ELLIOT: A special Conference has been arranged by the Secretary for Scotland. I do not see what more can be done at present.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts paid by way of housing subsidies to England

    —

    Private Builders' Subsidy.

    Grants towards Deficits on Housing Schemes.

    Total.

    England and Wales.

    £

    £

    £

    1919–20

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    2,653

    2,653

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,528,552

    525,728

    3,054,280

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,537,884

    4,533,229

    9,071,113

    1922–23 (Estimated)

    …

    …

    2,450,000

    7,500,000

    9,950,000

    1923–24 (Estimated)

    …

    …

    —

    8,750,000

    8,750,000

    9,516,436

    Scotland.

    1919–20

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    —

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    …

    77,600

    57,540

    135,140

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    …

    280,137

    378,110

    658,247

    1922–23 (Estimated)

    …

    …

    183,963

    650,000

    833,963

    1923–24 (Estimated)

    …

    …

    15,000

    910,000

    925,000

    556,700

    he maximum grant of £15,000,000 provided for subsidies to private builders under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, was allocated by the Treasury between England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the Goschen proportions, but, although the period originally fixed under that Act was extended for both countries, and special arrangements were made to
    and Scotland, respectively, for the years 1919–20, 1920–21, and 1921–22, and the estimated sums payable for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24; and if, seeing that the basis of allocation to Scotland should be eleven-eightieths of the subsidy payable to England, he will say to what extent Scotland has so far failed to receive from the Treasury its due proportion of the housing subsidies?
    Captain KING: As the answer is rather long, and contains a tabular statement of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Third Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, at page 72, definitely states that only £300,000 is paid in housing subsidies to Scotland, as against £10,000,000 paid in subsidies to England, and is that in accordance with the recognised Treasury practice on the subject?
    Captain KING: The hon. Member will see that in the figures stated.
    Following is the table:
    meet the exceptional circumstances of Scottish crofters, the scheme was not adopted by private builders in Scotland to the same proportionate extent as in England.
    As regards the housing schemes of local authorities and public utility societies, it was represented to the Treasury that a limitation of the Scottish grant to the

    235
    Goschen proportion of the English grant would operate unfairly to Scotland, owing to the higher cost of building in that country, and the limitation was accordingly based upon the numbers of houses, special allowance being made under this head for the smaller number of houses likely to be built in Scotland under the private builders' subsidy.
    In the aggregate the total number of houses built or to be built in Scotland under the old subsidy arrangements is estimated at about 28,900, which differs very littlle from the Goschen proportion of the corresponding English figure (about 215,000). Progress has, however, been much slower in Scotland than in England, and, whereas in England the peak of the subsidy payable under the old housing scheme will, it is expected, be reached in 1923–24, this point will probably not be reached in Scotland until the year 1925–26.
    Mr. MILLAR furtherasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health when a decision will be arrived at regarding the assistance which will be provided by way of Government grant to meet the deficiency arising in connection with future local building schemes in Scotland; and whether local authorities in Scotland may now proceed with building schemes on the footing that they will participate in any grant to be made available for that purpose?
    Captain ELLIOT: With regard to the first part of the question, this matter is being considered and will be discussed with the deputation from local authorities which my Noble Friend is arranging to receive this week. In reply to the latter part of the question, it is proposed to provide in the Housing Bill that local authorities who, with the approval of the Scottish Board of Health, have undertaken building schemes before the passing of the Act shall not be prejudiced as regards any financial assistance which may be made available under the Act on account of their having acted in anticipation of the passing of the Measure.

    RENTS, MID-LANARK.
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health as some of the houses in Mid-Lanark have been occupied two years, when the rent will be fixed?
    Captain ELLIOT: The rents at certain sites in the Middle Ward of Lanark have been adjusted between the local authority and the Scottish Board of Health. As regards other cases it is open to the local authority, if they are unable to accept the rents which the Board propose, to appeal to the Rents Tribunal by whom the rents fall to be fixed in cases of dispute. In one such case the rents have been so fixed and I understand that the local authority have under consideration the question of appealing to the Tribunal in other cases.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: The houses have been occupied two years. Only one case has been settled and we have 30 building sites. When are we likely to get the rents fixed?
    Captain ELLIOT: The answer is perfectly distinct. The local authority is considering appealing to the Rent Tribunal in certain other cases. The onus lies on the local authority.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: The local authority has appealed 18 months ago and no arbitration court can be got to meet.

    GAS SUPPLY, THORNLIEBANK.
    Mr. NICHOLasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if immediate steps can be taken to ensure that the houses erected by the district committee of Upper Renfrewshire at Jenny Lind, Thornliebank, many of which have been occupied for over eight months, are supplied with gas for lighting and heating?
    Captain ELLIOT: The Scottish Board of Health have recently received a deputation from the local authority on this subject, and they are making further inquiries with a view to seeing whether the difficulties that have occurred can be overcome.
    Mr. NICHOL: Is it not the case that since the scheme was put into operation a change was made by the Board of Health, which has now held up the question?
    Captain ELLIOT: That is just one of those technical questions which are not suitable for discussion by question and answer on the Floor of the House. I shall be pleased to discuss it with the hon. Member afterwards.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a question of someone in authority telling people to do the right thing?

    EVICTION ACTIONS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state the number of actions during 1922 for eviction in Glasgow Sheriff Court for non-payment of rent; and, where decrees for the same have been given, how many of the tenants were unemployed, ex-service men, and unemployed ex-service men?
    Captain ELLIOT: I regret that I cannot give a precise figure, but of 12,438 applications for summary removing brought in the Glasgow Sheriff Court in 1922 the great majority were for nonpayment of rent. No information is available in reply to the last part of the question.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state the number of actions in the Scottish Sheriff Courts arising from the interpretation of Section 3 (1) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920; the number of actions in which a decision was given; and the number of cases outstanding at 15th February?
    Captain ELLIOT: I regret that the information desired is not available.

    EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state what His Majesty's Government are doing with reference to the provision of loans or credits for approved schemes in the Overseas Dominions; what proportion of the total, said to be £100,000,000, will be available for Crown Colory development; and if His Majesty's Government are taking into consideration the importance of Empire development as a permanent solution of the unemployment problem?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 20th February.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: When are we likely to have information on this point?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The matter is being gone into very carefully by the Treasury, and we are awaiting their report.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of our having to pay the American Government £2,250,000,000 in the next 62 years in dollars, he will,. in conjunction with the Canadian Government consider the advisability of encouraging wheat production in that country and inter-Colonial trade generally for the purpose not only of diminishing our purchases from the United States, but also for cheapening dollars and so reducing the payments due for interest and sinking fund to the United States?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): His Majesty's Government is at all times anxious to encourage inter-Empire trade, and arrangements for an Economic Conference are now being discussed with the Dominions.

  IRAQ.

    BRITISH COMMITMENTS.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in considering our commitments in Iraq, have invited the evidence of the Minister of War in the Iraq Cabinet, who is now in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The gentleman mentioned in the question is in frequent communication with the Colonial Office, and the hon. Member may be satisfied that his views are available to the Government..

    CAIRO CONFERENCE, MARCH, 1921.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay Papers containing the minutes and decisions of the Cairo Conference in March, 1921?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think that there would be any advantage in laying the Papers referred to. The decisions of policy taken as a result of the Cairo Conference were fully explained to the House by representatives of the late Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, without knowledge of the grounds on which these decisions are based, the House is not in a position to form an opinion as to the liabilities involved in these decisions. Is it not the case, for example, that the cost of the reconditioning of existing railways, which was estimated for the purposes of the Conference, has never been announced to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The policy with regard to Iraq, which I take it is what the hon. Member is referring to, will come before the House when the Estimates come up.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not essential that we should know exactly what are our commitments before we come to a decision?
    Captain BENN: What is the objection to publishing the Papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are very old.

    EX-CABINET MINISTERS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ex-Cabinet Ministers are at present receiving pensions and allowances from State funds, and the amount paid to each person: what statutory or other declaration of means is required before such pensions are granted; how often the cases are reviewed, and by whom: and whether, in deciding the eligibility of ex-Cabinet Ministers for pensions, any inquiry is made as to family income or the ability of children or other relatives to give the financial assistance needed?
    Captain KING: Four ex-Cabinet Ministers are in receipt of pensions at the rate of £5,000 per annum under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832, to the terms of which I would refer the hon. Member. Three out of the four do regular work as judicial members of the House of Lords and members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Two ex-Cabinet Ministers are in receipt of pensions under the Political Officers Pension Act, 1869, the amounts being £2,000 per annum and £1,200 per annum respectively. A candidate for the grant of a pension under this
    240
    Act is required to submit to the Treasury a declaration in the terms prescribed by Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, and an undertaking is given prior to the grant of the pension that in the event of the pensioner's pecuniary circumstances improving to a material extent, the pension will be surrendered.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—are the family incomes taken into account in assessing the poverty of the person applying for a pension?
    Captain KING: The hon. Member can ascertain that by referring to Section 6 of the Superannuation Act.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the names of these two gentlemen who are drawing out-of-work pay? Is he aware that one of these gentlemen—whose names I know—stated that his winnings on horse-racing in one year amounted to £60,000? Is he also aware—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The bon. Member is giving information. He should put down a question as to the names, although I think they are already before the House.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ex-Cabinet Ministers by the judicial work they are doing more than pay the salaries they are drawing?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to these cases not coming under review, one of the last recipients of an ex-Cabinet Minister's pension died an extremely wealthy man—Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and is it not time that these people were called up for review, as are the old age pensioners? [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Becker.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. Is it in order to introduce a personal reference to the affairs of a deceased nobleman, that reference being, to my certain knowledge, absolutely untrue?
    Mr. LANSBURY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been trying to give information.
    Colonel Sir C. YATE: May I ask whether it is the fact—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Becker.

  IRELAND.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Income Tax authorities are collecting moneys due to the Imperial Exchequer which were owing prior to the Irish Free State Government assuming control?
    Captain KING: Income Tax leviable in the Irish Free State (including arrears) is collected by the revenue authorities of the Free State and paid into the Free State Exchequer.
    Mr. BECKER: What authority has the Free State Government to collect that money, which is really due to the British Exchequer?
    Captain KING: I understand that the custom in collecting Income Tax is that arrears come into the following year, and, therefore, the Irish Free State is collecting the arrears.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any statutory authority, either here or in the Irish Free State, for this practice?
    Captain KING: I would ask the hon. Member to put another question down as to that.
    Mr. EDMUND TURTON: Is it not a fact that no arrears of Income Tax of any sort are being collected in Ireland, because everyone is refusing to pay Income Tax?

    PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE (CUSTOMS' SEARCH).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that passengers and their luggage are searched at Holyhead when crossing over to Ireland and that on arrival at Kingstown the passengers are again searched; which Government pays for the extra Customs officials at Holyhead; and will he put an end to this search at 2 a.m.?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The luggage of passenger crossing to Ireland is searched at Holyhead, and I understand that they
    242
    are liable to a further search on arrival at Kingstown. The Customs officials who conduct the search at Holyhead are paid by His Majesty's Government; but it has not been found necessary to appoint additional staff for this purpose. In reply to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government do not see their way at present to relaxing this useful and necessary measure of control over the removal of firearms and ammunition from this country to Ireland.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not unnecessary to have two searches, one at Holyhead and one at Kingstown, and is the hon. Member not aware that this double search is very inconvenient at 2 a.m.?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know it is very inconvenient, but so long as conditions are what they are in Southern Ireland, His Majesty's Government feel they can take no risk in allowing possible further revolvers and bombs to go into the country, if they can possibly avoid it.

    RATE COLLECTORS.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the numerous cases in which Poor Rate collectors in Ireland were deprived of their positions under duress by local bodies or by the Irish Republican Army in 1920 and 1921 because they carried out the instructions of the Local Government Board in Ireland, which was then a Department of the British Government, instead of obeying the contrary instructions of the local bodies; whether he is aware that these men have received no salary or allowances since 1920, and have thereby suffered heavy losses; that repeated representations have been made to the British Government on this matter; and that the late Chief Secretary promised these men that grants payable to the Provisional Government would not be paid until they were paid by the Provisional Government; and whether he will take steps to see that these men are paid?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware that a certain number of rate-collectors have lost their employment in circumstances such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Member. His Majesty's Government has been in correspondence with the

    243
    Free State Government in the matter, who have taken the view that these officers are not entitled to pension or gratuity under the provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919; and, in fact, the Local Government Board did not award any such pensions or gratuity in these cases as in the other cases in respect of which representations were made to and assurances received from the Provisional Government. The Free State Government has, however, offered to submit the case of these men to independent arbitration, and the necessary steps for this purpose are being taken.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he is adhering to the pledge given by the late Chief Secretary in February, 1922, to the effect that no grants will be paid to the Irish Government by this country unless and until the Irish Government have paid their debts to these rate collectors?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that would hardly be practicable, as we have arranged to pay certain advances to the Irish Free State Government as compensation. The matter is under arbitration now, and I hope it will be settled satisfactorily.

    COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the estimated revenue and expenditure of the Free State Government and the amount of compensation for murder, arson, and damage by irregular forces operating in Southern Ireland since the setting up of the Free State Government; and whether he can assure the House that no part of such compensation or of any deficit in the Free State Government revenue will, by loan, credit advance, or any 'other means become a charge on the revenue of Great Britain?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no information with regard to the first two parts of the question, other than that which can be obtained from the published proceedings of the Parliament of the Irish
    244
    Free State. With regard to the last part of the question, I must point out that no charges can be placed upon the Consolidated Fund except by the Imperial Parliament; but I may add that no suggestion has been made either directly or indirectly by the Government of the Free State that responsibility in respect of any such charges as the hon. Member specifies should be assumed by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. PETO: Can we have an assurance that at some future date the Government will not consider making a grant to defray the deficit of the Irish Free State Government
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has not the time arrived when, instead of stirring up strife, hon. Members should try to bring peace?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have seen a little of that on both sides.

  BUDGET.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total estimated refunds of Excess Profits Duty which still remain to be paid by the Exchequer?
    Captain KING: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to forecast the total amount of Excess Profits Duty that will be repaid in the future.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts received from the Excess Profits Duty and the Munitions Levy, respectively, during each year they were in operation, the amounts of the repayments made in each year, and the amount of the claims for repayment of the Excess Profits Duty still outstanding?
    Captain KING: As the answer contains a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    STATEMENT showing for the United Kingdom the gross receipt, repayments and net receipt of the Excess Profits

    245
    Duty and Munitions Levy during each year they were in operation:

    Year.

    Gross Receipt.

    Repayments.

    Net Receipt.

    Excess Profits Duty.

    £

    £

    £

    1915–16

    187,846

    —

    187,846

    1916–17

    138,008,790

    1,182,494

    136,826,296

    1917–18

    205,777,184

    3,635,271

    202,141,913

    1918–19

    268,891,916

    7,280,920

    261,610,996

    1919–20

    296,778,885

    13,006,679

    283,772,206

    1920–21

    234,724,592

    17,579,212

    217,195,380

    1921–22

    122,142,427

    91,664,614

    30,477,813

    Munitions Levy.

    £

    £

    £

    1916–17

    4,788,636

    —

    4,788,636

    1917–18

    21,234,065

    259,888

    20,974,177

    1918–19

    22,658,039

    292,174

    22,365,865

    1919–20

    5,617,723

    181,883

    5,435,840

    1920–21

    1,401,323

    447,575

    963,748

    1921–22

    200,468

    1,007,589

    — 807,121

    As regards the current financial year, the gross receipt of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) from 1st April, 1922, to 28th February, 1923, is approximately £49,500,000; the net receipt during the same period amounts to slightly over £1,000,000. I regret that I am unable to forecast the amount of repayments to be made in. the future.

    INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange in future to show separately in the weekly revenue returns the proceeds from Income Tax and Super-tax?
    Captain KING: It has been arranged that this shall be done from the 1st April next.

    BEER DUTIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had any estimates prepared showing the probable increase in the consumption of beer which would result from the reduction of the present duty on beer equivalent to 2d. per pint and 1d. per pint, respectively; and to what extent the reduction would affect the Exchequer if no increase in the consumption of beer
    246
    took place and if the increase in consumption which he has estimated as a consequence of the reduction of duty took place, respectively?
    Captain KING: My right hon. Friend could not undertake to put forward estimates of this kind in advance of the relevant Budget Debates.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the payment of Entertainments Duty on members' subscriptions is being demanded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of county and other cricket clubs; that many clubs depend for their existence on the subscriptions of those interested in the promotion of sport; and if he will take steps to see that, in the case of clubs where no private profit is sought or obtained, members' subscriptions shall be exempt from Entertainments Duty?
    Captain KING: Entertainments Duty is chargeable under Section 1 (4) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, on such part of the membership subscriptions of any club as represents payment for the right of admission to entertainments in respect of which Entertainments Duty is payable. Having regard to the scheme of the Entertainments Duty, my right hon. Friend is unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS,
    Lieut.-Colonel STEPHENSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, having regard to the fact that His Majesty's Government has made arrangements for the repayment to the United States of America of the sums borrowed during the War on behalf of our Allies, France and Italy, it is proposed to complete the transaction by calling upon the French and Italian Governments to repay their borrowings from us by means of a similar arrangement?
    Captain KING: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) on the 15th February.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Government see fit to make a definite statement as to whether these sums were borrowed on behalf of the Allies or not?
    Captain KING: The hon. Member wilt appreciate that I can add nothing to the statement of the Prime Minister.

    BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to assist the payment of our debt to America, he will consider the desirability of building up in Canada a dollar reserve fund, and so not only encourage the development of that country's resources, but also with a view to annually supplying dollars for the interest on our debt comparatively free from exchange fluctuations?
    Captain KING: In my right hon. Friend's opinion the only possible way of meeting our debt is to provide liquid resources in the United States. It would not be possible at the same time to use money to repay America and to develop Canada.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of accumulated interest to the debt this country owes to the United States of America; whether the accumulated interest has been added to the principal of the debt; and what is the total amount of indebtedness to America, including the interest?
    Captain KING: The principal of the notes to be refunded was $4,074,818,358 and the accrued interest $629,836,107 making a total of $4,704,654,465. After deduction of our payments in October and November of $100,526,380, the total of the debt has been agreed at $4,604,128,085.
    Mr. THORNE: In face of that very clear answer, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when giving a reply with regard to American debts, to supply the figures in pounds sterling, and not in dollars?
    Captain KING: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table for the information of the House the statistics presented by the British Debt Mission during his visit to the United States?
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be published as a White Paper all the statistics with regard to British finances which were supplied by him to the United States Government at Washington?
    Captain KING: The statistics used were compiled from accounts already published in this country, and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to republish them.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. D. SOMERVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will compile figures showing what would be the cost of the national revenue of full old age pensions for all people over 70 years of age whose maximum means are not greater than 20s. a week, so as to afford Members assistance in deciding whether the country can support this maximum of help to the poorer old age pensioners?
    Captain KING: Simply to provide all pensioners whose means do not exceed 20s. a week with a pension of 10s. would involve an increased annual cost of about £700,000; but it would not be practicable to give the possessor of means of 20s. a pension of 10s. while leaving the possessor of means of 20s. 1d. without any pension. A necessary corollary would, therefore, be a sliding scale of pension for persons with means between 20s. and 30s. a week. No data exist for an exact calculation of the cost, but it would certainly be a very large sum.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increased cost to the Exchequer if old age pensions were granted to all those who were not liable to Income Tax?
    Captain KING: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on the 28th November, the Committee of 1919 estimated the additional cost for the United Kingdom of the adoption of the Income Tax exemption limit at £14,500,000 per annum. The Committee also came to the conclusion that the adoption of this limit was impracticable.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are those figures correct to-day, because since the Committee sat, the old age pensions have been increased?
    Captain KING: They are the latest figures I have with me.

    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT LORRIES (DISPOSAL).
    Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many lorries have been disposed of to purchasers, other than the Slough company, since the agreement was made with that company in 1920; and what are the highest and lowest prices realized per lorry in these cases?
    Captain KING: The preparation of the return required by my hon. and gallant Friend would involve an examination of the accounts for a period of nearly three years. I regret that, with the depleted staff available, it is not feasible to undertake this work.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to the prices at which these vehicles are being sold?
    Captain KING: I think that is covered by the answer that it requires a great deal of research.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is it not a fact that many of these vehicles are being sold to companies of doubtful origin at giveaway prices of less than £100, while ordinary people cannot get them at all?
    Captain KING: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put another question down.

    CRIMINAL TRIALS (BRITISH WEST AFRICA).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that His Majesty's subjects in British West Africa are denied, in many cases, the right of trial by jury where criminal charges are involved, and that prisoners are tried by
    250
    assessors; whether the Criminal Appeal Act, 1908, applies to British West Africa; and whether he proposes to take immediate steps to place the inhabitants of this Colony on the same footing with respect to the criminal law as subjects in other parts of the British Empire?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The procedure for criminal trials varies in the different West African Colonies and Protectorates; in some cases there is a judge and jury, in others a judge assisted by assessors, in others a judge or judicial commissioner acting alone. The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, does not apply to any British West African Colony or Protectorate, but only to England and Wales. As regards the last part of the question, it is not clear which West African Colony is referred to, but it is not possible to introduce any greater uniformity than exists at present, as the conditions are so varied. May I remind the hon. Member that British West Africa includes primitive savage communities, native tribes, organised native States, Mahommedan emirates, and natives who have adopted European standards and modes of life, and that trial by jury would in most cases be quite inapplicable, and in others an unsatisfactory procedure.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: On Tuesdays, as we have questions to so many Departments, would it be possible for the questions to take turn about, so that questions relating to other Departments may be put directly to the Ministers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The arrangement of questions does not rest with me. Will the hon. and gallant Member see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury?

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
WILLIAM EDWIN PEASE, Esquire, for the Borough of Darlington.
JAMES CHUTER EDE, Esquire, for the County of Surrey (Mitcham Division).

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  CAPITALIST SYSTEM.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the failure of the capitalist system, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Snowden.]
  POOR LAW REFORM.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the long-delayed reform of the Poor Law system, and to move a, Resolution.— [Major Kelley.]
  CIVIL SERVICE.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the pay of certain entrants to the established Civil Service, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Groves.]
  VACCINATION.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the serious dangers that may arise owing to the lax manner in which the Vaccination Acts are at present administered, and to move a Resolution.—[Dr. Watts.]

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move,
  "That leave he given to introduce a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, in respect of agricultural produce."
  My purpose is to call attention to the grave discontent which exists among the agricultural community. A Motion on the Paper, put down by an hon. Member who is an unimpeachable authority, draws attention to this. The heavy taxes, the heavy burden of railway rates, and the impossible conditions in which agriculture is supposed to carry on are well known to-day. As regards the safeguarding of industries, the position of the farmer, as I understand it, is best expressed in paragraph 7 of the pledge which the National Farmers' Union demanded from candidates for membership for this House:
  "I will support the rescinding of the Safeguarding of Industries Act unless equality of treatment is at once given to agricultural produce."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Protectionist!"] Hon. Members had better wait until I have
  252
  explained the Bill. The farmer says, and there is a great deal of sense and logic in the argument, "You wish to give protection under this Act, against foreign competition, to a number of small persistent, energetic, clamant industries, but nothing is done for me. Under Part I of the Act you profess to protect and safeguard key industries, and supplies on which the life of the nation depends, and small manufacturers of things like face powder can get protection, because they plead that they are supplying things on which the life of the nation depends, while nothing is done for me who produce the food of the nation." Judging from the membership of this House, I believe that a great many farmers are Free Traders. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are many hon. Members who sit here as Free Traders by the support of farmers. Of course, I am a Free Trader. I am, and always have been, opposed to any taxes on food. The voice of the Free Trader, in this House and in the last, has been the voice of one crying in the wilderness, but now he has got reinforcements. It must always be understood that Protection is not a general idea, but is regarded strictly as a personal relative matter. That is to say, it is no good telling A, who is a Tariff Reformer, that you are going to protect B. What A wants is protection for A. If he cannot have protection for A he will vote against protection for B. That is a fair description of the Tariff Reformer's position. Every Tariff Reformer is a Free Trader for his own raw material and a Tariff Reformer for his own finished product.
  The Prime Minister, and the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear that in no circumstances did the Government intend to impose protective duties on foodstuff. The position of the farmer is this. "You say you will not help us, and therefore we do not think it is fair that you should help other people, and we will oppose the Safeguarding of Industries Act altogether." And so, instead of a few scattered consumers who could not concentrate their forces, and who suffer under the evils of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we now have opposed to the Act one of the greatest, best organised, and most powerful interests of the country, the agricultural interest, which recognises that the Act is partial and unjust. With

  253
  the help of the agricultural interest we propose to repeal this Act. Who is going to oppose this Bill? On this side of the House sit many Free Traders. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is to the Government side that it will look for most of its supporters. The Bill is in response to the pledge given to the Farmers' Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By Members of this House. The pledge, for example, was given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. McNeill) and by the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson) who is in his place.
  Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON indicated dissent.
  Captain BENN: I am informed by the Farmers' Union, but if they are in-accurate—
  Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: They are.
  Captain BENN: The hon. Member for Henley (Captain Terrell) was generally sympathetic.
  Captain TERRELL: I will make it perfectly clear.
  4.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: The Home Secretary (Mr. Bridgeman) has also given the pledge, and it has been given by three score and ten Members on that side. That being the case, who is going to oppose it? I suppose that nobody is going to oppose it. If I am wrong any hon. Member under the Standing Orders of the House is at liberty to follow me in debate and make a brief statement and then divide the House. If I am right, I shall welcome it Of course, if hon. Members say "no" in the Debate, and do not follow that up with a speech and a Division, we shall know what
  weight to attach to their attitude. My own belief is that everybody, even the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), who have been the great champions of this Act, feel that the time has passed when it can be anything more than a ridiculous excess on the Statute Book. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So far as those hon. Members who are good enough to back this Bill and many other hon. Members are concerned, we regard this Act as a weak and deformed infant, and we believe the time has come to give it a timely and merciful release.
  Bill ordered to be, brought in by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Hope Simpson, Mr. Bonwick, and Mr. Foot.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, respect of agricultural produce," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings in Committee on Unemployment Insurance [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 157.

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES.

  [4.3 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bell, Lieut.-Cot. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

  Benu, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drane)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Apsley, Lord

  Berry, Sir George

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Batterton, Henry S.

  Barney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Button, H. S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chaster, City)

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Mewbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Becker, Harry

  Bruford, R,

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Price, E. G.

  Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Privett, F. J.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Raine, W.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Cope, Major William

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry page

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Sandon, Lord

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lorden, John William

  Singleton, J. E.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Lougher, L.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Stanley, Lord

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Stuart, Lard C. Crichton-

  Furness, G. J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Gates, Percy

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Morden, Col. W, Grant

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Nesbitt, J. C.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Halstead, Major D.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Harrison, F. C.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Winterton, Earl

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wise, Frederick

  Kay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

  Paget, T. G.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

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

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pennefather, De Fonbianque

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Peto, Basil E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Philipson, H. H.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

  Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Batey, Joseph

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Buckle, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bonwick, A.

  Burgess, S.

  Attlee, C. R.

  Briant, Frank

  Burnle, Major J. (Bootie)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Broad, F. A.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Barnes, A.

  Brotherton, J.

  Cairns, John

  256

  257

  Chapple, W. A.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

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

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sexton, James

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Collison, Levi

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, George

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Leach, W.

  Snowden, Philip

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lee, F.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Duncan, C.

  Loes-Smith, H. B (Keighley)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Ede, J. C.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Edmonds, G.

  Lowth, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Edwards, C. (Monrnouth, Bedwellty)

  Lunn, William

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

  Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

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

  Falconer, J.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Foot, Isaac

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Thornton, M.

  Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maxton, James

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Millar, J. D.

  Trevclyan, C. P.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Morel, E. D.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Warne, G. H.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H.

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

  Groves, T.

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Webb, Sidney

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  Nichol, Robert

  Weir, L. M.

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

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Westwood, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Wheatley, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Oliver, George Harold

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  Paling, W.

  Whiteley, W.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Wignall, James

  Hardie, George D.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atfercliffe)

  Herriotts, J.

  Fringle, W. M. R.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hinds, John

  Richards, R.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Hirst, G, H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Irving, Dan

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Jones.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industires Act, 1921, in respect of agricultural produce," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. Balfour, Mr. Barker, Sir George Berry, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Button, Major Cadogan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Clayton, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Duncan, Colonel Du Pre, Sir Bertram Falle, Sir Henry Foreman, Mr. Furness, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Major Lloyd George, Mr. Gosling, Sir Edward Grigg, Colonel Guest, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Hilder, Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Jephcott, Captain Kennedy, Sir John Leigh, Mr. Linfield, Captain Moreing, Mr. Nesbitt, Sir Percy Newson, Brigadier-General Nicholson, Mr. Owen Parker, Mr. Perring, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Shinwell, Dr. Simms,' Mr.
  258
  Herbert Spencer, Hear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Tout, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Graham White, Sir William Whitla, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Major Sir Samuel Hill-Wood.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Barnes, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Dunnico, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Major Molloy, Sir Norman Rae, Mr. Riley, Sir Sydney Russell-Wells, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Dr. Watts.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the-Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Mr. A clams, Mr. Albert Alexander, Lieut.- Colonel Archer-Shee, Mr. Banks, Mr. Batey. Lieut.-Colonel Bell, Sir Thomas Bennett, Major Birchall, Sir William

  259
  Bird, Sir Henry Buckingham, Mr. Cairns, Lieut.-Colonel Campion, Sir Charles Cayzer, Dr. Chapple, Lieut.-Colonel Coates, Sir Philip Dawson, Major Despencer-Robertson, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Gavan-Duffy, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Flanagan, Captain Foxcroft, Mr. Garland, Mr. Harold Gray, Mr. Greenall, Mr. William Greenwood, Mr. Hartshorn, Major Harvey, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Hopkins, Captain Hudson, Sir Stanley Johnson, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Frank Lee, Mr. Lowth, Major Malone, Lieut.-Colonel Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Grant Morden, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Mosley, Mr. John Murray, Sir Charles Oman, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Rankin, Sir Beddoe Rees, Mr. Hope Simpson, Brigadier-General Spears, Mr. Thornton, Mrs. Wintringham, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee C as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported From the Committee; That they had added the following Eleven Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Matrimonial Causes (England and Wales) Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Bridgetnan, Major Brown, Major Entwistle, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Paling, Mr. Rawlinson, and Mr. Shakespeare.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Eleven Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Legitimacy Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Betterton, Captain Bowyer, Captain Viscount Curzon, Major Entwistle, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Turner, Mr. Warne, and Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SECURITY AND REPARATIONS.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move
  "That this House, believing that the peoples of Europe wish to maintain peace and to pursue a policy which will secure it, agrees to invite in the first instance the Chambers of France and Belgium each to appoint a representative committee from all political sections, in order to exchange information and views with a similar committee appointed by this House regarding the occupation of the Ruhr in relation to the problems of security and reparations."
  It is quite unnecessary far me even to entertain the idea of an apology when I rise this afternoon to ask the House, for the third time this Session, to consider foreign affairs. I know I am asking hon. Members to consider a somewhat novel preposition. On the first occasion, the Labour party moved an Amendment to the Address, which raised the more fundamental issues of the present relations between France and Germany. We knew perfectly well that the proposals we then made had very little connection with the immediate problems we had to solve. As a matter of fact, one had so much sympathy with what the Prime Minister said, namely, that the situation for the moment could not profitably be interfered with, that we were much more concerned with fundamental issues than with proposals for the immediate settlement of the problem. On the second occasion, my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches raised a proposal that the League of Nations should be brought into this dispute. We know again perfectly well that until there is a change in public opinion, until in this nation or in that there is a recognition of the real facts of the situation, no mere suggestion of arbitration or conciliation is going to be of very great immediate use. To-day I raise another aspect. of this problem. I do it because my colleagues and myself are absolutely convinced that until public opinion has been influenced, the public opinion of France, the public opinion of Germany, the public opinion of Belgium and public opinion here, Governmental interference, apart from a public backing, is going to be of very doubtful benefit.
  What has happened since we debated this question before? Every day brings
  316
  new issues. Are affairs improving or are they worsening? I do not believe there is an hon. Member of this House who would get up and say that affairs are improving. Take Germany, for instance. What has happened in Germany as the result of recent French action? First of all reaction, militarist reaction: a heart-felt and silent conviction that when the opportunity comes revenge is to be had, has sunk further and further into the hearts of the Germans. So far from bringing security here the action that has been taken has tended to bring insecurity, not only when Germany revives, but for years and years and years, and even for generations. There is no nation on the face of the earth that is in a better position to understand the psychology of revenge than the French nation itself, if it will only look into its own history and its own heart. The second thing is this: Germany is less able to-day to pay the reparation that France went into the Ruhr five or six weeks ago in order to find. Someone has talked about searching pockets with bayonets. When we begin to search pockets in that way the result is that we knock holes in the pockets, and the money that lies there is rather apt to slip out and disappear altogether. That is what France is finding now.
  Supposing a settlement was come to, supposing that this afternoon it was stated in the newspapers that Germany had given in, that Germany had held up her hands and had said to France, "We can offer no more resistance, we are beaten, we bow again our heads to the dust. What do you want us to do? What conditions do you impose upon us?" Suppose that that happened this afternoon. Germany is in a less fit position to carry out any of those obligations than she was six weeks ago, when the adventure started. Take France. What is the position in France? I think I am right when I say that a country which starts upon an adventure, the end of which it has not clearly defined, the road to success in which it has not clearly mapped out, nor the circumstances under which it is to be justified to itself and the world—the nation that starts upon an adventure not sufficiently well defined to meet those three great tests is a nation which is in very grave danger of serious disaster.
  What has happened in France? France started her march upon the Ruhr, for

  317
  what? The Prime Minister on various occasions has referred to it. He has told us that France—I paraphrase his words, and I hope I am doing him no injustice—in search of reparation used reparation not exactly for the purpose that it actually had in its heart, and that there were other aims and other purposes. To-day France goes on. France occupies this district; it is ineffective. France occupies the next district; it is ineffective. France imposes the condition of a fiscal tariff; it is ineffective. It widens, widens, widens, until to-day France finds itself in the position of a country that has started upon a quest which it cannot define, has taken a journey which it cannot end, is pursuing something which is very elusive, and finds there is very little opportunity of ever being able definitely to seize it. I say that this fatal quest is one of the greatest calamities that any Government could allow to overshadow the country for which it is responsible. A very distinguished member of the French Chamber of Deputies, M. Leon Blum, writing three days ago in the French Press, used these words:
  "After two months not a single car has been loading coal for France. Thus the French steel industry did not have one-third of its normal ration of coal last month. The blast furnaces are going cold and the franc is falling. England and America will soon begin pressing us for money, and every day our debt to them grows bigger by some hundreds of millions of francs. Bread, sugar, cotton and woollens are going up in price. We have contracted new loans, and are promised new taxes. While waiting for Poinear6 to make Germany pay France is paying."
  That is the opinion of a distinguished member of the French Chamber of Deputies. Therefore, as the days and weeks have gone, France, instead of coming nearer to her object, finds her object becoming more and more distant and finds the end of her journey more and more problematical. In the meantime she has to pay heavily for her venture. The second thing that has happened to France is of even greater importance. I hope that hon. Members are not blind to the change in policy that is taking place. That is the most serious thing of all. France begins with nothing approaching a quarrel; we begin with hesitation, but with a very strong and most sincere desire to keep the Entente going—a sort of temporary tiff between permanent friends. That is the beginning.
  318
  The drift goes on; the breach widens; one or two little difficulties that the Prime Minister had to deal with in Paris on 3rd January become multiplied; every day multiplies them. At last one fine morning we find that the whole of the relations threaten fundamentally to fall down. We begin to be told that France is negotiating a new European bloc, we not being in it. Moreover it goes further. We are told that when France makes peace with Germany she is going to do it separately; she is going to present us with afait accompli, and we arc going to accept it or we are going to reject it just as it suits ourselves, but the thing is to be settled before we know even the terms of the settlement. That is the drift.
  That is not all. What is now happening, I am perfectly certain, was not a definitely conceived and determined design on the part of France. France in her own interests is reopening the questions closed at Paris when the Treaty of Versailles was written and signed, and is herself rewriting the Treaty of Versailles without any consultation with her late Allies, either ourselves or the Americans. The frame of mind that I detest most of all is the frame of mind of the pessimist. When we see, not by the evil designs of France—I do not believe that for a moment—but by the inevitable consequence of events one thing following another, one thing leading to another, the effect becoming cause, cause becoming effect, then surely it is time for us to make a survey, not of an academic kind, a survey which ends not merely in a gesture of goodwill or a gesture of pious aspiration that we should refer it to the League of Nations, but it behoves us to make a survey for the purpose of seeing whether we cannot apply our wills to the problem, and solve it by stages, and not in a miraculous way by one act, because that can never possibly be done.
  Take our own position in all these matters. Curiously enough, the one country that seems to be forgotten by so many of our people to-day is our own country. We have all sorts of sentiment about this country and that country, but who is facing the position that this country is getting into in relation to any other? Who? I refer to the political relations, the military relations. It is all very well for hon. Members—I think they are mostly on the other side—to assume that we are out of the picture for a

  319
  moment, that we are in the stalls or in the pit or in the gallery while the great European play—I hope it is not to be a tragedy, though it looks very much like it—is being played on the stage. That is an absurd position. We are on the stage, and we cannot get off the stage.
  What have we found over and over again? We have never found some creation of the devil appear in human form and declare a war. That is not how things are done. We find, we have always found, and we will find again that there will be a nice gentle little trickle of events, and we shall launch ourselves on it; we will be quiescent and we will go down, and the trickle will get bigger and the current will get stronger, and we will go on and go on until at last we are in the rapids, and once we are in the rapids then our sentiments and our ideas and our intentions may be what we like, but over the waterfall we will go, whether we wish it or not.
  The thing which is happening to-day is the beginning of a new series of chapters which may culminate in war unless we are very careful. Our position to-day is this. The military balance in Europe is changing; the political balance in Europe is changing, and at the moment, so far as my correspondence goes, and so far as I can read the situation, we are rather out of it. We have very little influence. Nobody is looking to us for a lead and, as a matter of fact, we are in a position which would enable us to give a moral lead to Europe if we only had the courage to lay down our position and stand by our position through a few months, probably of misunderstanding. Look at our position on the Reparation Commission. We are out-voted every time. The Reparation Commission is making itself responsible for things that, as we all know, we refuse to make ourselves responsible for, yet our representative sits there and never votes. Is that a position for a country like this to occupy? Take the Rhineland Commission. Exactly the same thing is happening there. Even worse is going on there, because the Rhineland Commission, unlike the Reparation Commission, may at any moment become a political instrument. Perhaps the language I have just used is not quite accurate, because when you are dealing with economics it is very
  320
  easy to translate economic into political events, but I mean that the Rhineland Commission is different, because where you get a majority under the domination of country A or country B or country C, if there is a division of opinion on political matters, or on military matters, or on politico-military matters, and one important Power like ourselves instructs its representative on the Rhineland Commission to take no part in the business of the Commission, then that Commission can be used in the occupied district—as in the Ruhr now—for political purposes. That, as a matter of fact, is happening. The Commission is extending its sphere of work. It is going outside its authority under the Versailles Treaty, and is becoming a political instrument in carrying on the designs that are being advanced in the Ruhr area at the present time. Yet, whether it is doing its legitimate or its illegitimate work, our country takes no position on it at all, except that of instructing Lord Kilmarnock to sit quiet, hold his tongue, and never use his vote.
  I venture to say that cannot go on much longer. It is quite impossible that such a situation could be maintained much longer. I would like to press for a statement in respect of what Germany is prepared to accept as her obligations. We should do our best to get her to speak. We were told, and I believe it is perfectly right, that the terms were in Paris on the 3rd January, and the agent was there and they were going to be produced, but owing to certain circumstances they were not produced, and the agent went home, and to this moment we do not know what Germany was prepared to accept as what she considered and what she would define as reasonable obligations in view of the burdens imposed for reparation purposes. Surely, if I may allow my mind to wander in that direction, the very first move in the game is to get Germany to speak, and no country was in a better position than ours to do that. but we allowed events to master us instead of mastering events. What is the use of a great body of men like this what is the use of a, House of Commons, of a Parliament elected to represent the people of this country, if we are to be controlled like puppets by events? Have we no policy? Have we no conception of our function in Europe? Have we no idea of pursuing a straight policy, day by day

  321
  and week by week, in such a way as to disarm opposition that is merely factious? Have we no conception as to how that is to be done? I do net believe for a single moment that we are in that position. I believe, with a little courage, this country could place itself right at the head of those moral forces which must come into the forefront. in Europe, if European problems are to be solved. When one looks around about trying to find somebody who is doing that one's best patriotism feels outraged by our own silence and our own quiescence.
  At the moment, remember, it is not the history of to-day or to-morrow which is being written, but the history of the next 50 years. You begin now, you choose a certain path now, you start a new European diplomacy now with certain great presumptions in its mind as to certain merits of certain plans of action. Ten years from now you cannot undo that. You still remain the mere puppets of events, and events are going to write the issues of your history. To-day you find a German Government saying "We cannot speak. We want to speak, but if we do so France will interpret our words as weakness." We find that Government saying, "Cannot somebody, cannot something make it easy for us to speak "—because apparently until some Moses comes and touches the rock with his rod the water cannot gush out. What impotence? As to France, we are told the French Government cannot change because the opinion of the French Chamber will not allow it, and the French Chamber is afraid to allow it because French public opinion is said not to allow them. Everybody who follows the French Press day by day knows that French public opinion at the present moment is the Frankenstein which has been raised by French Governments since 1918. People cannot play with devilry, and find that they are not raising devils in the path to make it impossible for them to get back to a proper course of action. As to our own Government, we have been told again and again that we cannot move lest our action might be misinterpreted by, and be inconvenient to, our own Allies, yet in Germany, in France, and here public opinion is apprehensive. Nobody likes the situation. I was talking the other clay to a very distinguished French publicist who supports M. Poincaré in everything he has done,
  322
  and when one talks to these men one finds that away hack in their minds there is a great reserve. They are doubtful about the result, doubtful whether even an apparent success will ensure that a real success will follow. May I quote a line of Burns, assuming for a moment the prerogative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). I should say to the reasonable French people that success in the Ruhr is somewhat like pleasure—
  "You seize the flower; its bloom is shed."
  You get your success, but the moment you have it, it withers in your hand. It is something that turns to nothing more than dust and ashes and futility. There i3 the situation—paralysis, evil, and drift with the Governments—the German, the French, tile Belgian and our own—standing by; public opinion behind us uncertain, unhappy, anxious to get conference, anxious to understand each other, but no order, no means of conference, of getting the public to lay their heads together in order to exchange opinion and find out exactly each what the other is thinking. That is the tragic situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment. In moving this Resolution I am bearing in mind that this House is the custodian of opinion. For the form of the Resolution I care nothing. I understand that some hon. Members object, to this phrase and that phrase in it. So far as I am concerned, I care for none of the phrases. The only thing I am considering is the substance. I have suggested the Chambers of Belgium and France to begin with because I think it is far more advisable that those of us who have been operating together should have the first conference together. As soon as that is held I hope we may have an opportunity of consulting the German Reichstag as well. I have not put that in the Resolution because I wanted to take the first step as a separate and distinct step and when that is done and if that is successful then we can go further.
  I admit that when you come to the substance of the Resolution the structure is a very novel one and hon. Members perhaps smile at it. It is very novel to us, but not novel to the other two Chambers mentioned in the Resolution. One of my hon. Friends and myself have both been before such Committees of

  323
  foreign Chambers. America has got its Committee on Public Relations—the Senate Committee. A good many years ago I had the great honour of being asked by that Committee to go and talk over certain matters relating to the English public opinion, and an hon. Friend who sits behind me has been asked by either the French Senate or the French Chamber of Deputies Committee on Foreign Relations to go and talk to them about Balkan opinion. France has got a Committee—exactly the Committee that I suggest 'we should elect by this Resolution. The Belgian Senate has got a similar Committee. If this Committee was elected to-day, or was to be elected at once, I do not suggest, so far as we are concerned, that it should be a permanent one. I am not at all sure, however, that if this House is going to do its duty in keeping in touch with Continental affairs as it ought to, that it would not be very well advised as a separate Power, to appoint a Foreign Affairs Committee upon which you could have represented on a proportional representation basis all the groups and sections in this House. But I am not asking that to-day. I simply say, remembering the case I have put up so far, remembering the circumstances we have to face, that it would he a good thing—I believe it would be a welcome thing, as I shall show in a minute—if we were to appoint a Committee so representative simply for the specific purpose of exchanging views with France and Belgium, to see how far public opinion in the various countries does disagree, and how far all this squabbling and disagreement between the Governments and the Administrations are justified by public opinion. Moreover, I find that practically every letter one gets from members of Chambers and Parliaments in Europe, deplores exactly what I have been trying to deplore in this House. I have, for instance, a letter in my hand, which I am able to quote, written by M. Vandervelde, who was a Belgian Minister during the War. M. Vandervelde says, on behalf of the party which he represents, the second party in the Belgian Chamber:
  "We authorise you to state, in the course of the Debate which is to take place on 6th March in the House of Commons, that we fully and cordially approve the initiative
  324
  taken by you, in the interests of peace and with a view to assuring the solution of the problem of reparations and security."
  The French, I am sorry to say, are a much weaker party. The Belgian Labour party is a very important party, but the French, owing mainly, I think, to those unfortunate squabbles that Moscow has been so anxious to spread in every Parliamentary country in Europe—[An HON. MEMBER: "United front; all together!"] My united front is not in words. The French party, I regret, is very much weaker. Still, there they are, and if hon. Members will allow me, I should like to quote a letter which their leader has written on the same subject. He says:
  "It is an understood thing that we (the party) are ready to do all in our power to ensure its success."
  That is the success of the Motion which I am now moving.
  "Without building too many hopes —
  I do not want to leave this House in any misunderstanding. This is a qualifying sentence, but still I think we ought to be realistic in our ideas at the same time as we are asking Governments to be realistic in theirs—
  "Without building too many hopes on the positive results of a conference to which the delegates of the French Chamber will for the most part bring a prejudiced outlook difficult to overcome, we think that some of them will receive useful information and enlightenment from such an interview. And more especially we are of the opinion that the very announcement of a meeting such as you propose will have everywhere—and especially in Germany and France—a calming and pacifying moral effect, which it would be wrong for us to neglect."
  I do not think this is the place for me to go into the details of what we might discuss. The two general subjects, of course, are those placed at the head of my Motion. The two things that arc going to wreck Europe, if Europe is wrecked, are these—. France's fears that she is not secure secondly, an attempt to run after reparations that in actual economic fact must be mere will-o'-the-wisps. Those are the two problems that Europe has got to face, and upon those two problems public opinion is very much divided in the three Allied countries.
  As far as I am concerned, I would refer France's security to an all-inclusive League of Nations, and I should be willing to give a pledge, so far as a pledge could be given—and certainly it would be given

  325
  without any reserve on my own part—that when the League of Nations explored the problem of French security, out and in, back and forth, up and down, until the whole of the nature of the problem was understood, and then came to a decision as to how France could best be secured, I should be willing to say, I will accept in substance such a report and such a recommendation from the League of Nations. On the question of reparations, the great point is an immediate payment. France wants an immediate payment. I think the important thing there is an international loan at the same time as a definite settlement is made regarding the amount of Germany's responsibilities. I think that is a good enough opening, a good enough beginning, for such conversations. I want to emphasise, before I sit down, that I have no intention—my Resolution has no intention—of making these Committees negotiating Committees. Perhaps, in this so-called business age, we are inclined to place too little importance upon a general, indefinite goodwill between peoples. If we could only get the right attitude of mind, I would not be very anxious to press out for definite sort of arrangements. Of this I am perfectly certain, that your wisest. and your 'cutest diplomatists can devise the best ways of doing things, but if there is not goodwill behind them, your wisest and your best ways will not be carried out.
  My last point—and I come back to it again and again—is this, is the great dominant factor of the events of to-day. What is happening now is not for this week, not for next week, not for this year or next year; what is happening now is a series of events that are going to fructify, and fructify, and fructify, until at last the whole course of our history, more particularly the history of our international relations, for the next 50 or 70 years is going to be determined by what happens within the next few weeks. It is not a question of France and Germany, but a question of Europe. In fact, it is not very difficult to see that America, too, has got to come in, so that it becomes really a question of the world. A month or two ago everybody was rather chary and unwilling to admit that we Mere going back again to worship in the Temple of Mars. We had said so often, "The War
  326
  is going to end all wars, "we bad said so often, "The victory of the Allies is not going to be used merely for the protection of the Allies, but is going to be used as the foundation of peace," that we were rather shame-faced when we had to say, "Let us prepare for the next war." We are getting less shame-faced now—less shame-faced. Those dust-covered altars of the Temple of Mars are being put into better order and given a more respectable appearance, and we are just going away back to exactly the frame of mind we were in before 1900, when we started to explore the world for alliances in order to establish a balance of power and get security by armed force.
  Moreover, the French are saying things of us, and we are saying things of them— the fault is on both sides—they are thinking things of us, and we are thinking things of them, that are bound to end in hostile organisation, either armies, submarines, air services, alliances,blocs, balances of power—I do not care how. They can show themselves in thousands of ways, but the fact is this, that it is a hostile organisation growing steadily in front of us, and I want to stop it. Surely it is our duty to see that the dragon teeth of words and thoughts that are now being sown, and that are bound to give us a harvest of armed men, shall be raked up, if we possibly can rake them up and prevent them yielding any harvest at all. Yet, there we are. The baffling and the maddening thought is this, that we are paralysed—Governments will not act—no action is being taken, except of this indefinite, vague kind, going out into the unknown and the unexplored—public opinion left to the mercies of those artful people who can play upon it, rouse its prejudices and its fears, put it into a position that will respond later on to a more hearty and definite call—it is being left, neglected, by us.
  5.0 P.M.
  Really, I do not think it is the duty of Parliament to allow it. I want to encroach in nothing upon the Executive, I want to ask nothing of the nature of a usurpation of the Executive power, but at the same time I want the Executive not to encroach upon the prerogative of Parliament. We have got our functions; they have theirs. Our function is not to negotiate, our function is not to begin the negotiations, but our function is to see to

  327
  it that the public opinion with which we deal is an enlightened public opinion. Can hon. Members imagine anything more fatal to constitutional government than a Parliament that sits quietly by when so many events, pregnant with fate, are taking place, doing nothing to guide them and mould them in a moral and wise direction? We have come here, at any rate some of us have come here, to try and make this House of Commons an institution of power, of respect, and of authority. If that cannot be done, what happens? The country is deprived at once of the only means by which it can go from one stage to another of well considered organic experiment and organic change. Here is the test. Here is the chance. Not with more sincerity than the Government—I do not claim that—but with more freedom than the Government, we can exchange our views with France and Germany. We can stand as a Parliament consulting French opinion, Belgian opinion, ultimately German opinion, and deal with that important thing the foundation of all wise international action namely, international good feeling. That is our function. That is our field of action, and I move this Resolution, as I believe that the. time has come for Parliament, working in the field of public opinion, to do its duty to Europe, and only as far as it does its duty to Europe, will Europe have any guarantee that Peace is going to be secured for the next generation.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The House has listened to an extremely interesting speech making a very interesting proposal, and with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said I imagine the great, majority of the House will be in agreement. His Motion consists of two parts. It says, in effect, that the peoples of the world want peace, as to which there is no question at all, and that the most important step that could be taken towards securing that peace would be, the settlement of these great questions of reparations and security. I shall come back to the substantial proposition in a moment. The hon. Gentleman made some observations with which I find myself entirely in agreement. They were of a general character, but I believe they were profoundly true. He said that things were going from had to worse. As far as
  328
  an outsider can judge, I agree. He said the position is getting more serious. He said that we were now taking, or not taking, action which might decide the future for 50 years. I think it was a very conservative and moderate statement. I am not sure it might not be said about almost everything, but still it is, in a popular sense, particularly true of great events rather than of small ones. That leads up to this practical proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that his practical proposal is rather insufficient for dealing with so grave a situation.
  Mr. NEWBOLD: Hear, hear!
  Lord R. CECIL: I am glad to secure that approval.
  Mr. NEWBOLD: Extremes meet.
  Lord R. CECIL: Let me ask the House to examine for a moment what is practically the suggestion. I am not dealing with the wording. I quite agree that this is much too serious a case to deal in mere verbal criticism. But take the substance. He proposes that we should appoint an official Parliamentary Committee to represent the House of Commons, and I suppose the whole Parliamentary forum. I am not sure whether or not he would have a representative from the other House. This Committee is to go over to meet other equally official committees—indeed, as I understood him, the existing Foreign Affairs Committees of the Belgian and French Parliaments. They are to meet and to discuss foreign affairs generally, and reparations and security in particular. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that would be a convenient course to the other channels of communication which exist between the countries? He said he felt the difficulty, because one might accuse the hon. Gentleman of want of acuteness of mind when he said they mast not negotiate they must not interfere with the Foreign Office and other diplomatic channels. How is it possible for them not Lo do so? You have an official committees representing Parliament, meeting other official committees representing the other Parliaments. How are they to discuss without negotiating? Why, their very discussions are negotiations, and, not only so, but how is the Government to go on negotiating with the other

  329
  Governments while this unofficial Government is to be negotiating at the same time? It is an organ of Government, because it is an organ of Parliament, which is the supreme authority. I cannot see how a proposal of that kind would practically work. The "hon. Gentleman was rather in favour of the permanent appointment of a Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. I quite agree this is not the time to discuss that, but it shows the kind of trend in his mind. I beg him to consider most carefully the working of other foreign affairs committees in other parts. I believe profoundly, from all I have been told by those most familiar with their working, that their working is disastrous, that they have produced exactly the evils I have tried to indicate to the House. They have produced a kind of secondary government, and the diplomatic and Foreign Office officials do not know from hour to hour to which of the two authorities they are really to bear allegiance. I am convinced that this proposal would not be successful. But there is a much more serious objection to it, in my view. How would this appear if it were passed? The hon. Gentleman has a very qualified approval, I imagine, from a member of the Socialist party in the French Chamber. He did not give the name, but I think he said he was the leader.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Yes—M. Blum.
  Lord R. CECIL: As the hon. Member knows, at present that party commands a very small number of votes, indeed, in the French Chamber—I think about 40. Apart from that, how would it look to the majority of that Chamber if this Parliament, with the approval of the Government and the official side of this Parliament, appointed a committee to negotiate—because that is the way they would look at it; they would not accept the hon. Member's limitation—with other Governments, I will not say behind the backs, but independent of, and displacing, the Government for the day? I am convinced that the plan of appealing to popular opinion, to the people, to the Chamber over the heads of the Government which represent them, is a device which never succeeds. It is a very old device. Hon. Members will remember that it was the device employed by Rabshakeh when he was besieging Jerusalem, and he appealed to the people on the walls against the
  330
  Ministers, and the only result was to consolidate the whole of the Jews behind their leaders. That plan has been tried over and over again, generally by revolutionary Governments, and never with success. The last occasion on which it was tried was when President Wilson, in the Paris Conference, appealed to the Italian people ever the heads of the Italian Government, and we know with what result. It produced a most dreadful explosion in Italy, broke up the Conference for the time being, consolidated the whole people of Italy behind the policy of the Government—the policy, of which personally I did not approve, of Fiume, and, in the end, the Powers had, in effect, to give in to the proposal which they had been fighting up to that time. If such an appeal over the heads of a Government could ever have been made, it could have been made by President Wilson, who had been, within three months, received with unbounded enthusiasm in Italy, and was regarded as almost. a semi-divine person at that time. I am convinced that this plan would not succeed. I do agree most heartily, as everybody does, as to the seriousness of the crisis, and I am quite sure that if they arc as anxious as I am, and everybody else is, to find some solution, if it can he found before it is too late, do let me ask them to consider whether a proposal of this kind, if it were adopted, would really make for a conclusion. Would it not, in effect, merely postpone action, make action more difficult, and probably embitter the relations between all the countries concerned?
  I will turn for a moment to the main proposition of the hon. Gentleman. We must settle these questions of reparations and security. We cannot settle one without the other; the two hang together. I noticed in the last Debate hon. Members attacked the French point of 'view that they did not want reparations setting Germany on its feet again unless they had security. It is not unreasonable from the French point of view. They do not want to see a powerful Germany next door, naturally, unless they are given some security against invasion, and I do not blame them myself. To solve this problem, you have to tackle security as well as reparations, and that is why I say, as strongly as ever I can, there is only one international body that can settle it, and that is the League of Nations. I agree with the hon. Gentle-

  331
  man, if he will allow me to say so, that in this matter we want public opinion; we want the impalpable forces behind us even more than Governmental action. But what instrument is there, or could be brought into existence, comparable to the League for the purpose of exciting that public opinion? You get there the representatives, not of the countries concerned, but the countries of the whole world. It is a far superior instrument for concentrating and enforcing public opinion, as I have always advocated. I do not withdraw or retreat from one single word I said in the previous Debate. I am more convinced that the line I took was absolutely right. It is essential that the League should do it, and the League would do it. But for the House of Commons to try to take it out of the hands of the Government of the day is unconstitutional and altogether unworkable.
  In connection with this question of security, there was one passage in the hon. Gentleman's speech for which I wish to express my warmest gratitude and greatest pleasure, when he said that, for his part, he would be prepared to accept any scheme of security worked out by the League of Nations which would satisfy French opinion. I do not wish to press it further than he pressed it. I do not wish to stretch the meaning an inch beyond what his words ought to bear. I should be very grateful to the Government if they could say something to the same effect; if they were prepared to sat, "We have looked into the proposals for security which are now being considered by the League, and, without pledging ourselves to every word of them, without, accepting every word of them, yet we do recognise that they are proceeding on sound lines. We do believe security for the world must be a security administered by, and created by, the League of Nations, and we are content that in that security, and as part of it, special consideration should be given to those countries that are in a position of particular danger." Personally, I think it would be of great value, if my right hon. Friend would allow me to say so, to the international situation if a statement of that kind, if not to-night, yet in the near future, could be made by the British Government. I am satisfied that the real difficulty, much more than reparation, is security, and until you have, somehow or
  332
  another, an appeasement. of French feeling on that point you will never get them to look upon this question of reparation from the central point from which we start, namely, that we are satisfied that Germany must be restored as one of the elements of the commercial and economic community of Europe.
  I am going to address one or two other observations, if I may, to my right hon. Friend. I agree with the Mover of the Resolution that there is great danger lest. we should drift upon the water. There is, I believe, always the greatest danger in international relations arising from misunderstanding for want of clearness of expression. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to make any statement in detail as to what the Government intend to do in this or that crisis. I do, however, ask them, very respectfully, if they cannot give this House some assurance that they do know exactly what they will do as these crises arise, that they have envisaged and considered the matter, that they know exactly where they are and that they will tell—have told—the Powers most intimately concerned what is their policy, what they intend to do and what they intend to do in giving effect to it.. I will illustrate what I mean. Yesterday there were rumours, about which a question was addressed to the Government, from the other side of the House, to the effect that the Germans had broken off relations with the French. That would be a very serious event if it should happen. It would raise a very serious question as to whether it was possible for us to ignore the provision to appeal to the League of Nations under Article 17. The question had arisen whether it was not essential that the matter should then and there be brought before the organ of the League. That is one event.
  There may be at any moment a great enlargement of the territory occupied by the French troops. There may be—I hope earnestly there will not be—but there may be serious fighting and great disasters of that kind, and there is the contingency freely talked of in the Paris Press of separate negotiations between Germany and France and Belgium, and a separate peace, modifying the Treaty of Versailles and making fresh provisions as to the government of the Sarre, and a number of other things.

  333
  Irresponsible foreign writers in the Press say that this country is not to be consulted at all, but I can scarcely believe that any responsible statesman in France contemplates any action of that kind, which would evidently be of the most unfriendly description. I have no doubt that this has been considered, and earnestly considered, by my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the Government have given it their closest attention. I do not know whether it is possible for him to say, but if they can say they had considered it, and know the action that they intend to take, and that they had. communicated their views to France and to Germany—for it is just as important for Germany to know where we stand as France—I confess I would feel, personally, considerably relieved, and so, I believe, would the whole of the House.
  Let me just give one other instance. On 10th April the Council of the League is going to meet. Is it possible for the Council to meet when these events are going on and do nothing? That seems to me very difficult indeed. I myself should regard it almost—I will not say as fatal—but very difficult to defend if such an event happened. All these things have to be considered and decided upon, and above all I do venture to press this—and l am sure my right hon. Friend will understand me it is in no spirit of hostility—1 do feel the danger—I do ask him to make it clear to other Governments where the Government stands, and exactly what they mean to do in this kind of situation. I am satisfied that the danger of misunderstanding is the great danger against which all diplomatists ought to wage war. I know how difficult it is to believe in unpalatable truths, but if you want a foreign Government to understand that there is a point beyond which you really cannot go, and after which you really have to reconsider your position entirely, you must say so in the plainest possible language.
  I myself never joined in many of the carping criticisms against the pre-War Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in respect to his negotiations before the War. Looking back and judging of events, if I had to make that criticism now, I should say they said the right things to Germany, but they did not say
  334
  them clearly and drive them into their minds so that the Germans would believe what was said against the whole of the tendency which they would naturally Lave. I am very anxious that no similar mistakes should be made, and. that we should make it clear where we stand. I think public opinion is moving in this country. I have great confidence in the public opinion of this country. I believe the people passionately desire to avoid anything like war, and yet earnestly desire the friendship of France. I believe they are most anxious to stand well with France. I believe that they are, however, right, a thousand times right, in thinking that it is of the greatest importance for the stability and peace of Europe that these great nations should work in full and complete agreement with each other. But they also feel, unless I am very much mistaken, that there are certain developments of modern French policy which are disquieting in the extreme. I believe that the French people, the people, desire peace. I am sure they do. But there are facts which are disappointing. There was the speech of the French War Minister the other day, in which he insisted that the peace strength of the French army must never be allowed to fall below 660,000 men. It is a regrettable fact that they have never ratified the Washington Treaty. There is a fact that they declined to allow any consideration of the number of submarines to be brought up the Washington Conference. I am quite ready to believe that those are not necessarily symptoms of a warlike tendency. I do believe that the French people are essentially peaceful. But these things are disquieting to public opinion, and they have disquieted more and more. Let this be made quite clear to the French Government. If I thought that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would make for a clearer understanding between Parliaments and Governments, I would support it. Because I do not think so I cannot support it. Though I cannot support the Motion, I appeal to the Government to give some reassurance to the House and the country that they have made their position perfectly clear, that they know exactly what they are going to do, that there is no danger of our gradually drifting from

  335
  danger to danger until the opportunity for retreat is past.
  Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I do not desire in any way to call into question the tragic tones employed by the opener of this Debate to-day. That tone well befits the present state of Europe. While I agree with him in the tones he has spoken, I cannot agree at all with his specific proposal for dealing with the evils mentioned. The Noble Lord referred to one case in which a foreign statesman attempted to speak to the people of a great nation behind the back of the Government. That failed. Most of us in this House can remember a case nearer home at the time of the Council of Action when a distinguished member of the Socialist party visited France for a similar purpose of interfering with the internal policy of. France. Most of us will remember the hurried exit he made from France on that occasion. The House, therefore, in all quarters, I think, will refuse to be drawn in the slightest way towards any interference with the organised democratic representation of France and Belgium in these matters. I believe—I think it is hardly necessary to give the grounds of it—that any such move is bound to lead to far more trouble than it can possibly cure in the present evils.
  I am disquieted by a phrase in the Motion in which the Mover desires in the first instance to call for the appointment of Committees of the French and Belgian Chambers, and by the fact that nothing is said of our House of Lords because, presumably, there is no Socialist there, and only one in the French Senate. Supposing this Motion wwere accepted, the Government would be committed to action, and would not stop at the first instance. It is bound to go on to Germany, and one has a right to ask what would be the effect upon the Germans of applying this method there. Let us look at the internal situation of Germany. Our whole hope of obtaining reparation from Germany and a stable peace for Germany, lies in the strength, competence, authority, and prestige of the German Government. All last summer, all last autumn the German Government, attempted to bring into its coalition the volks-partei of the big industrialists. If that had been done all Germany would
  336
  have been behind that Government. Who prevented it? The Socialist party, who refused to work with the volks-partei, and the head of which left the Government; thus they created a new situation in Germany. At the present time the volks-partei are not so large in Parliament or so representative, but there are outstanding personalities. The Socialist party stands outside.
  If we or any nation approach Germany refusing to deal with the Government of Germany and claiming to deal through a Committee that step must undermine the present authority of the German Government, and tend to divide Germany when she wishes to be united and when it is in our interest to keep her united. I hope that Members will realise that whether it is peace with Germany or reparations from Germany it all depends upon the unity of Germany, and I trust that we shall refuse to take any step which might seem to tend to destroy the influence of the present highly unified Government in Germany which has the support of all parties and the support of the German people.
  I am able to quote some evidence of this fact. Prince Max of Baden, who presided over the fateful events of October and November, 1918, under whose auspices the Kaiser resigned or abdicated, a few weeks ago came out of his political retirement in order to support and back up the present Government to the utmost. There is at the other end of the scale General Ludendorff and the extreme Nationalists who are rather active. The people of Germany are now united behind Dr. Curio, and General Ludendorff seems now ready to take to himself part of the credit for the present unity of the German nation. In the interests of Germany and of our own nation I hope the Government will refuse to give the least support to this Motion of the Socialist party. If I am asked what I propose to do I would say that our Government should accept amendments.
  I ask, have we any fresh or additional information regarding the present powers of Germany, or powers she may have in the immediate future, to lay before the world in the interests of Germany, in the interests of peace, and in the interests of a sane policy by Frenchmen I think we have. I would ask the House to look at Germany on two sides; in the first place

  337
  as a highly industrialised nation; and, secondly, as a highly organised agricultural nation. The development of agriculture in Germany was so good before the War that the German nation required to import very little food from abroad, and, therefore, they were able to buy with their exports all kinds of things from abroad. At the present time, agriculture in Germany is more depleted than it has ever been before for the last 50 years.
  The yield per acre for the harvest of 1922 in quantity for Germany is down by one-third. The total in quantity of the corn crop in 1922 amounted to 7·3 million tons, whereas in 1913 the total was 14·6 million tons, or exactly half. It is quite true that German industries received an immense stimulus from the War, and Germany has never been better able to make wealth and feed her people. What is wrong there is agriculture, for whereas in the old days, when her agriculture almost sufficed to supply all her needs, she could export. and import freely; new her agriculture is such that she must import great quantities of food, and they have no money to pay for imported goods, and therefore she cannot buy our manufactures.
  Those are the two points I wish to make, namely, that the political situation in Germany is such that to pass the Motion put forward by the Labour party would almost be an act of treachery towards the future of Germany. The economic situation in Germany on the agricultural side is such as to make solvency for Germany in international trade a distant and doubtful effort, the French Government and the French nation would give as much attention to the importance to Germany of agriculture as they do to its other industries the whole controversy about reparations would be ended.
  Mr. WISE: I have listened to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) and I quite agree with him as to the position of Germany with regard to her feeding of her own population. I do not, however, quite agree with him as to the German Government. I cannot, help thinking that one of the weaknesses we have to contend with at the present time is the unstable position of the German Government. You have had various changes of the Chancellor there and I think the German Government has shown
  338
  weakness ever since the reparations, and ever since the Schreidman Government refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Weakness has been shown by all the German Governments since that date. I agree, however, with the first three words of the Resolution, but as I read it through it reminds me of a Debate we had about a year ago on the Cabinet Secretariat, and I cannot help thinking if it, was carried it would he rather introducing the Cabinet Secretariat which was one of the great fallacies of this country after the War. My experience of it in Paris at the time of the Conference in 1919 was that they were conducting at the time of the Peace Treaty more or less the domination of the foreign policy of Britain. The leader of the Labour party has referred to the position of Germany. Undoubtedly it is getting worse and worse. It is essential from our point of view that we should combine security with reparations. Reparations is the burning question in Germany and even during the last fortnight since we had a Debate on reparations, the position in Germany has got worse. Her currency has increased to the now enormous amount of 3,123 milliards of marks, and that is gigantic. At the same time with that inflation, as I stated about a fortnight ago, we have a certain amount of danger. We have danger that Germany has a certain amount: of gold—I think it is £50,000,000. This should be pledged to the Reparation Commission. It means that with marks at 100,000 to the£sterling instead of 20 that for£31,000,000 odd, Germany could wipe out all her paper currency which she has at the present time. I coal-tend that we should take a lion on her gold and pledge it to reparations. When you mention reparations you should go back to the time of the Armistice. Up to this time the countries of Europe worked their finances in a wonderful way. Naturally we worked ours in a better way than other countries, because we taxed our people during the War, but what was the position at the time of the Armistice? The victorious countries were asked to send in their claims as to the amount of reparations they would expect. to get from Germany. The amount which was sent in was £26,000,000,000, and as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may remember at the time of the Treaty of Versailles, the amount was reduced to£11,000,000,000, and that was altered in May, 1921, to

  339
  £6,600,000,000, and that is the figure which is before the countries of Europe at the present time. As long as you have this figure you cannot have reparations and you cannot have security. The only possible way Germany can pay a large amount like that is by the whole of the industries of the world being idle except Germany. It is an impossible thing. We have taken from Germany by the reparations 74 per cent. of her iron ore and 34 per cent. of her hard coal, her colonies, a large part of her agricultural land and one-tenth of her population. It is no good considering reparations, unless we are ready to consider a reasonable and just amount. I contend that the amount which the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade put before the Paris Government early in January was nearer the right figure. We can alter it., but I do not think that that figure cannot possibly be increased. What is the position of France? I contend that France has been playing her part badly since the Treaty. I am a believer in France and I want to support her, but she has made some very foolish mistakes, especially with regard to her dealing with land in Lorraine. After the War I heard of three German brothers who had land in Lorraine. After the Versailles Treaty was signed the French Government sent a letter to these brothers to say that they must become nationalised Frenchmen, but they refused. The French Government, then stated that they would take their land in Lorraine which was iron ore land, but they said, "We will allow two of you to remain Germans as long as one of you becomes a Frenchman? These three brothers tossed up and the one I happen to know of the three was the unlucky one and he had to become a Frenchman in order to hold this land in Lorraine. Do you ever think that that man will really be a Frenchman? It is fine little points like this which prick the Germans and no doubt there are many points that prick Frenchmen.
  I cannot help thinking that France, if she is going to have peace and security, must spend far less on her militarism. She has spent gigantic sums upon it so far. In 1919 she spent 18 milliards of francs; in 1920, 7 milliards: in 1921, 6 milliards; and last year 5 milliards of francs. It. is far too much. The country cannot afford it, and if we are to get
  340
  peace and security we must see that this militarism is stopped. The Leader of the Labour party wondered as to the position of France with regard to The Ruhr. On the right bank of the Rhine there are 125 blast furnaces. Seventy-five of them were working on the 1st January; 25 only were working on the 20th February. That shows the difficulty there will be for France to get extra reparations. Reparations can only be paid practically in goods. They can only be paid if the workmen are willing to work. If you want the men to be willing to work you must give them some hope in the future, and unless you do that I feel there will be no chance of France or anyone else getting large reparations. Europe is in a most serious state. Every country is spending more than it should. Every country except Finland and Czechoslovakia in 1922 imported more than they exported. Until we can get Europe right as a whole, it will be impossible to do what this Resolution suggests and discuss the position with France and Belgium. I deplore. that the United States is not included in this Resolution. I feel that nothing definite can be secured either by way of reparations or security or peace without the United States. President Harding has made one or two important speeches in the last month or two. I feel that if America would only come in we might then look forward to security and reparations. I sincerely hope that in the near future our Government may be in a position to tentatively approach the Americans from a humane point of view, asking them if they will not come forward to help to bring about what we all want, permanent peace and security.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I feet that in rising to take part in this discussion I owe the House an apology, because there is a tradition in regard to questions on foreign affairs that into such questions laymen should not rush while we have in the House 60 many professionally qualified to deal with the subject. There is also a. tendency to suggest that foreign affairs should be dealt with only in well chosen language, almost in whispered words lest one should by some indiscreet remark create international difficulties. Nevertheless; as a plain blunt man representing plain blunt men who have none of this special knowledge to which I have re-

  341
  ferred, I feel that we are entitled to state bluntly and plainly our views on the present situation, which may endanger not merely our economic interests and, indeed, our livelihood, but ultimately our lives as well. I want to say that the people who have conducted our foreign affairs up till now, according to all the evidence before us, have been failures. They have failed to give us European peace. They have failed to give us European harmony, and the discussion in which we are taking part to-day is clue to their complete failures in the past.
  What I want to know, as a plain man, at the outset, is, Where do we as a nation stand in this matter? What is our actual position? Where are we going in the policy we are considering and where do we want to go? What price are we prepared to pay for the goal which we wish to attain? Have we altogether abandoned our claim for reparations or have we reduced it, and what is the amount of our reduced claim? If we have given up our claim or, rather, our hope to get either indemnities or reparations out of Europe, then I want to know what right we have to interfere in the affairs of Europe. We have no right to approach the European nations from a pinnacle of superior morality. I want to remind hon. Members that we, who are lecturing France to-day as to what she should do in the Ruhr, are the people who confiscated German ships and made no apology, who confiscated the German colonies and still hold them. After all, we are morally just as bad as France, and, therefore, we ought to come down from that pinnacle of moral superiority, on which we dearly love to sit, and we ought to face this question as honest men of the world. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) told us that what we wanted to do was to place this matter in the hands of the League of Nations so as to place Germany on her feet. Looking at the records of the Noble Lord, I find that during the War he occupied a position of considerable influence in the Government. From 1915 to 1918, when I and others were foresecing the calamity of an ending of the War, such as we have experienced, the Noble Lord did nothing at all to put Germany on her feet. I submit that had he been wise in 1915 or 1918, when there was an opportunity of securing all that Britain
  342
  had at stake in the War by negotiations —when Germany was practically beaten— if he had been as wise as he is to-day, he might have ranked as one of the benefactors of Europe.
  I want this country to admit frankly that we have economic interests in the Ruhr which are in rivalry with French interests. Until you admit that, or, at any rate, until you recognise that you have international conflicting interests in the Ruhr, you will not secure your end. They are the root of the trouble and you will have that paralysis of statesmanship which is characteristic of every one of the countries that is attempting to find a solution of this dangerous problem. The root cause of all your troubles is the failure of international competition. It is the failure of the War to bring peace. It is the failure of the War to bring happiness or indeed to bring about that state of society which I assume Members on both sides of the House are anxious to see established. When you approach the matter from that point of view you will view it in an entirely different light, but you must first accept this big principle that the economic resources of Europe should be operated in the interests of all the peoples of Europe. You are not going to attain that by the policy of Tory Imperialism which hopes to secure the end by British domination in Europe; neither are you going to attain it by the principles so beloved of the Liberal party, the principles of Free Trade, the principle of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Neither am I sure that the view of the majority of the Members of my own party is going to be any more successful. When you have to face a problem that is essentially economic, you cannot solve that problem by laying moral emphasis on certain national rights.
  I approve of the Conference demanded in the Resolution. Anxious as I am to see that Resolution adopted, I am equally anxious to know what principles and what programme are going to be submitted to the Conference. I believe that many of the difficulties we have to face in this matter are, in the main, superficial. Nevertheless, they are difficulties that create great passions among the people, just as email difficulties in this House create great passions in the minds of its Members. There is the French desire for national safety. That

  343
  must be satisfied, but I do not think that that is anything like the main cause of the difficulty. The main trouble is to be found in the fact that a combination of the Ruhr coal and the Lorraine iron ore is desirable economically, but politically it would be disastrous. That is the root of the evil. There are peculiar qualities in the Ruhr coal which make it eminently suitable for use in the treatment of the are found in the Lorraine district. Previous to the outbreak of war Germany had control of both the iron ore in Lorraine and the coal in the Ruhr Valley, and, having that joint control, she was a menace not merely to. the national safety of France but also to British industrial prosperity.
  6.0 P.M.
  I am thoroughly convinced that, when the troth of the cause of the War comes to be written—I think Lord Rosebery stated during the War that we might expect to ascertain the truth about half a century after the War terminated—the cause of the War will to a large extent be found in the fear of France of that military superiority which the combination of these materials gave to Germany, and the fear of Britain of the industrial superiority in the steel markets of the world which that combination gave to its rival. If that made. Germany a great menace prior to the War, it makes France a great menace after the War, because the combination in ownership of these two valuable deposits is still in a single hand, and the only change the War has made in the economic relationships or rivalries of Europe is that it has substituted France for Germany in relation to Great Britain. It is not through any accident that, immediately France set. out to combine the Ruhr coal with the Lorraine iron. the friendship of Britain showed a distinct disposition to cool. That was due to a realisation by our statesmen that France was now becoming, not merely their great military rival, but their great industrial rival in every part of the world.
  1 do not need to explain the tremendous power that France will wield if she succeeds in attaining her present goal. You know that trade follows the flag in the sense that we gain certain concessions by our military superiority in the various parts of the
  344
  world. You know, also, that, in modern warfare victory will invariably go to the engineer. You know that the ownership of all these mineral deposits will make France unquestionably the military superior in Europe, and that, having gained the military superiority, she will use that to get those concessions for her surplus capital which you desire to get for the capital you are exporting to-day. It is your business vision, it is your realisation of how much is involved in this, that makes you critical of the attitude which France has adopted in getting control of the Ruhr coalfield. But if you recognise that, I think you should be perfectly frank. I do not think you have anything to lose by stating that to France. I think you are perfectly justified in saying to France, "We recognise that if you get this power it is going to be bad for us, and, before we allow you to become the military boss of Europe. or the industrial boss in the steel markets of the world, we are going to interfere and nip your imperialistic career in the bud."
  I think the French people are not at all misled as to your position and attitude. When you set about, in the Rhine area, to embarrass the French, they do not regard it as a friendly act. I do not think they regard your retention of 7,000 or 8,000 troops on the Rhine as being in the interests of France. I believe they recognise your retention of that army in Europe as being in the interest of Germany. I do not think you have anything at all to lose by putting your cards on the table and saying. "Now, look here; we are going to lay down this big principle that, as the various nations have a vital interest in the possession of the Ruhr coal, we want a policy that will give us co-operation in that, and control Giver that which is essential to our national livelihood." I do not think you will have any difficulty at all in pleading than no individual nation in the community of nations has any right to an individual ownership of that which all require, any more than an individual in the community has a right to assert his claim against all the other members of the community. If you approached it in that way you would get what seems to me, after giving the matter some thought without any expert knowledge of foreign affairs or any great claim to statesman-

  345
  ship, a reasonable and probably the only way out of the difficulty, namely, an agreement to the holding of a Conference to which you would send your delegates to plead for the internationalisation of the Ruhr coalfield.
  It may be asked, if you are going to plead for that, why could you not agree to the internationalisation, say, of the coalfield of Lancashire or of Lanarkshire? The reason is this, that you have to deal with the facts of a situation: as you find them, and you have no right to say, "We are going to do nothing because we can- not do everything." The fact of the situation is that Germany has lost in the War. She has been beaten to her knees, and, according to the rules of War and the rules of competition, and by the admission of Germany herself. she is in debt to a certain extent to the people who beat her in the War. We may desire, as I have no doubt many hon. Members on this side of the House, do, to see a state of society in which there will be no war, and in which no nation will be beaten to its knees but it would be foolish for us to allow our views as to what might be to bedim our vision of the facts of the present situation. The present situation is that Germany is a debtor to the Allied countries of Europe, and what I am suggesting is that you should send your delegates to the Conference, realising that which is admitted, not only by the Allies, but by Germany and all the other States and that you should propose there to co-operate with France and Germany and the other interested countries in temporarily, on the principle of internationalisation, working the deposits in the Ruhr valley for the benefit of all the people in Europe who require the products.
  See how that would deal with the situation. Right at the outset you would remove the French fear for their international safety, because you would take out of the hands of Germany the economic advantages that would give her, if she held them as she held them before the War, the only weapon with which she could keep France in subjection. To Germany you would be able to say: "This will enable you to have immediately the political integrity and independence of the Ruhr and the Rhine area." Your international board of directors would work the Ruhr coalfield subject to the political Government of Germany, in exactly the same way that
  346
  a privately-owned profit-making company would operate it under the German Government. You would also remove what is at the back of the minds of the leaders of British industry, namely, the fear of their being ousted in the steel markets of the world by a. France with unquestioned control of that area. Then the coal in the Ruhr area would be for sale to the highest bidder, and you would get your national industrial safety by paying a higher price for the Ruhr coal than would be paid for it by France or by Germany. If that price were slightly higher than the market rate, that would be your insurance for national industry safety.
  I want it to be realised that international conflict is going to pay no one. I want this country to set out on a principle of co-operation, and I have no doubt that:, with co-operation in the control of that economic interest in which we are rivals, we should be laying the foundation of European peace for a long time to come. As regards the condition of the Germans, one of the unfortunate things in politics is that everyone wants to make out a case in support of Iris own preconceived views, and when we come to deal with the situation in Europe we get all sorts of views about the condition of the people there. I am not going to paint the German people as being in a very happy condition. I believe they are in a deplorable condition. I am merely submitting in all sincerity to this House that they are not the only people who are in a. deplorable condition. I represent a division in the east end of Glasgow, and I undertake to produce, man for man or woman for woman, as much poverty from the east end of Glasgow as can be produced from Central Europe to-day.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: And Manchester too.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: As, perhaps, some hon. outliers know, I spent a few days in that area recently, and had the utmost facilities for obtaining, at any rate, a superficial view of the situation. Whatever may be said about the conclusions at which we have arrived, I have yet to meet anyone who questions the facts that we have stated. For instance, no one will question the fact that the German people in this unfortunate area are better housed than the people in my area

  347
  —that the houses which are being erected for them to-day in these most distressful circumstances are immeasurably superior, in their conception of what human beings are entitled to in the way of domestic accommodation to anything that obtains in this country. As far as we could see, the people were better clothed, and I think it is unquestioned that the working classes there are much better educated than our people have had the opportunity of being in the industrial centres of Great Britain. I believe it is the fact they are much worse fed. I had not any opportunity of judging that, but from what I do know, I believe they arc much worse fed.
  What I am anxious to prove is that the difference in their lot is not sufficient to justify my supporting a policy that might lead to my poor people ultimately having to fight with other poor people in Europe. I am not going to be led into that policy either by militarists or pacifists. In my view, the policy of Britain should be one of strict neutrality. We ought not to embarrass France or to help Germany. I believe France is wrong. I detest the policy of France; I detest the activities of France; but I do not think that that policy or those activities would justify me in advising the people whom I represent in this House to be prepared to go into warfare to try to improve conditions in Central Europe. when there is so much poverty and so much scope for removing it in every industrial centre of Great Britain. Therefore, I lay it down as our primary duty that we should not embarrass Franco or lecture France, however much we may detest the French policy. That way leads to war. That is the way in which is created such an atmosphere that one unfortunate incident might lead us into another great. European War. The primary duty of the British people in this crisis is to mind their own business.
  Mr. CLARRY: It was not my intention to enter into the Debate on this important matter, but I feel during the few short weeks of this Session that a considerable amount is being said in a certain direction, and, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, we in this House are the custodians of public opinion. I do not feel that a certain public opinion, and a view which I hold, has been sufficiently
  348
  pronounced in the House in proportion to the views held in the country. May I ask the kind indulgence of the House -which is usually accorded to those who make their first speech. Although I was a Member of the last Parliament. I had not the privilege of taking my, seat. because on the day after my election the dissolution took place. The Motion under review refers specifically to a Committee of all political sections in France awl Belgium to exchange information and views. I should like to ask whether there are any new points which have arisen since this mass of documents which I have here was issued a fortnight ago representing the views of the Conference that took place in Paris. Can any further good come out of further conferences? Are not the Labour party emulating the ex-Premier in embarking on a fresh and further futile lot of Conferences which can end only in one result.? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) the other day, in referring to the League of Nations in connection with this reparations problem, gave a qualified approval of the League of Nations and said it was too much in the nature of an allied instrument instead of an impartial international body and consequently it was not qualified efficiently to deal with the matter of reparations. The three nations concerned in this Motion, France. Belgium and ourselves, are the principal components of the League of Nations. If the League of Nations as a whole, which combines those three, is not fit or is too much of an allied instrument to deal with the matter, how eon three component parts of it possibly deal with it successfully I Suppose for a moment that this Motion was accepted and a Committee appointed and that Committee in conjunction with these other two nations had sat in solemn conclave, and had talked, and as the outcome of their views arrived at a certain decision. That decision may or may not be that Germany had to do something or to pay something. We will assume they decided on a certain sum or a certain course of action. Suppose Germany, in accordance with the impression she has given us during the past four and a half years, refused to pay and took practically no steps in complying, would the Labour party then use force to enforce it? If they would they merely put themselves in

  349
  the position of France to-day. If they would not, why bring forward this further futile Motion?
  The last speaker said he entirely disagreed with the French policy. May we assume that that is the view expressed by the Labour party? If it is, why are we calling this Committee to exchange views if, in advance, and before they have exchanged views, the Labour party absolutely and unconditionally condemn the policy of France? They have condemned it in advance, or else it renders unnecessary the calling of this Committee. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be rather indignant that the attitude of France was to redraft the Treaty. That indignation was not apparent some years ago when he made the suggestion that Germany would do that for herself. It brings us then merely to the conclusion which we are forced to, because the matters under discussion in this Motion are really a rehash and practically the third resurrection we have had in three weeks of the same subject, and it can only paint to one thing, that it is a subject matter of window dressing for the Labour party to give them opportunity of airing their views in public. Perhaps at some future date they may come out of the clouds and give us something of a more practical nature which we can work on. The position crystallises itself into three views, the. attitude now adopted by France and Belgium; the attitude adopted by this country, which I have heard named shortly as benevolent neutrality, and the attitude practically of antagonism to France an attitude which is pro-German and I regret to say which appears to find sympathy with hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition. At all risks—and I have risked things before to-day—I am prepared to say that I think right from the beginning we should have stood beside France, and in doing so we should probably have avoided the military turmoil that we have in Europe to-day. The continued talk which can only be regarded as sympathy with Germany is heartening them and giving them strength to carry on in opposition. That view which I have expressed is merely personal, but it is strong in the length and breadth of the country, and it is particularly strong in the constituency which I represent, and is primarily the reason for my getting up to say there is another view in the country and that is that we can
  350
  support France, and it is hoped that at no distant date the Government may see their way through the light of reason to take their proper place on the stage of European politics. Although this is not the view of the Government, I am prepared to support the Government because, of two more or less feeble attitudes which we have before us at this time, the Government one is the lesser.
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I hope I shall not be doing any injustice to the Mover of the Motion if I surmise that he attaches more importance to the opportunity of ventilating his general views upon the crisis in the Ruhr than to the precise practical remedy which the Motion contains. I am not at all surprised that, he is impatient and that he desires to see something done promptly to relieve a situation which is fraught with embarrassments and indeed with dangers which the passage of time can only aggravate. I do not, therefore, agree with the hon. Member who has just. delivered so clear and interesting a maiden speech that this is a mere question of window dressing and that the Labour party are not in earnest in their desire to find a practical solution of a very difficult problem. With one portion of the Motion I find myself in complete agreement. It alludes to the very general desire of the peoples of Europe for peace. I believe that is quite true. The peoples of Europe are sick of war. They desire to see permanent and. stable peace established. But I do not derive that amount of support and consolation from this fact which appears to animate hon. Members on the Labour Benches, because the source of our present difficulty is not any divergence of view between Germany and France as to the desirability of peace, but a complete and absolute contrariety as to the mode in which peace can best be maintained. On the one hand you have. I admit, an extreme view held by a large number of persons in France—I do not say by Members of the Government—that the only secure way of establishing a stable peace in Europe is through a permanent domination of the Ruhr district by the French, and on the other hand you have the view that no policy which the wit of man can conceive constitutes so effectual and so imperious a challenge to a new war. The tragedy of it is that the peoples of the world, desirous as they are of obtaining peace, are not, as the

  351
  Motion seems to imply, always desirous of supporting the policy which is most calculated to lead to peace. wish I could think the peoples of Germany and of France were not eyeing one another with passions of hate and suspicion iii their breasts, and that we were not witnessing the growth of a psychological condition fraught with great danger to the peace of Europe.
  The Motion proposes the establishment of a Committee. It seems to me to be founded upon the sanguine fallacy that Parliaments and Governments are two things entirely separate and disjointed from one another. The Motion seems to assume that if the Governments fail to arrive at an agreement the Parliaments will easily reach a compromise. That I believe to be a fallacy. If I have one criticism to offer upon modern government in a democratic State it is that they have better ears that eyes, that they are very good liseners but not always equally adept in looking into the mists of the future. I do not believe that if this Committee were set up it would produce any valuable practical result and, reading between the lines of my lion. Friend's most eloquent and interesting speech, I think he himself has very little faith in the expedient which he commends to the House. In the speech which was delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) we learned that it was essential to treat the problem of reparation and the problem of security together that they were integral and interrelated parts of a single problem. I agree with that view. I do not believe that we shall have a satisfactory solution of reparations unless we also get a satisfactory solution or the problem of French security. Here I confess that I am greatly discouraged by the attitude recently taken up by the French Prime Minister. It is true that in most explicit and comforting terms M. Poincaé disclaimed any intention to annex German territory. This is what he said. I am quoting from the Blue Book of Inter-Allied Conferences on Reparations and Inter-Allied Debts:
  "He must take this opportunity to protest energetically to the Allied Government against Mr. Lloyd George's hypothesis that the French nation had any idea of annexing any part of Germany. He must state without the smallest room for doubt that there was not in France a single man—he would not say a responsible Minister or politician. but even a man in the street—
  352
  who would contemplate the idea of annexing any territory containing a foreign population. The idea of this could not enter a French brain."
  That is a very assuring statement from the French Prime Minister, but I regret to say that it is the only reassuring statement on the subject of security which is contained in this Blue Book. M. Poincaré is not content with the disarmament of Germany, complete as that disarmament now is, and is believed to be. He is not content with the guarantees contained in Clause 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. He would not even be content with a tri-partite pact such as was signed, but not ratified, by England, America, and France. On that point he says, on page 71 of the Blue Book
  "Even an Anglo-American pact guarantee duly ratified by the Federal Senate, and assuring to France within a determined period an arranged military defensive, would not suffice entirely to relieve France of anxiety."
  That is a very disquieting statement, when to this we add the fact that the Germans last December made an overture, through their Minister in Washington, to the following effect:
  "The German, British, French and Italian Governments solemnly engage themselves towards one another and promise the United States not to make war amongst themselves for a generation (say, for thirty years) unless the matter is decided by popular vote, which should make war virtually impossible."
  When we hear that that proposal was stigmatised by M. Poincaré as a clumsy manœnvre, we are tempted to ask what will content the French Government. If all these offers are futile, if even the tri-partite pact would not give France an adequate sense of security, what will give France an adequate sense of security? I know that there is a very widespread feeling in France—I do not say that it is the official opinion of the French Government, but it is an opinion held by many of my closest friends there —that there are in reality two Germanys. There is a Germany which can be detached, with its own good will, ultimately, from its relations to the general body, and there is the Germany which now centres, and will continue to centre, round the hard core of Prussia. I have heard it said frequently, in conversation in France, that it is to the interest, not only of France, but European stability

  353
  and peace, that this sub-division of Germany should be effected, with such regard for the feelings of the population as may be, but that, at any rate, it should be effected. The men who hold that view are very largely influenced by historical recollections of what happened in the days of Richelieu and Mazarin, and they think that the policy which France pursued then could be successfully repeated now.
  If that be the real view governing the policy of France, then it is fraught with deadly catastrophe. The advocates of that view have not in the least appreciated what modern Germany is. They have not in the least appreciated the strength of the motives which keep Germany together. It is true that there are two Germanys; there is the republican and democratic Germany, and there is the feudal and militarist Germany. The way to secure France from the repetition of disaster is not to attempt the territorial division of Germany, which is bound to end in ruin, and bound to lead to future war, but to make friends with republican and democratic Germany, which is hated by the feudal classes, and by degrees so to contrive that German citizens will feel that Germany can he a prosperous State and a secure State under a democratic republic. At the present time, so I am told by those who have recently returned from Germany, the course which is now being pursued by the French Government is creating a doubt in many German minds as to whether it was wise to exchange the monarchical and military system for the republican and democratic system which now prevails. It is not only to the interests of France, but to the interests of the whole of Europe, that a hand should be held out to the republican Government of Germany as soon as it becomes clear, as I hope it will become clear, that that. Government is willing to fulfil its obligations.
  The situation is indeed dark and perilous, and it may be asked what have I to suggest. I have only to repeat the suggestion that I made in the Debate on the Address, that sooner or later, better sooner than later, this question of reparations and security must be settled by international authority, and that every effort must be made to bring America in. When I speak of international authority, let me explain that I have a very strong preference for the use of the machinery
  354
  which already exists in the League of Nations for the settlement of this question. The League of Nations has a skilled Secretariat, it has a regular method of work, it contains 51 States, it mobilises the opinion of a great part of the world, and consequently it should be used. The Noble Lord has anticipated a suggestion which I proposed to make to the Government when he said that it would be very difficult to hold the next Council meeting of the League in April, without making some reference to a situation which is so disturbing. It would, indeed, be unfortunate, not only for the League but for the world, if, an occasion having arisen gravely menacing the peace of Europe, it should be an established diplomatic convention that no Power is entitled to raise that question in the Council of the League, if it has an impression that by so doing it will affront any member of the League.
  If we once take up that line, we might as well destroy the Covenant of the League. In the grave days which preceded the outbreak of war in 1914, Sir Edward Grey made a proposal to the German Chancellor that the question at issue should be referred to arbitration. The German Chancellor said that Germany would not submit to foreign intervention. If the League of Nations had been in existence in July, 1914, and if Germany had been a member of that League, would our Foreign Minister have felt himself precluded from referring that question to the Council of the League simply because he was under the impression that by so doing he would incur the displeasure of Germany? If that view be taken, if precedents of that kind are to be established, then we have in the League of Nations no effectual instrument for dealing with a grave international crisis. I hope that the Government will keep steadily in view the desirability of submitting this question at the earliest opportunity to the Council of the League of Nations, and that they will keep steadily in view the importance of invoking the aid of America in the settlement of a complex problem, involving, as it appears to do, the re-writing of a very important part. of the Treaty of Versailles. I agree with the Noble Lord when he pressed on the Government the desirability of making up their minds as to what they really consider to be an effectual and reasonable security

  355
  to offer to France. I think that we ought to be clear upon that. I think that it is the key to the situation, and if I am asked what remedy I suggest I can only suggest this, that the Government make it clear to France, Germany and the whole world that they regard this present issue between France and Germany, nut as an issue affecting two nations, but as an issue affecting the peace and prosperity of the whole world. We should keep before ourselves steadily the idea of an international solution. We should work for it with all our power, and we should make it clear to France that an attempt to effect a separate solution of this question could not be considered otherwise than as an unfriendly act.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In the eloquent and pathetic speech to which we have just, listened as to the European situation, the right hon. Gentleman stated that France would not be satisfied with a tripartite pact with England and the United States in order to secure peace in the future. French feeling in the matter is easily understood in view of the fact that America has removed all her troops on the Rhine and is now cutting down her Army to a very small force, and that the United States would take at least a year to get ready for war, as was proved in the Great War, while in our own country we have cut down our Army—I am not going to discuss now whether that is a right or wrong policy—to a force of 150,000 men, and therefore it would he only with the greatest difficulty, and in worse conditions than in 1914, because then we had a very large reserve and a huge territorial force, that we could give any assistance to France if she were attacked. Several months would elapse. The right hon. Gentleman said that M. Poinearé said that France would not he satisfied with such a pact.
  Mr. FISHER: M. Poincaé spoke of an Anglo-American pact, assuring to France, within a determined period an arranged military defence.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I do not think that that alters the position, because it would not be possible for either America or this country to provide a military force under several months, and the French, expecting, as they would expect, a surprise attack, are not satis-
  356
  fled with that safeguard. Of course, it would mean probably that Germany would think several times before attacking France, if she knew that America and England would come in. Another point which he made was the same old argument which the Liberal party used to put before the House before the War, that is, that there were two Germanys—one the great, democratic peaceful, law-abiding, splendid German people, and, on the other hand, the Prussian brute, the monarchical autocrat, and that if you wanted the true German you must regard the democratic man as the principal German and the monarchical man as in the minority, and therefore as not controlling the policy of Germany. The exact opposite was the case, and it is the case now as before. The leopard does not change its spots, and the German is exactly the same German as he was before the War. He made a Treaty at Versailles. Has he carried out a single word of it? Hardly anything of that Treaty has been carried out by the German nation. They have repeatedly broken their promise. That is what has driven France into the Ruhr.
  One would imagine from discussions in this House and various statements by a great many hon. Members opposite, who do not hold the views which we hold, that we had never said that we were going to the Ruhr ourselves or that we would back France in going to the Ruhr. Yet less than two years ago in this House the then Prime Minister made a statement, on the 5th May, 1921. He said that he had given an ultimatum to Germany that unless she paid up a proportion of reparation within a week the Allies were going into the Ruhr. Further he said, in the last clause of that statement, to the Germans, that such occupation would continue so long as Germany fails to comply with the conditions mentioned in paragraph C. That paragraph calls on the German Government to declare within a period of six days its resolve to carry out without reserve its obligations under the Treaty. Then when the French go into the Ruhr we have Debates In which hon. Members lecture the great French nation, and talk about the most disastrous policy on the part of the French as something which is going to end in ruin.
  This House is no place to discuss French politics except in so far as they

  357
  actually touch upon our own conditions. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) proposes to deal with the situation by setting up a sort of select committee of representatives of Parliaments who are to meet together and to discuss matters and inform each other as to what the opinion in other countries is. This proposal is utterly impracticable. I agree with other hon. Members who say that they do not suppose that the hon. Member really thought that there was much practical use in the proposal except as merely furnishing a means by which the question of the Ruhr could be discussed. The principal reason why it is utterly impracticable is the fact that neither France nor Belgium would send any such committee of their Parliaments to discuss the matter even if we made the suggestion. The hon. Member read letters from one or two isolated socialists in those countries, saying that, they were in favour of this proposal. One was from the leader of the Belgian socialists it is true, but as they are in a minority he cannot speak for the Belgians, and I am quite sure that the Belgian Government would repudiate any proposal to have such a conference of microcosms of each Parliament.
  In the course of his fairly temperate speech the hon. Member made one remark which I thought very mischievous. He suggested that the French are going to form an anti-British bloc in Europe, and in a great deal of what he said he suggested the French were really going to be our enemies in future instead of our friends and Allies, as they have been up to now. I think that that was an utterly baseless suggestion. I am convinced that the French have no intention of being our enemies, and that the views of the majority of people in this- country, especially of the ex-fighting men, are not those expressed by hon. Members opposite, hut are in favour of the French going into the Ruhr arid staying there, in the words of the Allies' ultimatum of the 5th May, 1921, until the Germans have paid their part of the reparation. The Germans had no intention of carrying out their part of the reparation clauses. They put us off in 1921 by promises and they have done nothing since, and then when the French do put in force these sanctions, to which we ourselves agreed
  358
  with the French, we go away and leave them in the lurch, though I do not know what the reasons for it were.
  I must say, in the presence- of the Prime Minister, that I am sure that he knows that there are millions of people in this country, who support the party which supports him, who are entirely at the back of the French in this matter, who believe that the French have done the right thing, and do not believe that the French are there for the purpose of remaining in the Ruhr for ever, but only until they have succeeded in getting fair and reasonable terms of reparation. The Noble Lord spoke also of what he considered ought to have been done by our Government. He said that we ought to come out now and say definitely what we are going to do in the event of certain circumstances arising, and, in illustration of the necessity for that, he said that he believed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley had in 1914, before the outbreak of war, told the German Government and the German people what our attitude was going to be in the event of their going to war with France, very likely the War might have been avoided.
  Lord R. CECIL: I did not put it quite so strongly.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I would like to know how it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement like that to the German people, when all the time he was being told by his own supporters in those days that there was no danger of war, that the Germans were our friends? Any attempt to warn the Germans that if they attacked France we would go to war as well, would have caused his Government to fall at once, and one of the critics of the right hon. Gentleman would have been the hon. Member for Aberavon, who was always going about the country telling the people that the Germans were our friends, and that there was no necessity for strong navies. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who recently has been out in Germany, proposed another solution in the course of his interesting speech. His solution was that the Ruhr district should be internationalised. I do not know how that would commend itself to Germany as an alternative to having the French there. I can imagine that if the proposal were

  359
  made in this country that the South Wales coalfields should be internationalised, and that other nations should get the advantage of these coalfields, even Members of the Labour party would protest very strongly. Of course that proposal also is impossible. I do not think enough friendship has been displayed in this Debate apropos of France. The hon. Member for Aberavon always makes speeches in which he says he is a friend of France and wants to see France friendly with us, and so on. I do not know, but it seems to me that they might reply:
  "Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love
  But—why did you kick me down stairs? "
  In every speech the hon. Gentleman makes he accuses the French people and the French nation of the most malevolent intentions. I hope, on the contrary, that our Government will not only for the present maintain their attitude, but that, if possible, they will be able in the future still further to help France to make this occupation of the Ruhr a success. By doing so they will bring that occupation to an end sooner than by merely doing nothing and adopting a policy of benevolent neutrality.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one can complain of the impartiality of the last speaker. He said something about the Motion and the object of the Labour party in moving it, but it will be observed that he apparently got up to express the view of a very small minority in this House. He first indicated that he had a grievance against the pre-War Government. He bad a bigger grievance against the Labour party; but he certainly indicated that he was not a whole-hearted supporter even of the present Government. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) adopted an attitude as curious and as difficult as that which he adopted a fortnight ago. He said, in substance, that he agreed with a discussion of this question, and he believed it was getting more serious than ever; but he pointed out that the proposal we are making is entirely impracticable and that, in his judgment, the matter ought to be referred to the League of Nations It is very difficult to under-
  360
  stand the Noble Lord adopting that attitude to-day compared with the one he took up a fortnight ago. Just a fortnight ago we were discussing a Motion on precisely the same subject, but with a different reference. The proposal then made was that this matter should be referred to the League of Nations. The Noble Lord gave two grounds for opposing that Motion. His first reason was, that in his opinion, if it were carried it would mean a, change of Government, and that he was not prepared to risk. Secondly, he said he believed it was inopportune and dangerous. If, to-day, it is right to refer this matter to the League of Nations, one can hardly appreciate the consistency of the Noble Lord after his speech of a fortnight ago.
  Lard R. CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he will be good enough to read my speech of a fortnight ago, that I said precisely the same then as I did this afternoon. I said I though there ought to be a reference to the League: that there is would be a reference to the League; and that the time and method of that reference must be left to the Executive Government, of the day; otherwise it would be an attempt by this House to assume the functions of the Executive Government, for which it was not fitted.
  Mr. THOMAS: It was while the noble Lord was speaking just now that I asked one of my hon. Friends to bring me the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it struck me, immediately the Noble Lord spoke, that he was inconsistent with his previous speech. I immediately marked the passage to see how it squared with the position this afternoon, I marked it for a reason which the Noble, Lord will appreciate. When, a fortnight ago, we urged and supported a reference to the League of Nations, we had it in our mind anew that Mr. Branting would raise the question at the next meeting.
  Lord R. CECIL: That was at, the last meeting.
  Mr. THOMAS: It was because we knew that Mr. Branting was going to raise it.
  Lord R. CECIL: Oh no!
  Mr. THOMAS: It was because we knew that he had agreed to raise the question that we took the view that, whatever

  361
  might be said about the imperfections of the League of Nations, this question was so serious that it did not matter where it was raised if something could be done with it. Mr. Branting did raise the question, but he was practically ruled out. He was told it was impossible. Therefore, the point I am making with regard to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, is this. It is perfectly true that there could be and has been criticism of the proposal we are now making. Our first proposal, in an Amendment to the Address, was for an international conference. The Noble Lord did not support that. Then came our support of the next proposal, which was for reference to the League of Nations. To-day, we are putting forward a further proposal, but as my hon. Friend the leader of the party said, we are not riveted to it. What we are concerned with is that every day that passes renders the position more difficult and more dangerous, and that probably we shall reach a situation where it will be impossible to do anything.
  I submit that this Debate ought not to close without the Prime Minister making perfectly clear to the House what the Government policy is and, what is more important, if the Government is aware of the French policy? If it is Reparation which the French people are after this fact stands out, that although they h ye been in occupation of the Ruhr for six weeks it cannot be disputed that prior to that occupation they got more coal in two days than dining the whole subsequent period of six weeks. What is significant is that if we quote speeches from Frenchmen or Germans we are always accused of having a sort of anti-French feeling in this matter. I want to put to the House what I believe to be one of the most remarkable statements on the situation prior to the occupation, and to compare it with the situation to-day. The former Chairman of the Inter-Allied Reparation Authority in Essen, Mr. W. R. Heatly—this is one of our own appointments—has set out what was the situation prior to the occupation. He says:
  "As the late chairman of the Essen Inter-Allied Reparation Authority, I have had during that period, exceptional opportunities of studying the changing phases of the question. In the spring of 1920, I took the chair at a meeting held near Essen, when representatives of the Allied Powers met about forty representative miners for the purpose of explaining to them the necessity
  362
  and justice of the demands made upon the German coal mines to deliver coal in recompense for the coal mines destroyed in France and Belgium. It was an agreeable and somewhat unexpected pleasure to us to find a ready understanding on the part of the German miners and a generous admission of the fairness of the claim. Not only were our statements met with acquiescence, but the minors who spoke were applauded when they gave their opinion that the claim on the German coal mines was just and reasonable…In order to give effect to it they decided upon extra production of about 1,000,000 tons of coal per month, equivalent roughly to the French demand."
  I ask the House to take notice of that statement by the Chairman of the Commission. I draw particular attention to it, for the reason that it proves conclusively that France was looking for an excuse to do what she is doing to-day.
  I want to follow it up by examining into the consequences. We arc told that Belgian opinion is united behind France. I not only challenge that statement, but I say that less than a week ago I met the representatives of the Belgian Trade Union movement, which is a strong movement. They were emphatic in their condemnation of the French policy. Why? Not only because they felt it was wrong, but because the situation at this moment is that in Belgium three steel factories have already been closed for the want of coal. There are 24 furnaces in Lorraine already closed, and all the furnaces in Luxemburg are closed. I want to put to the House the first effect of the French action. It is admitted—it is undisputed—that it is causing unemployment in Belgium. It is increasing the cost of living in France, and unquestionably it is driving the franc up and up, until there is no one in France To-day who does not frankly admit, when you talk to him privately, that disaster is inevitable.
  There is a much more serious side with regard to what is really taking place. M. Poincaré said last Saturday, in a Debate, that he was not a man to negotiate; he was one of those who believed in acting. I want the House to observe the kind of act that is going on to-day. Here is a telegram I have received to-day from Berlin:
  "French troops continue occupation German territory. Baden towns Saturday occupied by white and black troops. Situation railwaymen very serious. Offices of the German National Union of Railwaymen ransacked in Mainz. Forty million marks of the railwaymen's contributions stolen by

  363
  military forces. The N.U.R. officials expelled and imprisoned without giving reason. German railwaymen in French service have to sign statement in which they agree to the abolition of the 8-hours day and accept the 10-hours day, and pledge themselves to work for French Rhine Republic. I have the documents before me in office whilst I wire.—FIMMEN."
  Fimmen is the International Secretary, one of the ablest and most trusted international secretaries in the world. He is not a German; he is a Dutchman; and he took a deputation specially so that we should have first hand information, a deputation which included all nationalities. This telegram has come from him to-day. It is only fair to say, so that Fimmen's position shall not be prejudiced, that Fimmen was the man who publicly in Germany called upon the Social Democrats to deal with the magnets in Germany, who, he said, were getting their money away. He is the man who made the statement that in his judgment 90 per cent. of the taxation of Germany was paid by the workers and that the other people were escaping. He is the man who proved that the German employers were making a profit out of the income tax which they levied upon the workers. He was able to show that whilst they were deducting from the workers' wages every week so many marks, they were not paying it to the Government for six months, and the depreciation of the mark enabled them to make a profit out of the deal. That at least shows that he is some one whose views are at least impartial. He is satisfied as to the danger of the situation and he sends this telegram.
  In the last Debate on this subject someone asked, what would Germany have done if she had won? My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) answered by saying that. he did not know. I want to assume for the purpose of argument that the Germans would have done precisely what is described in this telegram. I then ask the House, what would the British railwaymen and the British miners have done? The only way to appreciate the situation fully is not to ask what would Germany have done, but to examine the facts. If the German militarists had come to this country and bad done to the British railwaymen or to the Welsh miners what is now being done by the French to the Germans, what would have been the state
  364
  of affairs in this country? As a matter of fact, it is no secret that there have been three parties in Germany for a long time. There have been the Communists on the left, there have been the militarists on the right, and there has been the middle party, called the Social Democrats. I frankly tell the House that I believe the German employers got away with the money and got it away to foreign countries. I believe that is absolutely true, because I have gone into it. But it is a very small sum compared with that we are now considering. But what have the French done in these cases? They have made all these people martyrs, and the whole position in Germany has been consolidated. That is exactly what has happened.
  What about the Ruhr railway system? How many of the British public know the facts as to the railway situation at this moment. There was an accident there last week and 22 people were killed. A cordon was at once formed round the place, and no one has been told the real cause of the accident. The accident was caused by the incompetence of the few people with whom the French were trying to work the system. Imagine it for a moment, anyone who knows the Ruhr district, anyone who knows not only the network of railways, but the interlocking and block system, and then read in the French papers that the French propose to send 100,000 railwaymen to the Ruhr to work the railways. It is a joke, and everyone who knows anything about the situation knows that it is impossible. Let us see what has been the French action in the matter. There was a strike in France two years ago. The French railwaymen struck. The Government decided that every striker was not. only to be penalised, but he was never to be employed in railway work again, the reason given being that as he has struck he not only forfeited his right to be a railwayman, but he was unworthy ever to serve France in that capacity again. Two hundred French deputies signed a petition to the French Government in favour of the reinstatement of the men. The Government positively refused, and said the strikers were not fit to be called decent Frenchmen. Four interviews were held with the Prime Minister, all with the same result. But on 2nd February last the French Prime Minister gave a different answer,

  365
  and said that so far as the Government was concerned it was now prepared to consider the engagement of the dismissed railwaymen for service in occupied German territory. That is the new situation. Here are people, said to be incompetent in France, traitors to their country, but fit to be used to crush the German workers.
  I want to submit to the House that, whatever criticism there may be with regard to our Motion, there ought to be general agreement that we cannot allow the present position to continue. There is no one in any quarter of the House who will not agree with that statement, except perhaps the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), a constituency with which I am familiar. He will know, if he lives longer in Newport, that Newport contributed a large number of people to the War and that if there is any town that is sick of war it is the Borough of Newport. The great mass of Members of this House are satisfied that the position is steadily getting worse in the Ruhr. Apart from this House, the people in the country, people of all parties, are beginning to he genuinely anxious. They can see that we cannot as a nation, either with dignity or with credit continue in the way that we are going. We are entitled to say to the Government tonight, "If you have a better proposal, let us hear what it is. If you can suggest a way whereby a bridge between these two nations can be built, let us know what it is." Lots of criticism is made of the proposal that independent people should negotiate. Yon often find in great industrial disputes both sides anxious for peace, but afraid to speak for fear of being misunderstood. Often they will welcome someone who intervenes in the hope of finding a bridge. If that happens in industrial disputes, how much more important is it to find a bridge in a matter that is of far more terrible consequence?
  I hope that the Debate will not close now. It is impossible within the four hours allotted to-day to have ventilated every aspect of the question. I hope, therefore, that the Motion will remain on the Paper, and that a further opportunity will be given to explore this question, because the Government must be as anxious as we are regarding the present situation. I not only support the Motion, but I ask the House, whether
  366
  it agrees with the terms of the Motion or not, to keep clearly in mind that it is moved because we believe that the position is so delicate and dangerous that Parliament itself is doing the right and the only thing in debating the matter from time to time.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken did not impress me greatly with the telegram from Mr. Fimmen, because in it, as it was read, there was a statement that the Germans were being asked to work for the Rhine Republic. That certainly is not the policy of the French Government, and I do not see how it could have got into a telegram of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman in his closing words gave, I think, the best proof of the correctness of the statement of the right hon. Member for the combined. English Universities (Mr. Fisher) that hon. Members opposite did not look upon this Motion seriously, but rather as a means of debating the question. I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should not be a Division, but that the Motion be left on the Paper, was the best possible proof on that point.
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition with a great deal of interest, and with many of his general observations I was in entire agreement. He told us that there had been three previous Debates on this subject. As a matter of fact, I think this is the fourth Debate. He indicated that the previous Motions, notwithstanding that he had voted on them, were not of much value. This particular Motion, as I hope to show later on, seems to me to have less to recommend it than either of the two previous Motions on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman, in his general remarks, gave a description of the situation in the Ruhr, which I am afraid is pretty nearly accurate, and which everyone must dislike. Everyone would like to see an end put to it. There is no doubt, whatever, I think, that so far, the French have not, gained by their operation in the Ruhr. There has been to them very heavy loss. That is continuing, and what the end of it will be I do not venture to prophesy. But I would venture to point out to the House that the loss is not all on one side, and what has happened is, as I described once

  367
  before, that the jugular vein of German industry has been cut. That must be ruinous to Germany, and therefore, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that whatever the ultimate result may be, what has happened and is happening means that there is immense economic loss, that there is less ability to pay reparation as a result of this operation than there would have been, and certainly there is no one in this House who would not gladly see an end put to that matter. The hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition also said something which I think was very true, and it is the basis of the policy which has so far been followed by His Majesty's Government; it was to the effect that there is no use in the Government attempting to do anything unless there is a public opinion behind it. Every one of these Amendments has aimed at something which at this moment France would look upon, if this House were to pass it, as a hostile act—an act of intervention.
  A great deal has been said about the absence of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. It is true that at this moment we have nothing we can propose to the House. It may be that to have no policy is bad, but to have a policy which cannot succeed and which in itself is bad, would be even worse. If there is any fault to be found with the Government on this question, the fault ought to go back to a period earlier than to-day. It ought to go back to what was done in Paris when the break came. There was the test case. Nothing that has happened since—I can say this with truth—differs very greatly from what I feared would happen if the French course were adopted. I not only thought so, but said so in the Conference. If, therefore, the policy that we are carrying out is wrong, that was the time when we ought to have taken another policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] What is the policy which the hon. Members would have had us take? I would like those who disagree with the Government policy to picture to themselves what the alternative was. Do not let anyone suppose that it is a question of M. Poincaré or his Government. It is nothing of the kind. All the evidence which came before us—I knew it was so in London, but it was proved to demonstration in Paris—was that any
  368
  French Government with the present French Chambers, would have been bound to adopt a similar policy. It is a- great mistake to suppose that the break really came in Paris. It did not: it began in August of the previous year when the Governments met and could not come to an agreement. It was postponed, but the break was hound to come. I remember that my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister mentioned in his speech the other day that somebody had told him that there had been seventeen bye-elections in France since the Ruhr, and that the Government had lost them all. His informant was very badly informed. There have been no bye-elections at all for the French Chamber of Deputies for -a great many months. Since the Ruhr occupation took place, there has hen one for the Senate, and that was won by a supporter of M. Poincaé.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The information was wrong.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The informant was badly informed. Therefore, whatever one may think as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the course which the French Government are pursuing, there cannot be any doubt in my mind that they are pursuing a course which was not only supported by both Chambers in France, but which is overwhelmingly supported even to-day by the French people. That being so, we had two alternatives before us. I have said before to the House that I thought in Paris, and I think to-day, that the French policy was a great mistake; that it was likely to lead them into harm and lead Europe into harm. If it had been possible for Hs to have stopped them, then I think it would have been our duty to try to do so; but we were satisfied, as I am satisfied to-day, that we could not have stopped them. They were bound to try it. Then we had two alternatives. One was to allow the break to take place with the greatest a-mount of friendly feeling which was possible to France, and the other was to make the break, as could easily have been done, with obvious disapproval, making the two countries practically hostile to each other.
  I would like to point out one remark in which I entirely agree, of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Hon. Gentlemen on those benches who have

  369
  spoken have spoken as if all that was necessary was to say to the French that they were wrong. My hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told us that the altar of war was being prepared again. That is certainly not true of this country. We are weary of war, and I can assure the House that if the line advocated in many of these speeches were adopted, instead of retaining the Entente, we would have to go further than making speeches. We would have to prepare ourselves for the possibility of enforcing our will upon France by war. That seems to be the inevitable result. What can be done? At this moment I am convinced of this. The French Government, for the reasons which I have given—though they are suffering, they know that Germany is suffering more—would deeply resent any attempt at mediation. We could not do it without making an. enemy of France, and this Amendment is a proposal, in another form, as the others were, that there should be mediation. I do not minimise, and I pointed out to M. Poincaé what I believed to be true, that the difference of opinion was not between the two Governments—it would not have been so serious then—but between the peoples of the to o countries. I would not have been in the least opposed to the adoption of the same course which the French have taken if it had been to secure demands which I thought it possible Germany could meet. They could not meet them, and therefore, believing that, I was hound, on behalf of the British Government, to dissociate myself from the French action. Though some hon. Members may forget, the majority of the House, and, I believe, the great majority in this country, do not forget that we fought with the French as allies in the War.
  Mr. IRVING: And with the Russians.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We did. It would be a great blow, to say the least of it, if what I had hoped would be the basis of our policy, that we should work together with France for the reconstruction of Europe, is to be dropped altogether. That I am sure would be a great blow and I really believe that many of those who have spoken to-day have the same feeling in their hearts. They do not want to quarrel with France if it can
  370
  possibly be avoided. Something was said by the leader of the Opposition about proposals for a European bloc in which we would be left out. I do not believe for a moment any French statesman is seriously contemplating any such proposal. I was asked by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) whether or not we still looked upon reparations as something in which we were interested. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said quite plainly the other day, and I repeat it now, that this settlement is a question not for France and Belgium alone, it is a question for Europe, in which we are interested, and in which we shall have to have a say when the time comes.
  What more can I say? It is quite true, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that we have had this discussion three times. The policy of the Government cannot change to suit a different Debate every day in the week. It was the same policy in the first Amendment and it is the same policy now. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the policy? "] The policy is that at this moment we do not believe intervention would be of the least use. We believe it would be regarded as hostile by France and we are not prepared to do it. But do not let the House think that the anxiety which this expedition is causing to the House is not shared by the Government. It is shared to the full, because we do realise that—apart from what is obvious to everyone, namely, the great economic waste that is taking place—having once entered upon what I suppose may be called an adventure, it is very difficult for the nation which has undertaken it to find a way out, and I am certain of this, that French statesmen to-day do believe in spite of all that has happened—and I think it is true they have got nothing out of it—that their pressure will have its effect on Germany. That is their view and while they hold that view it is, in my view, useless for us to offer our services.
  One word only about the Amendment itself. I said that of all the Amendments, this seemed to be the least practicable. I do not quite understand it. This House is asked to pass a Motion in favour of creating a Committee to discuss these things with Committees from the Chambers in Belgium and France. What would be the result of that? It would be a little like the Council of Action rather enlarged in operation and I am rather

  371
  surprised that the Mover should have contemplated that. But it is more than that. The hon. Member has a feeling which, when I sat on that Bench, I shared, that the minority is more likely to be right than the majority. But that is not the principle of democratic Government. The principle of democratic Government is that it is the majority that is right; at least, the majority thinks so. Suppose such a Committee were appointed—it requires a good deal of imagination to suppose it—but suppose it were, it would consist of the majority of this House; that is to say, I suppose it would not be very unlike the Government. And if you carry it a little further, what sort of a reception does the hon. Member think this Motion would get in the French Assembly? Is it going to be tried? [An HON. MEMBER: "That depends on you!"] Oh, no, it does not depend on us. It is not we who are in the Ruhr, and I should have thought the right place to try the Motion first was in the French House of Representatives. I think we can imagine the reception it would get there. Then we come to Belgium. The hon. Member read a letter from M. Vandervelde, whom I remember well in the War, and who is the leader of the Socialist party there. It is not giving anything away if I say that after the Conference in Paris the gossip was that M. Theunis, the Belgian Prime Minister, was going back to fall. Well, he did not fall, and I expect the reason why he did not fall was that the Belgian Chamber rather liked the operation in the Ruhr, and approved of it for the time being. In these circumstances, I think that the right hon. Member is right in suggesting that it is not worth dividing on this Motion. I do not think that it is, and if there is a Division, I hope the majority against the Motion will be a large one.
  Mr. NEWBOLD: I was surprised to hear so many speakers on the opposite side of the House, and the right hon. Member who sits for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), speaking so pessimistically of the situation with regard to the relations existing between Britain and France. I had thought, having regard to the little homily that was administered, I presume, to myself by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day concerning the dominance of love and justice and truth, and of these virtues
  372
  that appeal to the people who govern the affairs of this country—and surely to those who govern the affairs of a country so long allied with this country—that it would be inconceivable that such a state of affairs could arise as a war between Britain and France, and yet it has been quite apparent here to-night that there is an imminent peril of war between the French Government and the British Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It may appear to he rubbish, but in that event it is difficult to understand the significance of some of the very pessimistic speeches made by people who should have authority. When we come to face that situation, we realise what a chaotic situation Europe is entering upon at the present time. It is quite evident that Europe has reached that state when it is impossible for it to stabilise upon the existing capitalist basis. We have now had the most brilliant statesmen of western civilisation—some of them on this side of the House, below the Gangway, some of them on that side of the House, some in France. Germany, and other countries—wrestling with this problem, assisted by all the best of the executives and administrators who have been instructed in their profession for many long years, with all the experience of the past at their disposal, and they are as far from a solution of the problem as they were in 1918.
  I was surprised to hear from the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) a statement about the new policy of France I do not myself think that he believes that the policy of France is in any sense new, any more than the policy of Britain to-day is in any sense different fundamentally from the principle which British statecraft has pursued for at least three centuries. France has been definitely pursuing, whenever she has been militarily and diplomatically strong enough, the policy of obtaining supremacy in Europe, and she is merely carrying a stage further that process which she initiated once again after the check at Fashoda. She has used—and from the standpoint of French capitalism she has rightly used—the disagreement of Germany and Britain for the purpose of putting them out of business. The British Government, from the standpoint of British capitalism, is acting perfectly right in allowing France to go to perdition, as she is at the present time.

  373
  From the standpoint of justice, well, we would have to inquire what justice is, whether it is justice as understood by the owning class or justice as understood by the under-dog. If it be a question of truth and so forth, we should again have to examine into the nature of these fundamentals. But from the standpoint of bourgeois society, France's policy has nothing to complain of that you on this side can possibly complain of in Britain.
  Britain's policy is worked out in her interest, France's policy in hers, and Germany's policy in hers. They are carrying out the policy of bourgeois society. They will continue to go on with this policy. They may, and I believe that they will, before very long have in Europe, in the world, another war. I hope that, when that time comes, all the people who to-day ace criticising France will be the first to join up, end that they will not merely content themselves with appearing on the recruiting platform sending letters to the mayors of cities whilst not themselves appearing on recruiting platforms, 1Deeause, whatever may be the attitude of the Front Bench of the Labour party, there are others in this country who, when that times conies, are not going to hesitate for a single minute to tell the workers of this country, whether under arms or about to be put under arms, that it is their duty in no circumstances whatsoever to fight in the interests of capitalism against the workers of other countries. That is going to he the attitude of the Communist party, and it will be the attitude of very large sections of the Labour movement as well. The sooner we realise that that situation is developing in Europe the better, because it is necessary to-day mot merely to be consulting, not merely to be having conferences, hut to he having action.
  I should like to see the Labour party—if it be in order in the House of Commons to allude to the existence of parties; I thought, as a matter of fact, there were no such things as parties here, but that we represented our constituents—doing something in this matter of the Ruhr. When I see the Resolution, however, standing in the name of three, Members of the Labour party, it strikes me as somewhat of a curious Resolution, to stand in the name of Members of the Labour party, because it concerns itself
  374
  with two main problems, both of which are of primary importance to the existing capitalist system. The two questions are security and reparations. Security for whom? For the working class against the capitalist class? No. Security for France against Germany, and we have had the interesting admission from one of the leaders of the London International that he is prepared for giving guarantees to France against Germany. It is a very interesting admission.
  It is like the suggestion in the whole of this extraordinary Resolution, put forward on behalf of the Internationals of London, Vienna, and Amsterdam, to call into congress France, Belgium, and Britain—the elect of the earth, and nobody else. There is no mention of Italy. There is no mention of Holland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russia."] There is no mention of Poland. There is no mention of Czechoslovakia. They arc all countries which, both from the standpoint of production and from the standpoint of markets for the materials produced on the Ruhr, are intimately affected by this problem. It may be said that Holland did not actively participate in the War, but there is no country which is more affected by the economy of the Ruhr than is Holland. If anyone visits the Rhineland and goes down to the great harbour at Ruhrort, he will probably see more ships flying the Dutch flag than he will see flying the flag of Belgium or of France, and many more than he will see flying the flag of Britain. Holland has a perfect right to be taken into this consultation —ought to be taken into this consultation—even from the standpoints of the quasi-internationalists on the Front Bench. Surely, if there is a country which is affected and which should be considered, it is a country like Holland.
  There are others. I know that it is always anticipated that there should be one man in the House who is interested in the country which has the greatest area of any country in Europe. It is strange that there should be only one person who seems to be concerned with Russia. Russia is concerned, and Russia will make herself effectively concerned. There is no doubt of this, that Russia has no intention of being left out of consideration in the matter of the Ruhr any more than in the question of the Straits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you a Russian?"]

  375
  8.0 P.M.
  The sooner hon. Members opposite, some of whom cannot trace their English pedigree more than a century back without landing in the Frankfort Ghetto, realise that Russia to-day, while she is relatively weak, is returning rapidly to that position of naval and military efficiency which she occupied during the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, the better. She is determined that she will have her share and that she will have her part. She has, however, offered to disarm. She is building no battleships that are of any effective capacity. In that respect she is wiser than some people nearer home, but Russia will be driven just as much by any attempt to overlook her in the matter of the Ruhr to intervene in Europe, as she was on the question of the Straits at Lausanne, and the sooner that is realised the better, for behind Germany there is well known to be a Power which is friendly to all Powers whose people are subjected to the bond-holding and banking influence. There is to-day in the world a real friend of small nationalities. There is a country which stands for the dispossessed, and in Germany to-day the workers are looking to the Russian people. I am glad to say that, as a result of this Motion, tabulated in the names of members of the Labour party, more attention will in future be given by the workers of the Ruhr, or the workers of Germany as a whole, to the Communist International, than will be given to the other three internationals put together. By means like this, the Labour party is driving the workers of Europe into the hands of the Communist International, just in the same way that this Government and the last Government have been driving the workers of Europe steadily along the road they do not wish to travel—the road of revolution—but which they will have to travel, because there is no other road out. You will have to realise these facts sooner or later. It does not very much matter to the Communist International whether you face them to-day or to-morrow. In some ways we would rather you faced them later, because then you will have given us longer time to prepare.
  To come closer to the question raised in this Motion, I notice that the Labour
  376
  party have decided in this matter to have a united front— not the united working-class front. They are pleading, as usual, with their class enemy to obtain and to build up committees in which all parties shall collaborate, but not all over the world. They will not include the Indian workers. They will not include the Egyptian workers. They will not include the workers of the subject lands. They will just include the elect, the workers of Britain, of France, and of Belgium, together with the capitalists of those respective countries. These are the people with whom the three quasi-working-class internationals desire to co-operate. We are very pleased indeed, from the standpoint of working-class internationalism, to see that while the Labour party have no intention of attending the international conference called by the shop stewards of the Ruhr, to take place on the 18th March; while they would not respond to the invitation of the Communist International to come together in Berlin at the end of January; while they would not take any effective action in those directions; while they would not consider a matter of an international strike, partly because one section of them resort entirely to Parliamentary action, and the other section resort to it merely because they realise that their leadership of the unions has taken those unions to a position today in which their moral is impossible, and they cannot fight—the Labour party, nevertheless, to-day are presenting a Resolution of this character. It is a demonstration upon a great public platform. It will not do anything to bring the French out of the Ruhr. It is not intended to do anything directly to bring the French out of the Ruhr. It is intended merely to save the faces of the leaders of these three internationals in the face of the workers of Europe.
  Again, when we come to notice the kind of thing which the Leader of the Labour party proposes in this conference of the various Parliaments, we find that among the first things they should consider is, not the safeguarding of the eight-hours day, or the workers' wages, or the workers' position, or the rights of the workers to organise, free from the interference of the German military police—because that is what they are—free from the interference in France of the Fascisti movement. It is not to do any of those things. An international which has its

  377
  home in London, like the international which has its home in Amsterdam, naturally thinks in terms of loans, and the hon. Member for Aberavon and the right hon. Member for Derby think in terms that appeal to the international banking fraternity. They realise that I am doing what I can for them to-day, to clear them from the insinuation that they are revolutionary. I recommend them to the capitalist class of this country as quite safe. They are quite safe, but the movement behind them, unfortunately, is not. We desire to see them in office as quickly as possible, and anything that I can do, anything that my party can do, as it has done it at Mitcham and at Edgehill, where we sent our speakers to tell the workers to vote for the Labour party—anything that we can do to get the Labour party on those benches, and the capitalist representatives off those benches, we shall do. We wish to see the Labour party in office, because we want to see them there demonstrating whether parliamentary institutions are of any utility. Then when we come to the second stage to discover whether—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Motion.
  Mr. NEWBOLD: I thought that if I wandered far from the subject T should be sure of the assistance of the Chair in bringing me back. I will, however, say in conclusion that the Motion is excellent propaganda from the standpoint of the Communists. The more the Labour party tries to fit into the framework of capitalistic society, the more it gets the nodding acquiescence of the leaders of the Government, the more it gets "Hear, hears!" and plaudits from the Treasury Bench, the more do the enlightened workers realise what the contradictions between the leaders of the Labour party and the rank and file of the Labour party really are.
  Mr. HARDIE: In the short time at my disposal I shall he quite able to say exactly what I want to say. The Prime Minister spoke very sincerely about having cut the commercial jugular vein of Germany, but one thing he did not tell this House was what effect that was having upon his own City of Glasgow and other parts of Great Britain. He did not stop for a moment even to consider what was the effect of cutting that
  378
  great jugular vein. In his own city to-day there is the question of metallurgical coke. It means not only the shutting down of blast furnaces, but from one of his own Ministers to-day, in reply to a question, we were told that there are 2,500 ovens in this country not in use. If there had been logic in the Prime Minister's statement, he would have been able to show that, while he as Prime Minister of this country helped to cut the great commercial jugular vein of Germany, we as well as France would have been reaping some benefit. But even France in the cutting of that jugular vein has shut down, not only her own blast furnaces, but also her coking ovens. The cutting of that jugular vein, unless you take steps to get the best doctors you can to stop the bleeding, is going to bleed this country in the same way as it has bled Germany to-day, and the whole consequences will fall upon this country in the next six months.
  It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD(By Order.)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."
  I have the greatest possible pleasure in moving this Resolution. I would remind the House that on 8th April, 1919, a similar Resolution to this was moved for the first time by a Member of the Labour party; and, if I were addicted to superstition, I might very well imagine that Fate had determined the

  379
  issue, for the Motion then was moved by my predecessor (the late Mr. Tyson Wilson) in the representation of the West Houghton Division. There is a peculiar interest, so far as I am concerned, in a Motion of this kind, because several years ago, within a few years of each other, there were buried in two small cemeteries in the heart of my division close on 200 men killed in two colliery explosions. The effect of these and other colliery explosions remains to-day, not only in my own constituency, but in other mining divisions of this country. If it were necessary to plead the cause of the widow and the fatherless child, one need hardly say more than this: that of all the tragedies that afflict the human race, there is none more terrible than the case of the widow of 30 to 35 years of age left to fight the battle of life with three, four or five little ones to maintain. Unfortunately for her, she has to battle with poverty, and in most cases poverty wins the day and she goes down in the struggle.
  We do not claim that there ought to be a pension in respect of every child born of every woman. This is not in the least a plea that the woman should be endowed simply because she is a mother. The claim is that when a woman is left bereft of her husband, and she has children to maintain, that the State should take over the responsibility hitherto held by the father, and give assistance to the widowed mother to maintain her fatherless children. We want this House of Commons to adopt this point of view: that a good mother is better than a thousand schoolmasters; that a decent home is superior to the best-managed Poor Law institution in the land; that the widowed mother, however poor a manager she may be in her home, is a better guardian of her children than the most intelligent and hest-intentioned board of guardians that ever existed. That is our plea.
  This is not the first time, as I intimated, that this Motion has come before the House. Possibly it will not be the last time; but, however long it may take to argue the case of these poor, unfortunate folk—it may be 10 or 20 years before the State accepts its responsibility—so far as some of us are concerned, we shall still fight on until we win. If I wanted
  380
  evidence to lay before the House of a desire for this reform, I need not go very far. Practically every woman's organisation in the land, not only Labour organisations, but other women's organisations of all political colours, have supported this Motion. More than that, there are responsible local authorities, boards of guardians, town councils, and, I believe, county councils, and other equally important authorities have supported this idea. I shall be able to prove before I conclude that our proposals, instead, as is imagined by some, being likely to cost more, they will be more economical in dealing with the problem of the fatherless child.
  What happens to the widow? Let us look at the case for a moment or two. Her husband might be employed in a colliery or on the railway. If he dies a violent death through an accident, the widow is entitled to workmen's compensation, a very small amount, I admit. It looks a lot when she gets it in a lump sum, and unfortunately she accepts that too often. But the widow of the man who dies from natural causes gets nothing. There is nothing that has made my heart more sick than seeing a widow, a woman who once upon a time lived in a decent cottage, had good furniture and a comfortable home, when she loses her husband from natural causes becoming too often the prey of the exploiter. What happens? She does sewing, sharing, office-cleaning, and then, strange to say, when she goes to the board of guardians for relief for herself and children this sort of thing happens: A woman not far from the doorsteps of this House of Commons with eight children went to the board of guardians less than 12 months ago and the reply of the board of guardians to her was this: We will take your three youngest children away to institutions controlled by the board in order that you may go out to work to maintain the others. That sort of thing must come to an end once and for all.
  We prate about our Christianity, and we sing on Sundays
  "When wilt Thou save the people?"
  Here, in my view, is a chance to put a little of our Christian sentiment into practice by helping the widow and her fatherless children. There is a new type of case to which I want to refer. Prior

  381
  to the War, we only had widows whose husbands had died from natural causes. Since the War this has transpired in thousands of cases, and hon. Members on both sides will, I feel sure, be able to quote similar cases. I need no better or more eloquent appeal in this connection than to read a letter that has been submitted to me; it is only one out of hundreds that have been sent to me since my Motion appeared on the Order Paper. It is a woman whose husband served in the Forces. He came back damaged and bruised after having served in the War. When he came back he returned to his usual occupation and followed it for some time. He fell ill and was attended to by the panel doctor, and later on died suddenly. Since his death the widow has appealed to the Pensions Minister and she has received the usual official reply that his death was not attributable to War service. She writes:
  "My husband joined up in 1915. He was never ill before going into the Army, he was in Egypt for three years and died suddenly seven months after demobilisation. He did Ids hit and his best in his country's time of need and all I have now by way of compensation is two medals. I am left with tour young children, the eldest is 12, the other nine, one seven and a half and a fourth six years of age. My husband left a. good job to join the forces and when he was serving I was allowed a superannuation allowance, a civil liabilities allowance and a grant from his employers. Now that he is dead I have not one penny except that which I work for. My husband never ailed before he joined up, but afterwards he was always complaining. I spent all my savings and have to do sewing when I can get it, often working right on beyond midnight."
  That illustrates the type of case which I mentioned a moment ago.
  I wish the House to understand this question from another point of view. It is often asked by those who oppose Motions of this kind why does the workman not save in order that there may be something left for the widow and children when he dies? Let me ask what saving is possible to-day in any working class home, not only in England, hut, so far as I understand, in any part of Europe? What thrift of any kind can there be in the ease of a workman and his wife bringing little children into the world? What is the problem that confronts us? In 1922 there were 66,755 widows with 142,000 children receiving Poor Law relief. Of those children, 7,405
  382
  were in institutions, and 134,610 were receiving outdoor relief.
  I shall probably be asked, Where is the money to come from to deal with this problem? That is the sort of question that is put to us, and, strangely enough, the very people who put that question when we are dealing with human problems are generally the very persons who never utter a word of protest when we are proposing to spend £14,000,000 upon two new battleships. The question of proper provision for the widows and fatherless children is much more urgent than the building of battleships. At the present time there are 9,782 boarded-nut children at a cost of 10s. 6d. per week, and these are costing the country £266,020 per annum. I want hon. Members to notice the average cost of keeping these children in Poor Law institutions, because our argument is that the mother can not only look after her children better than the hoard of guardians, she can do it more effectively and cheaper than the best managed institution in the land. There are, as already stated, 7,405 children of widows in institutions costing 17s. 6d. each; the total annual amount spent in respect of them is£673,855. The total annual sum spent on all the widows and the fatherless children in receipt of Poor Law relief and institutional treatment runs into £3,466,659. I think it ought. to be made clear that what we require the State to do is to deal with widowed mothers with dependent children exactly on the same lines as the State now deals with the widows and fatherless children of the men who died in the War. I have never been able to understand why a man, for instance, from my Division if you like, who was a coalminer, who joined the Army, but never perhaps went beyond the shores of this country, but who died in khaki and probably never fired a shot, but merely because he was a member of His Majesty's Forces the State takes some responsibility for his widow and children. I have always held that there is no duty that a man could ever perform of greater value to the State than that of being a miner, a bricklayer, a farm labourer, or anything else of that kind; and we shall not be satisfied on these benches until the man is dealt with as generously by the State in his capacity as a worker as he is when he dons khaki or wears a naval uniform.

  383
  I believe the widow of a private who died whilst serving in His Majesty's Forces is entitled to 20s. a week for herself and 7s. 6d. per child. If we could secure for all the widows for whom I am speaking terms of that kind some of us would be highly delighted.
  I have spent some time as a Member of the Manchester education authority, and I have sat on committees in some of our poorest districts compelled to judge poor widows brought before us simply because they have neglected to send their children regularly to school. I have heard cases of this kind argued. A woman informs the committee that she gets up at 6 o'clock in the morning, she calls her little ones of very tender years at an early hour in order that. they might keep awake, prepare their own breakfast, and go to school. Invariably in cases of that kind what happens is that the little ones forget about their breakfast and the school, and roam about the streets learning all the bad things that can be learned in a big city, and in the end some of them are brought before the police courts and sent to Borstal institutions and reformatory schools. There is ample evidence, not only in America, where mothers' pensions have been paid for a long time, but in this country, that the percentage of fatherless children proceeding to the police courts, Borstal institutions, and reformatory schools is higher than from other types of families. When I am told that the cost of a proposal of this kind will be enormous—I think the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would involve a sum of £50,000,000 a year—may I reply that I shall hope to prove it will not cost £20,000,000 a year?
  I am at the moment concerned about these children of widowed mothers, who roam about the streets of our great cities, and ultimately find themselves in the police courts. I would like to ask hon. Members to follow me in finding out what it costs to maintain those. I placed a question on the Order Paper the ether night in order to secure this information It costs to keep each convict in this land about £2 2s. 6d. per week—more than the weekly wage of a miner in my Division. For all prisoners in local prisons the cost is £1 10s. per week; for preventive detention prisons £4 6s. 6d. per week, and for Borstal institutions,
  384
  where these youngsters go because they have not had the care of a mother or father, it costs £2 2s. 10d. per week. The average cost for inmates of reformatory or industrial schools is 25s. per week. We are wasting the money of the community and the substance of the nation by building these institutions and spending from 25s. to 86s. per week, in some cases, on the maintenance of the inmates, whereas if we gave the widowed mother part of the money to keep her little home going, it would prevent some of them, by the care and education she would be able to give, from landing themselves into any of these places. We protest very emphatically against the notion which has grown up in this and other countries that all we have to do is to allow society to develop anyhow, and if anything goes wrong, to build institutions to deal with the results. We have built workhouses, sanatoria and asylums, whereas if we understood the problem of human society better we should spend the money now devoted to these institutions upon clearing slums and building decent homes for the people, with the result that our national expenditure would be considerably less.
  I must refer to what is happening in other countries in this connection. I apprehend there will be some criticism regarding the administration of mothers' pensions in the United States. I should like to mention that since the last Debate on this subject in this House there has been great progress made in this matter within the British Empire. Mothers' pensions became the law in New Zealand in January, 1912, and pensions are provided for widows and dependent children under fourteen. The whole of the expense is borne by the State and the payments are made monthly through the Post Office. In 1919–20 the cost was £185,968. The Danish law became operative in January, 1914, it goes a step further, and is more generous; half the expense in Denmark is borne by the State and the remainder by the Commune in which the widow lives. There are forty States and two territories of the United States that have adopted mothers' pensions. There are only eight States in the whole of that great Continent that do not now pay mothers' pensions. The information I have is very valuable to those who are interested in the subject. I only want to

  385
  mention, however, in regard to the administration of mothers' pensions in the United States, that whatever criticisms may be levelled against it, the reports of all the people connected with police courts and prisons, reform work and social services are to the effect that since mothers' pensions have been paid there has been less crime amongst juveniles and that the whole country is better off owing to the fact that things are administered cheaper and better than hitherto.
  I am not satisfied to see other countries in advance of our own. We are told sometimes that hon. Members on these benches care very little for their own country; that we are internationalists. I am very jealous of our good name. I dislike to read at any time that any other country does better, particularly for the little ones, than we are doing. I must mention something further with regard to what is done in the British Empire, because there may be people in this House and outside who will not be willing to be convinced merely because America and Denmark have adopted a proposal of this kind. Mothers' pensions are now paid within the British Empire in five out of nine Canadian Provinces; in the Union of South Africa, in four out of five States in Australia, and, as stated, in New Zealand. The age qualification in the United States ranges from 14 to 17. There is another and a very good qualification, that where a child is found to be totally crippled or mentally defective the age limit is higher and the State takes considerable responsibility for all children afflicted in that way. The largest amount of pension for a widowed mother was paid in the State of Illinois in September, 1921, when a widow with eight dependent children received the equivalent in our money of £34 for four weeks. That, I think, is indicative that the American people at any rate are paying more attention to this important problem than our own people have done.
  Turning to the question of cost, in 1911 there were in this country 1,200,000 widows under the age of 70. Out of that number 900,000 belonged to the industrial classes and 300,000 were in employment. Out of the gross total 400,000 had children under 16 years of age. It may be interesting to note that at the end of January, 1923, there were approximately 124,000 widows and mothers in receipt of War pensions
  386
  and 325,000 fatherless children receiving allowances through the Ministry of Pensions. In order to understand this problem, I have secured further information at the only point at which analysis has been made from the 1921 census regarding widows. It refers to London alone. According to that census there were in London 223,615 widows. The children under 14 in the same area whose fathers were dead numbered 80,094. There were 21,533 whose mothers were dead, and 4,151 who had lost both parents by death. These figures are indicative of the position up to date.
  I come now to my final point, namely, the cost. The 1911 census showed that there were 170,000 widows under 45 years of age, and for our purpose we need have no regard at the moment to those widows who are not within this limit of age. That, of course, will probably be obvious to hon. Members throughout the House. We have computed that there will be about 50,000 childless and widows whose incomes are such that they would not be a charge on the State if the proposal contained in our Motion ever became law. According to our figures as thus reduced, there cannot be more than 120,000 widows in this country, outside War widows, and the number of children dependent upon them is approximately 250,000. We relieve, at the moment, about 67,000 husbandless women, with 142,000 dependent children, at a cost of £3,500,000. There are, therefore, according to our estimate, about 53,000 widows and 108,000 children to be provided for. To place 120,000 widows and 250,000 fatherless children on a pension scheme similar to the War pensions provision would cost, in our view, somewhere between £13,000,000 and £18,000,000 per annum. That is the cost on the one side, but if we take into account what the State and the municipalities and the Poor Law authorities would save, we argue that the total cost would not be more than from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 per annum. New Zealand pays at the moment 7s. 6d. for each child and 7s. 6d. for the mother, and the total cost to New Zealand is below £200,000 per annum. On that basis, and on our population, the estimate of cost for this country would not be more than £7,000,000 per annum.
  I have now come nearly to the end of my argument, but there is one thing that impresses itself on my mind. I stated at the commencement that there was no

  387
  tragedy that I knew of more terrible than the tragedy of the widow from 30 to 40 years of age who was left with four, five or six children to maintain. She faces the struggle alone, and I know of nothing much more terrible than that. The poets have sung of the soldier's valour, the admiral's deeds, and the capacity of the captains of industry, but no one, somehow or other, has ever deemed it fit to sing or say much about this problem. It is more urgent to-clay than ever; the struggle is greater; and, if I wanted, I could quote a great statesman who once said, "If the world were put into one scale and my mother into the other, the world would soon kick the beam." I think that expresses the sentiment of every decent man and woman about their mother. Some men set forth into the world in search of wealth, which, when they secure it, they spend prodigally. Others go forth in search of power, and when they achieve it may use it mercilessly. For my part, I shall feel quite satisfied if I have done something to-night to try to secure for the widow and the fatherless child the generous care of the State.
  Mr. LUNN: I beg to second the Motion.
  I well recollect the Debate that took place in this House four years ago. I do not remember one speech on that occasion that was against the Motion, and yet it was talked out. I am sure that, if the Government to-night keep off the Whips and leave Members to act in accordance with their own conscience, or as their constituents desire that they should vote, this Motion will be carried by a similar majority to that with which a Bill passed through the House last Friday. This is a new Parliament, and many Members have come from distant constituencies. I have no doubt they have felt by now the sacrifice they are making in what they believe to be the national interest—the sacrifice of home comforts an d the company of their families. Their families, however, are not in fear of the spectre of poverty, but the case of widows with children is different. They have always a haunting fear. My hon. Friend has said that there would be something like 120,000 who would come within the scope of this Motion. Can we measure, even with the
  388
  greatest stretch of imagination, what the circumstances are in those homes? We have an opportunity to-night, in voting for this Motion, to give hope and encouragement in many of those homes.
  The pensions that we seek in this Motion we seek as a matter of right. We wish the woman to be able to go and receive her pension, not as she now receives Poor Law relief, but that she shall retain her freedom and her independence. The pension should be adequate to the needs of the family, and no child should suffer simply because it has lost, through death, its father. The position to-day is different from that. Widows must either go out to work or must go to the Poor Law. Their homes are far from what we think of as the ideal home. What is a good home? In my opinion a good home is one where the father is in decent employment, with decent wages, and has security, and where the wife is healthy and able to care for and look after the home. But what is home without children? In my opinion it must be a most desolate place. When I am at home —which is not very often, as I am here all the week—and my family have gone out., before very long I am saying to my wife, "Fetch someone in," because I feel that I am, so to speak, dead without the children who are such a blessing and help to make the home worth living in, Despite unemployment, with all its suffering, and the lack of houses, of which hundreds of thousands are needed in order to provide homes for those who wish to make them—and this seems to be the ditch into which the Government have dropped, and from which I hope they will soon extricate themselves in the interests of the people who want homes—there are thousands of good homes in our land. I saw an advertisement the other day by people who had furniture to sell. They pictured a neatly furnished home with a young man and his wife proudly looking on their first-born child, and underneath the picture were these words
  "Their gracious home, their cheerful looks express
  Life's greatest boon of wedded happiness."
  But this picture may be spoilt. Ill-health, disease, accident may come to the father, and then we see a different picture of home. The picture of the position of the widow is one of despair, but she faces the struggle. There is nothing, I believe,

  389
  that a mother will not do for her children. I do not believe there is anything in this world like a mother's love. Once lost it may never be replaced. For a time she struggles and tries to maintain the home. Kind friends render assistance, and it is pleasant to remember and to know that there are many kind people in the world. But charity is not enduring, and then the mother must seek assistance elsewhere. I have spent all my leisure time, before I came into this House, in local government work, some years of which have been in connection with the Poor Law, and I have seen many of these widows as they have come before relief committees and stated their case and made their plea. May I give one typical case? A young woman, whom I have known from a child, was left with five children. I urged her to go to the Poor Law to secure relief, but she was in fear of it, as many women are in fear to-day. After she left the committee room, she said to me: "I shall not often come here. As soon as ever I can get out of this position I shall be out of it." Talk about the sanctity of the home! We are not maintaining the sanctity of the home when we are driving young women, for the sake of bread and butter for their children, to make materialistic marriages, as many are having to do to-day.
  9.0 P.M.
  But it is not only the Poor Law. The woman may struggle still, because the Poor Law relief will not give her every thing which is necessary for her children. She struggles and she fails in the attempt and is carried away. The children then may be sent to an institution. Many Members of this House have some knowledge of institutions. Some are good, some are bad, some arc very indifferent, but it is automatic machinery that controls institutions. You never heard hearty laughter in an institution. You never heard a lullaby sung in an institution. There is no soft-voiced mother there. I once heard the late Mr. Will Crooks say if he went into a playground where children from cottage homes were attending and children from institutions, he could pick out every child that came from an institution. There is a fear even among the children in going back to their institution. There is never after in the child in meeting its own mother, if she is a mother. We suggest that this is a
  390
  Motion which the House might accept. It is most economical, as my lion. Friend has shown. It is humanitarian. It is the Christian idea, and I know that if adopted it will not cost the sum that we may possibly be told from the Government Benches. The saving which has been shown in Poor Law relief will take place in the case of institutions and in the many other ways that we have to-day is a great work. But the greatest saving will be in the guarantee to the mothers that they will be able to bring up healthy, strong, tender, lovable boys and girls. What has been done in America by Judge Neil, one of the greatest men we know of this century, what has been done by the American States and by our Colonies, ought to be done by our own people. I urge that the House should pass this Motion and give hope and encouragement of a change from the sort of thing that we have at this lime. There is no question so important as the care of human life, and particularly of child life. If we pass this Resolution—and I appeal to the Government to accept it, or at least to leave Members free to vote—I am satisfied that we shall lay the foundation of a better national life than we have at present.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The Mover and Seconder, particularly the Mover, have given the House every reason for passing the Motion. I cannot speak with the floridness of hon. Members opposite, because I have been taught to appeal more to the reason than to the hearts of men it is quite natural, because I take it for granted that people in all classes have the same kind of hearts. I have never been able to classify virtues and vices like some hon. Members opposite seem so ready to do. I think the same things belong to all classes and sections of the community. We have, to look on this not only from the human point of view, but from the State point of view. Anyone who has had anything to do with these widows could simply break the heart of the House of Commons with stories of their sorry plight. The four chief causes of undeserved poverty are old age, sickness, unemployment and widowhood. Widowhood is the only one now left to be dealt with haphazardly by the Poor Law. Old age, sickness and unemployment are now dealt with by insurance. It is impossible to make provision for widows by those means. Not one of

  391
  the greatest friendly societies has ever attempted to provide pensions for widows. It is perfectly amazing, when one looks at this question, long before the War, how it came about that the question of widows' pensions was not a burning question. The only thing that I can put it down to is that men only had the vote. I say, with all due respect to men, that if the women had had anything to do with the running of the country they would have seen long ago, as a national economy, that the country could not afford to allow young widows with families of from two, three, four and up to eight children to go on in the way they have been going.
  I will not appeal to the heart of the House, but I want to appeal to their reason. I will read one letter out of hundreds that any hon. Member will get who is interested in this subject. I received a letter from a woman:
  "When I came out to work this morning I left my little girl crying. She had headache. There was no time to see what was the matter, as we are always confronted with the bugbear of getting the sack. Can you wonder if one gets weary of the struggle, when for the sake of a few shillings we could stay at home and bring up our children ourselves? I know what I am talking about as I have been a widow for nearly seven years, being left with a girl under two and a boy three and a half years. I went back to work when my husband died, but what did it mean? Children pulled out of bed and taken through the streets, half asleep, standing at a bench ironing all day, wondering bow the kiddies are going on. Place to keep clean. Washing, mending to do, kiddies to keep clean, clothes to make, as I used to make all their little garments, and I have never troubled the guardians once, and. please God, never shall. I know that things are very bad in the country, but surely it would he better to allow us a small pension, the same as the soldiers' widows, and let us bring up our children as we should, instead of leaving them to strangers."
  We so often hear nowadays in this House about the sanctity of the home. We are told about the terror of socialistic schools. If more children were properly brought up at home there would not be so many socialistic schools. [Interruption.] I am doubtful about that, but do not let us quarrel as to it now. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909 condemned, both in the Majority and Minority Reports, the conditions of widows with children, even those
  392
  getting out-relief. The physical conditions compared unfavourably in almost every way with ordinary children attending elementary schools. The out-relief boy of 14 was very little heavier than the average boy of 11. The out-relief girl of 14 was usually a weedy slip. A large number suffered from glands, bad teeth, eyes, ears, &c. There was a low standard of intelligence in a large proportion due to under nourishment. How much worse must be the condition of the enormous number of those who try to struggle on without relief. There are hundreds and thousands who are doing it. I have had a letter from one woman who said:
  "I went as long as I could without applying for relief, and then I saw that it was for my children that I had to do it. The woman living opposite to me is too proud to do it, and the consequence is that her children are suffering more."
  Let us take the money side of it. I know it will be said: "We feel it in our hearts, and our hearts are with you, but how are we to raise the money?" The Chancellor of Exchequer gives the figure of the estimated cost at £50,000,000: but I think he has included a lot of people whom we are not asking him to include. We do not ask for the inclusion of unmarried mothers, because in their cases there is a father somewhere who ought to shoulder his half of the responsibility. We do not ask for relief for deserted wives, because of the danger of collusion. Official figures in my possession show that the real cost of giving these pensions, on the war pensions scale, would be much less than is suggested. I have worked it out, and believe it would come to about £29,000,000 at the outside, and that is without deducting what is already spent by the Poor Law on widows and children.
  On the other hand, there is something that we cannot get from statistics. We cannot get the statistics of the real danger to the community. The Mover of the Resolution spoke about the Borstal system. Anyone who has had anything to do with juvenile offenders realises how many of them are brought up away from home. The State depends on the moral and physical strength of its people. Any human being who knows anything about children knows that a mother is far and away the best influence in the world for children. I believe that this side of the House has more courage in speaking about these questions. [HON. MEMBERS:

  393
  "No!"] Well, all parties are agreed about these matters, but some have the courage to say what others are thinking. I feel very keenly on the question of women, and I know that there are men in this House who were returned through saying that they were keen in regard to women's questions, and when they come here they will vote but they will not fight. My die-hards and dug-outs are quite candid. They say, quite candidly, that the woman's place is in the home.
  I ask the House to give a chance to the women of the country. I do not think that there is any more pitiable case, or anybody who suffers more, than the widow struggling to bring up young children. I know how difficult it is to leave my children, with every care. I cannot conceive of any greater misery than leaving my children with no care. That is a thing that only a mother can feel. Fathers may feel it dimly, but if they had had imagination we should have had widows' pensions long ago. We ought to realise the terrible sufferings that are borne by so many of these splendid women throughout the. country, women who are too proud to go to the Poor Law, and who go on working until finally they break down, and they sink lower.
  We were told during the War that we could not afford to have a C3 population. We cannot afford to have it now. We have to meet an enemy almost as dangerous as the Germans were in war. We have to meet the enemy of world competition, and the only way we shall be able to meet that enemy effectively is by having a strong, virile nation. I appeal to the Government, if they cannot go the whole way and grant pensions to widows on the lines of pensions to war widows, to let us try the New Zealand plan. The Mover of the Resolution said that that would cost from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. I do not believe we should have any great difficulty in raising £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. If the electors were organised and they agitated for something that would cost no more than £10,000,000, we could get it from any Government. I beg of the Minister in charge to lend a sympathetic ear to our appeal, and to look at the matter, not simply from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, but from the point of view of the kind of nation we want, and I ask him to realise that the best
  394
  citizens that the nation can have are citizens who have been brought up by their mother's side.
  Mr. EMLYN-JONES: I am very glad that in this, my first intervention in the Debates of this House, I should have the opportunity of supporting the Motion which has been so eloquently submitted by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies). The justice of this Motion seems to be universally recognised, and the whole question now resolves itself into one of cost. As the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has stated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the opinion that the cost of the proposed reform will amount to £50,000,000 per annum. We who believe in the principle of mothers' pensions are entitled to ask what is the actuarial basis which enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to that conclusion? Who, for instance, would receive the benefit? Would all mothers receive the pension, regardless of the income which they might possess? What would be the scale of benefits, and at what age would it be expected that the children would be able to take care of themselves?
  We should pause to consider this matter a little more seriously, as we might be inclined to dismiss the proposal lightheartedly by having an exaggerated idea of the actual cost to the State. In 1903 it would have been easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to proclaim to the country that the cost of giving old age pensions would have amounted to £212,000,000 per annum. We should have stood aghast at the contemplation of that figure which might have ruled out old age pensions from practical politics. Yet we know that such a statement could have been made without exaggeration, as it would have cost the nation about £212,000,000 to provide a pension of about £1 per week for everyone at the age of 60. We all know that last year the cost of old age pensions in this country amounted to £22,500,000, and that when they were first instituted the cost was only £7,500,000. I think that the Treasury has laid itself open to the charge of putting the cost of this proposed reform at a prohibitive figure, and taking advantage of that prohibitive figure to avoid the possibility of

  395
  an inquiry into the whole subject.. There is a Spanish proverb which says:
  "Better a slow walk which lasts, than a trot which tires."
  This country having always proceeded cautiously in the matter of social reform, can proceed equally cautiously with the reform suggested in this proposal. Mothers' pensions can be divided into four sections; first, the mothers whose husbands have deserted them; second, unmarried mothers; third, mothers whose husbands are incapacitated and who have children to maintain, and fourth, widows with children. We may strike out for the time being the two first Sections. The Motion deals more particularly with the other two, and it would be very much easier for us to get those dealt with in the Motion put forward. The Mover of the Motion gave the maximum cost as about £20,000,000 per annum, and suggested that there might be 120,000 widows and 250,000 children dependent, upon them. I have taken out figures and I find that if we make provision for 100,000 widows at the rate of about, say, 25s. a week, and 250,000 children dependent upon them at a pension of 10s. a week, the whole cost to the State would amount to £13,000,000 per annum. But, as other speakers for this Motion have so well pointed out, we must not jump at the conclusion that this is £13,000,000 of new money, because we have to take into consideration—and this is a fact which needs emphasising—that we are already paying very substantial sums for Poor Law allowances, reformatories and children's institutions, to say nothing of the enormous advantages that would accrue to the nation, by enabling the mothers to bring up more healthy, more productive children for the benefit of the nation, all of which are calculations impossible to measure in any monetary sense.
  I do not like making comparisons with America. I am not going to say that we in this country are not so sympathetic for our people as the other nations of the world, but in the matter of mothers' pensions, we can take a lesson from America, and I believe that we shall be prepared in this country to take a lesson from any country which we can assimilate to our own advantage. In America they have already on the Statute Book an Act to
  396
  provide for dependant children, and an aid to mothers' law. I do not know whether America has been actuated more by humanitarian or material considerations. But I do suggest that in this proposed scheme of mothers' pensions we have a wonderful combination of humanitarianism and materialism. Some people argue that the provision of pensions, as suggestion in the. Motion, will have a tendency to increase the birth rate. I am not going to elaborate upon that very interesting question, but to those who might give as their reason for not supporting this Motion, that it might have that effect I would only say that all the evidence goes to prove that any improvement in the standard of life is invariably accompanied by a decreased birth rate. The higher the efficiency of the individual, whether brought about by individual action or legislative action, the greater the effect in decreasing the birth rate. We know that the poorer the people as a general rule the larger the family, whereas with more education very often the smaller the family.
  I believe that these pensions would make for increased efficiency in the homes of the country, and certainly make for the increased education of the children of the widows who would be dependent upon those pensions. We have the fact that in France maternity benefit has not prevented a decline in the birth rate. So if hon. Members may be inclined to vote against this Motion, because of the possibility of ifs effect upon the birth rate, I would ask them to consider the suggestions which I have just made. I know that, generally speaking, it, is impossible for the average working man to make provision for himself. Though I happen to he of the same nationality as the Mover of the Motion, I represent a constituency away from my native country, and I come into contact with a large section of agricultural labourers, and there is no one in this House who will suggest I hat, however thrifty a farm labourer may be, it is possible for him, even if he lives to a ripe old age, to make provision for his widow and children, in the event of his premature decease.
  Moreover we have this difficulty in country districts. If by misfortune a farm labourer's wife should become a widow, by the system of tied cottages which prevails she would be turned adrift from that

  397
  locality in which she is known and she would have greater difficulties to face in obtaining employment for the maintenance of her family. Therefore out of those humanitarian considerations we ought to support this Motion. One argument used against pensions is that they would have a tendency to discourage thrift. I do not think that that could be said about mothers' pensions. These certainly would not discourage thrift in a thrifty husband because it would be no comfort for him to know that, if anything happened to him, his widow would be getting a pension from the State. He would he saving in anticipation of getting some comfort from his thrift in his old age, and it is no argument to bring against the granting of widows' pensions to say that the husband might become less thrifty as a consequence of this proposal. Moreover, medical evidence is certainly strongly against mothers with children being compelled to go out to work in order adequately to protect the interests of those children. It is not good for the health of the children themselves, and even from that consideration alone we ought, very willingly, to make any sacrifice that may be necessary to provide for pensions for the widows who are bringing up families. The Motion before the House really means that the State takes the responsibility as a. sort of foster parent; it takes the place of the father until the children reach an age when they are able to fight for themselves. It is no use, as the Mover of the Motion so eloquently said, praying for the fatherless and the orphan unless we are willing to do something for the fatherless and the orphan. An ounce of help, after all, is very much better than a. ton of sympathy.
  Pensions ought to be given, not as a charity but as a right, and I am very glad that in this Motion there is a suggestion that they should be administered altogether outside of any question of the Poor Law, because the really decent woman has a horror of Poor Law relief. If we grant these pensions as a right, there is no reason why they should not be administered quite outside any question of the Poor Law. I know the situation in this country is very difficult, and that the economic position is unprecedented. We are labouring under a very oppressive burden of taxation at the present moment, but I am sure there is no
  398
  right hon. or hon. Member in this House who does not desire to do everything possible to bring some comfort and solace to those widows who, unhappily bereaved of the breadwinner, are trying to do their best to bring up their families in such a way as to reflect credit upon themselves and to make them useful citizens of this country of ours. I very warmly support the Motion before the House.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: The House will congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on his very able and well-informed speech. Indeed, all the speeches we have heard this evening have been of a very persuasive character. Although I have objections to make to this Motion, I do so fully impressed by the humanity and high temper which have characterised the admirable speeches of the Mover, the Seconder, and the supporters of the Motion. This is an appeal. If it were an appeal purely to the sentiments, I have no doubt it would be unanimously supported by all parties here, It is not, however, a question of sentiment:, but a practical question. Because it is a practical question, I wish to put forward certain difficulties in the way of the Motion which, I hope, will be met by some of the speakers who are going to join in the Debate, in support of the Motion, later on.
  First of all, two false points have been made in support of the Motion. The Mover of the Motion said that the position of a family who bad lost their breadwinner ire civil life was absolutely the same, in its claim upon the State, as that of a family, the breadwinner of whom had fallen in action or died in the service of the State. That is a false analogy, because the reason why the State pensions a family the head of whom has fallen in the State's service is that that is one of the conditions of his employment. The soldier takes much less pay than the man who earns his living in civil life, and he incurs much greater risk. It is because his pay is less, very often for a long period of years, and because his risk is so much greater that the State pensions his family. I agree, of course, that there is considerable risk in civil employment, but, normally speaking, the risk of the soldier is greater and the pay is much less than are the risk and the pay of the ordinary civilian. Therefore,

  399
  I think, with great respect, there is no point in that analogy.
  Nor, again, is it fair to draw an analogy between conditions in England and conditions in the United States. In the United States, the State can afford to do things far beyond the powers of the State in this country. Had America taken its due share in the world War, and had it shouldered its due responsibilities after the War, instead of shirking them, it would not be able to be as generous as it is to its people—[An HON. MEMBER: "Before the War, too!"] Before the War it was a far richer and more prosperous country than Great Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] That is common knowledge. The wealth of America is infinitely greater than that of England. Moreover, the position of New Zealand and other Dominions is very different from our position. There you have small populations and generally a much higher level of prosperity. You do not get so many rich people as in England, but the general level of prosperity is very much higher than that here, and the State can therefore afford to do more.
  Having brushed aside two points, which are false points, and which cannot carry weight, let us get to the real gist of the Motion. It has been said by hon. Members in supporting the Motion that the reform therein advocated is desired by a large number of people in the country, particularly by the widows. Naturally, because everybody who is in difficulties would be very glad to receive State assistance. Every argument which has been advanced this evening on behalf of widows and their families, could be advanced equally well on behalf of old age pensioners, of all other pensioners, and of all people who have not pensions at all; on behalf, in fact, of everybody who is in difficulty or suffers poverty, or the
  "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."
  It is no argument to say that the fact of a Motion of this sort would give hope and encouragement to the particular class in whose interests it was framed. Of course it would. We have to look at it, not from the point of view exclusively of them, but from the point of view of the country. It. is quite true that the passing of this Motion would be popular. I also think it would win a great many votes,
  400
  which is also, no doubt, a material consideration. I have come across widows in my own constituency who say that they have joined the Labour party because this question of mothers' pensions forms a plank in the Labour party's programme, and not in the programme of others. I quite realise that it does catch votes, but, after all, we have to look at it, not from the point of view of vote catching but from the point of view of the nation, and we must take a long view.
  One speaker rather scoffed at opposition to this Motion, on the ground that any opponent of it was treating the matter as merely one of pounds, shillings and pence The last hon. Gentleman who spoke said hr would not mind making a sacrifice for so good a cause. It. is all very well talking glibly—if I may say so—about sacrifices or about mere questions of £ s. d., but the money has got to be found. There is no bottomless well from which we can draw our resources. What the citizens had to decide at the last Election, and will have to decide for many years to come, is whether they are going to take a short view, and support each and every scheme of social reform put before them, merely because it is desirable, popular and attractive; or whether they are going to take a long view, and realise what increased taxation means to the well-being of the country. Most Conservatives in this House and in the country have never barked this issue. I can say quite frankly for the City of Manchester, one of the divisions of which I represent that we put it quite clearly before our constituents throughout the city at the last Election that, if they voted for us, they would get no social reform; they would get economy and stability, and nothing else.
  Mr. J. DAVISON: They will not be disappointed.
  Mr. HURST: No, they will not. The result of putting that issue honestly and fairly before the constituents of Manchester was that, we won seven seats out of ten. [represent one of the poorest constituencies in Manchester I told my constituents—I am not ascribing any virtue to myself, but I am saying what was done by our party throughout that portion of Lancashire—we told them that in the long run these schemes of social reform, no matter how popular they

  401
  were, all meant money. If more money comes from the Exchequer, it means a greater burden upon the community. The greater the burden on the community the higher the cost of production. If we want to see a trade revival, and if we realise that employment is, after all, much more important than doles and temporary gifts and things of that sort, we must realise that it is far better to lay aside all these alluring schemes of social betterment, which mean the extraction of money from the taxpayer, in order to concentrate on the far more vital point of reducing the burden on the taxpayer, reducing the cost of production, and enabling this country once more to hold its own in the neutral markets of the world. That is the real way towards salvation. At present the great difficulty of our export trade from England, and particularly from the North, is that the foreign buyer cannot afford to pay our prices. The raw products of Asia and Africa remain at the price at which they were in 1914, whereas our textiles sent in exchange for these raw products can be bought only at two or three times the price that was asked in 1914. The main cause of the increased cost of our goods is the increased burden of taxation. If you want to get that burden of taxation reduced so as to regain our foreign markets and find employment, the one way is to abstain, however unpopular it may be for the time being, from all schemes of social reform which place a greater burden upon the community.
  If working people took a long view and realised that their interests were bound up with the revival of trade and that that was much more important than an increased pension here or an increased dole there, they would follow the lead which was given to them by the present Government at the last Election, when no promises were made. [Interruption.] There were promises of tranquillity and economy neither of which costs money, and the reason why that programme made such a tremendous appeal to those working people who can think was that they realised where their real interests in the national life lay. It is on that ground and on that ground alone—while, of course, recognising the great boon that mothers' pensions would be—that we feel there is a bigger national interest in opposing the Motion than in supporting
  402
  it. It does not follow that something cannot still be clone in the way of help for mothers and fatherless children. An hon. Member referred to the care of children in cases where the mother was at work. Everybody knows that there is a great growth of day nurseries and crêches which are supported by voluntary agencies in the great cities. Many of them are provided by the municipalities, which are already meeting that particular need. If we could get good trade again it stands to reason that with lower taxation we could afford to indulge in some of these experiments in social reform—experiments which at the moment are inopportune but which in time to come may be both expedient and wise.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I must plead guilty to belonging to that class of people who may be regarded as sentimentalists. I support this Motion because I feel that it should be supported by all parties. I hope that every Member, upon thinking of the subject, will feel that he must support it in the Division Lobby. Necessity is the first thing I wish to refer to in relation to this Motion. At present there is in operation no scheme that, in the ordinary course, provides a sufficient income for a widow and family when the bread-winner is taken away. The tendency of the time is to cut out married women from the labour market. But when a woman becomes a widow, of necessity she has to turn out in order to earn her living and. to keep her children. Such a woman is generally a most deserving woman. She would rather starve than accept Poor Law relief. She works hard and often loses her health and spirits. Her history is generally one of marriage at 22 or 23 years of age, then four or five children, and no opportunity to save during her married life. Probably on marriage the furniture was procured on the hire system. The bread-winner dies and she is called upon to act in the capacity of father and mother in the home. She has to try to earn all the money she can by casual labour, such as charing, odd sewing, or work of that kind. What is her alternative? She must accept Poor Law relief, which is a great stigma to which she objects. I heard the other day of a relieving officer suggesting, in reference to a requisition for help, "Why, if you

  403
  are not careful you will make that widow as comfortable as the rest of us."
  If a widow does not obtain Poor Law relief, she has to depend on charity organisations. Possibly a concert is arranged in the village or town where she lives, or a whist drive or other kind of charitable effort is organised. Failing these, she may possibly have to depend on the charity of relations. That is not always easy to obtain, because the relations are generally as poor as herself, and they often live at some distance and it is impossible to go to them. The scheme suggested in this Motion is to give the widow an allowance for all children under 14 years of age. This would not require any fresh machinery, because for the children under five could be done through the welfare centres, and for the children from 5 to 14 years of age it could be done through the education authorities. The amount paid would be based on the present sum allowed to widows of ex-service men. Other countries which have adopted this scheme are numerous and not one of them has repealed it.
  Objectors to the scheme say that it is likely to pauperise the people. That was said of old age pensions and it has no significance. Other objectors say that it would release the relatives from their duty towards their poor kinsfolk. As I I have said, the relatives are generally too poor to help. A third objection, which we have heard on all hands, is that the scheme would be a burden on the taxpayer. I will not attempt to go into the figures. They have been dealt with satisfactorily by the Mover of the Motion, but they are very often misjudged. I cannot grasp very quickly figures in millions, but I do say that as to-day we are spending about 17s. 6d. on each child under the Poor Law, it would be a better proposition to give the widowed mother 10s. for each child and allow her to keep it at home. The right person to care for the children is undoubtedly the mother. A mother is doing the greatest service to the State in bringing up her children. In most cases the widow left with children has no income. Very likely she has had to nurse the breadwinner through a long illness. Probably, too, debt has accumulated, and she is left in an unsatisfactory position from
  404
  the point of view of health. She is left in this position. She probably has debts to face, and she has to work hard to try and earn money. She loses her strength and health and, above all, she loses her spirits. The children are deprived of the vital necessities of life; before long they swell the ranks of the ill-nourished and unhealthy children, and very soon they become chargeable to the rates or have to go to some institution, hospital, etc. We do not want these children to have their strength undermined. We want the widows to have the means and the possibility of bringing these children up in the home as a family in a way which will fit them to be proper citizens of the community. The future of the community and the chances of our having an Al nation depend upon the health and strength of the children, and I hope the House will support the Motion, which seeks in this particular way to bring about the betterment of our country.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I desire to join with the other speakers who have supported this Motion, because I feel I cannot give a silent vote on the question involved in the Resolution before the House. The opinions I hold on this subject are not newly formed. They have been gained in the hard school of practical experience as a Poor Law guardian. Too often have I seen these people in their distress coming before me as a guardian, and I wish to remind the House that widows left with children and without means have no security whatever miler the law as it stands. The widow with children under 14 years of age is, Ls a rule, herself under 60 years of age and able-bodied, and therefore the guardians are precluded by the law from giving her any relief. Such a woman is compelled to leave her children and to go out, as the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) has said, as a charwoman or doing washing or some other menial work, while the children are practically uncared for during her enforced absence. We on these benches consider that state of affairs to be a crime and a sin in a Christian country, and we ask that this great blot should be removed from our country's record as early as possible. I feel sure we can all picture the position of the children of a widow in these circumstances. Because of the poverty of

  405
  their mother the are driven in to the streets to sell matches and papers so as to earn a penny to obtain another crust to eke out their scanty food. Their health becomes undermined through underfeeding and lack of clothing, they never get a chance to secure any kind of employment or to become good citizens, and, finally, as I have said before in this House, they find themselves on the human scrap-heap. That is how I described the market for general labourers, which is always so overcrowded. In that way much more unemployment arises, and it does not end there. These children are driven into blind-alley employments, and they grow up without any useful occupation. No chance is given to the children of the bread-winner who has been taken away.
  They may, of course, get help occasionally from generous people and, after all, the poor are generous, but it is only the poor who help the poor. Usually speaking the people who could afford to give something never know of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not accuse hon. Members of not trying to find out about these cases, but usually news about them does not reach that quarter and it is only the people who reside among the poor who know what is going on and what is being done. As a guardian I have stretched the Jaw to help them and I am afraid, if I were a guardian again, I should deliberately break the law in order to give relief where it is so urgently required despite the threat of the auditor to surcharge me. I have had that threat made to me before to-day when I have sought, in spite of the law, to give something to these poor people so that they might have some bread to eat and some clothing to wear. If the law is not altered, I am afraid it will be broken in the effort to help such cases. I appeal to hon. Members to show a little humanity in this matter and to remember that after all the cost involved in the Resolution cannot be so very much more than the cost to which the community is liable now. We have already heard that 17s. 6d. per week is charged if a child is adopted by the Poor Law and taken into the workhouse. I think that could with advantage be given to the mother of the children. After all she is the natural guardian and the person who will see that they are brought up good citizens.
  406
  We ask that that aspect of the question shall have first consideration. The love of a mother for her children cannot be destroyed, and no matter where her children go, her love follows them. It is her care that the children require if they are to grow up as good citizens. I urge the House as I have urged it before to deal with this question because the Poor Law does not meet it. The guardians have no power whatever to help these people except at the risk of breaking the law. I feel strongly on this subject; my whole soul is in what I am saying because I have seen so much of the misery suffered by widows and children. No one can wonder at my being sincere in regard to all that appertains to such cases as could be laid before this House regarding these children—how they are driven from one place to another, how guardians actually tell the widow to get out of the decent house which the father thought a fit place for his wife and family and to go into slums where the rents arc cheaper in order to save the ratepayers' money. What difference is there between asking local authorities to keep such a woman and her children and asking the State to take it on? Surely the father of these children has not committed any crime because he died, yet apparently as the law exists, he is regarded as having done so and as we cannot visit it on the dead man we visit it on his widow and family. That is the position which we, as Christians have taken up. Much has been said here about Christianity. I ask are we all Christians? Do we believe in the Sermon on the Mount? Do we believe we are all of one family? Do we believe that there is one Father over all. If so, then we should change our methods. As it is, what a family we are—misery on the one hand and wealth on the other—yet we are one family. We on these Benches are desirous of changing this state of affairs, and becoming that real family that Christ intended the world should be when he delivered that memorable Sermon on the Mount. We believe we have the sympathy of the House in every quarter, and we are asking that we should be given practical sympathy on this occasion, and that the House should accept the Resolution, and I feel sure I can, without hesitancy, say that they will earn the good wishes of at least 75 per cent. of the people of this country by doing this

  407
  for the widows and children. I heartily support the Resolution, and hope the House is going to accept it.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: It was my privilege to take some little part in the first Debate on this subject about four years ago. That discussion was introduced by our late colleague, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and I should like to be permitted to take this opportunity of expressing what I believe is the great regret of the whole House at his sudden and early death. The matter then was fully discussed, so far as the time at our disposal permitted. Before I took part in that Debate I had had the privilege of personal converse with the man who was the first originator of what are now known as mothers' pensions, Judge Neil, who is regarded as the father of the mothers' pensions, and the conversations I had with him removed from me all thought of regarding this question from the standpoint of sentimentality, and put it purely as a practical matter.
  The point of this discussion is not from the standpoint of the mother, but from the standpoint of the child. It is in the interests of the children, who are the future citizens, and it is not only the interest, but it is the duty, of the State not only to educate its future citizens, but to make sure also that physically they shall be qualified for the responsible duties which lie in front of them. Consequently, I do not regard this as a sentimental matter, but as a matter in which the whole interests of the State are involved, and I believe it is a practical measure in some way to see that the little children grow up under conditions which will make them good citizens of the State. We have already had reference to what we all know is the appalling waste in money, but to me, appalling as it is, it is nothing to the appalling waste in human life. We have it in our fearful state of unemployment, but we have it also, in the matter now before the House, in the waste of human life in little children growing up under conditions in which they have no chance to qualify themselves for their responsibilities. I am one of those who have sufficient faith to believe that in the very interests of the State, some day we shall judge all our legislation from the standpoint of the child, and I believe it is only in that way that in the long run we
  408
  are going to secure economy of men as well as of money.
  10.0 P. M.
  I did not, however, rise to take part in the essentials of this Debate. It seems to me that all that has been covered already, and admirably covered, by speech after speech. I rose to refer to one or two points arising from the last Debate on the subject. The first point is this. We have had only one discussion in this House on this subject, and we were cot allowed to have a Division on that occasion, because it was talked out I respectfully appeal to the Government that on this occasion they will give us a chance, a free and open chance, of saying what we believe ought to be done in regard to this great and vital question, and I trust, therefore, that from no section of the House will there be any attempt to talk this out for the second time, but that we shall have an opportunity of deciding the issue by a Division. The other point is this. The representative of the Government on the former occasion was the then Home Secretary (Mr. Shortt). I know he did not represent the Government in power to-day, and I dare say they will not accept any responsibility for his views, but I want to press on the Government that this is not a matter only for the responsibility of the House. It is a matter for the responsibility of the Government itself. In watching the true interests of this country, this is not too small a matter to come under their purview. Mr. Shortt, in winding up the Debate on that occasion, used these words in reference to a Motion the terms of which wore almost precisely the same as the terms of the Motion now before the House. He said:
  "We cannot accept these words, but the Government accepts the principle behind them "
  I want to know whether the present Government, like the last Government, in the words of the thon Home Secretary, accepts the principle behind the words. Mr. Shortt went on to say:
  "and hopes something of the kind may be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1919; col. 1996, Vol. 114.]
  That was four years ago. Nothing has been done. I earnestly trust that the Government is not going back upon its predecessor, but will go one better and will say that it not only agrees with the principle and that something shall be done, but will be prepared to-night to

  409
  tell ns what that something is, so that we may make some practical step forward in the interests of the little children.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: It is with very great pleasure that I speak for the principle of this Motion, and while there are certain sections of the Motion that I am not prepared to support, at any rate, the principle of widowed mothers' pensions to my mind, and to that of every economist and every man who is properly considering the taxpayers' pockets, should receive support. I want to take one or two points made by the hon., learned and gallant Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) who spoke in respect of his constituency in Manchester. I want to speak for mine, a constituency which is an industrial one, and in which there is, perhaps, more married woman labour than in most other constituencies in Great Britain. First, I want to say that it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to have a contributory scheme of mothers' pensions, which might be actuarially calculated and paid by the husband when he marries. It might be contributory by the employer, husband, and then, to a certain extent, by either the municipality or the State. I am not concerned for the moment to show an exact actuarial calculation to prove that the taxpayer would be relieved of what is supposed to be a heavy burden, should the question of mothers' pensions be accepted and settled. But what I am prepared to say is this, that in respect of the tuition and education of children up to the age of 7, it would be a lessening in regard to the cost of education of not less than £6,000,000 taking both the industrial and agricultural districts of England, because what obtains is that the child of sometimes even 4 years of age and above, while the mother goes out to work in the cotton mills—as she is compelled to do to assist with upkeep of the home in many industrial districts in Lancashire —she sends her children to school even At such an early age so that they may have some sort of care and tuition—tuition and care that she herself would give gladly were it possible and if such pensions were available would indeed make possible. It would thus lift the cost of tuition from the present cost of education which I assert—and I have had in respect of this calculation support from certain authorities—would cost no less
  410
  than £6,000,000. I do suggest that as a fair economic consideration mothers' pensions should have consideration in respect to relief of the taxpayer municipal and national. There is another matter, namely, that it would have a bearing on the cost of our production. When we remember the young men and youths who are kept out of employment by married women taking their jobs and I do suggest that, with regard to a man trained in certain spheres of trade, if an employer has to choose between a young man thoroughly trained and a married woman who has necessarily and properly her mind on her children and home, the young man is more technically efficient and better in relation to output than the woman, and I suggest it is a more economic way and would mean better home conditions for all were our young manhood able to take the place of married women in our factories. By no means am I going to prevent the work of married women in our mills, for they are compelled to do so in many cases in support of their homes.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: It is damnable that married women should have to work to make the family income.
  Sir W. SUGDEN: I agree, but unfortunately it prevails. I have some little knowledge with respect to the education of children. I was on an educational authority both in respect of defective children and in respect of normal children for eight or nine years, and I want to say this, that defective children in some cases arc the result of married women and mothers having to work. In respect of the cost of the education of defective children, due, as I said before, in some eases as the result of married women having to work, there would be a saving to the Exchequer in respect of the educational grant, and also in respect to the general cost of our scattered homes, of between£3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, so again I say that from the 'taxpayers' point of view it would be a healthy, useful and proper consideration were His Majesty's Government to accept a contributory scheme of mothers' pensions. I do respectfully suggest that the latter part of this Motion is not in the best interests of the reform we have in view,
  "such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the

  411
  municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."
  I suggest that the State, the employer and the husband should contribute something towards this, that it should be in the form of State insurance or something of that nature.
  I have spoken first in respect to the economic consideration, but I desire also to speak from the higher moral and ideal standpoint. I should like hon. Members opposite to understand that the very essence of feeling and high moral tone is not the special virtue of people across the Gangway. There are men equally with high ideals on this side, and because we do not wear our hearts on our sleeves you must not imagine that we do not take a very definite idealistic and practically sympathetic view in respect to our duties as employers to our women employés who support us by their labour and help to make the trade of the country. This country is a land of homes and its character has been built in its home life; and when we consider how the hustle and Americanisation of industry is upon us, let us remember how vital it is that the morale; the well-being of the nation, to have the home life conserved, should be preserved arid lifted to its highest ideal. I am not prepared to admit that Canada, and the United States of America, are able to show us anything in respect of home life, but I do see a difficulty and a danger if the home life is broken up, and the responsibility of parenthood to early child life is removed and the natural spirit between the parent and the State is divorced, by married mothers having to leave their children for work. If we are to have that high ideal for which that great thinker of the Roman Catholic Church said, "Give me the children up to seven and you can have them for the rest of their lives "—if we are to have that high moral tone in our natural life., if the mother is to be the greatest guide and educator of the child, then indeed we shall be a nation worthy of our great forebears, and capable of facing the great future which this Empire and country has to face. I do support a Motion for mothers' pensions, but I regret that I am not prepared to support the whole of the Motion on the Paper.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I do not make any apology to the-House for taking
  412
  in the discussion this evening what is, apparently, the unpopular view. It is sometimes necessary to have the courage of one's convictions, and to express one's views, even if those views may for the moment be unpopular, and I take this opportunity, because at the last General Election my opponent made a very great point of the promise of mothers' pensions, among innumerable other offers. I, on the other hand, refused to make any promises of that kind, and the result, so far as I was concerned, was eminently satisfactory. I had some hesitation about joining in this Debate. I was thinking once or twice whether I ought not to take the advice of Mr. Weller, and say to myself, "Samivel, beware of widders." But it is a matter of great importance, and it is a matter in which I, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the Front Bench opposite, had the opportunity of discussing with Judge Neil, of Chicago, when in England. I had the privilege of entertaining him for the week-end, and I tried to get him down to the actual facts of the case as they were in America, to see where the differences were between the American system and the system we have in this country, or lack of system if you like to call it so. In America it varies in various States, but in some of the States there was a regulation that the orphan child was looked upon as a ward of court, and the children's courts were responsible for those children. There were also a very large number of societies in America—welfare societies and so forth—which were always watching the interests of these children, and continually dragging the mothers before the courts, over one of which Judge Neil presided, claiming that the mothers were neglecting their children, and they were being sent off in increasing numbers to institutions which were being carried on at a very great expense to the American people. When it was boiled down to the actual is me in America, it came to this: Was it cheaper to pay a reasonable amount to the, mother to keep her children at home, or to keep going these expensive, State institutions which were rapidly increasing all over the country?
  Judge Neil was able to prove to the American people—who have an eye to a bargain—that in the particular circumstances of the case over there it would be practically as cheap for them

  413
  —in some States, may I point out, that payment is only made where there are more than two children—if not cheaper, to pay the mother a reasonable allowance to keep her children than to put them into an institution. Things are very different here in this country. For the last 15 years or so I have had the privilege and pleasure of being connected with an institution which has been running in this country for over a hundred years, where fatherless boys are taken in, well fed, looked after and given an admirable education, found a job in life afterwards, and many of them have done extraordinarily well. All this has been done without a penny cost either to the ratepayer or the taxpayer.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the percentage that they get into that home?
  Mr. ROBERTS: This particular home takes in about 100 boys.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where this is?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Bluecoat School, Sheffield.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Have they mothers?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.
  Mr. T. SMITH: What proportion of Sheffield boys are inside that home?
  Mr. ROBERTS: They are all Sheffield boys.
  Mr. SMITH: But I mean what proportion of the boys in Sheffield who are inside this kind of home—those that would generally come under the Poor Law guardians?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I do not know how those numbers would compare.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Not one of them!
  Mr. ROBERTS: At the present, moment we are practically able to take in all the applicants. The school has an extraordinary good reputation in the neighbourhood and the boys who have gone from the school have done, many of them, extraordinarily well in life. That has been clone without State or rate-aid but by benevolence—I will not use the word
  414
  charity—the benevolence of people who for years and years have taken an interest in the orphans. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that because some of us resist the State paying benevolence of the kind, that we object to benevolence in itself. The hon. Gentleman for one of the Durham divisions was talking of Christian charity; but whenever the text he mentioned is rolled out from the benches opposite it is misinterpreted. The text is "Let him that bath two coats give unto him that hath none." That is the correct translation. It is not take away from him who has two coats and give to him that has none. That is not Christianity. It is a free gift that is meant, not taking by force.
  However, I have got rather taken off the point, which was about the applications that come in for boys to come into this particular school. It has been one of my painful duties to listen to the applications of the mothers coming with children and asking for a boy to be taken into the school. One finds that in the usual way, where there are one or two children, the mother is working in some way, the children are very often looked after by a grandparent or other relatives while the mother is working. In other cases the home is kept going by taking in lodgers where there are, say, two children. Where you get a larger number of children you find usually (where the guardians are administering, and doing their work, as the hon. Member said, in a humane way) that the hulk of the income coming into the home is coming from Poor Law relief. I do not think there is very much difference of opinion between myself and hon. Members opposite upon this Motion. The whole thing really comes down to the sentimental point of view of Poor Law relief. If the Poor Law were broken up, as suggested in the Majority Report of the Commission, and these payments were taken out of the Poor Law and put under some different local authority it would apparently satisfy hon. Members opposite. My point of view—and so far as I know of many others—is that it does not matter in the least whether it is called Poor Law relief, or whether it comes under a committee or a local authority. We admit that the relief has to be given. It is relief of the poor which ever way you look at it, and "a rose by any other name

  415
  will smell as sweet." Poor Law relief and Poor Law guardians arc unpopular because in past times the people of this country strongly objected to receiving public money. There has been in the past an abhorrence amongst the majority of people in regard to receiving Poor Law relief, but that abhorrence in many districts is gradually disappearing. The abhorrence, however, remains towards the hand that distributes the relief.
  I think everybody admits that where there is a widow with three or four children which she is unable to maintain, it is cheaper for additional relief to be given, and nobody would argue that she ought to be left to starve. In such cases it would be cheaper to make payments in the way that has been suggested. There are, however, one or two difficulties on which I should like some explanation. Is it proposed to deal by this proposal with widows, no matter how many children they have, or only where there are a certain number of children? Secondly, is there any question of a means limit, or are you going to pay this money to widows whether there is need for it or not? These are questions on which we are entitled to have some information from the Mover of the Resolution.
  There is another point upon which desire some further information. If you are going to maintain the children and the widow until the children are 16 years of age, what is going to happen to the widow afterwards It is easy to say that the children may then be in a position to maintain her, but there may be a long period to provide for between the children attaining 16 years of age and the widow attaining 70 years of age. I think that is a question on which we are entitled to have some answer. In the Debate which took place four years ago the figure given by the late Mr. Tyson Wilson as to the cost of these proposals was £25,000,000. The representative of the Government at that time placed the figure somewhat higher, but I think we may take it that the cost would be fairly put down at about £20,000,000. I ask is it possible at the present moment to reasonably expect, burdened as we are with high taxation which we are trying to get rid of in every possible way by cheese-paring, to take a large sum like£20,000,000
  416
  and put it on the backs of the taxpayers of this country? I should be very interested to keep a little ledger of the cost of the various proposals put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. A fortnight ago they had one involving an expenditure of £17,000,000. To-night they want to spend another £20,000,000. If they go on in this way we shall soon have a liability of about £1,000,000,000, and the total sum will he such that anyone who looks at the proposition will come to the conclusion that the result would be absurd. If anything can be done in this matter of mothers' pensions it will be done by a a method alluded to by a previous speaker —by something in the way of mutual insurance. In that way possibly something can he done, I hope, when better times arrive.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I hope that, after the Debate we have had to-night, the hon. Gentleman who will reply for the Government will do his best to give us something. He has seen that on principle it is very difficult to argue against this proposal. There has only been one argument of principle put forward. It has been urged that the widow of a soldier who died for his country is more deserving than the widow of the workman who dies at his work. In these days we think, perhaps, more of war, but when we are dealing with a period covering many years, most of which were peace years, surely it is pretty clear that the matter must be regarded from the point of view of the civilian rather than of the soldier. I wish to urge that the great consideration is not whether the dead father was deserving, but whether the children are needy. The great overriding interest we are arguing for is the interest of the children. There has been one other question of principle raised. It was suggested that we on this side of the House' were not as careful as we ought to be in divorcing the mother from the children. The suggestion was that Socialism tends in that direction. I will not stay to argue that point, but surely of all the great industrial countries in the world at the present time the United States of America is the least inclined towards Socialism, and yet that is the country where, with extraordinary rapidity, this movement has made its way. Let me take the actual data. In the United States of America

  417
  the movement was begun in the year 1909. It was taken up by President Roosevelt, who was a man guided by generous motives of humanity and not by economic theory. Now. as we have been told to-day, there are 40 States out of the 48 in America. which give mothers' pensions, and in many cases on an even more generous scale than is hinted at in this Motion.
  It is clear that what is likely to weigh most in the minds of those who have doubts on this proposal is the question of cost. I daresay the lion. Baronet who will speak for the Government is going to give us Government figures. On the Government figures we have heard that it will cost £50,000,000, which rather surprises those of us who have been studying the question. Government figures, however, are not always reliable. Perhaps I may give one instance from my own Parliamentary experience. When we were discussing in past times what Super-tax would bring in, if it were imposed, the Treasury told us that we might get £3,000,000 a year. I think the figure put forward by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion was that it would cost £18,000,000, and that, with the saving in rates, the total increase of taxation of one sort and another would be £8,000,000 and that, I believe, is the figure adopted by the women's organisations who have worked out the cost.
  I wonder whether the Government would not think it worth while, as a minimum, to offer the House at the present time some sort of open inquiry as to how much this was going to cost? Everyone wants to do something. The late Government, as was said just now, although they made no promise, took a most friendly line towards the Motion, and said they hoped it would be possible to do something; and I think this Government, four years afterwards, ought, if possible, to do something better. It is true, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) said, that possibly, if he takes all the expenditure which all the Resolutions moved from this side of the House would involve, it would total up to a very large sum. Yes, but there is the other point or' view. Are the Government going to meet every one of these. Resolutions with the same answer: "No; our present expenditure is so enormous, and we see, absolutely, no way
  418
  out; we have no financial solution"? Are they, in every single case, going to say that? Of course, I know, that it is agreeable to some hon. Members, but I am certain it is not. agreeable to all. I think the Government, somewhere or other, will have to begin to distinguish between those great social reforms which are most needed and those which are a little less needed. They cannot simply go on every time saying "No, no, no!" to every one of these Resolutions.
  Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON - HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think I ought to say, first of all, that I cannot bind whoever may be appointed Minister of Health. I am only temporarily in this position. Having said that, I should like to congratulate Members of the House on the way in which they have approached this problem. There was a certain amount of sentiment, and with a great deal of what has been said as to the value of the English home and the English mother I am in entire agreement. I have the honour myself to this day of having the benefit of a mother, and I can speak quite as feelingly as any hon. Member opposite as to what I owe to her. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can you imagine your mother in such circumstances?"] I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will rather regret having said that [HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] I want to call the attention of the House to the discrepancy between what has been said about the Poor Law question and the actual facts. A great deal has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), who told us that he had broken the law on several occasions when sitting as a guardian, and almost inferred that guardians did not relieve this class of case at all. I could not quite understand what the hon. Member meant, and why it was necessary for him to break the law in giving relief to widowed mothers and their children.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The real fact is that the auditors determine the amount that shall be given to a mother, and very often guardians are absolutely afraid to give what they know they ought to give, because of the Local Government. Board auditor.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am coming in a minute to the views of what the hon. Member calls the Local Govern-

  419
  meat Board. Let me give—I am bound to give Government figures in spite of semi-taunts of the hon. Member who preceded me—the number of people who are really affected. It was suggested to us that a large number of the children of widows go into Poor Law institutions of various kinds. There are, apart from unmarried mothers, 61,600 husbandless women in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales, and they have 135,501 children. Of these children only 3,331 are in institutions of any kind. That means that as against 3,300 children who have had to go into homes or institutions under the Poor Law, 132,000 have got outdoor relief, and that does not look as if the work of the guardians was the utterly heartless and soulless mode of working which has been suggested. Out of that number of 3,300 some are the children of mothers who are at work and are unable to take care of their children, and a certain proportion are the children of mothers who, I regret to say, are not fit to take care of their children, and they have been taken from them and put into Poor Law institutions. But the great bulk of the children who are receiving Poor Law relief are receiving it in their own homes, and are kept there because the Ministry of Health and the old Local Government Board have over and over again emphasised the importance of the home as against. Poor Law institutions.
  Mr. LANSBURY indicated dissent.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will tell the House the view of the Ministry of Health. They cannot absolutely control the guardians, but they can do their best. The existing circular, which was issued by the Local Government, Board some years ago, and which is still in force, quite distinctly lays it down that the guardians, under the advice of the Ministry of Health, are to regard the home life as far preferable to institutional life. I should like to call attention to the circular so that hon. Members may realise the view of the Ministry of Health on this question and the view which is being carried out by the great bulk of guardians—
  "The value of home life in the education and training of the child is admittedly so great that wherever the elements of this
  420
  are already in existence the guardians would do well to offer it every encouragement and to take such action in regard to the granting of relief as will!east interfere with the unity of the family."
  That is the considered decision of the Ministry of Health which is being acted on to-day. The circular goes on:
  "When the child is living with its parents the mother must naturally be regarded as primarily responsible for its welfare, but it the guardians give relief to the parents they are hound to see that the relief is properly applied and the child is not neglected."
  This is from a paragraph headed "Sufficiency of Relief":
  "The guardians should ascertain by careful inquiry what is the normal standard of income on which a woman may reasonably be expected to bring up her family, regard being had to the cost and general standard of living and the rates of wages in the locality, and should use that standard as the criterion of the needs of each case."
  If any hon. Member opposite were in office as Minister of Health and was laying down conditions on which he desired the guardians to act in dealing with cases of widows and their fatherless children, he could not put it more admirably than it has been put by the Minister of Health in this circular, which I am sure is known to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I knew it by heart.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Some of the hon. Member's colleagues have been saying that the guardians and the Ministry of Health have no bowels of compassion, and that whenever they get hold of the unfortunate children of widows, they cram them into institutions where they cannot be brought up with the nurture and help of the mother in the home. That is quite contrary to the facts.
  Now I come to the question of cost. I have had a very careful inquiry and estimate made, and the figure given by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) is well below the mark. The figure given by the husband of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) four years ago was £25,000,000.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said £50,000,000.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am going to say more than £50.000,000. I will

  421
  tell the House how the figures are made up. The number of widows was given from the opposite benches as between 1,100,000 and 1,200,000. So far as I can estimate, about one-third of that number have children dependent upon them. At the present time, the number of widows with children depending upon them is estimated by the Department of the Ministry of Health and by their officials at about 400,000, and the number of children under 16 at 750,000. Everybody who has a soul or a heart would desire that this reform should be carried out if it can be done. Even a small pension of 7s. 6d. a. week, and 2s. 6d. for each child, would cost £10,500,000 for Great Britain alone after making liberal deduction for women who might be excluded on income grounds.
  In the Debate to-night it has been said that it is the interests of the child and not of the widow that are important, and if we take into account the wives who have to look after a maimed or ill husband, the former bread-winner, the House must realise that the children in such a case are of as much importance to the nation as the child of the widow. If we add to the calculation the children of the wives of incapacitated men, it would mean at least another £2,000,000, bringing the total up to £13,000,000 for Great Britain, with a pension of only 7s. 6d. a week. The whole thing stops when the last. child reaches the age of 16. What are you going to do with the widows then? Here is a widow who, according to the scheme suggested to-night, would get £1 a week, and 10s. or 7s. 6d. for each child. If she had four children she would he in fair comfort during the period of her widowhood, until the last child reached the age of 16.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: She has a right to it.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I know a widow who has £70,000 a year.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The widow will have to go out to work in order to devote herself to her children.
  How is it possible for her to go back to the labour market, having lost all her ability to earn, having lost, if she is one of those Lancashire women to whom an hon. Member referred, all the technical skill which she had 10 or 15 years previously? It is impossible. If the scheme
  422
  is to be carried out at all it must go on after the child has attained the age of 16 until the date when the woman receives the old age pension at the age of 70. You cannot say to a woman who in the interests of the State has brought up her children well, and trained them morally and physically until they ate fit to be responsible citizens of this country, when she is about 45 years of age and the child is done with: "Go back to work. We are going to take your pension. "If that is admitted as it must be, it will be found that the amount will be £13,000,000, on those figures, which will come to well over £20,000,000 in the course of a few years. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is worth it!"] That is not the point. I want the House to realise, before voting for it, what it is going to cost.
  Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Were the figures for all widows, or only those on relief?
  Sir W. J OYNSON-HICKS: The figures for all widows were given, but I said that only about 400,000 widows would come under this scheme. The scheme put forward was £1 a week and 10s. or 7s. 6d. for the children. I think you would have to include the wives of disabled men, and also the deserted wives. It is no good in saying, as one hon. Member did, that if you admit deserted or divorced wives you would get into the mire of collusion between husband and wife. The question debated tonight is the interests of the child, and the interests of the child whose parents are divorced or separated are every bit as great as the interests of the child whose mother is a widow. You cannot logically give a pension to the child of a widow and not. to the child of a divorced or separated woman. Then you have got to include the children of the unmarried mother.
  Viscountess ASTOR: They have got fathers.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They have got fathers, hut it is not always easy to find them or to make them pay. As a social reformer myself, I know that if you are going to do the thing at all you will have to include the children of the unmarried mother. You cannot logically leave them out. Including those here is the estimate given by the Government. On the basis which hon. Members opposite have laid down to-night in regard to the amount, that is to say, to put them

  423
  on the same basis as the war widow and the war pension, the cost was found to be over £50,000,000 a year, on the scale in force before the increases granted in 1919, and would be substantially more on the current scales.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Gross?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: £50,000,000 a year, gross. There would be a small saving on the Poor Law, but it would not be very much. Whether it be through the charity which the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) mentioned—and there is no charity so great, I willingly admit, as the charity of the poor to the poor—or from other causes the proportion of widows and of orphans who are to-day receiving Poor Law relief is certainly not 20 per cent. of the total who would come under the provisions of this proposal if they were carried out. Therefore the amount of saving from the Poor Law relief would be very small indeed.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we were told exactly the same thing when old age pensions were introduced. We were told that it was going to cost £6,000,000, and that there would be very little saving.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is because of that that I am giving the actual figure and asking the House before they vote on this question to realise quite frankly what the proposals are. When an hon. Member comes here, as one or two hon. Members have, and says that the proposals, if carried out, would cost about £8,000,000, it is not fair to let the House go to a Division with anything like that figure in their minds. In the Department of the Ministry of Health it has been investigated most thoroughly, not hostilely, but with a real desire to ascertain the facts. Whether there is a small saving in Poor Law relief; whether the amount is £55,000,000 or £45,000,000 does not for the moment really matter, but it will he undoubtedly as high as £45,000,000 a year if the scheme put before the House to-night were carried out.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: How are they living now?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Louth has explained that they are helped by their relatives in various ways.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: That comes on the community.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It comes on the community, but it does not come in actual payment out of public funds. What we have to find out to-night is what will come in payment from public funds That is clearly the amount, that this House will have to provide for if it passes this Motion.
  What position, then, must; the Government take up? What are we to ask those who have been returned to Parliament, on pledges of economy to carry out? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, only a week ago, had to deal with this same question in regard to a matter of old age pensions. with which many of us feel in sympathy.
  Mr. McENTEE: If they lived on sympathy, they would do well.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Many of as, sitting on the Government Benches, are just as keen that the honest—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU do not show it!"]. I am not quite so sure about that. We try to be honest in doing—
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Untrue! Try again.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member may make a cheap score by statements of that kind. I have never said that hon. Members opposite did not try to be honest. I have never said that of my political opponents. I respect their views, and I ask the same respect from them for my views. We have gone to the country again. Hon. Member after hon. Member —two at least said that they openly had opponents who were in favour of these widows' pensions—honestly went to their constituents, and said, "We cannot afford them, we will not vote for them." If they vote for them to-night, what will their constituents say? What right has anybody on our side of the House, who has gone to his constituents on a policy of economy and retrenchment, to vote for a scheme of this kind because his heart is in it?
  Hon. Members opposite would not like to break their pledges and I appeal to them not to ask us to break ours. The Government has entered into this policy of retrenchment. There has been retrenchment in every possible way. If hon. Members were in Government De-

  425
  partments they would know quite well that the axe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is falling on nearly every Department, and has been falling on nearly every Department in the last few weeks, in order to cut the Estimates down. While we have been dismissing people in the public employ, what right have we to come down and, because our sympathies may be in favour of this scheme, to say we will vote for a thing for which we know we cannot get the money? It is so easy to say "Take off the Whips. Let every hon. Member vote as he likes, as his sympathy and heart dictate," though we know perfectly well that he will go into the Lobby and give a heart vote, which is not a pocket vote, a vote in accordance with what he would like to do if he had the money, and a vote based on the knowledge that his will not be the responsibility for finding the money. Yon would be merely telling the widows and orphaned children that the House of Commons had passed a scheme which it knew full well could not be put into operation for many years to
  come. I ask the House, particularly the supporters of the Government, quite frankly to realise that they were returned here on a policy of economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "You took a shilling off the Income Tax."] This would cost twopence off the Beer Duty. There are certain services that have to be provided by the Government and there is no money left for this purpose. We want to reduce taxation, because we believe that it is a burden on trade. We believe that only by getting rid of the burdens on trade will our trade revive, and only in that way will we get rid of the greatest burden of all—the burden of unemployment.
  Question put,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."
  The House divided: Ayes, 184 Noes, 248.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Adams, D.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Fildes, Henry

  Kenyon, Barnet

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Kirkwood, D.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lansbury, George

  Attlee, C. R.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Lawson, John James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gosling, Harry

  Leach, W.

  Barnes, A.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lee, F.

  Batey, Joseph

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Bonwick, A.

  Greenall, T.

  Lowth, T.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lunn, William

  Broad, F. A.

  Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)

  McCurdy, Rt. Han. Charles A.

  Bromfield, William

  Groves, T.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Brotherton, J.

  Grundy, T, W.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Buckle, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Burgess, S.

  Hancock, John George

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Martin F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Hardie, George D.

  Maxton, James

  Cairns, John

  Harney, E. A.

  Millar, J. D.

  Cape, Thomas

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morel, E. D.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Morris, Harold

  Chapple, W A.

  Hastings, Patrick

  Muir, John W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Murnin, H.

  Clarke, Sir E C.

  Hemmerde, E. G.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Collison, Levi

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Herriotts, J.

  Nichol. Robert

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

  Paling, W.

  Davison, J. E, (Smethwick)

  Irving, Dan

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Parry, Lieut. Colonel Thomas Henry

  Duncan, C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Phillips, Vivian

  Dunnico, H.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Ede, J. C.

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

  Potts, John S.

  Edmonds, G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Riley, Ben

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C

  Ritson, J.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Weir, L. M.

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Westwood, J.

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Wheatley, J.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Sullivan, J.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Royce, William Stapleton

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Wignall, James

  Salter, Dr. A.

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Sexton, James

  Thornton, M.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Tout. W. J.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Turner, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Warne, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Snell, Harry

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. J.

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Robertson.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Webb, Sidney

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Alexander, E. E- (Leyton, East)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

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

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Banks, Mitchell

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Ednam, Viscount

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Becker, Harry

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Johnson-Hicks, Sir William

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

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

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Berry, Sir George

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lorden, John William

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Furness, G. J.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lumley, L. R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Gates, Percy

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Bruford, R.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Manville, Edward

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden}

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Button, H. S.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

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

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Murchison, C. K.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Nesbitt, J. C.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)

  Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Paget, T. G.

  Collie, Sir John

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Pease, William Edwin

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

  Pennelather, De Fonblanque

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Peto, Basil E.

  Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  428

  429

  Privett, F. J.

  Singleton, J. E.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Raine, W.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C,

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

  Watts, Or. T. (Man., Withington)

  Reid. Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Wells, S. R.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stanley, Lord

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  White, Lt.-Col, G. D. (Southport)

  Richardson, Lt. Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Winterton, Earl

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Wise, Frederick

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Sutcliffe, T.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henie)

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Sandon, Lord

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colone

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Gibbs.

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  SECURITY AND REPARATIONS.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
  "That this House, believing that the peoples of Europe wish to maintain peace and to pursue a policy which will secure it, agrees to invite in the first instance the Chambers of France and Belgium each to appoint a representative committee from all political sections, in order to exchange information and views with a similar committee appointed by this House regarding the occupation of the Ruhr in relation to the problems of security and reparations.'' —[Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.]
  Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday, 13th March.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—

  (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to he prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution, and from and after that, date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contribu-
  430
  tions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women ninepence, in the case of boys sixpence, and in the case of girls four-pence halfpenny; and

  (b) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in paying to local education authorities, in respect of the amount by which the administrative expenses of local education authorities a re increased by any additional duties undertaken under the Act in connection with the administration of benefit, such sums as may he determined in accordance with a scale to he fixed under the Act."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I do not think it is necessary to explain this Resolution at, any great length. It is comparatively simple. It consists of two pairs, one part dealing with Clause 4 and the other with Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 4, shortly put, deals with the dependants' allowances as they will be determined after the deficiency period has come to an end, broadly speaking; and the second portion deals with the expenses incurred as the result of carrying out what is called the Chelmsford Agreement. As to the first portion, namely, the financial adjustments, there is the carrying on of the expenditure not only to the end of the deficiency period, but from the end of the deficiency period to such period as may be prescribed. The second portion of the first part of paragraph (a) deals with a scale of expenses which may be considered to be likely to be reasonable when times become normal again. The scale under the Act of 1920, to which we hope as far as possible to revert when times become normal, was in the case of

  431
  men 4d. and 4d., or 8d. plus a quarter extra on behalf of the State. It is not considered now that that will be sufficient for two reasons, partly because it is conceivable—I am afraid it is more or less probable—that the numbers of unemployed may, owing to the War wastage, he somewhat in excess of what they were contemplated as likely to be under the Act of 1920; and, secondly, we have to add on the provision in respect of dependants' allowances. It is therefore suggested that we should be making proper provision, if we increased the contributions in respect of employer and employed person—taking the case of men, because that is the simplest case—from 4d. and 4d., or 8d., to 6d. and 6d., or 1s. Then add to that a quarter, as under the Act of 1920, and you get 1s. 3d., and similarly with regard to the other contributions for the women, and the boys and girls.
  In regard to the second portion of the Resolution, I must say one word of a rather general character. It is this: the expenses are to be in accordance with a scale laid down in the Bill. It is unfortunate that we have not had more time to consult with the local authorities affected by the proposal. The reason of urgency has been, as the Committee is aware, that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal with matters with regard to which great expedition is required. If the provisions of the Bill are to come into operation promptly we must get the Bill through before Easter. That being so this appeared to be, in all probability, the last, or one of the last, occasions during the present year when we can make a provision for dealing with this local authority matter. Therefore I hope that local authorities will realise that there has been no intention of rushing the Bill; so far as they were concerned it was merely a matter of the exigencies of the case in regard to the continuation of benefits that required us to bring the Bill; and has, perhaps, not given us the opportunity for discussion with the local authorities that we, under normal circumstances, would have desired.
  Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the London County Council object to the Clause?
  Sir M. BARLOW: It appears to be putting it very strongly to say that they
  432
  object to it, and scarcely equitable. What I do want to impress upon the local authorities is that the scales will have to be fixed, but not until after consultation with them. In view of that, and my explanation, I trust that they will not feel that they have been unreasonably treated. I would he glad now to have the Resolution.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: I desire to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "In respect of the period between "and to insert instead thereof the words "as from." In the Act of 1920 the proportions of contributions were 4d. from the employer, 4d. from the workman, and 2d. from the State —or one-fourth of the total from the State. Since then we have had several Unemployment Insurance Acts and the amounts have risen considerably. At the present time the contributions from the employer is 10d., from the worker 9d., and from the State 6¾d., a total of 25¾d. It is now proposed, not to go back to the 1920 figures which were 4d., 4d., and 2d., but to fix a new figure 6d., 6d., and 3d.—in all is. 3d. According to the Financial Resolution nearly one-fourth of the amount that is contributed is to be paid by the State, against at present slightly more than one-third. We on these benches do not believe that it is advisable for the State to go back to the Act of 1920 and fix the sums in the same proportion as then. The Minister of Labour, and I think most hon. Members here know where I stand in regard to unemployment. I think most of my colleagues, if not all, are also in the same position as myself. We say that unemployment insurance ought to be a national burden and should not be upon a contributory basis so far as workmen and employers are concerned. I think the whole cost ought to be borne by the State, and there is no necessity for the State going back to the proportion of 1920. Whilst it is true that the State is going to pay one-fourth of the total contribution of the employer and the workman, it really only works out at one-fifth of the three parties to the contract. You are taking 6d. from the worker, 3d. from the employer and 3d. from the State. Here you have three parties contributing and one of the parties has all the powers of administration carrying with it the power of refusing benefits to those who are contributing. In these circumstances we want to know

  433
  why the third party should get off by paying one-half of the contribution which it ought to pay. Therefore we consider that the whole system of allocating the proportion ought to be revised by the Minister of Labour. The memorandum which has been issued states that when the reduced rates of contribution come into force the State contribution will be one-fourth of the combined contribution of employers and employed, which was approximately the proportion fixed by the Act of 1920, instead of approximately one-third, the proportion in operation under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1922.
  As a matter of fact, the Financial Resolution of the Act of 1920 lays down that the State contribution shall be one-third and not one-fourth, although it was fixed in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. The rates fixed in the Schedule of that Act laid down that the State shall pay one-fourth of the total contribution, but in the Financial Resolution passed by this House on the 4th of March, 1920, it was provided
  "That the payment aforesaid shall not exceed one-third of the aggregate of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons."
  although you might go to the extent of one-third under that Act you provided in the Schedule power to restrict it merely to one-fourth. In this Financial Resolution which we are now considering you are fixing the proportion not at one-third but at one-fourth. We are altering the provisions of the Financial Resolution passed in 1920. There is nothing to prevent the Government from doing as they did, viz., having passed a Resolution giving them power to pay a certain proportion—up to a given maximum proportion—of the total contributions for the three parties, the Government do not pay so much, but pay considerably under the maximum. We cannot be assured that this Bill, which has gone into Committee upstairs, and the Financial Resolution for which we are now considering, will not prove another illustration of what has already been done by the Government. As a matter of fact the present Unemployment Insurance Bill is not going to be a permanent Bill, although the Minister of Labour expects it to be. During the last two years we had four or five Unemployment Insurance Bills brought in amending Bills
  434
  which we have debated here and the 1920 Act has been amended out of all recognition as a result. What guarantee have we, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has told us we may have a million and a quarter of people out of employment for at least a year—and I am told he is budgeting on that assumption —what guarantee have we that this Bill will not be amended before Whitsuntide by another Bill? Industry is now in such an unnatural condition: there are so many people on the fund, so many people requiring the benefit, so many being excluded because it is said that they are not genuinely seeking employment when there is no employment, that one does not know what may occur. When the Employment Exchanges were set up their object was to bring employers requiring labour and workers needing work together. Now they are merely paying out money and refusing men benefits instead of finding situations for them.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of the Employment Exchanges is very wide of the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I was under the impression that the object of the Financial Resolution was to give money to the Ministry of Labour which will be expended by the Employment Exchanges, and therefor it would be in order to discuss in a narrow sense the administration.
  The CHAIRMAN: That might be very well on the Second Reading on the question of the contribution, and the hon. Member might argue whether or not it is sufficient, but he cannot make the Employment Exchanges a subject of debate.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I did not put it as a subject of debate. I brought it in as an illustration of how the money that is being raised by the contribution is being retained by the Government. Of course I submit to your ruling and will now move my Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I had better give my ruling now. All the Amendments on the Paper enlarge the scope of the Resolution and may thereby increase the charge. They are therefore out of order.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Amendment on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-

  435
  day) and myself, which seeks to delete from paragraph (a) the words,
  "and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the case of boys six pence. and in the case of girls four pence halfpenny—"
  does not, so far as I can make out, in any way extend the scope of the Resolution, but rather narrows it. It takes away the power of the Minister of Labour with regard to certain proportions of certain rates that he is going to impose, and puts no further rates in their place. Consequently it cannot, I imagine, be regarded as seeking to increase or extend the powers of the Minister of Labour, or increase the amount contributed by the State. I put this forward as an argument why that Amendment should be considered and adopted by the Committee now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. The Resolution sets forth that there shall be, up to a certain date to be fixed in the Bill, a contribution from the State equal to the present contribution, and that after that time that contribution shall be decreased. The effect of omitting these words would be to say that the present contribution shall continue indefinitely, and that undoubtedly, at some time or other, does increase the charge on the State.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am sorry to appear reluctant to accept your ruling, but the point I wish to put is that the Minister of Labour himself cannot fix definitely the date when the deficiency period will come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I accept that as indicating that he agrees with me that he cannot fix that definite date. In this Resolution he is legislating for something that is indefinite. My Amendment cuts out that particular part which is indefinite, and leaves it as a definite Resolution, so that the Committee may say that for the deficiency period, of the ending of which the Minister himself does not know the hour or the day, the contributions shall remain as they are, and, when there is the appearance of good trade and the likelihood of the deficiency period coming to an end, then the Minister can bring in a short amend-
  436
  ing Bill with a new Financial Resolution, which shall fix the rates at that period.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Minister can bring in an Amending Bill at any time, whatever may be said in the Resolution. But undoubtedly the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that the present contributions would remain indefinitely, and therefore the charge is increased.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On that point of Order. I submit that under the Bill as it stands the contributions during the first period are indefinite at the present time, and the object of the Amendment is that this Bill should deal solely with this indefinite period. When the indefinite period comes to an end, then, as the Bill would make no further provision, it would be the duty of Parliament to amend it.
  The CHAIRMAN: It may be found, when the Bill is considered in Committee, that this Resolution does not cover some of the Clauses, and the Chairman of the Committee may rule that those Clauses will have to drop. I am not considering the Bill at all, but am considering the Resolution, and undoubtedly the effect of this Amendment of the Resolution would be to increase the charge.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Would you accept an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a.)?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am considering what would be left. That Amendment would undoubtedly be in order, but I cannot conceive what would be left after it had been passed.
  Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
  I do so because I submit that this paragraph is quite unnecessary, and for this reason. The Minister told us yesterday that the deficiency period would be, at the very earliest, 18 months ahead, and an examination of the White Paper which he has laid before the House shows that it will be not 18 months, but 2½ years at the very earliest before this particular period can arise, because on page 5 of the White Paper he shows that in October, 1924, over a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000 to wipe out.
  Sir M. BARLOW: That depends on the numbers of the unemployed. I gave the

  437
  estimate of unemployed at 1,250,000. If the numbers fall below that, as they may well do in two and a half years time, the figures will fall in proportion.
  Mr. THOMSON: When the Treasury submit a White Paper for the guidance of the House they are hardly entitled to run away from their own figures. The House only has for its guidance the estimate which has been arrived at by the experts of the Treasury, consulting with the right hon. Gentleman, and they say that in October, 1924, more than a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000. Therefore it is clear you have to wipe out that £20,000,000 before you come to the end of the deficiency period and surely the Minister would be more than sanguine if he suggested that out of a total income of £47,000,000 a year he was going to wipe out £20,000,000 in one year. If the figures are examined from April, 1924, to October, 1924, they show a. reduction of less than £2,000,000 in six months. If the reduction is on the same ratio it will be only £4,000,000 a year and it will take five years before it is wiped out. We all hope unemployment will decrease at a more rapid rate, but under the most sanguine expectations it will take at least two and a half years, and probably three and a half, before you come to the hypothetical period known as the end of the deficiency period when this Financial Resolution is necessary. Therefore I submit my Amendment is not so foolish as it may appear at first sight because why should we pass a Financial Resolution which cannot under any circumstances be operative for two and a half years hence? In the last four years we have had no fewer than six, if not seven, amending Unemployment Insurance Bills and to suggest that we should to-night, after 11 o'clock, without proper consideration, pass a Financial Resolution which will not be operative for at least 2½ years is surely not treating this question with the careful consideration it deserves.
  I wish to protest, at the same time, against this habit of taking Financial Resolutions after 11 o'clock. On these Bills the Financial Resolutions are the crux of the whole question. Hon. Members who were on the Committees last Parliament will know that Amendment after Amendment was ruled out by the Chair because the Financial Resolutions taken after 11 o'clock prevented the
  438
  subject matter of the Amendments being dealt with, and in the matter of Unemployed Insurance, whether you wish to reduce the qualifying period, whether you wish to extend the benefit, whether you wish to bring in the innocent victims of trade disputes or whatever Amendment you take you are in some way or other affecting the Financial Resolution. Therefore what we do to-night on this Financial Resolution practically settles and determines the whole of our procedure upstairs. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and realise that these Resolutions are not necessary to-night. It will be 2½ years, and probably more, before they can became operative, and it is not in keeping with sound legislation nor with strict finance to deal with hypothetical periods in this slipshod way.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I submit that the Amendment to paragraph (a) standing in the names of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), the bon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and myself, on line 7, to leave out the words
  "and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions lit rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the ease of boys six pence, and in the case of girls four pence half penny; and—"
  would be in order, without reference to the previous Amendment. The Resolution would then stand as if dealing with the first period. There is no proposal therefore, to widen the scope of the Resolution. If the Amendment were accepted its only effect would be to disable the Committee from making any provision for any period beyond the emergency period. In these circumstances, if it is in order, suggest that you should put the Question in such a way as to safeguard the Second Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member refers to the Amendment on line 7, that. I have already ruled out of order. If the hon. Member merely wishes to move that there should be no power to continue the present equal contribution between the deficiency period and a date to he prescribed, and thereby to lessen

  439
  the scope of the Resolution and lessen the amount to be paid by the State that would be in order; but I do not gather that that is his intention.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If my Amendment were accepted, the Resolution would read:
  "(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution.
  That is a specific Resolution, giving the Committee power to make provision within that limit for the period to be prescribed under the Act. If the remainder of the Resolution be left out, there is no provision for that continuing period, and it will come to an end at the date prescribed in the Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: I see the object of the hon. Member. The effect of the Amendment would be to cut out the whole of the latter part. By that falling out the scope of the Resolution, undoubtedly, would be increased; therefore, the Amendment is not in order.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Obviously, the scope cannot be increased if part of the Resolution is to be cut out. The whole effect is to make it impossible to deal with the permanent part of the Act. The object of the Amendment is not to allow the Government while they are passing an emergency Measure rendered necessary by the urgent conditions of the time, and necessarily rushing the legislation through the House, to pass a permanent Measure dealing with hypothetical conditions which we cannot foresee. The object is to prevent the Committee from being hampered and delayed by this provision from concentrating on what is required, leaving Parliament to deal with the subsequent situation, with a view to a permanent settlement, when the time arrives.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Resolution, as it would be if amended by the hon. Member, would continue the equality of the present contribution. That would be out of order; but to leave out the whole of paragraph (a) would be very much to limit the scope of the Resolution, and that would be in order.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The first part of paragraph (a) defines what payment is to be made between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be prescribed. The first part says:
  "it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—
  (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution."
  If the Resolution end there, there is no provision made for any payment after that date, which is to be fixed by the Act. If the second portion remains in, that extends the payment. That makes the payment operative not only between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be fixed, hut after the date that has been fixed. The effect of the Amendment to leave out the second part of the paragraph is to reduce the scope of the Financial Resolution. by making no provision whatever for payment after the date that has been prescribed by the Act. Therefore instead of extending the scope I submit that it is only limiting the scope.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the whole of the provision, if this were eliminated.
  Mr. MacDONALD:
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—

  (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution—"

  and then the period "as from and after" was to be dealt with afterwards. The effect is to limit the period during which payments are to be made.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to make provision merely for the period between the end of the deficiency period and the date prescribed?
  Mr. PRINGLE: That is left in.
  Mr. MacDONALD: There is provision first for the payment between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed. What I suggest is

  441
  that provision ought not to be made for after that date. This is done in the second part of the Resolution. Therefore, if the Resolution be cut in two, and the second part is deleted, provision is made from the end of the deficiency period.
  The CHAIRMAN: The result would be to allow the Committee to place the date at, perhaps, the year 2000, after which equal contributions should be made.
  Mr. MacDONALD: When we discuss the Bill, and the date to he put in, we can move that as an Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise at present. What the hon. Gentleman appears to be contending is that the limitation in the length of time of this Resolution shall he left out. That is not in order.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, One argument which he advanced was that it would take two and a half years before the deficiency period came to an end. In examining this subject the Committee must have regard to the White Paper issued on this subject by the Government. I find in the Report of 25th March, 1922, that the actuary at that time, basing his figures on information supplied to him by the Minister of Labour, estimated the net debt to the Exchequer on 5th April this year at £14,500,000. But on examining the White Paper issued with this Bill, I find that the estimated deficiency is there estimated at £18,500,000. In other words the figures of a year ago have increased by 25 per cent.
  Sir M. BARLOW: On the 19th April, 1923.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the difference. I place no blame on the shoulders of anyone when endeavouring to estimate figures on this subject, but the two White Papers clearly show that the Estimates of the Government in the past have riot been accurate, and that the end of the deficiency period of 2½ years may well be, as my hon. Friend behind me said, four or five years, or even more. To-night we are discussing the Financial Resolution of the largest insurance fund in the world. The Government, are asking the House to discuss this subject,
  442
  which fixes any contribution from His Majesty's Government for the purposes of unemployed insurance for the coming year, at this late hour. It is a subject that concerns intimately 10,000,000 people.
  I think the contribution from the Government is insufficient, because the burden which is being placed on insured persons to-day is very heavy—is. 9d. Tenpence from the employer and 9d. from the insured person, making ls. 7d., was not perhaps an excessive figure twelve months ago, but to-day, with falling wages, this figure is indeed a heavy burden on all people in insured trades. I was hoping that in the coming year, with reduced Estimates in other Departments, His Majesty's Government might find a larger sum for unemployed insurance purposes. This Financial Resolution, when it becomes law, will fix the amount to be paid to the insured persons—
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the lion. Gentleman is supporting the Amendment. The one point of the Amendment is to delete the whole of paragraph (a) from the Resolution, as being unnecessary.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I was using the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, I think, as you well know, in endeavouring to delete a particular Clause, while objecting to the Clause in particular, and advancing my reasons. I submit that I am in order in dealing with the main general proposition as the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. This contribution, fixed under the Financial Resolution, will place, during the coining year, very heavy burdens on every local authority. The amount to be paid under the Financial Resolution will give certain benefits to the insured persons. The Parish Councils in Scotland will borrow £1,000,000; the local authorities in England will borrow £8,000,000. That is a total of £9,000,000 for borrowed money; and the Insurance Fund itself will require to borrow, if the past year be any guide to the coming year—the Minister of Labour will correct me if I am wrong—a further slim of £15,000,000.
  Sir M. BARLOW indicated dissent.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. May I remind him that in the present year the Insurance Fund is borrowing £15,000,000. If the present year is any guide to the

  443
  coming year, there will be £15,000,000 borrowed under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and a further £9,000,000 borrowed by the local authorities throughout the country, making a total sum of £24,000,000.
  If those figures be at all correct—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—this Financial Resolution is inadequate in amount. It does not deal with the dire distress of the country and the heavy burdens on local authorities in a manner which should commend itself to the Committee. In supporting the Amendment—although I am well aware that by the strict interpretation of the rules of the House it means a restricted contribution from the State—I wish to voice my own opinion that the Government, in this matter, have not had regard to the national circumstances which exist to-day. They had taken too little heed of the heavy burden being placed on local authorities, and should have come to the House and asked for a larger contribution for State purposes towards the needs of every locality.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I rise to speak on this subject because I feel that the Government have not given the amount of consideration to the financial provision necessary under this Resolution that would justify them in becoming active participants in the desire to relieve the distress caused in consequence of unemployment. As I have stated before, even the memorandum is quite misleading. It speaks in terms of a State contribution, approximately one-third. The State's contribution is one-fourth of the aggregate contribution. It proposes by this Financial Resolution eventually to get back to the payment of one-fifth of the aggregate weekly contribution. This is, at a time when it should set an example in the direction of easing the length of the deficiency period. It holds out no hope beyond saying this, "The deficiency is cleared by three-fourths being paid by employer and workman, and by our paying one-fourth. We then propose to drop back to a one-fifth payment although we get hack to a permanent piece of legislation that will restrict the period of payment to the recipients "—I mean, of course, the period of twenty-six. I would urge, firstly, that there was no need for the opening
  444
  words in this Financial Resolution, that automatically when the deficiency period ceased the smaller contribution should then be brought into operation. I still urge that Ministers should shoulder their share of the financial burden, that instead of one-fourth it should be one-third, and after the deficiency period instead of one-fifth it should be one-third.
  If we examine the Estimates of the late Government, which will not be disputed by my right hon. Friend, because at that time he was Parliamentary Secretary to the ex-Labour Minister, we find that there we had it, as he will remember, that during the early part of the 1920 Act operation they were then contributing only one-fifth of the total. They increased their share of the contribution in 1921, when they put on to the general unemployment funds all the ex-service men who were before that a direct charge upon the Treasury. They were drawing their unemployment allowances as ex-service men, not as men in industry—as men demobilised and thrown on an over-full labour market. The State took on that responsibility, but they said: "Now, in return for our making a slightly increased contribution, your fund mush take over t he responsibility of all the unemployed ex-service men," and they put them on to the fend, and they helped, by easing the pressure on the State, to create the necessity for borrowing powers from the Treasury in order to meet the industrial claims of the unemployed.
  12 M.
  It was estimated that from November, 1920, until the end of June of the present year £140,000,000 would be spent in unemployment payments. It was the statement made at the time the first borrowing powers were asked for; it was repeated when the extension of those borrowing powers was required. Out of the £140,000,000 I am approximately correct in saying that, taking the early period of the 1920 Act when the Treasury provided one-fifth, and the subsequent period up to now when the State provides one-fourth, out of that £140,000,000 the State will have contributed £34,000,000, and the employers and workmen £106,000,000. The one-third share would be slightly over £46,500,000 for that period, instead of which the State limits its financial responsibility to £34,000,000, a deficit of £12,000,000, almost the equivalent of the deficiency being created by the heavy

  445
  calls made for unemployment payments, and these, I assert, are consequent on the extra load placed on the fund when the men discharged from the Army were put upon the general unemployment contribution fund. I say that £12,000,000 odd ought certainly to be a real contribution. I know it will be said, "But if we enlarge our financial responsibilities in this Bill there is no return for it."I want to put this to the Minister. It is well known that guardians and local authorities spent between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000 for the last financial year prior to the War. In the last financial year boards of guardians and local authorities spent £44,000,000 in relief of unemployment. Their estimate for the financial year now running out is £40,000,000, and I am going to suggest that you have taken and will take in two and a half years £106,000,000 from the employer and workman without paying your fair share, and that that £106,000,000 has eased the Treasury from their responsibility in the matter, and has eased the extra charge that would have fallen upon boards of guardians and local authorities.
  Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to address the Committee in favour of an increased charge on the Treasury, when he is supporting an Amendment, which is to limit the duration of the charge?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is illogical, but i am afraid there are numerous precedents for it in Parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I am not supporting the Amendment, but I am certainly suggesting that the Ministry ought to have been more generous in their Financial Resolution. You, Mr. Hope, would not receive an Amendment increasing the amount, but surely I can suggest what I consider to be the shortcomings of the Ministry in this particular matter. Apart from the general financial gain, the State, if it had not caused to be made through the other joint contributors this great contribution, would have been faced with an unstable, uncertain temperament amongst the people, and would necessarily have suffered had there been no such provision made. Having got out of their responsibility after 2½ years with a £34,000,000 responsibility, it is only fair that, having by their act created the deficiency period and the necessity for appealing for
  446
  borrowing powers, they should ease the deficiency period by making a more just contribution. There is a question I want to submit to the Minister, and which I may perhaps he allowed to submit now. It deals with a financial provision in the Resolution in connection with the education authorities.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not the proper time to raise that. This Amendment deals only with paragraph (a).
  Mr. PRINGLE: The object of the Amendment is to retain the control of Parliament. At the present time during the deficiency period no Financial Resolution is required. The funds are there. There comes an end to the deficiency period—a date which I do not think the Minister of Labour would even now predict with any confidence or assurance. He has suggested one and a half years or two and a half years. Some authorities believe the period will not come to an end before four years are over. If that be so, it is a very large order to ask the House now to lay down the conditions of contribution for a period four years hence, when we are quite unaware as to the conditions which will then prevail. Accordingly, my hon. Friend proposes to omit the whole of paragraph (a). It will not diminish by a single penny the amount available for unemployment during this deficiency period. It will not diminish the State contributions, nor the contributions made by the employers and employed. It merely says that when this period comes to an end, the Government will be compelled to come to Parliament and ask for a provision which is appropriate to the conditions then prevailing. If we allow this Resolution to pass, Parliament loses all control. We do not know what the prescribed date may be. You, Mr. Hope, suggested that it might be the year 2000. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that in a Bill, in which the prescribed date is made the year 2000, we are actually laying down the State contribution.
  Sir M. BARLOW indicated dissent.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am taking the Chairman's ruling. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the Chair is wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN: I suggested that the Committee might be so foolish, if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, as

  447
  to fix the date at the year 2000. I did not say that the Committee or the Minister would do so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I suggest that the prescribed date may be so made, and we have no guidance as to what date the Minister of Labour considers the prescribed date will be. We are legislating for a vague and indefinite future, and in relation thereto Parliament, under this Resolution, is depriving itself of all control with regard to the contributions to be made by the three authorities. It is in order to preserve the control of Parliament that this Amendment is moved. If we allow this to go, the conditions are stereotyped. No private Member can introduce a Bill to alter those conditions, because he would be ruled out of order, as the Bill would be a charge upon the public purse. The Government can simply say that for the purpose of tranquillity they desire to do nothing, and unless we can force the
  Government to bring in a Bill there is no remedy for the unemployed. If you wish to keep in your hands a remedy, you must confine the Government strictly to what is necessary now. It will get the Bill through all the quicker. We are anxious to get it through, for the purposes of the gap, which alone requires haste; whereas, under the guise of getting through emergency legislation, the Government, under the powers conferred by this Resolution, are to be enabled to lay down conditions, first of all, for a second period up to the prescribed date, as to which the right hon. Gentleman has given us no information, and which may bind the Committee to the year 2000, as the Chairman has suggested. As this is a preposterous absurdity, I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES.

  [2.13 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Harrison, F. C.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  Harvey, Major S E.

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

  Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hawke. John Anthony

  Apsley, Lord

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H,

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)

  Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Barlow, Rt. Hon Sir Montague

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Becker, Harry

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Hume, G. H.

  Berry, Sir George

  Evans. Ernest (Cardigan)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Hutchison, W, (Kelvingrove)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Brass. Captain W.

  Fildes, Henry

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clitton (Newbury)

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Bruford, R.

  Fexcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lamb, J. Q

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Furness, G. J.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C)

  Button, H. S.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Goff. Sir R. Park

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Lorden, John William

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Lori-Williams, J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

  Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by)

  Manville, Edward

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Halstead, Major D.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Cope, Major William

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Newman, Colonel J R. P. (Finchley)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wallace, Captain E.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Wells, S. R.

  Paget, T, G.

  Sandon, Lord

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Peast, William Edwin

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Pennefather, De Fonbianque

  Shipwright, Captain D.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wise, Frederick

  Peto, Basil E.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Philipson, H. H.

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Price, E. G.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Privett, F. J.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Raine, W.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Oolonet

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Gibbs.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  NOES.

  Adams, D.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hardle, George D.

  Riley, Ben

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Amman, Charles George

  Hastings, Patrick

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W, Bromwich)

  Attlee, C. R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Harriotts, J.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bonwick, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bromfield, William

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, W'lllam (Rhondda, West)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Buchanan, G.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Buckle, J.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Burgess, S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Sullivan, J.

  Buxton. Charles (Accrington)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thornton, M.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Chappie, W A.

  Kikwood, D

  Tout, W. J.

  Collin, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lansbury, George

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lawson, John James

  Turner, Ben

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lee, F.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)

  Duncan, C.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

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

  Ede, James Chuter

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Webb, Sidney

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Weir, L. M.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  March, S.

  Westwood, J.

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Wheatley, J.

  Falconer, J.

  Maxton, James

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Foot, Isaac

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Muir, John W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Nichol, Robert

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W,

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Pringle.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. HARRIS: There is one part of this Resolution which introduces a lieu novel principle that has a good deal to recommend it, namely, that the responsibility for looking after the young insured persons under 18 years of age should be given to
  450
  the education authorities. That in itself is a very good thing, because no section of the unemployed are of more concern to us than the young men and women out of work. They are unfortunately growing in number: there is no sign of a diminution in the number and they are likely in the battle of life to be handi-

  451
  capped by the fact that they are not learning any trade at the most critical period of their lives. Any scheme to improve their lot and to ensure that more interest is taken in their welfare should commend itself to this Committee. But I have to suggest that, at any rate as far as London is concerned, the proposals in their particular form are neither economical nor sound. If the Committee will refer to the Memorandum, they will see it is suggested in paragraph 12 that the proposals will not appreciably increase the cost. They will involve some extra expense on the Exchequer, but I should like to be assured that they will not also mean extra expense on the ratepayers. The present system is now working on the whole fairly satisfactorily. The London County Council through its education authority has had 10 or 11 years' experience in carrying out this particular work in looking after those who are leaving school. They give advice to these young people when they are making a start in life; they advise them as to the kind of occupation they should engage in; they watch generally over their welfare when they get work and undoubtedly by means of these welfare committees and the various other social organisations the County Council has accomplished some very fine work.
  It is now proposed, as I understand it, that all this work shall come under the Ministry of Labour and be done through the Employment Exchange. That, I submit, is a most revolutionary proposal. The education authority is surely the right authority to control these young people. Another alternative is, that the whole of this work should go to the education committee, and that the Employment Exchange should be duplicated. Is there going to be parallel machinery set up? Are we going to have outside the Employment Exchanges another organisation parallel with the Employment Exchanges under the local authorities? If so, surely that is a needless expense. I assume the cost is to be borne by the Fund. I notice that the paragraph points out that the expense of administration has to be borne by the Exchequer, but, ultimately, it is to be charged back on this unfortunate overburdened Insurance Fund. In paragraph 11, the Committee will notice that the administrative expenses of the unem-
  452
  ployment insurance scheme are estimated at rather less than 8½ per cent. of the annual revenue. That is a big charge on the Fund. Under this new scheme for the setting up of parallel organisations under the education authorities, you will have a still further percentage charge on the Fund. I think the Committee should hesitate before they pass this proposal, and I would have liked to move that it be omitted, but I fear that, if the financial provision were omitted, the charge might wholly fall on the public authority, and that would be disastrous. Therefore I do not like to take that step. But I warn the Minister that, unless some satisfactory assurance is forthcoming, there will be a lot of opposition to these financial proposals when the Bill gets into Committee. For my part, I think, as regards London, it would be a tragedy to break up the fine work done in co-operation with the Employment Exchanges and the education committees which has been going on for the last 10 years. It has worked well. It has developed and expanded to a great extent, and it would be a retrograde step to hand over that work entirely to the education authority and to set up elaborate new machinery, or, alternatively, to hand it over entirely to the Employment Exchanges.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I think I can deal with that point in two sentences. I entirely endorse what he has said of the admirable work done by the Committee for many years. I have had that work under my observation, and I accept cordially and reinforce all that the hon. Member says on the subject. Now, then, as to the proposals in this Bill. I am glad the hon. Member accepts the general policy which gives the education authority the option of taking over the entirety of the work This gives them the option and says that, if they take over the work for those from 14 to 16 under the Chelmsford recommendations, they must also take it over from 16 to 18. This Clause makes provision for it to be taken over. So far as I can see, there will be no extra charge upon the rates at all by the working out of this provision. I believe these arrangements made now for some provision by means of the Board of Education will continue. I cannot see any possibility, even if the present joint arrangement continues, of increased

  453
  charge arising. It will be open to the London authority to make full use of this.
  Mr. HARDIE: Where we have great numbers of boys and girls, is it in the mind of the Minister of Labour, since he is making it optional on a city, that it should be open to them to take action in regard to finding something useful in the form of training. In the city of Glasgow, in a period like this, boys and girls are liable to be influenced by the worst in life.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite sure I appreciate the hon. Member's point. I think what he refers to is the scheme recently worked out between the President of the Board of Education and myself with regard to juvenile classes, where the State pays 75 per cent. of the cost if the locality will put up the remaining 25 per cent. That is not affected by the proposals made here. The proposals here are for the administrative work of finding employment. All we say to the local authorities is, that they should make their choice either to leave the work under the Ministry of Labour, with a juvenile employment committee, and let the Minister make arrangements for the young people between 14 and 18; or, if the local authorities wish to take it, they should take it so that there should be no difficulty between the Employment Exchange and the education authority. But if the education authority takes it, they must do so in accordance with the Chelmsford recommendations and take over the work of insurance as agents for the Ministry of Labour—representing trustees of the fund. They must take over from 16 to 18. I think that is reasonable. The broad principle running throughout this
  454
  policy is, roughly, that the hand which finds employment is the hand which pays benefit.. That is from 14 to 18—the whole period. If a local authority takes the option, that local authority will find employment from 16 to 18, and they ought to be responsible for unemployment benefit.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: On page 5, line 20, you say:
  "In accordance with a scale fixed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury on the basis of the sum required to reimburse to authorities—."
  I think you should strike out the words "on the basis." I have had a communication from the Education Department of our country, and they are very anxious that the Ministry should not push burdens back on the local authorities, who have enough to hear already. May I be allowed to suggest that you should strike out these words?
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no line 20 in the Resolution.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty - four Minutes before One o'Clock.

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  South West Suburban Water Bill.
  Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Bill.
  Falmouth Water Bill.
  Bills committed.

  PRIVATE BILL [Lords] (Substituted Bills),
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:
  Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company Bill [Lords] (Substituted Bill).

  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND) BILL,
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND) BILL,
  Order for Second Reading read.
  938
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I object.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I think, perhaps, I ought to explain that this Bill is identical with the five Bills which passed the Second Reading last week. It so happens that for technical reasons of procedure the Scottish part of this company's proposals has to be presented in a separate Bill, but the provisions are identical in purpose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—[Major Glyn.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this procedure permit the municipalities interested to be represented before this Committee and to give evidence?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There will be another Motion to refer all the petitions deposited, municipal ones among them, to the Joint Committee.
  Mr. HARDIE: Will this procedure involve municipalities in any expense in bringing forward evidence for or against?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The object is to save expense.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will this Bill be committed to the same Committee as the other Bills, and will all the Bills be considered at one time by the Committee as a general business, or will they be taken separately by the Joint Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Joint Committee will have to deal with each Bill separately, but it depends on the Committee whether they will hear the case of all of them before they decide on any one.
  Mr. MACLEAN: But there might be some objections to one particular Bill in certain localities, and not to the other Bills.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee can certainly hear objections of that kind on petition.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, because I am not quite sure of my ground. I would like to ask how this Road Transport (Scotland) Bill will operate? I want to know if we have any guarantee for our Scottish municipalities that their rights will be safeguarded, and that this Bill will not imperil the great amount of money invested by the municipalities in road transport.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which can be heard by the Committee which deals with the Bill. There are petitions, no doubt, asking for protection of that kind, and they are just the matters that will be heard by the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."—[Major Glyn.]
  Mr. MACOUISTEN: On this Motion, I wish to move the Previous Question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Question now is, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to, communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I point out that I rose at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I had collected the voices.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I rose for the purpose of moving the Previous Question on the first Motion immediately after you had dealt with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I rose, but you, Mr. Speaker, also rose, and, in deference to you, I sat down. I submit, therefore, that the matter was not closed, and that I was entitled to be heard upon it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that I had collected the voices before I saw the hon. and learned Member.
  Question put, and agreed.
  Ordered, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOTOR TYRES (PRICES).
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the price of motor tyres in Great Britain in January, 1927, and January, 1928, respectively; and, if he has not the complete information, what were the prices asked by the largest British company in those months?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The types and makes of motor tyres sold in Great Britain are so numerous that it is not possible to give any short general statement of price changes. I understand, however, that the prices of some British-made motor tyres were lower in January, 1928, than in January, 1927, and that the prices of some foreign-made tyres were increased in April, 1927, but have subsequently been reduced. So far as I can ascertain, the prices of the largest British company were the same on the two dates mentioned, except that for one class of tyres there was a reduction of price of 5 per cent.
    Sir H. CROFT: May I take it from the reply that the prices of motor tyres certainly have not been increased since the duty was imposed?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is a perfectly fair deduction.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what has been the fall in the price of rubber during this period?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (WINES).
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great increase of wines exported to this country from the Empire since the establishment of Imperial Preference; and whether steps can be taken to make public in this country, Australia, and South Africa the effects on production and employment as a result of that policy?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The increase has been from an average of just over a million gallons a year for the period 1909–1913 to over 4½ million gallons last year. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate some more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. During my right hon. Friend's visits to Australia and South Africa he was able to see for himself the good effects of Imperial Preference in the directions which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned, and I think he can rest assured that they are having, and will have, a wide publicity.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether at Conservative auctions preference is given to Empire wines?
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the President of the Board of Trade give the House any information as to whether Australia is now successfully competing with France and Portugal?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that both Australian and South African wines are in very great demand, and their consumption in this country is steadily increasing.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that any great increase in the consumption of wines, from whatever source, is a public advantage?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is this the wine they supply to the Kit Cat Club?
    An HON. MEMBER: What does it matter so long as it is good wine?
    Following are the detailed figures:
    Imports into United Kingdom from British countries average:

    Gallons.

    1909–13

    1,031,426

    1919 (preference first accorded 1919)

    530,584

    1920

    976,591

    1921

    669,421

    1922

    702,178

    1923

    966,715

    1924

    1,105,436

    1925 (increased preference 1925)

    1,294,314

    1926

    2,055,597

    1927

    4,666,159

    FILM INDUSTRY (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the members of the Provincial Entertainment Proprietors' and Managers' Association, Limited, of Manchester, who own and control 86 cinema theatres in the large provincial centres of Great Britain, in which several millions of British capital is invested, has no representative on the Advisory Committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927; and will he, in making any further appointments to this Committee, give this association an opportunity of nominating one or more members to represent the exhibitors?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I have already given him on this subject.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Provincial Entertainment Proprietors' and Managers' Association is barred from representation on this Committee by reason of the fact that they have succeeded in amending the Bill of last year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not in the least. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a great number of answers on this matter. What I did was to invite the trade union concerned, which covers this as well as other organisations, to suggest names. They took a ballot of a number of their members, including one gentleman who was a member of this organisation.
    Mr. BECKETT: Do I understand that it is now the policy of the Government to invite only one union?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Happily this was an all-embracing union.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that this particular union was not fully embraced in the other union?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course, a minority could not control a majority, but the vote in this case was taken with the fullest publicity and complete freedom
    Mr. BECKETT: Are we to understand now that the right hon. Gentleman will deal only with the all-embracing union in the mining industry?

    AMERICAN SHIPS (REPAIRS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of its effect on British shipyards, whether the 50 per cent. duty imposed by the American Government on all repairs to American ships effected abroad is uniformly applied or is remitted in such cases as are classed as acts of God?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that the United States Navigation Laws provide for the remission of the duty on repairs effected abroad which are necessitated, by stress of weather or other casualty, in order to secure the safety of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination.

    LIVERPOOL COTTON ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Liverpool Cotton Association which hinders the formation of a raw cotton spot market in Manchester; and, in view of the fact that the Government are concerned with the importation of raw cotton through their grant to the Empire Cotton Corporation and the Cotton Industry Act, 1923, does he propose to take any steps in the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen reports as to a proposed addition to the articles of the Liverpool Cotton Association, now awaiting confirmation, forbidding its members to be connected with any other association; but, if that is the resolution to which my hon. Friend
    944
    refers, I do not think it is a matter in which I can intervene.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Are we to understand that, although the Government are anxious to increase the production of raw cotton, they are indifferent to the restrictions which are placed upon the market?
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Has the President of the Board of Trade noticed that the extreme difficulty in the American section of the cotton trade demands that the saving of 6s. a ton via Manchester should be adopted and allowed to proceed, and that the position of the Liverpool cotton market in restraint of trade is not helping the cotton trade at all in its parlous condition in respect to the American section thereof?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already indicated that these interpolations from different portions of the House show that this is a matter in which the Board can hardly intervene, and one on which the Manchester and Liverpool Members might conveniently meet.
    Mr. HILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting in Manchester last Friday, representing the whole of the cotton trade in Manchester, they passed a resolution of protest against this restriction as a restraint of trade and against the putting up of a barrier against a free market for our goods?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be a domestic matter.

    EGYPT (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information with regard to the removal of British troops from Cairo; and where is it proposed to station them?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the offers made to the Egyptian Government and, in particular, what was proposed as to the place and pay of the army of occupation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to await the Papers which will be laid to-morrow, and which will give full particulars of the offers made to the Egyptian Government.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Do I gather that the status quo remains exactly as it is at present?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better wait until he sees the White Paper, which gives full details of all the negotiations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Papers which will be laid to-morrow will indicate why these negotiations were entered into at all, and why, when the result of such negotiations must have been a foregone conclusion, the Government went so far as to make these offers?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly satisfied with the White Paper which will be laid to-morrow. It will give a full account of the whole matter.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (G. F. MACKENZIE).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. George Frederick Mackenzie, late No. 28,884, private, Norfolk Regiment, was passed A1 on joining the Northampton Territorial Force, and again A1 on joining the Regular Army in May, 1924; that in the course of his service he was sent into hospital but was discharged after five days' treatment; that shortly after, while on leave, he went into Northampton Hospital and was found to be suffering from consumption; that he was invalided in June, 1927, after three years' service and has been refused a pension and will never be able to work again, and that Mr. Mackenzie's father is an old soldier with a perfectly clean health sheet and that there is no family history of consumption; and whether there is any
    946
    appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital that Mr. Mackenzie's disease is a non-attributable disability?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): This case was referred by the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, to the Director-General of Army Medical Services, who is the final medical authority in case of doubt, and he decided that the disability was not attributable to military service. There is no appeal from this decision.

    APPLICATIONS, BERMONDSEY AND SOUTH WARK.
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Minister of Pensions how many applications relating to war pensions of all kinds have been dealt with by the regional office for Bermondsey and Southwark during the months of January and February of the present year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): During the two months referred to 110 applications, or an average of 13 a week, were received. In addition there were 475 interviews, or an average of 56 a week, on a variety of matters, a small proportion of which would probably mature as applications.

    CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which reservation of part of the allowances to motherless children has been sanctioned; and whether interest is added to the whole of the balances, including those accumulated at the instance of War Pensions Committees before the scheme was adopted by the Ministry?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The number of cases at present covered by the Scheme referred to is about 2,000. Interest is added to sums compulsorily withheld under the terms of the Scheme or otherwise by the action of War Pensions Committees. Any other balances which might happen to have been un-drawn would not, of course, carry interest.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me why not?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is entirely optional. If they do not withdraw it, there is no reason why interest should be paid on it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me upon what proportion no interest is paid? What are the numbers out of the 2,000 on which no interest is paid?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: On these 2,000 cases interest is paid, but there are other cases where pensioners to suit their own convenience have not drawn the money. It is there for them to draw, but they have not drawn it. In that case interest is not paid.

    BRITISH ARMY (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War how many beds have been reduced by the closing of the military hospital, Chatham, the Alexandra Military Hospital at Cosham, and the military hospital at Devonport, respectively; what economies have been effected by this reduction; and what reduction in hospital personnel has followed the closing of these hospitals?
    Mr. COOPER: So far as the War Department is concerned, the answer to the first, and last parts of the question is that there has been a net reduction of 215 equipped beds, and of 15 officers, 15 nurses of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service and 149 other staff. As regards the second part of the question, in addition to economies in beds and staff, the buildings have been set free for other Government purposes or ultimate disposal.
    Dr. DAVIES: Can my hon. Friend say if these personnel have been dismissed, or if they have been simply transferred to other hospitals in the country?
    Mr. COOPER: I do not think they have all been dismissed at present, but I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know if I failed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but can he tell me why it is that the number of these beds is being reduced?
    Mr. COOPER: In order to effect economy.

  SCOTLAND.

    LOCHINDAAL, ISLAY (FLOUNDER SPAWN).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will get the Fishery Board to place some flounder spawn in Lochindaal, Islay; and whether he is aware that when some flounder spawn was placed there years ago there was an improvement in the fishing for fishermen of the villages of Bowmore, Bruichladdich and Portcharlotte for a number of years until the flounder beds were largely depopulated by English steam trawlers coming in and trawling in the darkness in the loch?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, may I draw attention to the fact that Members are supposed to be responsible for the accuracy of their questions? How can the hon. and learned Gentleman know that these were English steam trawlers, if they were fishing in the dark?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is always full of curious information.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am advised by the Fishery Board for Scotland that the physical conditions, currents, nature of coast, etc., in Lochindaal are such as to render it unlikely that an experiment in the deposit of spawn as suggested would be of any benefit to the local fishermen. The previous experiment, which the hon. and learned Member apparently has in mind, was with young plaice, a number of which were liberated in Lochindaal in 1904. The results were inconclusive, and did not justify a repetition of the experiment.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the best authorities are the fishermen who fish there, that they have found that the introduction of this spawn was enormously beneficial, and that they know from their own practical experience that it produces an increase in their earnings? Is not the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also aware of the fact—[Interruption.]—that there is no difficulty in knowing an Englishman in the dark.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is there any reason to suppose that there is any truth in the insinuations contained in the last part of this question?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: They are not insinuations at all, but statements of fact.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the last part of the question, in the last seven years there have only been two complaints regarding illegal trawling in Lochindaal.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the fact that there has been no recent complaint due merely to there being only two fishery cruisers to patrol an enormous area, so that really complaints are wasted?

    HOUSING SCHEMES, RENFREWSHIRE (DUSTBINS).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the action of the lower district committee of Renfrewshire in failing to provide suitable dustbins at their housing schemes at Lochwinnoch and elsewhere within the district area; and whether he will inquire into the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I My attention has been drawn to the position of matters at Lochwinnoch, and, as the result of inquiries made, I find that it is in accordance with the local practice that tenants should provide their own dustbins where these are necessary. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the local authority to leave the provision of dustbins to the tenants of their houses.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that every other public authority has supplied dustbins when erecting houses, and that certain types are insisted upon in the interests of the public health?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the local authority.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of the local authority not attending to this matter, which is really a menace to the public health, will the Secretary of State press them, to the best of his ability, to do so?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason to believe that there is any menace to the
    950
    public health, and, until I have evidence that there is such a menace, I do not propose to intervene.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If it be the case, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, that it is being left to the private individuals in a little township to supply dustbins, is not that a menace to the public health, and ought it not to be done by the municipality or the local authority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    OUTDOOR MISSION TO THE BLIND (GRANT).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the grant that is paid yearly to the Outdoor Mission to the Blind of Glasgow and West of Scotland; and whether any supervision by his Department is exercised over the manner in which it is spent?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In accordance with the Grant Regulations, the amount of grant payable to the Mission to the Outdoor Blind for Glasgow and the West of Scotland in any particular year depends on the extent of the grant-earning services provided by them for the welfare of blind persons in their area. The amount paid to the mission for the year ended the 31st March, 1927, was £1,458 8s. 7d. As regards the second part of the question, before grants are paid the Board satisfy themselves that the conditions prescribed in the Regulations are, so far as applicable, observed by the mission. I am sending a copy of the Regulations to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether any supervision is exercised by his Department over the appointments made by this particular mission of blind teachers for the blind?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have answered that question; the Board have to be satisfied of the conditions before the grant is made.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of acres being cultivated as small holdings in Scotland; and the number of claims for small holdings that have not been met?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In 1925, the last year for which particulars are available, the total area of crops and permanent grass included in holdings not exceeding 50 acres of crops and permanent grass, was 673,000 acres. Attached to these holdings was an area totalling from three to four million acres of rough grazings held severally or in common. At, 31st December, 1927, the Board of Agriculture had on their lists 4,924 outstanding applications for small holdings, exclusive of applications for enlargements.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that these claims would have been very much larger in number but for the fact that they have been restricted to ex-service men, and even these ex-service men have dropped off because they have not been supplied?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That is mere guesswork, because the regulations in regard to the limitation to ex-service men have been abrogated.
    Mr. HARDIE: Do the figures include applications from ex-service men which have been through all Departments, though they cannot get the small holdings?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it true that some of the ex-service men have not been able to make a living?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to meet the demand for these small holdings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

    DRUNKENNESS (METHYLATED SPIRITS).
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many arrests for drunkenness, alleged to be due to the drinking of methylated spirits, were made by the police in the City of Glasgow during the 12 months ending 31st October, 1927; and the number of such arrests in each of the wards of the city where they took place or, alternatively, the numbers in each of the respective police divisions of the city?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer to this question involves a number of figures. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HARDIE: Since methylated spirits are denatured, do the figures include any cases of such having been taken?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait till he sees the figures, and, if anything arises on them, he can put down a Question.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who buy methylated spirits for consumption take it away and consume it in their own homes, and after a comparatively small quantity they are unable to stir abroad, and are not therefore subject to arrest? Is he also not aware that the reason for poor people taking to methylated spirits is the disgracefully high price of Scotch whisky?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give the House information when he is a Minister.
    Following is the answer:
    The following return shows the number of persons apprehended for being drunk and incapable in the various police divisions of the City of Glasgow during the year ended the 31st October, 1927, whose condition is believed to have been due to the drinking of methylated spirits.

    Division.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total,

    Central

    …

    63

    52

    115

    Western

    …

    86

    31

    117

    Eastern

    …

    23

    7

    30

    Southern

    …

    59

    20

    79

    Northern

    …

    26

    8

    34

    St. Rollox

    …

    6

    3

    9

    Queen's Park

    …

    4

    —

    4

    Maryhill

    …

    1

    —

    1

    Govan

    …

    4

    3

    7

    Partick

    …

    7

    2

    9

    Marine

    …

    24

    6

    30

    Total

    …

    303

    132

    435

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (TRAINING CENTRES).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give the numbers of persons trained for three months in agriculture; and how many have gone abroad?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the hon. Member's question refers to the two training centres at Corton Vale, near

    953
    Stirling, and Graigielinn, near Glasgow, which are supported to the extent of one-half of the cost of training and maintenance by grants from the Oversea Settlement Committee under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922. The numbers of persons who have undergone a course of training of approximately three months at these places since such grants were first made are 37 at Corton Vale and 832 at Craigielinn. Of these, all except 245 have proceeded to the Dominions.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    AMALGAMATIONS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have been carried out in the coal-mining industry since the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and whether he is satisfied with the progress made?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): Such information as I have was given in answer to questions by the hon. Member for Leith on 13th and 21st December, and 21st February. As regards the last part of the question, there are so many negotiations in progress in the mining industry in regard to amalgamations, district combinations for sale purposes, etc., that I prefer not to express any opinion at the moment.

    INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the event of approaches being made from the Continent to Great Britain for an agreement as regards markets and prices for coal, there is any official body capable of conducting negotiations on behalf of the coal industry in this country?
    Commodore KING: As my hon. Friend is aware, negotiations are proceeding for the formation of district associations for selling coal, and if this movement develops along anticipated lines there is no doubt that this country will in due course possess suitable machinery for the kind of negotiations he contemplates.
    Mr. BATEY: Seeing that the Government were the negotiating body for the coalowners in 1926, would they not be the proper body?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that our trade competitors abroad know perfectly well upon what terms any sort of agreement can be made with our coal exporters, and that it is absolutely unnecessary to set up any body of any kind?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the event of these anticipated negotiations, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take any steps to see that organised labour will be represented on such a negotiating body in view of the desire for co-operation?
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is prepared to take steps to arrange for a conference of all the parties directly concerned in the European coal industry, with a view to establishing uniform hours and wages, as the first step in the direction of the international regulation of the coal industry?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir.

    THREE COUNTIES SCHEME (HUMBER EXPORT TRADE).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary for Mines when the three counties scheme for a levy of 3d. a ton on the home consumer in order to subsidise the Humber coal export trade is expected to come into operation; and whether, seeing that this scheme would, in practice, be disadvantageous to the coalfields of Durham and Northumberland, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Commodore KING: My hon. Friend may have seen that it was announced in the Press that this scheme was to take effect as from 1st March, 1928. I understand, however, that the details of the scheme are still under discussion and I do not know when it will become operative. It is being worked out upon a voluntary basis and I would hesitate to express any opinion on it until negotiations are more advanced.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Department taking any steps to protect Durham and Northumberland against this combine?
    Commodore KING: No, as I have just stated the scheme is not yet definitely settled.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that combines of this sort were recom-

    955
    mended by the Sankey Commission, by the whole of the Press, by the public and by every party in the House?
    Commodore KING: Yes.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman watching the progress of this combination, so that in the event of it acting disadvantageously to Northumberland and Durham, he can take action subsequently?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration that all combinations are directed against the consumer?
    Mr. BECKETT: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman seek to prevent British coalfields attacking each other, and is he not aware that the Sankey Commission suggested rational and not sectional combination?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

    SPAIN AND PORTUGAL (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE),
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information showing the amount of Government assistance given to the coal-mining industry of Spain and Portugal during the year 1927?
    Commodore KING: I am not able to state the total cash value of the assistance given by these two Governments, but I am having a statement prepared, giving such information as is available and will send a copy to the hon. Member.

    FOREIGN STATE RAILWAYS (PREFERENTIAL, RATES).
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give information showing the reduction per ton given in the rail rates, under the preferential rail rates, for the movement of coal on the State railways in Poland, France, Belgium and South Africa, giving the figures for each country separately?
    Commodore KING: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    It is not possible in all cases to compare the preferential rail rates with the ordinary rail rates and the details of the rates for each country are very voluminous. But the following are typical cases of rates in the countries mentioned by the hon. Member:
    Poland (preferential rate on Upper Silesian coal for export).—To Dantzig and Gdynia, 7.20 Z1. per metric ton.
    This is a reduction of 8½ Z1. (4s.) per ton as compared with the ordinary rate for complete train-loads of at least 700 tons.
    France.—Reductions on the general railway tariff varying from 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. are afforded for coal for export on all the French railways, including the State railways, but these reductions are subject to the traffic being forwarded in wagons of 20 tons, or in specified minimum train-loads or total quantities per annum.
    Belgium.—So far as information is available it would appear that the average reduction in the railway rates on coal exported overland is about 2½ (Belgian) francs (3½d.) per ton and in the case of coal exported by sea and for bunkering the reduction is about 10 (Belgian) francs (1s. 2d.) per ton.
    In the case of these three countries special rates have also been arranged with the railway administrations of other countries for through coal traffic, but in the majority of cases it is impossible to say what reduction on ordinary rates these represent.
    South Africa.—Details of the preferential rates and rebates in force are not available.

    TAX REMISSION, CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he will give information showing the amount of coal tax remitted in Czechoslovakia on all coal exported and coal used in the production of goods for export; and will he give the amount per ton?
    Commodore KING: The coal tax in Czechoslovakia is 10 per cent. of the pithead price, but collieries in financial difficulties pay a reduced tax of 7 per cent.

    957
    The whole of the tax is remitted on coal exported or coal used in the production of goods for export.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in these countries there is no combination of labour such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) runs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These points should be reserved for Debate.

  TRANSPORT.

    BRIDGE, LOCHY.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Transport whether he will assist the Lochaber district committee in erecting a single-line bridge at Lochy in place of the present dangerous bridge?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): In the special circumstances I am willing to consider favourably an application on these lines.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his Department offered substantial assistance for a two-way bridge, but the district could not afford their quota, and an amount was offered for a single-line bridge, but the district could not afford that, and will he consider increasing the contribution to 90 per cent. for a one-way instead of 75 per cent. for a two-way bridge?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have not been ungenerous, I am giving them 75 per cent.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that they require 90 per cent.?
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will send some of these methylated-spirit-drinking people up there, they will see double.

    CARDIFF-BARRY ROAD TOLL-GATE.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received an application from the local authorities concerned for the abolition of the toll-gate on the road from Cardiff to Barry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The suggested freeing of this toll-road has been the subject of discussion between officers of my De-
    958
    partment and representatives of the local authorities, but no definite application has been made to me.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Having regard to the inconvenience to the commercial community and the indifference of the local authorities of the area, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ginger them up?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, the duty of gingering up local authorities is for the local electorate.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the fact that the local authorities are very anxious to know the extent of their liabilities under this proposal, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what percentage of the cost of acquisition will fall upon them?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, I will consider any scheme put forward by the local authorities.

    HEAVY ROAD VEHICLES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the damage done to all classes of roads by the ribbed iron wheels of heavy tractors, his Department contemplates drafting any Regulations to restrict the use of vehicles using wheels of this kind?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am reluctant to take piecemeal action under the strictly limited powers in respect of locomotives conferred upon me by existing Statutes, but so soon as amending legislation on the lines of the draft Road Traffic Bill is passed it is my intention to deal comprehensively with the construction and use of heavy road vehicles generally.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that iron-ribbed wheels do far more damage than any other traffic and that this traffic should be on the railways instead of on the roads?
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the effect upon local authorities of the absence of power to limit the number, size and weight of heavy transport in the areas they administer; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: County councils already have powers under the Roads

    959
    Act, 1920, to apply to me for Orders prohibiting or restricting the use of heavy motor vehicles on roads which are unsuitable for them. In view of the wide radius of action of modem road transport, traffic restrictions cannot be regarded as a matter of purely local interest, and powers to impose them must, I think, necessarily be subject to the control of a central authority.

    ARTERIAL ROAD SCHEMES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether the present scheme of arterial roads is to be considered final for the present, or whether further schemes are under the examination of the Ministry of Transport?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No finality is claimed for the numerous arterial road schemes now proceeding in various parts of the country, and my Department is always engaged in the examination of further projects submitted by local authorities.

    RAILWAYS, SCOTLAND (GROUPING).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Transport if there has been or is contemplated a consultation on the regrouping of railways, with a view to placing the railways in Scotland in a separate group?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of any such consultation, and, as I have previously stated, I should deprecate any disturbance at present in the general scheme for the grouping of the railways that was settled by Parliament so recently as 1921.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original grouping of the railways was to leave Scotland as a unit in itself, and that it was on the application of the Scottish companies against that danger that the change was made?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I would remind the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that I am not the Minister in question. Is it not the case that, while the railways themselves asked to be included in the English railway system, the people of Scotland wanted the railways for Scotland, and that the rates
    960
    chargeable to the passengers in Scotland to-day remain at the highest peak during the War?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of history.

    CANALS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport the number of miles of the 3,000 miles of canals in Great Britain which have been bought up by the various railway companies; and the number of miles which are used by the railway companies for transportation of goods?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The total length of the canals in Great Britain owned or leased by railway companies at the 31st December, 1927, was 1,050 miles. During the year 1927 traffic was conveyed over all these canals except three, of a total length of 13½ miles, but the information in my possession does not indicate what proportion of the total mileage was actually used for the transportation of goods.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the railways be induced to give up those canals which they do not use?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Who is going to take them over?

  EDUCATION.

    SIZE OF CLASSES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of classes under the educational authorities in Scotland during 1927 where the pupils numbered, respectively, under 40 per class, between 40 and 50, between 50 and 60, and over 60?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information in my possession does not enable me to reply to the question in the exact form in which it is put. Such figures as are available I will, however, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We would like to know definitely if it is not the case that there are, in Glasgow for instance, classes of from 50 to 80 children under one teacher. Has not the right hon. Gentleman that information?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will wait until he sees the figures, he will get the information.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last year it was pointed out, in answer to a question,

    STATEMENT showing for each EDUCATION AUTHORITY (from the Return of October, 1927), the number of primary classes (excluding Advanced Divisions), according to the number of pupils in average attendance, (a) with under 50 pupils, (b) with 50 but not more than 60 pupils, (c) with more than 60 pupils.

    Education Authority.

    Under 50 pupils.

    50 but not more than 60 pupils.

    More than 60
    pupils.

    Aberdeen (Burgh)

    …

    …

    …

    440

    34

    —

    Dundee (Burgh)

    …

    …

    …

    482

    23

    2

    Edinburgh (Burgh)

    …

    …

    …

    1,008

    52

    —

    Glasgow (Burgh)

    …

    …

    …

    1,533

    1,148

    14

    Aberdeenshire

    …

    …

    …

    631

    28

    —

    Argyll

    …

    …

    …

    896

    —

    —

    Ayr

    …

    …

    …

    911

    84

    3

    Banff

    …

    …

    …

    439

    10

    1

    Berwick

    …

    …

    …

    117

    1

    —

    Bute

    …

    …

    …

    54

    1

    —

    Caithness

    …

    …

    …

    399

    —

    —

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    …

    123

    —

    —

    Dumbarton

    …

    …

    …

    459

    51

    —

    Dumfries

    …

    …

    …

    366

    —

    —

    East Lothian

    …

    …

    …

    295

    4

    —

    Fife

    …

    …

    …

    1,295

    16

    —

    Forfar

    …

    …

    …

    381

    —

    —

    Inverness

    …

    …

    …

    1,250

    —

    —

    Kincardine

    …

    …

    …

    132

    1

    —

    Kinross

    …

    …

    …

    26

    —

    —

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    …

    …

    408

    3

    —

    Lanark

    …

    …

    …

    1,624

    235

    2

    Midlothian

    …

    …

    …

    335

    3

    —

    Moray

    …

    …

    …

    358

    7

    —

    Nairn

    …

    …

    …

    94

    1

    —

    Orkney

    …

    …

    …

    403

    —

    —

    Peebles

    …

    …

    …

    142

    —

    —

    Perth

    …

    …

    …

    507

    —

    —

    Renfrewshire

    …

    …

    …

    726

    184

    6

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    …

    …

    351

    —

    —

    Roxburgh

    …

    …

    …

    175

    —

    —

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    …

    77

    —

    —

    Shetland

    …

    …

    …

    435

    1

    —

    Stirling

    …

    …

    …

    583

    31

    —

    Sutherland

    …

    …

    …

    89

    —

    —

    Westlothian

    …

    …

    …

    320

    13

    —

    Wigtown

    …

    …

    …

    355

    2

    —

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    18,219

    1,933

    28

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum spent on education in Scotland for the last available year, giving the amount paid from national revenue and local rates, respectively?
    that there were 467 classes—I think that was the number—in Glasgow with more than 60 pupils?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Shame!
    Following are the figures:
    Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as those branches of education for which my Department has administrative responsibility are concerned, the last available year is 1926–27, and the figures for which the hon. Member asks are £6,798,900 from the Exchequer and £4,984,450 from local rates, making a total of £11,783,350.

  POST OFFICE.

    CABLE RATES.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General whether, since the beam system of telegraphy has been in operation, he can state to what extent the commercial and press rates of the Eastern Exchange Cable Company have been reduced?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Since the establishment of the first of the beam services the cable rates have been reduced to Australia from 2s. 6d. to 2s. a word; to South Africa from 2s. to 1s. 8d.; and to India from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 5d. Corresponding reductions have been made in the cable rates for the deferred services and certain of the letter telegram services. The cable rates for press telegrams to India have been reduced from 4d. to 3d. and to South Africa from 3½d. to 2½d.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Eastern Exchange Telegraph Company are very much more reliable than the beam system?

    INSURANCE POLICIES.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General the total number of insurance policies issued through the Post Office, life insurance and endowment insurance, respectively; and what is the actuarial position with respect to such policies?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The numbers are as follow: Whole life policies, 19,811; endowment policies, 12,250. There is no separate fund in respect of life insurance contracts granted through the Post Office, as the Act 27/8 Vict. c. 46 created one fund in respect of both deferred life annuity contracts and life insurance contracts. The last quinquennial valuation of the assets and liabilities of this fund showed that the liabilities exceeded the assets; and an amended contingent liability of £244,785 in this respect will, in accordance with Section 3 of the Act 27/8 Vict. c. 46, be shown in the finance accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1928.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the fact that the terms that are offered under this Post Office insurance scheme are more favourable to the insured person
    964
    than those offered by the ordinary insurance companies, and in view of the further fact, which has just been given in answer to that question, of the very small number of policy holders of the Post Office insurance scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department do something to make this scheme much more widely known?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be god enough to give me notice of any question on this matter. It is a matter which is partly under the administration of the Post Office and partly under the administration of the Treasury, and I think I must have notice of such a question.

    APPOINTMENTS, WALES (WELSH LANGUAGE).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to make a conversational knowledge of Welsh an assential qualification in all future appointments to postal staffs in predominantly Welsh districts?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member was informed on 28th July last that I do not think there are adequate grounds for introducing special Regulations for the purpose he has in view. I am still of the same opinion.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a very grave injustice to Wales?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir, I do not think so. In fact, selection is made from local candidates, who in most cases do possess a knowledge of the Welsh language, and I do not think that there is any practical injustice.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great agitation in Wales in consequence?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir, I am not aware of that any more than I am aware of any agitation on the part of Welsh Members to speak the Welsh language.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is going to hear about it again?

    NEW PREMISES, SALE.
    Mr. TOWNENDasked the Postmaster-General if the Sale Urban Dis-

    965
    trict Council were given an opportunity of laying their views before his Department, prior to the decision being taken to transfer the Sale General Post Office to the adjacent district of Ashton-upon-Mersey?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Representations were received from the Sale Urban District Council, prior to the decision in question, and were duly considered.
    Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not a fact that for the last 12 months the Sale Urban District Council have attempted to get into touch with the Minister, and that as late as a week ago he replied that he still could not see them on this matter?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Because the premises in question were bought something like nine months ago and actually acquired.
    Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not a fact that before the premises were bought the local council desired to lay their opinions before the right hon. Gentleman on this very important matter, owing to the risk to human life, and that his Department refused to listen to them?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The representations were received and were duly considered.
    Mr. TOWNEND: But, in spite of that fact, is it not the case that the representations that were made were incomplete, and that ever since then the local authority have been endeavouring to get into direct touch with the Minister and that he still refuses to see them on this important matter?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THONISON: I should be very sorry to think that there has been any disrespect on my part towards the local authority. This was a matter of acquiring certain premises for Post Office purposes. I chose the premises which I thought were best adapted for Post Office Services. I heard representations from the local authority, and these were duly considered. There is no doubt in my own mind that the premises that were chosen were much better for our purpose and much cheaper. They did not involve the expense that the other premises would have involved. The premises have been bought, and, therefore, there is no point in my receiving representations.
    Mr. TOWNEND: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment a week today.

    FACILITIES, NORTH REDDISH.
    Mr. TOWNENDasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience the closing of the sub-post office in Gorton Road, North Reddish, has caused the residents in that district, he will have inquiry made into the circumstances which led to its being closed, with a view to arranging for the re-establishment of the facilities previously enjoyed?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This office was closed at the end of 1926 on the resignation of the former sub-post-mistress. The North Reddish Sub-Post Office is only about a quarter of a mile distant and there is another office within half a mile in the opposite direction. I do not think that the circumstances warrant the reopening of the office.

    FOREIGN PENCILS.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the stock of foreign pencils purchased during the War and used by the Post Office has now been exhausted; and whether all pencils now used are of British manufacture?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): All stocks of pencils are now of British manufacture with the exception of the stock of copying pencils of foreign make obtained during the War. This stock has not yet been exhausted.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the hon. Member say how many years' stock were bought from the United States of America during the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I cannot without notice give that information, but I can say that the stock which still remains is only enough for a few months.
    Mr. THOMAS: Does the hon. Member realise the very serious effect that this question of lead pencils will have on national finance?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the hon. Member not realise that it is a question of the principle involved,

    967
    and does he think it advisable that any Department of State should buy enough articles such as pencils, as are likely to last 10, 15 or 20 years?

    SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
    Major OWENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are allowed to remain for long periods and that the rate of interest has not been increased since its inception, he will consider the desirability of raising the present rate of 2½ per cent.?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Deposits in the Savings Bank, however long they remain, are withdrawable on application and in those circumstances the payment of a higher rate of interest could not be defended. A higher rate can be earned by investment in Government securities including Savings Certificates, and such investment is encouraged. A special Post Office Register of Government stocks is maintained to assist the small investor and the widest facilities are available for the purchase of Savings Certificates.
    Major OWEN: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what profit is being made by this Department annually, and what proportion of it goes to the Treasury? Can he say what use is made of the profits which accrue yearly in this Department?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This is a question which involves two answers, and they are very intricate. I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member would put his question on the Paper, and I will look into it.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that, so far from deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank being withdrawable on demand, seven days' notice is required unless the sum is under £1?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot carry the exact conditions in my mind; but I know that the Post Office give the safest facilities that it is possible to give.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman in the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend's question said that the deposits are withdrawable upon demand? Is it not the case
    968
    that seven days' notice is required unless the sum of money to be withdrawn is under £1?
    Mr. ALBERY: Is it not a fact that the seven days' notice is chiefly required to safeguard the interest of the depositors in order that wrong withdrawals may not be made.
    Mr. SAMUEL: These Regulations are made to protect the depositors.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would it not be a simple matter, in view of the profits made by this Department, to devise a scheme for granting a higher rate of interest where sums of money have been left untouched for a period of six or 12 months.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

    FRANCHISE BILL (REGISTER).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to re-introduce the half-yearly register in the event of the franchise being extended to women on the same terms as men by Act of this Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to await the promised Franchise Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Prime Minister not see that the register is distinct from the Franchise Bill, and cannot he give me some information on the other matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot quite understand what is the other matter which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise. If the hon. and gallant Member is anxious that the new voters shall get the vote at the next election, I gave that assurance on the Debate on the Address.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY. Does the Prime Minister not remember that the yearly register was introduced as a measure of economy in the Economy Bill, and has nothing to do with the voter? In view of the pledge to extend the vote to women, surely he sees the justice of reintroducing the six-monthly register.

    NEW ZEALAND NAVAL DIVISION (WESTERN SAMOA).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether active operations carried out by the naval forces of the Dominions, such as recent operations at Samoa by His Majesty's ships attached to the New Zealand Navy, are subject to the approval of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government in New Zealand are responsible for the administration of Western Samoa, and the question of the despatch to Western Samoa of ships of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy is solely a matter for that Government.

    RACECOURSE BETTING BILL.
    Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates the introduction of any fresh legislation in the present Session which will alter the betting laws of Great Britain?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would remind the hon. Member of the introduction of the Racecourse Betting Bill in this House on the 10th February. In accordance with the terms of my reply of the 10th November last to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), the Government will endeavour to provide facilities for the passage into law of this Bill if it obtains a Second Reading on a free vote of the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does this not mean that betting will become legalised on race courses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it means anything of the kind. We do not know what it means until we are apprised of the wishes of the House on the subject.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the issuing of instructions to local inspectors of taxes to the effect that workmen and others who live in their Own houses should not be called upon to pay tax under Schedule A for such pro-
    970
    perty, on production of proof that their total income does not bring them within the taxable limit, and thus save an appeal for rebate?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If a house-owner's income is of such an amount that he is not liable to Income Tax, he can claim exemption from any tax under Schedule A charged in respect of his property. The inspectors of taxes throughout the country are fully aware of this position and are constantly dealing with such claims. I may add that where the property is subject to annual charges, such as ground rent or mortgage interest, the exempt owner will be called upon to pay to the Revenue the tax which he deducts from his ground landlord or mortgagee, upon whom, and not upon the owner, the charge of such tax therefore falls.

    DEBT REDEMPTION TRUST (DONORS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appeal to donors to the recently established trust for debt redemption on all possible occasions to disclose their names for publication so that this movement may be increased by the force of good example?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be desirable to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that many millionaires of modest disposition in this country are seriously embarrassed by the secrecy which is at present attached to these gifts?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They can always subscribe to the party funds.

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (LAPSED POLICIES).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the loss suffered by many poor people through industrial assurance policies lapsing; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing some form of legislation to prevent this?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Plaistow Division (Mr. W. Thorne).
    Mr. CROOKE: Is the hon. Member aware that when Section 24 of the Act, to which he referred in his reply yesterday, comes into operation in June next, it will not give the desired protection to these poor policy holders?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that fact at all. We must wait until June and see how it does operate.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the hon. Member taken any steps to inform himself of the enormous loss suffered by poor people in connection with the policies entered into by them which are never valid, because there is no insurable interest, but which nevertheless were accepted by the insurance companies concerned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite another question.

    TATE GALLERY (LANE COLLECTION).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the dangers to which pictures in the Tate Gallery are subjected by flooding, steps can now be taken to make a loan for an indefinite period of all the Lane pictures to Dublin?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Lane collection is housed in the main galleries, far above any possible flood level. The question, therefore, of transferring the pictures elsewhere for safe custody does not arise.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not my hon. Friend consider that this is a judgment of God upon the trustees of the Tate Gallery by causing the destruction of many of these pictures which really belong to Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is giving an opinion, not asking for it?
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Would it not be possible to sell these pictures and use the proceeds to compensate the Southern Ireland loyalists thereby saving the British taxpayers?

    CASUAL WARDS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints regarding the detention of vagrants in casual wards for medical examination until late in the evening of the day of discharge; and whether, in the interests of the vagrants themselves and of the public health, he will take steps to ensure that medical examination shall take place either on admission or during the day of detention?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH
    (Mr. Chamberlain): I have received no such complaints, and am not aware of any instance in which a casual has been detained for the purpose of a medical examination beyond the prescribed hour of 9 a.m. on the day of discharge.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (WALES).
    Mr. C. P. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many insured persons in Wales have ceased to draw sickness benefit on account of the receipt of old age pensions at 65?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available and could only be obtained by a special examination of the sickness records of every Approved Society and branch which has members resident in Wales.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    RICKETS (IMPORTED SKIMMED MILK).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any reports that the prevalence of rickets amongst children in some districts is largely caused by the fact that they are being fed on imported skimmed milk which is marked unfit for babies: and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of this commodity as a food for infants?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a newspaper report of a statement of a lecturer on agricultural economics to this effect. I am advised that the feeding of infants on skimmed milk in any form would tend to produce rickets, and it is for this reason that I have made Regula-

    973
    tions requiring the words "Unfit for babies" to be displayed on the tins. Recently I have issued fresh Regulations which will have the effect of displaying these words more prominently.
    Mr. EVERARD: May I ask whether in the public interest the right lion. Gentleman will not publish the figures showing the value of English milk over the foreign condensed milk as a clean product?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is necessary to publish figures showing the difference between the skimmed milk and the full milk.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the case that people who buy skimmed milk have no choice owing to the high price of other milk, and does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view which he made in a statement in answer to a question as to its effect on rickets?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise on this question, but I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted my answer.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a libel on our civilisation that these mothers have to buy skimmed milk because they cannot afford to buy other milk in order to feed their babies?
    Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as long as skimmed milk is sold in such small packages people will buy it whether it is marked unfit for babies or not, and will he issue Regulations to provide that this milk is sold in much larger containers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing importation of skimmed milk into this country, and will he look further into the matter in order to see whether some other steps cannot be taken to avoid this increased consumption of skimmed milk, which must be bad for the people who consume it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member. He seems to consider that children and adults are in the same position. My advice is that, while skimmed milk is bad for infants, it might be quite wholesome for adults.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman prohibit the sale of it for infants?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would do so, but I am not sure that the prohibition would be observed.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the Minister of Health consult the President of the Board of Trade as to whether the Safeguarding of Industries Act might not be applied to this skimmed milk?

    PETROL (LEAD TETRAETHYL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the tests carried out with petrol containing lead tetraethyl and the report arising out of these tests made by the Research Association of British Motor and Allied Manufacturers, founded under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in which the poisonous effects of the discharge of vapour from this fuel are described; and whether, in view of the proposed Interdepartmental Committee to be appointed by His Majesty's Government to examine into this subject and the inevitable delays in receiving a Report of such Interdepartmental Committee, he will consider issuing a preliminary warning on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the public generally concerning the use of this fuel?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to this report. Immediate steps are being taken to set up the Committee of Inquiry, and they will be asked to make their investigation and present their Report with the least possible delay. The Government do not propose to anticipate the findings of the Committee by issuing such a warning as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect this Committee to be set up; and, when it has been set up, how long is it before he expects to receive their Report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I expect the Committee will be set up very shortly, and their Report will no doubt be issued when they are ready.

    RATING AND VALUATION (LONDON).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in 1891 Command Paper No. 6460, Local Government Board, showed that the gross valuation of the Metropolis amounted to £39,835,700, with a total increase in the annual rental of £1,373,207 from the previous year; and if he can supply similar statistics for the year ending 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The gross value of rateable hereditaments in London, according to the valuation lists in force on the 6th April, 1926, on which date a quinquennial revaluation took effect, was £74,529,824, which was an increase of £11,550,598, or 15½ per cent., as compared with the amount entered in the lists in force on the 6th April, 1925. The corresponding increase at the quinquennial revaluation of 1891 was £1,623,451, or 4¼ per cent.

    ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY (WAGES).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Minister of Labour the rates of wages paid in the artificial silk industry to unskilled, semiskilled, and skilled workers, respectively; and what is the length of the working week?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, artificial silk forms part of the raw material of many sections of the textile industry, including cotton, wool, hosiery, linen and jute, and, so far as I know, the agreements obtaining in those industries cover workers using artificial silk. The Ministry of Labour have no information as to the wages or hours of workers employed on spinning or weaving artificial silk only.
    Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the Government which had been safeguarding certain industries takes no interest in the wages and conditions of labour of the persons working in those industries?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must not understand that. What I was pointing out was that the Government have no power to demand the production of wage agreements in any industry.
    Mr. MAXTON: In that case, will the Prime Minister proceed to take powers to see that wages and conditions of labour in those industries which are safeguarded are properly looked after.
    Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask whether the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is correct in his statement that this is one of the safeguarded industries. Is it not the case that the duty was put on for revenue purposes?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is so.
    Mr. REMER: Is it not the case that wages in the silk industry are fixed by a Joint Industrial Council, on which the trade unions and the employers are represented?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think the Joint Industrial Council does not include the artificial silk trade.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does it not point to the fact that the best way for men and women to get their wages safeguarded is by joining a trade union?
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask where the Parliamentary Secretary secured the information that the wages in the artificial silk industry are based upon those operating in the textile industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is not what I said. What I said was that artificial silk forms part of the raw material of many sections of the textile industry and, therefore, until I know on what particular section the hon. Member desires information I cannot answer.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why does not the Minister of Labour take steps to secure wages and conditions of labour in this industry seeing that he has taken steps to secure wages and conditions in other industries. Why does he not take similar steps here?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Member's question. What I said was that we have no power to demand the production of agreements, nor have we any power to enforce wages agreements in any industry?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the fact that the Department has taken steps by voluntary effort to secure wages in other industries? Have any steps been taken to secure wages in this industry?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. As far as I know that question has never been put to my Department until this moment.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the Prime Minister answer the question which I put to him as to whether he is prepared to secure wages and conditions of labour in the safeguarded industries as distinct from other industries?

    SIR PATRICK GOWER.
    Mr. SNOWDEN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether this morning's published statement, that one of his principal private secretaries is to take up an important post in the Conservative Central Office is correct; whether this has been done with his knowledge and approval; and whether there is any precedent for a civil servant who has acted as a principal private secretary to successive Prime Ministers accepting a responsible position in the headquarters of a political party?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot recall any precedent for a civil servant having acted as principal private secretary to successive Prime Ministers in the past, but a civil servant is, of course, at liberty at any time to resign from the service and take up outside work whether commercial, professional, or political in character.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: When the Prime Minister was first approached by the chairman of the Conservative Association in regard to the securing of the services of this principal private secretary, did the Prime Minister at that time represent to the chairman of the Conservative Association the impropriety, if not indecency, of a political organisation trying to secure the services of a prominent civil servant receiving a salary from the Crown?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that I feel called upon to answer these questions. Considering the services, loyal and honourable, which Sir Patrick Gower rendered to the Leader
    978
    of the Opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, I think they are most ungenerous. The fact with Sir Patrick Gower and with all civil servants who occupy positions of that kind, is that they must consider their future—he has been a private secretary for many years—and it is an open question with them whether they will do better in after life, by leaving the Civil Service or staying in it. I wish to make this point quite clear. I have discussed this matter with Sir Patrick Gower at intervals for the last year or two, and I am quite sure that he has chosen wisely in his own interests to take work other than that of a civil servant.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Prime Minister has evidently quite misunderstood my question. I made no reflection whatever upon Sir Patrick Gower. I asked the Prime Minister whether, when the chairman of the Conservative Association approached him he—the Prime Minister—made any representation to the chair-Man of the Conservative Association as to the impropriety of trying to secure for political service a civil servant who was supposed to have no partiality in regard to political matters?
    Mr. ALBERY: Is it in order to put questions in this House concerning the actions of a political party or the internal administration of a political party?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know of anything which calls for my intervention
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is not the precedent required that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who, after serving in the Civil Service, became a prominent leader in another party?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is not the slightest impropriety in the action which Sir Patrick Gower has taken, and I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said about Sir Patrick Gower himself.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If this practice grows, does the Prime Minister consider it altogether desirable that the Civil Service should look to the Conservative party for promotion?

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS),
    "to extend further the duration of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, and to amend temporarily the provisions as to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; supported by Sir Kingsley Wood; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

    PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 20th April, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Mr. William Nicholson Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill); Mr. Ellis Davies to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation Bill); Sir Edmund Turton to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill); and Sir Robert Sanders to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill):
    980
    Mr. Amery, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Miss Bondfield, Captain Brass, Mr. Campbell, Sir Henry Cowan, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Lunn, Sir John Marriott, Major General Sir Newton Moore, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Wells.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C.
    Mr. William Nicholson Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. Barker, Mr. Beckett, Sir Vansittart Bowater, Major Braithwaite, Mr. Briant, Mr. Broad, Brigadier-General Brooke, Captain Bullock, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Cluse, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Greene, Mr. Hall Caine, Mr. Harmsworth, Captain Holt, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Captain Austin Hudson, Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Kelly, Sir John Leigh, Mr. Lougher, Mr. L'Estrange Malone, Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, Mr. Naylor, Sir Frank Nelson, Sir Charles Oman, Mr. Pilcher, Sir John Power, Mr. Preston, Mr. Shepperson, Mr. Stamford, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes, Mr. Tomlinson, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Dr. Watts, Sir William Wayland, Mr. C. P. Williams, and Dr. John Williams.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rating and Valuation Bill): Mr. Sandeman Allen, Captain Brass, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Gates, Captain Gunston, Mr. Harris, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Lansbury, Miss Lawrence, Sir William Perring, Mr. Rye, Dr. Salter, Mr. Scurr, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

    SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill): the Lord Advocate, Captain Harry Crookshank, Mr. Evan Davies, Mr. Hammersley, Major Samuel Harvey, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Riley, Major Steel, and Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    BILLS REPORTED.
    Barnet District Gas and Water Bill,
    Sunderland Corporation Bill,
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1927).
    Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1928 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BRITISH GUIANA BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill which I have to bring before the House this afternoon is a permissive Bill. It is one which gives the authority of this House to the Crown to enable it, by Order in Council, to modify the constitution of the Colony of British Guiana. The constitutions of His Majesty's Colonies are very frequently changed by Order in Council, but that form of action is impossible in the present case, owing to certain legal considerations, arising out of the form of the original Capitulation of 1803 under which British Guiana became a British colony. We agreed in that Capitulation that the mode of taxation in use at that date should be adhered to, and ever since then the Law Officers of the Crown have ruled that the terms of that Article precluded the Crown from levying taxation of its own authority in British Guiana, and equally precluded it from modifying the constitution of the Combined Court—the constitutional body which at that time was the only body empowered to raise taxation or deal with finance. The ordinary legislature of the colony, the Court of Policy, is equally precluded, either from levying taxation or from interfering in the constitution of the Combined Court. On the other hand, the Combined Court itself has no legislative function. It can only tax or revise estimates. Therefore, it is also impotent to change its own constitution. Consequently there is no legal method of altering the constitution in British Guiana except through the intervention of the authority of Parliament.
  So much for the reasons which make it necessary to come here for authority. I realise however, that the House will wish to know why it is desired that the constitution should be altered and I shall endeavour to give the reasons as briefly as I can. No doubt they will be stated more fully and with more intimate local knowledge by hon. Members who have been out there, either as Members of the
  990
  Parliamentary Commission or otherwise. British Guiana is our only colony on the Southern American continent. It is a country as large as the United Kingdom, possessing very great natural resources, a soil of extraordinary richness in the seacoast region, great mineral resources and immense resources in timber. Yet, somehow, that colony has, in the century and a quarter of British occupation, and in the century and a half or more in which it has been mainly British, made no appreciable progress. Its record is one of almost continuous stagnation. It is quite true that it has had to contend with certain difficulties. It had no large native population to begin with and, consequently, had to look to immigration for the increase of population. But in spite of the immigration into British Guiana of over 350,000 people in the course of a century, the population today stands at only 300,000. This is not due to any special unhealthiness of the climate—for, as compared with many other tropical countries, the climate is very pleasant—but to excessive infant mortality, defective sanitation and lack of any proper health system.
  Another drawback to the easy development of the Colony by peasant proprietorship has been the fact that its most fertile lands need protection by seawalls against encroachments of the sea, and also need irrigation and drainage. So there was a need for capital. But in many other parts of the Empire, similar difficulties have been easily overcome, and capital has come in, and the population has grown and developed. In British Guiana, however, as I said, the history has been one, if not of decline, at any rate of stagnation. In the present century, confronted with the progress of the world and of the British Empire elsewhere, with the need for bringing education and transport and sanitation up to date, the problem of the colony has become almost impossible. Its finances have become increasingly difficult. At this moment a population of 300,000, not at a high average level of prosperity, is saddled with a burden of over £4,300,000 of debt actually floated or with the Crown Agents due to be redeemed. That is, over £14 a head, as compared with £2 17s. 6d. in the Colony of Ceylon, where there is, at least, an equal average of prosperity.

  991
  4.0 p.m.
  In the seven years ending 1927, there was only one year in which there was not a deficit, and in that year there was a small surplus of £33,000. Over the whole seven years there was a deficit of £681,000. In addition to that, there is a growing difficulty facing them of a floating debt to the extent of £1,200,000 borrowed from the Crown Agents, and due to be covered by loan, with urgent requirements that can only he met by further considerable loan expenditure. The Colony is in a position that it cannot float a loan in this country on any reasonable terms, not only because of the discouragement to investors created by the financial situation that I have described, but because there is no reserved power in the Government of the Colony under the Secretary of State to ensure that any undertaking with regard to the repayment of interest or capital will in fact be met. That is in fact a critical and anxious situation, which, naturally, all those who are interested in the affairs of our Colonies have watched with misgiving for many years.
  Two years ago, acting on a suggestion originally made by some of the elected members of the Court of Policy in British Guiana, I decided to send out a Parliamentary Commission, and two hon. Members of this House—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell)—went out to British Guiana, and presented to me a very valuable and important Report, which, no doubt, has been studied by Members of this House. A great deal of that Report deals with matters not immediately concerned with the Bill before us, but I should like to pay my tribute here to the care, sympathy and understanding with which they threw themselves into their task, and thank them for very many valuable suggestions which they made with regard to the welfare of British Guiana in every direction. They were sent out on an absolutely open road. They were asked:
  "To consider and report on the economic condition of the Colony, the causes which have hitherto retarded and the measures which could be taken to promote development, and any facts which they may consider to have a bearing on the above matters."
  992
  I need not assure the House that there were no secret instructions or indications given to the hon. Members. They were given an absolutely free band to study the position in British Guiana without prejudice from every point of view. Their report on the financial situation of the Colony is very serious. They begin that section of their report by frankly declaring that the present financial position is unsatisfactory. They end by stating that they are "satisfied that the financial position is unsound and the outlook serious," and the conclusion to which they came, absolutely independent of any instruction or suggestion from this side, was that the unsatisfactory financial position was due not so much to any weakness of the administrators sent out to British Guiana, nor to any original sin on the part of the people there, but was due to the structure of the constitution which makes sound finance practically impossible. They point out in their Report:
  "Hand-to-mouth finance and haphazard and ill-considered taxation are the inevitable outcome of a system under which the responsibility for the finances rests with a Government who cannot enforce their policy and the financial power with the elected members who have no real responsibility."
  I ought to explain to the House the exact nature of the constitution of British Guiana. The ordinary legislature of the Colony, the Court of Policy, is a body constituted on lines analogous to those found all over the Colonial Empire—a Governor with a certain number of official members, some ex-officio, some nominated, and an equal number of elected members, the Governor having a casting vote, and therefore able in an emergency definitely to make his policy prevail. There is a very normal, natural give-and-take between the official and unofficial members of the legislature, but this legislature is entirely precluded from dealing with finance. Finance, divorced from legislation, is dealt with by a separate body, consisting in part of the members of the Court of Policy, and in part also of members elected as financial members, and for no other purpose whatsoever. It is as if every financial matter before this House had to be settled, regardless of the general policy of this House, by a body consisting of the members of this House, and another 300 members chosen purely for that purpose, and as a rule opposed to the Government

  993
  of the day whatever the Government might be. That position is one which makes it a matter of absolute uncertainty whether carefully considered plans of the Government, however well-endorsed by the main body of the legislature, can in fact go through. After all, there are no schemes of legislation which do not involve some appointments, some salaries, some element of finance, and you have this outside body,, with no general responsibility for the administration or the legislation, with no continuous contact with legislation or administration, coming in for a few days' discussion and able to upset entirely the whole machinery of government. As the Commission point out:
  "The practical consequences of this lack of ultimate control are chiefly to be seen in the financial system of the Colony. This system is prejudicial to trade, inconducive to sound financial policy, and costly in that it prevents the Colony's loans from being issued as trustee securities, We have referred elsewhere in greater detail to the vital importance of establishing a definite far-sighted and consistent financial policy. At present the elected members are in the position of a minor who can overrule his own trustee."
  They go on to say:
  "The Government in British Guiana have never been able to govern. This situation was possible so long as the function of administration was confined to attempting to prevent mis-government. it is not possible when the Government are expected to take a direct and active part in the development of the country and the improvement of the condition of the people."
  They add a further point:
  "Provision for ultimate control is also desirable on grounds of political psychology. The divorce of responsibility from power, which is so marked a feature of the constitution, places the elected members as well as the Government in a false position. The elected members tend to be placed in the position of a permanent opposition, Unrestrained by experience or prospect of office. Though we do not wish to press the analogy too closely, the position of the Government, under such conditions, might in some respects he compared to that of a Ministry without a majority, a state of affairs not tending to inspire respect or promote efficiency and highly detrimental to morale.
  We would welcome any change in the existing Constitution which would give to the people's representative wider powers of usefulness and greater opportunity for constructive criticism. But we do not see how it can he possible either to ensure a consistent financial policy or to exercise efficient
  994
  control of the Colony's sources of revenue, unless Government have the power in the last resort, and under proper safeguards, to enforce their own decisions."
  Mr. HURD: Is that the Commission of 1927?
  Mr. AMERY: That is the British Guiana Commission consisting of the hon. Member for East Woolwich and the hon. Member for Lichfield. Their point is that the constitution as it exists at present is one which does not secure efficiency either way. Neither the elected representatives nor the Government can ever carry through a consistent policy. The report of that Commission has been subjected to a great deal of vehement criticism in detail by the elected members of the Combined Court. That criticism is published in full in the Paper which was presented to the House yesterday. It is couched in very strong language, but while the elected members lay the blame not so much on themselves as upon successive Governors, Ministries, technical experts, and the ignorance and inaccuracy of the Parliamentary Commission, the fact still remains that their document is from beginning to end also a condemnation of the existing form of Government. I will leave my hon. Friends who were members of the Commission to deal, if they wish, with various criticisms directed against themselves—criticisms which, it seems to me, they have effectively rebutted. I will only read one brief passage with which they prelude their arguments. They point out:
  "We are glad to observe that the Elected Members agree with the main conclusions and recommendations of our Report. Like us, they consider that the financial situation is unsatisfactory; that 'radical reform of the Colony's financial system is essential'; that 'a sustained and successful policy of development is impossible under the present system'; and they are prepared to agree in principle to the granting of a reserve power to the Governor of the Colony, at any rate to enable him 'where any loan has been duly authorised by the Legislature, to certify its service charges without the necessity of a vote being taken in the Combined Court.'"
  The main fact stands out that it is not one or other party which is specially to blame, but that we are dealing here with a survival of a constitutional type which has really never worked successfully anywhere. We boast of the great merit of our constitution with that sense of re-

  995
  sponsibility from which responsible government draws its name. The position that administration, legislation and finance are intimately linked together in this House, and that those who are responsible for passing laws are also the people responsible for seeing that they are paid for and effectively administered, has only been reached after long centuries of strife and trouble under another type of constitution, that of representative Government where responsibility for legislation and finance was divorced from the responsibility for actual administration.
  This is not an occasion on which to dive into the records of our political development, but it may perhaps be worth while reminding the House that the continuous deadlock and friction between the Executive and the Colonial Legislatures in the years which preceded the outbreak of the American Revolution, and, I venture to think, contributed in great part to the sense of irritation on both sides, of irresponsibility on the side of the elected members, and of impatience on the part of Parliament here, was due to the defects of representative as distinct from responsible Government in those Colonies. After the end of the American Revolution we developed in two directions—in the direction of granting responsible Government in our sense wherever the conditions permitted, but, on the other hand, where conditions did not permit, giving a definite responsibility to somebody, in other words, to a Governor responsible to the Secretary of State and, in the last resort, to this House of Commons.
  A very eminent American constitutional authority, Professor Lawrence Lowell, of Harvard, in his work on the British Constitution, remarks somewhere that "a Colony may be governed by its own people or it may be governed by the Mother Country, but it cannot under normal conditions be effectively governed by both combined." I would not go quite as far as that eminent authority in one sense, for certainly all over the Empire we are getting very fruitful results from the combination and the co-operation of elected representatives and official administrators, but I think he is absolutely right in saying that a
  996
  Colony cannot be governed unless in the last resort one authority or other finally prevails and finally enables a policy to be carried out or pledges given by a previous Government to become operative. It is, therefore, as a problem of a type of constitution not workable in itself, and not as a problem of special misgovernment on the part either of officials or of elected members, that we have to consider this matter. In their final conclusion, the Parliamentary Commission sum up the situation by saying:
  "It appears to us essential, as well on the ground of immediate financial exigences as on that of future development, that the authorities finally responsible for the solvency and good government of the Colony should have power in the last resort to carry into effect measures which they consider essential for its well-being. This will involve an alteration in the Constitution, the precise nature which, we suggest, might he referred, in the first instance, to a local commission convened by the Governor to advise upon the steps which should be taken to confer power upon the Governor to carry into effect measures which he and the Secretary of State consider essential for the
  well-being of the Colony; and also what other improvements. if any, might he effected in the present Constitution."
  Acting upon that recommendation, I asked the Governor, subject to the general lines laid down in this concluding paragraph, namely, the necessity that the authorities finally responsible should have power to carry into effect the measures they consider essential to the wellbeing of the Colony, to appoint a local commission to frame for themselves the form of amended Constitution which they would consider most desirable and most conducive to the prosperity of the Colony. The Commission consisted of two official and four unofficial members of the community, and their recommendations are unanimous.
  Mr. KELLY: How were they
  appointed?
  Mr. AMERY: They were appointed by the Governor.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether they were whites or coloured, whether they were planters or not?
  Mr. AMERY: I cannot say anything about the actual physical complexion of the members, though I can say that Mr. Hector Josephs, the Attorney-General, is

  997
  a man of pure African descent, who has rendered conspicuous service to the Crown, both in his own Colony of Jamaica and in British Guiana. These members signed a unanimous Report, the only qualification being that one of the elected members added a note, in which he makes it plain that he would have signed the Report with alacrity if I had promised or even hinted that the result of the Report would be the grant of substantial financial assistance by His Majesty's Government, and that, though he would rather leave the Constitution unchanged, he regards the form of Constitution of which he has approved, together with his other colleagues, as the best to carry out the objects in view.
  The local Commission decided that they would prefer to have one Legislative Chamber dealing with both finance and policy instead of two Chambers. They said that
  "the preponderance of evidence was in favour of the abolition of the existing Court of Policy and Combined Court, and the substitution therefor of a single legislative body."
  They expressed as their own opinion:
  "We consider that the plan of dividing public business into financial and nonfinancial matters is not a satisfactory basis on which to frame a Constitution, especially as in all the major problems which face a Government financial and non-financial considerations are closely interwoven."
  They, therefore, recommended the creation of a single Legislative Council, which should contain the whole of the existing 14 elected members, both of the Court of Policy and Combined Court, and they recommended no alteration in the franchise or in the number of representatives to be elected. Together with that, there is to be a body of official representatives and of nominated unofficial representatives which will enable the Governor to select from those various interests in the community, with the widest possible discretion—they laid great emphasis on that point—men who might not otherwise be represented; and in this body the official element together with the nominated unofficial element would have a majority of one.
  With regard to the introduction of a nominated unofficial element, they expressed the view:
  "It is our opinion, and the opinion of every witness who came before us that the
  998
  introduction into the Legislature of such an element would be an improvement."
  They also recommended that definite power should be given to the Governor
  "to reserve, for his own decision, any matter which he and the Secretary of State consider essential to the good government of the Colony, but that this power should not be exercised without a previous reference to the Secretary of State (should such be possible), and in any event the Governor's action in this respect should be reviewed by the Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment."
  They submitted a draft Clause of some length in the White Paper suggesting the way in which that reserve power might be framed. They believe the existence of the knowledge that there does reside somewhere in British Guiana final authority will
  "naturally tend to the exercise on both sides of those qualities which make for agreement."
  That then is the recommendation of the local Commission. They know their own conditions, and I have no desire to criticise or go behind their Report. My intention is to base the Order in Council modifying the Constitution of British Guiana upon the Report of the local Commission, and to follow it as closely as may be. I may add, however, that I am still in consultation with the delegation of elected members of the British Guiana Combined Court, who have come over to see how far there are any points on which we can agree between us to modifications which would not prejudice the general type of the new Constitution. That is all, I think, that I need say in commendation of this Bill, except to make one further point plain.
  There is no question here of a going back on self-government in the British Empire. The last few years have, in many parts of the British Empire, seen a substantial advance towards fuller representation, in many cases towards a more responsible form of Government, as in the island of Malta, for instance, where a Constitution with precisely the same kind of weakness of divided responsibility had to be modified in 1903. That modification made way 15 years later for that wide measure of responsible Government that is enjoyed to-day. The question is not one of progress to or from self-government, but rather of enabling the car of government to back out of the cul de sac into which it has run, on to the straight high

  999
  road of constitutional development. The present Constitution of British Guiana is a dead end, out of which there is no outlet for either political or economic development. My hope is that by establishing a Constitution which will lay the final responsibility for Government on the Governor of the Colony, subject to the ultimate authority of the Secretary of State and this House, you will create a condition of things under which the spirit of responsible co-operation and the progress of the Colony will enable the new Legislature to pave the way, in the fullness of time, for further constitutional developments, which are, I am afraid, clearly precluded by the present financial and general situation of the Colony.
  Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  At the outset, I want to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in expressing the appreciation, I am sure, of all parties in the House for the excellent Report and work done by the Commission which went out there, for the information they have given, and anything that I have to say is in no sense a criticism of their work, but rather in appreciation of it. My point of difference will be as to whether or not the Government have taken the right way to meet the difficulties which the Commission have set before us, and in that respect I want to say that I think the House has some real ground for complaint that the important document of criticism by the elected members, consisting of 111 pages, in reply to points raised by the Commission, has been issued only this morning. I suggest to the House, irrespective of party, that it is a serious business to ask us to consider a matter which involves an important point of principle when we have important documents put into our hands only an hour or two before the discussion takes place in this House. It is impossible for any Member to get a full grip of all the points involved and the points of dispute put up by those from the Colony itself. Whether their points are well founded or not it will not do for it to go out from this House that we have dealt with them in so per-
  1000
  functory a manner as appears on the surface. I am in a favourable position, because I received a copy in advance from British Guiana, but that only emphasises the position in which the House finds itself in having this considerable document thrown at it in this manner. That alone is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of this Bill until the Members of the House have had an opportunity of considering the case and all the published documents in their relationship one with the other.
  Having said that, one admits that there is a case to be made against the present administration of the Colony; conditions are such that bankruptcy seems to be staring it in the face, and there is certainly something to be said for a modified reorganisation or a reconsideration of the whole position. So far we are on common ground, and there is no dispute. We should have some grasp of all that is involved, both in the geographical situation of the Colony and its potential resources, and of the problems of constitutional government that are involved. It is an area larger than Great Britain, and it is the only foothold that we have on the South American Continent. It is geographically in relationship with America and the West Indies, which ought, one would think, to have opened up possibilities of great development of the rich potential resources that there are. It is possessed of great national wealth and a virgin soil. The extraordinary thing is that, if we compare the volume of trade between 1836 and 1925, as shown in the Report, we find that there is very little difference. In fact, I do not think that it would be wrong to say that, if you were to take into consideration the increased population, it has actually declined. The curious thing is that at a time in history when most of the people of the world live by taking in each other's washing, here is an opportunity of developing a Colony with great national resources where, somehow, the spirit of adventure, both in capital and emigration, seems to be sadly lacking. Whether that be so or not, the position we have to face is the position that has been sot up by the proposals now before us.
  As the Minister has said, the Colony has shown for seven years a deficiency

  1001
  totalling something like £681,985. As a further instance of what is lacking in business acumen, the Commission draw attention to the fact that in 1925 no less an amount than 871,000 lbs. of refined sugar was imported into the Colony. When one remembers that sugar is the main industry of British Guiana, there does seem to be something to consider. The population is about 300,000, which is less than four to the square mile. All that is common ground, but it is an admission that there is a condition of affairs that calls for inquiry and quick and sympathetic action. It is a question, however, whether or not that sympathetic action is contained in the proposals of the Government. The Government proposals raise more problems than they solve, and here we have the Mother of Parliaments going back on the policy of representative government. That surely is a very serious position, and ought not to be lightly undertaken, even by supporters of the Government itself. We are asked to throw over a system of government that British Guiana has enjoyed for 120 years—surely a serious proposal. The line that we ought to have taken is to run the risks that are necessarily involved in the development of democratic government. That development does involve certain risks in its working out and the whole history of our own system of government shows it. Hardly any Colony or any of our Dominions will tell a different story. In the early stages of the development, say, of Canada and other places, we have the same story of muddle, sometimes of corruption, and sometimes of things that would not commend themselves at the present time. But gradually they worked through these things until there is now a system of government more or less in line with that which has been worked out in the British constitution.
  Would we have acted in quite, the same manner as is proposed if the majority of the population of British Guiana had been white? There are one or two directions in which we might have taken a view altogether different from the view proposed. We are told that there is a difficulty in raising loans for the necessary capital in Guiana. The two things that British Guiana needs are population and capital. Sympathy has
  1002
  not been given to Guiana in regard to capital that may have been given to other Colonies, and, in fact, in the case of Western Australia, has been given; their financial position is certainly no better than that of British Guiana, and yet we have not hesitated to guarantee their loan under the Colonial Stock Acts. In spite of the communication that was sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago, there is no reason why they should not have been given the necessary guarantees in order that they might have raised their loan. I wonder whether we are acting strictly legally in the action that we are taking. We have to remember that the Colony is based on the terms of the Capitulation of 1803; in 1843 a similar constitutional crisis arose, and the then Secretary of State said that he had no legal authority to interfere in any way. Now, however, there seems to be quite a different point of view, and it seems as if we are going to ride roughshod over the people who are in the Colony. Surely the Imperial Government could have given a guarantee to raise the necessary money and could have taken the precautions necessary to see that it was properly administered without taking the step that they are now suggesting.
  What are needed in Guiana above all things are railroad and harbour development, irrigation and drainage. According to the excellent map that has been given in the Report of the Commission, there seems only one very small portion of first-class road for the whole of the Colony. That is just a little strip on the Atlantic coast. Sympathetic help and assistance from this side could have been given with proper safeguards, which undoubtedly could have been devised, in order to develop the laying down of roads and of their harbours, the chief one of which has been put out of action by silting up, and to help them in their irrigation and drainage. That would have been a much better line of action than that which is now proposed, namely, the handing over of the government very largely into the hands of absentee planters in their interest rather than development to the advantage of the community. I am not sure that the Government themselves in recent years

  1003
  have not contributed somewhat to the economic disasters that have befallen the Government in Guiana. Quite recently, their sugar crop was bad. They sought to adjust that by going in for rubber plantation. The Government restriction on rubber prevented them going on with it, at any rate according to the statements we get from that side.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Restriction in British Guiana?
  Mr. AMMON: According to the statements supplied to us, the restriction applied there also. I should be glad to hear that that is incorrect. There was, however, a check placed on the possibilities of development in this direction. Incidentally, all that the restrictions have done is to make fortunes for Dutch merchants rather than to help our own people. The line that we should have taken was to reform the existing machinery of government and of the franchise. What we propose to do is to hand the people over to the Colonial Office. The Governor himself is going to have supreme power in the last resort, and the people are going to have no control over finance. To talk about giving a people government without control over finance is like taking the mainspring out of a watch and expecting it to work. Our own history shows that the central feature of our system of government is the right of the people to have the control of finance. Admittedly, they have made blunders and they have often bungled badly; nevertheless, it has worked out to a larger freedom both economically and for the people themselves. The stupid export duties have done a good deal, also, to cripple the development of trade in Guiana. We should have put education on to a proper and uniform basis. I know there are local objections in that regard, because under the present system they are more or less able to keep a certain amount of local control, but that is one of the essentials, and we might have helped them in that direction, and given some devolution of responsibility rather than take away their whole system of representative government, as it is now proposed to do.
  1004
  I want to put in a word or two with regard to some of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Colony. I have been approached by some of those who have had connection with missionary enterprise out there and who say that gradually the position of these people is being made very much harder by encroachments of other people. We know that the main population of British Guiana is gathered round the coast. There is very little population in the wide hinterland, which even at this stage of the world's history is practically unknown territory inhabited by a. few hands of nomad Indians. The wealth consists of bauxite, sugar, and of that wonderful green-heart wood of which I believe they have almost a monopoly. There is also a diamond industry which is declining, and in view of what has recently happened in South Africa it may be of less value still in future. None the less, there are Undoubtedly great possibilities of making this one of the best wealth-producing parts of the Empire, and one which would provide a means of livelihood to a very much larger population. It ought to be rather a suitable area for the surplus population of our Indian Empire, although there seem to be difficulties from that point of view. The Colony has not worked to increase the vitality of the Indian race or to establish a general standard of physical well-being.
  With regard to the aborigines, I wish to ask the Secretary of State to consider what steps can be taken to safeguard their position and to see that ample reservations are made for them. There are certain reservations for the coast aborigines and a certain allowance is made with respect to Crown lands, but with the gradual encroachment on these the possibilities are getting even less in that respect. It is of the Savannah Indians of whom I am thinking at the moment. One of the largest export trades is in balata, which is collected under licences, extending over areas up to 250 square miles, for five to 15 years. I understand it is collected largely by black labour under Government administration or by aborigine Indians, and in the result the non-aborigines are ousting the aborigines. According to the Report, the aborigine Indians are of value in the surveys made in the forests. There is an opportunity here for using them

  1005
  economically and at the same time affording them work that suits their natural aptitude in the Savannah districts, by employing them in forestry survey work and protecting them in the collection of balata.
  We have a moral obligation in this matter. One of the ugliest chapters in the development of other parts of the world has been the conduct of the old world to the aboriginal inhabitants of new lands. The least we can do in this case is to try somehow or other to make the lives of these aborigines more tolerable, to lead them to other ways of life, and to make them an economic unit in the nation itself. I suggest one or two alternatives that the Secretary of State might have put forward before he came down to the House with the proposals that he has made. What he is doing is to place this Colony very much in the position in which his colleague the Minister of Health has placed Bedwellty and West Ham and Poplar. He is putting a caretaker in and depriving the people of the power of self-government and of working out their own salvation. He is making a blot on the escutcheon of this country, in a way for which there is no precedent. He is going back on a form of elected government that has been enjoyed for a long period in order to place the people under the tutelage proposed by the Bill. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has caught the House unfairly in that hon. Members have not been in possession of all the information necessary for this discussion to- day.
  The right hon. Gentleman might have put before the House other proposals before he made the proposals of the Bill. For instance, he might have gone very much on the lines of the borough councils, in which the elected members can serve on various departmental committees. That would have afforded a far better way of working out the economic salvation of this Colony, and would have done a great deal to disarm the criticism and the opposition that arises from the people themselves. Or elected members could have been placed on the Executive and given some responsibility for departments. Relatively near are Barbadoes and the Bahamas, where there is a large measure of self-government and greater
  1006
  executive power, and those examples might have been followed. There is yet one other plan. Although I am not committing myself to it, it would be well if the House could have an opportunity of considering it. That is the proposal of Lord Irwin, who suggested dividing the coast government from the hinterland. The House ought to have had an opportunity of discussing these various things. Hon. Members have had the subject thrown at them in such a way that there is danger of inflicting a form of Government on the Colony which the Colony does not want. The scheme is bound to raise a great deal of criticism. It is going back on all that we have done over our long period of history. In regard to one of the suggestions I have made, there is a precedent in the case of South Australia, though here I am open to correction. I believe South Australia did have some form of divided government in regard to the large tropical area which was placed under the Commonwealth of Australia. To have copied that plan in British Guiana would not have been a new experiment. If rumours be true, Western Australia seems to be making suggestions to be treated in a. similar way.
  By such a method we would be able to help the colonists to develop and realise the potential wealth that is in their country. The most formidable proposal of all in the Bill and the one that arouses the keenest resentment is the proposal that special reservations should be made on the new council for the absentee planters to be represented. That is a most reprehensible form of government and ought not to be encouraged in any way. The people living in the Colony have to live their daily life there and have responsibilities as citizens. They are the people who are mostly concerned and who should be mostly considered with regard to this system of government. I ask the Secretary of State even now to consider whether it would not be better to defer proceeding with this Bill until the House has had an opportunity to read all the relevant papers and to inform itself fully as to all the problems involved, before committing itself to something which is a retrogressive step in the history of the British Constitution and Parliamentary Government.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. TINNE: I rise to support the Bill as the only native-born British Guianan in this House. My family connection with British Guiana goes back for about five generations, and, as a matter of fact, the much-abused articles of capitulation, which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the rejection of the Bill, were drawn up by the Secretary of Governor Meertens in 1803, who was my great grandfather, P. F. Tinne. With regard to these articles of capitulation I am not going to say anything further, except that though well abused they have managed to stand for 125 years, and that is not a bad record. I propose to confine myself to facts, of which there are plenty to support the Bill, and I shall leave controversy as far as possible to others. There has been a good deal of printers' ink, as may be seen by the documents, and a good deal of breath already spent on the subject, and I do not propose to contribute more than I can help. The main basic fact is, that a Colony which, it is on all hands agreed, has great potential wealth, has been stagnant for nearly a century and a half. The causes are lack of population, indolence and ill-health from tropical conditions, difficulty of access, and in the past racial antipathy, which is at last beginning to disappear. The remedy is being sought in this Bill, and I have great hopes that the Government are going to achieve it.
  The authorities for the statements I am making date right back to Sir Walter Raleigh's days and come down the centuries. There are the records of Storm von S'gravesande, one of the old Dutch Governors, published by the Hakluyt Society; Waterton's Wanderings in South America; Stedman's Narrative; Bolingbroke's Voyage in 1807, Dalton's History; Henry Kirk's; The Files of Timehri, whose founder and first editor was Sir E. im Thurn, the greatest living authority on the Indians of Guiana. He, unfortunately, never returned to the Colony as Governor. He was the originator and founder of that journal and during the many years of its existence there were numerous references to all the questions which are dealt with in the Report. Sub-
  1008
  sequently there were local journals, the "Argosy," and "Daily Chronicle," one of whose representatives is in the delegation at present in this country. There are also numerous references throughout the various issues of the West Indian Committee Circular. Nearly every Governor in his annual report has commented on various things ever since I can remember.
  5.0. p.m.
  Let me say a word on the question of the aborigines, which was brought up by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. He spoke of lack of population and put in a word for the aborigines. There is a relatively small number of real natives—probably about 20,000 nomad Indians belonging to the tribes of Carib, Acawai, Arawak and Macusi. Sir C. Clementi, who had a good deal to do with them in traveling in the interior, definitely stated that he believed the tribes were never more numerous than that. With regard to that, if you read Sir Arthur Helps' "History of the Spanish Conquest of South America," and realise the dreadful slaughter of the aboriginal Indians afterwards, that statement is open to some doubt; but there is no doubt that like any nomad tribe, they are undoubtedly dying out gradually before the advance of civilisation, and I very much doubt whether anything we can do will prevent it. It is absolutely useless to offer them employment of the ordinary type or to try to induce them to come into settlements, because they will not come. They are Indians, they are ferœ naturæ, they belong to the wild, and will not come in: and small blame to them from my point of view. But the real natives of the Colony, if one can describe them as natives, are what we West Indians describe as Creoles. In Paragraph A7 of the Delegation's answer to the Report, the memorandum by the elective members states that the bulk of those described as Creoles include many exotic stocks born in Guiana, a large number of East Indians, a rather smaller number of negroes, who came there originally as slaves, a number of Madeiran Portuguese, who were brought in at a time when the sugar planters attempted to get indentured labour from Madeira, a few of the old Dutch settlers and some English, and all grades in between as the result of inter-marriage,

  1009
  and, of course, there are also Chinese. Then the term "creole" is locally extended to include even native-bred farm animals, that is, those born locally as distinguished from imported; and they even go as far as using "creole" in referring to vegetable products, speaking of "creole rice" instead of rice grown locally in the Colony.
  The memorandum of the electives absolutely denies that there is any racial antipathy. As an old colonist, I am only too happy to accept their assertion, but if their memories went back as far as mine they would recall that there were many riots in days not far back which were undoubtedly due to racial antipathy, and I regard that factor as one of the causes of the Colony's delayed development. I do not want to dwell upon it, but I mention it because it is a fact which must be taken into account. With regard to the lack of population, the first remedy for this is undoubtedly, to encourage immigration, and the second is better health conditions and improved sanitation, securing a natural increase by the reduction of infant mortality, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The old indentured immigration has gone by the board. What we hope to see now is a satisfactory colonisation scheme whereby families with a proper proportion of women and children will be brought in as settlers in place of people coming as indentured immigrants, to be returned when their term of indenture is up. We want these immigrants to stay to form a permanent population. The Colony can offer to the East Indian, who has been our most satisfactory immigrant—I am speaking now from the sugar point of view—a home which is just as suitable for him as the home which Canada or Australia offers to white migrants. Our motto Damus petimusque vicissim asks for reciprocity, but in the almost impossible conditions which the Indian Government has required of us before giving us immigrants there seems to be some inversion of Canning's old gibe against the original Dutch colonials in his rhyming despatch of January, 1826:
  "In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
  Is giving too little and asking too much."
  1010
  As a matter of fact, we want to give them land and all sorts of other inducements to come, and yet the Indian Government are "sticking" us, I suppose because we are rather easily "stickable." We would be only too glad to welcome Indians and to give them the most satisfactory conditions when they arrive.
  As regards the question of a natural increase of population by improved sanitation and so on, may I be excused for bragging, but the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is the pioneer in such matters, is doing much by research and teaching to improve tropical conditions, and we look for great results from the metazoan immunity research, upon which we are now engaged. For a grant towards this work we have to thank the Empire Marketing Board. The London Tropical School is also doing fine work, with its larger resources, and so, also, is the Ross Institute. At the moment we are hoping to secure immunity from certain diseases in the tropics, and I trust that the London School will also take up the same line of research and help us with it.
  In the past there has always been a lack of continuity of policy arising from the constant changes of governors and officials. If, for instance, the Secretary of State for the Colonies could come with me and take a walk along the sea shore in Demarara, and observe the "common objects," he would see the remains of various pet schemes for sea defence of successive colonial civil engineers, which have been referred to in various reports regarding waste of money. In front of one estate with which I am connected he would see a regular museum of curiosities, including loose stone boxwork groynes and remains of fascine work. He would see high groynes upon which one colonial engineer pinned his faith, and low groynes upon which another colonial engineer pinned his faith, and he would see, further, enclosures for trapping silt, planted with marram grass to hold it together, which were the device of another civil engineer. The only permanent work which has stood the test of time is Baron Siccama's sea wall, which was built in the 70's. He was a Dutch engineer who was engaged specially to complete the job, and not

  1011
  merely for a term. I commend that system to His Majesty's Government, because the practice of engaging men for a short term, or employing them for a short term, and letting them go before they have finished the job, does not conduce to efficiency, in my view. Only those who have kept up their own sea frontage at great expense, and then seen the Atlantic come pouring over their land through a breach in the defences of their neighbours can realise the bitterness of spirit with which one speaks.
  Worst of all have been the constant disputes between the Governors and the Court of Policy, and the resulting stalemates. There is hardly a Governor, and I have personally known most of them since childhood, who has not had such disputes—going back from His Excellency the present Governor, Sir C. H. Rodwell, to Sir Graeme Thomson, Sir Wilfred Collett—I remember his having a dispute about rice; Sir Walter Egerton, who had a dispute about the local mail steamer contracts; dear old Sir Frederick Hodgson, who was, in his day, a very great man; Sir James Swettenham—I think he had frequent trials, I can remember one or two myself; Sir Augustus Hemming, Sir Walter Sendall, Sir Charles Lees, Sir C. J. Kortright and Lord Gormanston. There have been many others, if one could remember them all, and hardly one of them ever got through without one or two disputes with the Court of Policy.
  I belong to the well-abused plantocracy, and I have no false modesty in stating my belief that the prosperity of the Colony varies with the prosperity of sugar and depends upon it. As regards paragraph A5 in the Delegation's memorandum, and the references in the West Indian Royal Commission's Report and in the Snell-Wilson Report, it presumably does not occur to any of our critics that the sugar planter must be tolerably efficient if he is going to survive at all. At all events, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) may give me credit for having at once started to test his theory about the growing of ground nuts, so far, I am sorry to say, without success, but I am going on trying, and I hope to have a better report later. That is true of planters at all times. We
  1012
  cannot afford not to be up to date and not to try any possible crop which shows a prospect of success—any proposal either for a change in cultural methods or the growing of alternative crops, and our support of the Imperial Tropical Agricultural College in Trinidad is surely proof of that. We are not afraid of spending money in order to help things along. We are not afraid of trying new things. We want to try new things. It is our business to do so. In my time I have tried, and am still trying where there is any prospect of success, coffee, cocoa and rubber.
  An hon. Member opposite talked about restrictions on rubber. If he would like some rubber I will bring him some which I have grown myself. Other crops which I have tried include kola, fibres, nutmeg and spices and citrus fruits—in fact, anything that comes along, even cotton. I am sorry to say I cannot grow cotton at an economic price, though I can grow very good cotton. Therefore I think our critics might give us the credit for having ordinary commonsense and knowing something about our own business. A censorious critic, after I had refused to try some wild cat experiment, said of me once, that I had no public spirit and was merely competent. The West Indian planters who remain have survived Continental bounties and the closing of the United States market, and now that Imperial preference is an accomplished fact, and that we have a beet subsidy in this country, the shade of Sir Nevile Lubbock and others who ran the Anti-bounty League must sometimes smile down in the Elysian fields when they consider the present policy.
  We have reached the stage in the history of the Colony at which timid treatment is comparable to medical fiddling when a drastic surgical operation is really necessary to restore the patient's health. However much I may differ in detail from this and that statement in the Report, I whole-heartedly support its main recommendation to place the Colony under Crown Colony government. An old colonial gourmet once said that whoever ate labba—which is a succulent dish—and drank creek water would return to the Colony to die. Under that prophesy I am due to go back there and die in due course. Of course, I may not physically fulfil the requirements, but

  1013
  perhaps when Charon ferries me across the Styx and I meet my great grandfather, I shall be able to justify myself by saying to him with a clear conscience that I thoroughly support this proposal for giving a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Mr. SNELL: Perhaps the House will forgive me if I preface the few remarks I have to offer to-day with a personal word. My fellow Commissioner the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) is in no way responsible for any view or opinion which I may express to-day, and I should be very sorry to repay him for his unfailing courtesy and consideration by associating him in any way with views with which he may disagree. I do not think it would be useful for me to try to cover all the ground gone over in the Report which we had the honour of presenting to the Secretary of State. Our business this afternoon is to deal with the proposals regarding the constitution, and yet no one can understand the reason for the recommendation we made unless the whole problem of the Colony is taken into consideration. There is no key problem which unlocks all the rest. The problems of the Colony are so interlocked that the question has to be looked at as a whole. So far as I can find, it is agreed on all hands that some change in the constitution is required. The electives agree that such a chang is required, and it is agreed by everybody in the Colony not only that a change is desirable, hut that it cannot be delayed for long. What we have to consider is not a change that would conform to our ultimate political ideals, but one that would help us to overcome pressing difficulties at the present time. In the history of its constitution there has always been friction between what we may call the electives on one side and the Government on the other side, and no one is entitled to point to the present electives and say that they have themselves created these difficulties.
  In regard to the powers of the Crown, the emancipation of slaves, free trade at home, and things of that kind, the Colony pursued a deliberately selfish policy; indeed the reform of 1891 arose out of the action of the old order in refusing to vote the salaries of the sanitary authorities who were trying to improve health conditions on the sugar estates.
  1014
  Therefore, we must not assume that the troubles which are in existence at the present time in the Colony have been created by the present generation. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has already pointed out that the constitution of this Colony is unique in the British Constitution. It is rather cumbersome; it is not fair to the Government or to the people. No constitution which perpetually embarrasses a Government on the one hand, and on the other hand gives to the electives only the shadow and withholds the substance of government can be counted as proper and effective. The real question before the members of the Commission and before this House is, what shall be done in the way of a change which everybody desires having regard to opinion in the Colony which is, quite naturally, very sharply divided. One party desires that the Government should have increased power to carry out its policy in its own way. As opposed to that, another party desires that the powers of the Government should actually be reduced, and that extended powers should be given to the elected section of the community.
  The Combined Court has been accused of having frightened away capital, of having created industrial insecurity, and so on. On the other hand, the Government have been accused of being responsible for the difficulties that exist because they have been guilty of delay in granting concessions. They are also accused of muddling their estimates, and responsibility is thrown from one side to the other. The crisis which has arisen in British Guiana is not unique in the history of our Empire experience. It always happens that when a people grow up towards self-government they have aspirations for larger powers, and when the people concerned are white people, that crisis results in self-government such as has been given to the Dominion of Southern Rhodesia, and elsewhere. When you are dealing with a mixed or coloured population, you have a crisis such as that which exists to-day in India, Kenya, Ceylon and British Guiana. When a crisis of that kind arises, the philosophy of the Labour party and of myself is that we should try at all costs to secure the co-operation of the people affected. First of all, we should endeavour to secure good government for their

  1015
  country; and secondly, by a suitable adjustment of machinery to give to the people that training which will enable them, in due time, to have full and complete self-government.
  That may appear to be a contradiction of the recommendation which the Commission made to the Secretary of State. On the lines on which the Colony now finds itself there is no hope of progress, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman spoke correctly when he said that the Colony was in a cul de sac, and it is necessary to get it back into the main stream of British development. On the lines on which the Colony is now proceeding it cannot go much further, but if it is brought into the main stream of British development there is no reason at all why, within a comparatively short time, it should not have complete self-government. It is necessary in estimating the problem before us to make certain discounts. First of all, it is necessary to discount the vehemence of some of the criticisms of the elected members in their memorandum. On the other hand, it is necessary to discount some of the official criticisms of the elected members. These criticisms of elected members are common form throughout the Empire. Officials always have a rather poor opinion of the elected person, and if we could penetrate into the minds of Government Departments in our own country we should probably be shocked to find the low opinion they have of hon. Members of this House. Therefore, let us not be unfair to the elected members of the Colony. They may lack administrative experience and they may lack the wisdom that we think they should possess, but on the whole we may find in the development of the affairs of the Colony that their indigenous intuition will carry the Colony quite as far as expert administrative advice, which is often detached and only temporary.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies has described the financial position, and I only desire to deal with that question in a general way. First of all, allow me to say that had the Commissioners to write their Report again they would withdraw nothing that they have said. The only difference they would make would be to place additional
  1016
  emphasis on the financial criticisms they have made. The financial position of the Colony is the fault of nobody. It is not the fault of the electives or of the Government. It is the fault, first of all, of the political system under which the Colony is governed. In the second place, it is due to the unfavourable economic conditions. The Colony has been passing through a very difficult time. There has been a period of drought and depression in the sugar industry, and there had to be a great sea-wall built at a heavy cost. This was absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Colony, but it involved vast overhead charges which are too high for a population of 300,000 people to bear. These things have tended to create a financial crisis in the Colony.
  The question of the reserve power and the certification of the loans of the Colony under the Colonial Stock Acts has increased the difficulty. It is calculated that the Colony could not issue at the present time a loan under 6 per cent., but even the reserve power is not the only thing involved. The Customs and Tax Ordinances have to be introduced each year, and that creates a kind of insecurity which finds expression in the shyness of investors generally. Let me point out that the electives themselves appear to be quite willing to face the question of a reserve power in that respect. This is what they say:
  "They feel that it the Colony should be reduced to such a position that it could not meet its financial obligations, the Secretary of State for the Colonies might then be entitled to recommend a change in the Constitution, and only then."
  That means that the thing is to drift until a financial crisis arises, and then the British taxpayer is once more to relieve the people in that position. That is a matter upon which the House must make up its mind. Are you going to allow a Constitution of that kind to drift, or are you going to endeavour to find some means of preventing the worst from happening A good deal of emphasis has been placed upon the question of the reserve power and the evil that it was likely to effect. The Commissioners say:
  "It is a very rare occurrence indeed for the Government to be unsuccessful in matters of any importance whatever in securing a decision in its favour in the Combined Court."

  1017
  If it is a very rare occurrence that the Combined Court conies into conflict with the Government, it would be a still rarer occurrence when the reserve power granted would ever have to be used. I want to answer a criticism which has been made in regard to the position of the Commissioners. One criticism is that the sugar interests of the Colony, finding themselves defeated at the polls, seek to regain control through a gerrymandered Constitution, and therefore a Commission was appointed to do what was necessary in that direction. One of them especially was the blind and dutiful menial of the Government, on the one hand, and of the planters on the other. From what I have learned of the history of the sugarcrats of the Colony, let me say that I received no encouragement at all to replace power in their hands. In my judgment, they were in no small degree responsible for the position in which the Colony finds itself. They were interested only in the fertile strip of land on the coast; they were hostile, and to-day they remain indifferent, to the development of the interior an a whole. They did extraordinarily well. They consumed the profits of the fat years, and put nothing away for lean years. It was a great place for them in those days; sugar was not only sweet, but profitable. They thought of the Colony as Falstaff thought of Mistress Page:
  "She bears the purse, too; she is a region in Guiana, all gold and bounty."
  That was the old order. As between plantocracy and democracy, there is a great deal to be said for democracy, and I, therefore, want to put thin question before the House: If a change is inevitable, as is on all hands agreed, what shall that change be? That is what we have to decide. The members of the Commission received no instructions; they might have ignored the question altogether in the hope that the Colony would muddle through to some kind of renewed prosperity. But to ignore a problem is not to solve it, and no body, charged with the responsibility with which the Commissioners were charged, could ignore the expert advice that was put before them; they had to face the problem whether they would or no.
  Or, secondly, they might have suggested that the powers of the Govern-
  1018
  ment should be reduced, but there would in any case have been practical difficulties along those lines. It would most certainly have intensified such crisis as exists, and, if a Colony is to be handed over to a self-governing people, I should prefer it to be at a time when it was free from embarrassment, when we were not putting upon the people a load and a burden and a responsibility which they would be unable to bear. I hope that, in due course, the Colony will get self-government, but you could not hand over a Colony to the people in the condition in which it is now. I think that, in the circumstances, I might ask without offence, and I think that the House has a right to hear, precisely what critics would have recommended. Something has to be done; what shall it be? I had my own scheme, which, if necessary, I could have put forward, but,, like a good democrat, I felt that it was the right thing to refer the whole matter to the Colony itself to discuss. Our recommendation on that matter was quite specific. It said:
  "Whether ultimate control can best be exercised through the medium of the reserve power, or by securing control through the nominated members of the Combined Court, is a matter for discussion, which might be referred in the first instance for consideration to a strong local Commission appointed by the Governor. In view of the very special importance of this Commission, every effort should he made to enlist the assistance of the best brains of the Colony, and men with experience of other political systems as well as of local affairs."
  I preferred a nominated majority if it had to be, rather than reserve power, because I thought it would be less likely to bring his Excellency the Governor into conflict with the Colony, and, secondly, because I thought it would be more easily modified when the time for revision came. But let it be understood that the Electives themselves accept the reserve power if it is accompanied by some sort of help from the Government.
  On the question of the reserve power, may I say that I think it is an enormously serious thing to do what the House is asked to do to-day. I am not underrating it at all; it caused me the greatest personal anxiety; but I thought it right that the Colony should have the opportunity of examining the matter itself and seeing whether, by accommodation on both sides, an agreement could not be

  1019
  reached. The local report, however, seems to be, from my standpoint, a disappointment. The Electives would have done far better at my hands than they have done for themselves. This proposal of the local Commission abolishes the electoral financial control; it abolishes the very slight legislative check that exists; it creates a new executive power which, in some ways, is unique in British Colonies, and, although it is only to be used in cases of supreme importance, there is always a danger that it may be stretched to cover trivial things. The only set-off against what I think are serious proposals is the addition of nominated members, and that, again, will depend upon the quality of those members and what they actually represent.
  I do not know how the elected members who were on that Commission could have signed that document. It contains things that I never would have signed. I could not have signed on this question of reserve power without having a considerably extended franchise. I should have wanted a definite time limit in regard to the reserve power, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman now, is it not possible to meet the difficulty by saying that the question shall be reconsidered in the course of a few years—say five years, or whatever is a right period? Then there is the question of double security. I can understand, in the condition in which the Colony is placed, that the Government desire to have either the reserve power or a nominated majority, but I do not know why they want both. It seems to me, therefore, that their report does not meet the desire of the Colony to achieve some improvement, in the way that is likely to secure the best results. When these criticisms have been made, it does give to the Electives an entirely new status, and that should not be overlooked. It brings them on to the Executive Council of the Colony; it makes them statesmen rather than critics; it gives them powers of initiative, and, if I personally had to choose between that and the present undignified and irresponsible position in which they are now placed, I should prefer what is now offered.
  I wish to say again that I must not associate my fellow-Commissioner with my views on the matter about which I now propose to speak. Let me say to my own party that our Report never once
  1020
  goes outside the philosophy for which I have always stood, namely, that of State supremacy in regard to the land. If you read the Memorandum of the Electives, you see that, 50 times almost, it invites a capitalist invasion into the Colony, asking for concessions here and opportunities there for capitalistic development. It is, therefore, a question of what attitude we must take in regard to the natural wealth and resources of the Colony. It may be that these concessions have to be given, but, if they have to be given, they should be given by the Government, who could exact terms which would be equitable to the exploiters as well as to the Colony as a whole. Let me point out what happened in America. At the time of the Confederation, the State owned all the land between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and, with the addition of the Louisiana purchase, that amounted to 3,000,000 square miles. Every bit of that passed into private ownership; every land thief had his fill. The same thing, more or less, happened in Canada and Australia. British Guiana now represents one of the places where the land, in the main, still belongs to the State, and I personally want to feel that, as long as it can be, that land is kept as a heritage for the people themselves. Some day the people of the Colony, who are now putting all their emphasis on this theoretical question of the reserve power may wake up to find that their natural wealth, their natural heritage, has been grafted out of their possession.
  There is another point. We on this side of the House do not support self-government for Kenya at present, because we think that the natives are not able as yet to protect themselves as against the white settler. Neither do I think that the whole of the people of British Guiana are yet able to protect themselves against the inroads of the concession hunter and the economic invader. I ask the African people of that Colony, especially, to remember and to beware lest the slavery of yesterday is succeeded by the serfdom of to-morrow, as it will be if the lands and the forests and the minerals pass out of their hands. I want those things to be a free heritage for them from generation to generation. If the final power in that regard rests in the hands of the Secretary of State, he

  1021
  will be responsible to this House for what he does in regard to alienating that land from the people.
  I want to conclude by referring to a brighter side than this rather sad economic story. Personally, I found the people in the Colony immensely attractive, and I am sure I should have become very much attached to them if I had known them longer. All of them seemed to me to be attractive and nice people. The African, especially, is a joyous, docile, industrious and loyal citizen. He has acquired a certain serenity which we hate not acquired for ourselves. That is illustrated by what one of them said to a white man. He said, "Well boss, it's like this. The white man sits down and thinks about his troubles till he just goes and shoots himself. The black man sits down and thinks about his troubles till he just naturally falls asleep." He, therefore, has gained a serenity that is denied to us. The East Indian is fundamentally an agriculturist, a splendid colonist, and it is nothing short of a tragedy that India is unwilling to assist in helping her sons to go to British Guiana, where their economic conditions would be superior beyond all comparison to those which they enjoy at home. Then some criticism has been made of the Commissioners in regard to the question of the loyalty of the Colonists. Let me say that, so far as I know, no one has a right to say a word about the loyalty of these people. I found them proud of their Colony, proud of their partnership in the British Empire, and in every way they seemed to me to be a desirable set of colonists. In some ways they have got spiritual gains which are most marked. They have no trouble over racial divisions and, whether they are African or Asiatic, whether they are Chinese or Portuguese, whatever they are, they live together as one people, wanting merely the good of their Colony as they see it. That is the most important thing of all. With that as a basis to build upon, no one need despair of the Colony overcoming these present difficulties.
  I wish to say one word in regard to myself. I do not propose to reply to the stream of abuse that has been poured upon me from the Colony except in one matter which affects the Governor of the Colony and his staff. It was said that, in contradistinction to other Labour
  1022
  Members who had visited the Colony, I was forbidden to associate there with my own people and to make political speeches there. I received, I need hardly tell the House, no advice on the matter. I was charged with a very high and responsible duty, and I should have unfitted myself for the task if I had so forgotten myself as to make political speeches. The way of the constitution-maker is notoriously hard, and I do not know that anyone has a right to complain. It is work that no man would seek. It brings only the wages of reproach and repudiation. But if a man is called to that work, he is not from any motive of ease or discomfort entitled to decline it. The Commissioners were faced with a very heavy and responsible duty, and they had to look the facts straight in the face and to report, not as they would wish things to be according to their political ideals, but as they found them now—positions that had to be met. They were in a position in which they had a problem to face such as that which Browning deals with in "Bishop Blougram's Apology," Their problem was
  "Not. to fancy what were fair in life Provided it could be,—but, finding first What may be, then how to make it fair Up to our means: a very different thing"!
  I am sure the House as a whole will believe that the Commissioners, free, unguided, uncoerced, brought to their high task their highest powers, and when the Colony has turned this difficult period in her history, and she is marching on the free highway towards prosperity and self-government, I, far one, shall not be ashamed to have been associated with the beginning of her new and fuller life.
  Mr. HURD: As I happen to have just returned from British Guiana on an all too short visit, perhaps the House will allow me to give a few impressions I brought back as far as they bear upon this Bill. I am sure in all sections of the House we listened with the deepest interest to the speech that has just been delivered. Its tone and its calm judicial understanding and sympathetic character must, I am sure, have dispelled any fears we may have had when the hon. Member rose to his feet. It is a happy illustration of the tendency of these Empire matters to move out of the range of ordinary party controversy. We owe

  1023
  that in no small measure to the great degree in which hon. Members are now travelling oversea and also to the fact that, whatever their political complexion here, they find when they reach those oversea countries and forget their party divisions here, that they are received with a welcome and a cordiality which is often embarrassing and very surprising. That was my fortune in British Guiana, and I gather it was also the good fortune of my two hon. Friends who formed this Commission. I did not go there with any direct personal interest in the Colony or any of its industries. I went there, as many other Members have gone to other parts of the Empire, as an independent Member of Parliament, keenly sympathetic and anxious to observe and to learn. I am bound to say, looking at it from that point of view, I share the regret expressed from the Front Opposition Bench that these important documents were not put before the House at a period when they could be given more detailed consideration. They cover a very wide range of subjects, and I am sure it must have been through some misadventure, and not by deliberate intention, that the House did not have the documents at an earlier period.
  But, after all, this it not a new story. It is a very old story, and the main points of that story have been before those who have taken part in Empire discussions for very many years. The only way of solution has been pretty clear for some time, and therefore, although these documents are only now put before the House in detail, the main facts of the problem have been before the public for a great many years. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that this is a very serious step that Parliament is asked to take. We pride ourselves upon the development of the British Empire from precedent to precedent, moving nearly always on lines of greater freedom but always on the basis of proved capacity for self-government. It is, as we know, a most difficult thing to govern oneself. It is a far more difficult thing for a community to govern itself. We have talked a great deal in the past decade about self-determination, but we have learned something about the limitations of self-determination, and I feel myself that British Guiana is an illus-
  1024
  tration of those limitations. I know there is a contention, which you find in these official documents put forward by the elected members, that British Guiana in this matter of self-government stands apart. We are asked to remember that British Guiana is a sovereign State. That phrase is actually used by one of the elected members. We are reminded that it was not conquered, like Canada, nor settled, like Australia, and one elected member who has taken a prominent part in the discussion has gone so far as to suggest that the Secretary of State could, if he wished, deprive Canada or Australia of its constitution, but my right hon. Friend knows enough of the movement of opinion and the status of the Dominions to-day not to anticipate any proposal of that sort. He says, while that could possibly be done, you could not deprive British Guiana of its constitution except by reconquest or consent.
  I will not attempt to get into the rarefied air of Constitution niceties, but I would beg the House to ask itself what is the good of a Constitution if it does not work? The plain truth of the matter is that this Constitution in British Guiana does not work. It is not fitted to modern conditions, or to the needs of development with which the Colony is immediately faced. My hon. Friend has referred to the long drawn-out character of these difficulties. If you go back to 1848 you will find much the same happenings, much the same refusal of supplies and the same deadlock as you find to-day. All through this period you have had this fact, that the elected members have control in effect without responsibility, while the Government have responsibility without control, and the result has been what one elected member has called a bewildering and kaleidoscopic state of things. In 35 years there have been 17 administrators. How can a man who is trying to lead the Colony into effective economic administration help being discouraged in the face of a deadlock of that kind? It is said in this book, "It is our own little mess out here. Let us clear it up ourselves." But the point of the problem is that it has not been cleared up, and it gets worse. The debt is unliquidated. There are abundant openings on every hand, but there is no security for new capital or enterprise to develop the resources of the Colony. Political freedom

  1025
  is futile if it means merely a freedom to make a mess of things or to stand in the way of progress.
  I suppose this Empire has never known a more liberalising statesman than Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was Prime Minister of Canada. I had an intimate talk with him on the first visit he paid to this country in 1897, when the South African trouble was piling up to the climax that came with the South African War. In the course of conversation I sought to ascertain what his view was of President Kruger's attitude in standing in the way, as I thought, of progress in South Africa. I said, he is claiming the rights of self-government; he is claiming the power of his people to manage their own country as they please. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stopped me and said, "That is not the true point of view. No man, whatever his position, and no Constitution have a right to stand in the way of the proper development of a country's resources."
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is "proper development"?
  Mr. HURD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he would know that his idea of development was not an undemocratic one. Later on, when the trouble came, we know what part Canadian troops took in giving South Africa the first step in the freedom she now happily enjoys.
  I have tried to look at this question independently, and I am bound to say I see no better way than this Bill. I regret it. I wish some other way had been possible, but I think no other way is available, and the sooner this Bill is passed and the Colony can go forward to its task of development, the better it will be all round. I am not going to say there are no risks. I think there are risks. I am not going to say the, Colonial Office, in its administration, is always wise. No one is always wise in this world. In fact I have found out that the Colonial Office is not always loved. I suppose that would be true of many of the Colonies of the British Empire. In fact, a delegation came to me in British Guiana, and asked me, knowing that I had some associations with Canada, whether I thought there was any prospect of British Guiana being brought within that Dominion so as to escape the constant, watchful eye of Downing Street.
  1026
  I discussed the matter with them, and pointed out the difficulties in the way of a solution of that kind. Canada has always prided herself upon a freedom from the colour problem. Furthermore, there could not be any special arrangement between Canada and British Guiana which did not also remember the existence of Jamaica and Trinidad, but I pointed out, "If you get rid of your constitutional difficulties, if you give security to capital you may look forward to the introduction of Canadian capital and Canadian enterprise to assist you in the development of the undoubtedly great resources that you possess."
  6.0 p.m.
  One hon. Gentleman has spoken of the degradation of descending to Crown Colony government. I would ask him to remember that in the British Empire there are a great variety of Crown Colony governments. I see, for instance, that the Acting-Governor of British Guiana when discussing the matter with the elected members pointed out to them that it might be the idea of those in power that 50 per cent. Crown Colony government was not quite enough, but that possibly 75 per cent. or something of that sort would suit the case. It would be very interesting if the Secretary of State could tell us what he himself has in his mind, following upon this Bill. in the way of the legislature that this Colony is to possess. I think Members of the House, when they come to reflect, will agree with me that control, and the power to carry into effect Measures essential to the welfare of the Colony are essential. The future will largely depend upon the character of the nominated men who are chosen under ally new constitution.
  I hope that means may he found of bringing into the legislative life of the Colony business men who are not there now, men who have ripe experience, who are public-spirited and who desire to serve. They will not serve under present conditions. I know the difficulty arises at once: Are they to be official members? These men of character and experience will not go upon any legislafive body if they have to run the gamut of elections under any such conditions as we now see, and have to be labelled official members. I think it would be most desirable if means could be found

  1027
  to secure on this new legislative body representatives of the best business interests of the Colony, as nominated members certainly, but not as official members. The hon. Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) who spoke from the front Opposition bench seemed to fear that this was a step down, and not a step up. I have no doubt that he has watched the progress which the Secretary of State for the Dominions has just made through the Empire, and I would ask him if he has not noticed that wherever the Secretary of State has gone he has always spoken and acted in this sense, namely, that the British Empire is doing its best work in the world when it is continually moving along the path of more self-government where capacity is shown.
  Mr. AMMON: That is the whole case.
  Mr. HURD: The whole point, therefore, between the two Front benches is this: Is it possible to leave things as they are? Obviously, it is not. Is this the best way to get British Guiana on the road to self-government? I believe it is. I believe it is a thorny and a very difficult path, but I think that British Guiana will best traverse it if it follows the line suggested in this Bill. The opening for new development is obvious to anyone who goes there. I hope that this Government before leaving office, and following on this new constitution in British Guiana, will be able to put new heart into the Colony. I would like to see, for instance, the main product of the Colony, sugar, put upon the free list as far as this country is concerned. If we had only Free Trade in sugar within the British Empire, this constitution would give British Guiana means and chances of development beyond anything the past has known, and we should, at the same time, have served the interests of the British consumer by giving cheaper sugar.
  Reference has been made to the question of coolie labour. We have had the appointment by this House of the Simon Commission, with a distinguished Member of this House as Chairman. In the course of that Commission's inquiry they may look upon the labour problem from the Indian point of view. I am hopeful that an opportunity may be
  1028
  given to British Guiana to put evidence before the Commission of the openings for Indian labour which British Guiana offers far beyond anything that is available to those people in their own country of India. I hope that the Secretary of State will not fail to take the opportunity of suggesting to British Guiana that it should put before that Commission evidence of the wisdom of such action, and the fair terms that Colony is prepared to offer when such emigrants have reached that country. The real solution is, in all these matters, that we should have a little more business and a little less politics. Let us have a good deal more good will on the part of all parties concerned.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the fact that the real solution is more business and less politics. I have had a long experience of this House, and I have often found that the word "business" is not only very closely associated with politics but that it is the only politics which a number of people have. The hon. Member seemed to he more concerned not about the interests of the community in British Guiana but about the interests of capital.
  Mr. HURD: Not at all.
  Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry if, in giving expression to the impression made on me, I have done an injustice to the hon. Member, but I would remind him that more than once he referred to the fact that there would be more security for capital, and that he ended with a request for more business and less politics. I think he even went so far as to suggest a change in the financial relations between various parts of the Empire and this particular Colony.
  It seems to me, that before this Bill is passed we are entitled to ask the Government to give us an outline as to what is intended to be done. May I also, before I go any further, point out one other difficulty? I am rather amazed that the third proposal in the first Subsection of Clause I should be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have been taught for years, both on platforms and in the House of Commons, to what a terrible danger we are going to expose this country if a Labour

  1029
  Government are returned to power. I find that the third proposal of the Government, which is contained in this Sub-section, reads:
  "There shall be reserved to or conferred on His Majesty full power by Order in Council from time to time to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Colony of British Guiana."
  What is going to happen if a Socialist Government be in power in this country? Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is prepared to face that dire calamity and to see a Labour Government on the Benches opposite legislating without the consent of the locality, without the consent of the legislature in British Guiana, and making laws for the control, order, and good government of the country? That is what he is really proposing himself. An hon. Member who spoke from above the Gangway a short them ago referred, in particular, to the question of the land. He pointed out that the land at the present moment in the Colony belongs to the Government. He was particularly anxious, he said, that under this new scheme it should not be handed over to capitalists. But in the scheme proposed by the Government, if a Socialist Government—and I am not using the word as it is always used from the other side, because I do not think it, is quite a fair term—come into power, the result will be that the whole control of the capital invested in the land will be vested in the Secretary for the Colonies.
  It seems to me that we are also entitled to draw attention to other matters. It is proposed to
  "create and constitute in substitution for the existing Legislature, a Legislature for the Colony of British Guiana in such form and with such powers as His Majesty in Council may determine, and from time to time to alter and amend the constitution of the Legislature and any powers thereof."
  What is the position? The first position is that by Order in Council you can substitute another legislature for the existing one of which we have no details and no information. Secondly, you can by a mere Order in Council, which is to be placed on the Table for 40 days or so, amend or alter it. But the third power which the Government are keeping for themselves, as I said, is to make whatever laws for peace, order, and good government they may, in their wisdom decide. I protest to the House that it
  1030
  is not dealing quite fairly with the Colony and in accordance with the traditions of this House. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) referred to the colonists—I do not want to give offence, particularly when he is not listening—as almost incapable of government. Is not the serious trouble we have in India, and is not the serious trouble we have had in various Colonies due to the adoption of an attitude of superiority in regard to the people? Is it quite clear that, apart from what is called business, this country lacks intelligence, decision, and judgment in its own affairs? An eminent politician within the last 20 years said that a bad Government by the people themselves is very much better than a good Government by an outside body. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he is considering the Government of a Colony constituted of 300,000 people, with a town, Georgetown, containing a population of no fewer than 56,000 people, he really should pay some respect not to the men concerned with making money in that country—they are not the people whose interest should have first consideration—his first consideration, I submit, should be the natives of that country, the people who have inherited the creed, the position, and the ideas of the Colony itself.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not prepared to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) on the question as to whether it was possible to continue the present Constitution of British Guiana. He has been there. I have enormous confidence in him, and he may be right. But the question before us to-night is not the Report of the Commission on British Guiana, or the question of whether the Constitution which has been in operation for 100 years ought to be changed. The question before us to-night is what is the new Constitution going to be? On that we have had singularly little light. We have had the Report of the Committee that was appointed in British Guiana, and we do not yet know how far the Secretary of State for the Colonies considers himself bound to implement every one of those conditions.
  Mr. AMERY: I thought I had been quite clear that the Order in Council will be based throughout on the recommendations of the local men to carry out their main scheme.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very sorry to hear that. I was not certain that the right hon. Gentleman got as far as that, because it seems to me that he is abdicating the duty of which the Colonial Office has always taken charge in the past, the duty of bringing to bear upon this problem the ripe experience they have had in other Crown Colonies in the world. They have left it to a Local Commission in British Guiana to decide upon the new Constitution for Guiana and they have not considered what has been done in other Crown Colonies, from which they might learn that there are better methods than are proposed in the Report for combining efficiency with democracy. I only refer the Under-Secretary to an example which he knows as well as I do, if not better, and that is the case of Ceylon. The Ceylon Constitution is certainly infinitely more liberal than the Constitution now proposed for British Guiana, and infinitely more democratic, and yet there the Governor is able to carry on on sound lines in close proximity to the different and difficult Indian problems. The new Constitution which was granted there three years ago has worked with surprising success, when you consider the neighbouring associations of the larger continent of India.
  The Constitution which is now proposed is infinitely bad. I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the terms laid down. True, the Constitution avoids the risk of communal representation. I am glad to see that that is one mistake which has been avoided but the narrowness of the franchise and the smallness of the legislative body are vices which both right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well have proved to be mistakes in other Colonies, and should have been avoided here. Fourteen elected representatives is a number far too small. It prevents any contact between the representative and his constituents. The constituencies have to be much too large. The electorate as a whole is an electorate limited by property qualification, which rules out three-fourths or nine-tenths of the inhabitants. There are uniquely in the British Empire property qualifications for the people who are elected. Not everybody who has a vote is entitled to be elected, and in every ease they must have property qualifica-
  1032
  tions. We wiped that out in this country nearly 100 years ago. In no other Crown Colony do you find anything of the sort, but here in British Guiana, in 1928, this principle is adopted.
  With regard to the reserved powers, the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Snell) was perfectly clear and accurate. Everyone knows that you must have either one or the other, but why both? Either have a nominated majority with-out reserved powers, or as in Ceylon have an elected majority with reserved powers. Why have both? The real reason why I shall go into the Lobby against this Constitution to-night with perfect confidence, is because of the speech of the hon. Mernber for Devizes (Mr. Hurd). He let the cat out of the bag. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich was speaking I was very nearly converted to thinking that possibly we might trust the Government. It was in order to protect the aborigines and the poor workers who have no votes from exploitation that he was going to preserve the right of the Colonial Office to govern this country and not to allow the rich or middle-class planters and others in British Guiana to exploit them. There is a great deal to be said for that point of view, and I hope the Government will learn in regard to British Guiana something about similar sensible reforms in Kenya. We know that it is not possible really to preserve State domains when they contain diamonds, even by handing over the control to a governor. Diamonds, alluvial diamonds, seem to have a sort of mysterious attraction for ex-Governors. I do not know whether we are particularly unfortunate in our ex-Governors or in our Colonies which contain diamonds, but when we are to entrust these things to somebody we must be quite certain that we are trusting the people who can be controlled. I would like to know whether the Colonial Office, in view of what has happened recently, think of preventing Governors when they retire from office from exploiting diamond fields.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): How does the hon. and gallant Member connect this argument with the proposed grant of a new Constitution to British Guiana?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I connect it, with the Colonial Office.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must speak to the Question of the Bill before the House.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will try to make it a little clearer. The question is whether we are to trust the somewhat rough diamond of democracy in British Guiana to protect the interests of the aborigines and to preserve the assets of the State in British Guiana, or whether we are to trust the Colonial Office. We must learn in these matters from experience in other Colonies, and, unfortunately, we are at this moment considering how certain ex-officials of the West Coast Colonies in Africa—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising controversial matter which is not within the scope of this Bill.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a question which we have to consider in connection with this Bill, because this Bill puts into the hands of the Governor, and the Governor alone, of British Guiana the power to govern that Colony. It is taken by this Bill out of the hands of the electorate. They may have been a poor electorate; they may have been a corrupt electorate, but this Bill puts the power absolutely in the hands of the Governor. The Colonial Office will require to watch that very particularly, in view of the speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Devizes, because he said that so long as the Colony goes on as it is at the present time, we shall never get capital invested in that country for the exploitation of its natural wealth. Under the new change we are to get capital invested for the exploitation of the undeveloped wealth of British Guiana. I think we should have more confidence in the change if we could see a change of policy at the Colonial Office as regards the development and the exploitation of wealth and the people who exploit that wealth. Will they preserve the rights of the State over the land, or are they going to give concessions of vast areas for all time to any body of capitalists who manage to get in first? Are we going to have the experience of Kenya repeated and to find these vast areas given away to people on the ground floor who afterwards dispose of them at enormously enhanced prices to other people? Are we going to have a change of heart at the Colonial Office, when under this Bill
  1034
  they are going to increase the power of the Governor in the Colony? I hope that the Colonial Office, who take the same view as myself on these problems, will have the strength of mind to stand up to the exploiters and the concession hunters and to preserve for the State the natural wealth of British Guiana.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: The Bill before the House is, as the Secretary of State said, the direct result of the Report of the British Guiana Commission, of which I had the honour to be the Chairman. Before I attempt to give my reasons in support of those so ably put forward by my colleague, I should like to make three personal observations. First of all, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his warm commendation of the services rendered by my colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and myself, in what was a very interesting and engrossing task. I should like also to thank the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) for his graceful reference to the Report as it stands and, lastly, I should like to sound a personal note about my colleague on the Commission. Nobody could have had a more capable courageous or more excellent colleague than I had in my work on the Commission, and I should like to remind the House of this fact, and it is my duty to do so, that during part of the time we were in British Guiana when I was ill the whole work of the Commission had to be carried on the shoulders of my colleague. During my absence when my colleague had to undertake this work himself he carried it out on exactly the same lines that we had laid down at the outset, and with a capacity, diligence and assiduity which I greatly admired.
  I want to explain the reasons which prompted me to make what I have always regarded as a far reaching and grave recommendation in the Report, namely, a change of Constitution in this ancient Colony. The Secretary of State has told the House the terms of reference to the Commission. I do not propose to read those terms but to refer to them shortly. We were asked to go out to the Colony and try to find out what was the matter with it and what recommendations we could bring forward to improve the commercial and economic develop-

  1035
  ment of this far distant part of the British Empire. It has been said in this Debate that the change which is recommended in the Constitution of the Colony is a retrograde step. I certainly do not regard it in that light. I regard it as a necessary change if the Colony is to keep on the high road of what I would call really successful and prosperous government through the broad avenue of Crown Colony government, until she reaches ultimately, as I hope she will, the time when a fuller measure of self government can be afforded to her.
  The Colony first came into our possession in the year 1796, when we seized it from the Dutch. Finally it came into the possession of Great Britain in 1814, and it is a remarkable fact, and one which the House should remember, that ever since 1836 this Colony has not been successful. It has, in fact, been the one Colony in the British Empire which Las not shown that development or progress which all of us who look with pride on the British Empire would desire to see. It should be remembered that we inherited with this Colony its cumbersome legislature. Nearly the whole of the population of the Colony, 300,000 people, live on its fertile coastline and many hundreds of thousands of pounds have had to be spent in the past on drainage and irrigation. Some 87 per cent. of the total area of the Colony—some 78,000 square miles in all—consists of dense virgin forests. Only about twelve months ago was the first survey made of that wonderful forest area. That first survey, which was over an area of 650 square miles, disclosed the fact that in this dense forest area 31 per cent. of the timber was green heart which, as I think the House knows, is one of the most valuable and the most difficult to obtain of the hard timbers in the world.
  What was the first thing that struck us as a Commission when we began to look into the affairs of this backward and undeveloped Colony? The first thing we examined was the Colony's financial position. If to-night I go over again some of the ground in regard to the financial position of the Colony, I hope the House will forgive me, because it is important that we should get clearly into our minds not only what is the financial
  1036
  position to-day but what its past record has been and what is the outlook for the future if the Colony remains as it is. When we examined the financial position in November, 1926, we found that over the seven years, from 1921 until 1927, there had been successive deficits in the Colony's Budgets, with the exception of the year 1923 when there was a small surplus of about £33,000; and that at the end of 1927 the total deficits for those seven years amounted to no less than £682,000. The Secretary of State has told the House that the funded debt of the Colony and its temporary indebtedness is extremely heavy.
  In our Report we pointed out that the total funded and unfunded Debt amounts to a sum of £4,300,000, and that, is an extremely heavy load per head on this small population. The facts are that the money which has been spent on the development up to now of the Colony, would have been justified if there had been four or five times the population in British Guiana that there has been for the last 50 years. They have, in short, arrived at a stage in their development worthy of a Colony with a much larger population and more capable of bearing the very heavy expenditure of public debt with which the Colony is faced. Another important factor to remember is this: the Colony has no reserve fund. She has disposed of her surplus fund and her reserve fund. They were applied last year to the Colony's indebtedness, and the position which was reported in the autumn of 1926 has gone steadily worse.
  The position to-day is that the ascertained deficit for the single year 1927 is no less than £230,000, and £80,000 is the estimated deficit for the current year 1928. Not only is that the position but the most serious aspect of the Colony's financial state is that it is actually borrowing by ways and means advances from the Crown Agents of the Colonies to meet its ordinary current commitments, which the Colony should be able to provide out of revenue. Instead supplies are being borrowed to-day from the Crown Agents to the Colonies, and when we were there in 1926, we found that the total sum owing by the Colony to the Crown Agents on ways and means advances, purely temporary advances. was £1,200,000. To-day it has increased to £1,360,000 and

  1037
  the House will see that the financial position is steadily getting worse. In our Report we say this:
  "The first duty of the Government of this colony is to balance expenditure and revenue, to establish and adhere to a sound, consistent financial policy, and so to frame estimates each year as to provide a surplus for building up a reserve fund."
  I am certain that every Member of the House who has read the Report and our remarks on the finances of the Colony, will agree that we have not laid down anything which is particularly new from a financial standpoint. These are elementary principles of finance but, unfortunately, the Colony has never adhered to them. There has never been in the whole history of British Guiana a sound and stable financial policy for the simple reason that the Government have never had control in their hands in order to establish that policy or see that it was adhered it. Let me briefly explain the position to-day in regard to the legislature. There are two bodies, the Court of Policy and the Combined Court, and I want to remind the House of the actual procedure when the financial affairs of the Colony come before the legislature, such as it is. The Court of Policy is a body where the Government have a majority of one, and has the power to legislate in all matters not fiscal; but the Combined Court, which consists of the members of the Court of Policy with six more elected members, who are called financial representatives, is the body in whose hands is vested the control, real and actual, of the Colony's finances.
  On that body, the Combined Court, the position to-day is that when financial matters are discussed the Government's representatives number seven and there are 14 elected representatives of the people. The Government, therefore, are in a minority of two to one. The Secretary of State has reminded the House that 83 per cent. of the whole revenue of the Colony is collected under Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance, and in this Colony we have this remarkable position, that these Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance are brought in each year. In every Crown Colony with which I have had any intimate association the exact reverse is the case; Customs Duties Ordinance and Tax Ordinance are brought in permanently. They are brought up for review each
  1038
  year, and at times they may be amended, but there is a security to the mercantile community which you cannot get in British Guiana.
  The Combined Court has another power linked up with finance, which has not been mentioned to-day, and it is this, that, apart from certain Government officials, whose salaries are guaranteed in British Guiana for a period of five years, there is no legislative provision at all for the payment of the salaries of civil servants in British Guiana; and I put this question to the House: How can any man go out to a Colony like British Guiana, make the sacrifices which Government officials have to make in leaving home in order to serve the Empire in these distant place, give of their best and devote all their abilities to the job which they have undertaken, when they know perfectly well that the elected members of the Combined Court in British Guiana can strike off or reduce the salary of any officer not on the civil list?? Their position cannot be guaranteed, and they have to live from day to day in the hope that their position will be made secure. It is an impossible position and one which I cannot visualise any man of ability taking up. It is one of the reasons why, perhaps, British Guiana has only been able to attract to the lower ranks of its Civil Service not the best men available for the duties.
  Now take the procedure in regard to the financial estimates of each year in British Guiana. The Government prepare the estimates of expenditure each year, and these estimates are submitted and discussed at the Combined Court. After they have been passed, the Governor withdraws, and the Combined Court resolves itself into a committee of ways and means to consider the Government's proposals for raising revenue for the year. This committee of ways and means has a majority of two against one in favour of the Government, and it must be remembered that they can accept, amend or reject any of the Government's most carefully thought out proposals for raising revenue without giving a moment's notice of their intention to do so. The only thing they cannot do is to increase any item in the annual estimates presented by the Government. The important point to

  1039
  remember is this: that as the financial position stands to-day, this Combined Court can, if it chooses—I do not say that it would do so—stop the provisions for the interest and sinking fund on the Colony's loans.
  I should like to say to the hon. Member for North Camberwell that this is the reason why the Secretary of State cannot agree to the classification of the loans of British Guiana under the Colonial Stocks Act; it is because the Government of the Colony has not the power to provide for the interest and sinking fund on its own debt. It is not a question of guaranteeing the sinking fund in British Guiana. We do not guarantee the position in Australia in connection with any of the State loans, or the loans in the Crown Colonies, because they are masters in their own financial houses and can provide the interest and sinking fund on their own loans and loan obligations. This is a point which I want the House to remember. It has been said that the Combined Court is never likely to override the Government in any material matters, but I must tell the House this, that within the last month the elected members of the Combined Court, knowing well that this Bill was coming before the House of Commons, have thrown out the Government's Estimates for the year 1928. The Government, after careful thought, brought in recommendations last month for raising revenue for the year 1928 by means of an Income Tax, a graduated tax, and this was thrown out by the elected members of the Combined Court. The position in the Colony at the present moment, so far as the revenue for 1928 is concerned, is in a state of chaos.
  The position from the financial point of view is in my judgment absolutely impossible. It has been the cause, I am convinced, of the backward position of this Colony in the past, and I would remind hon. Members who say that this is a retrograde step that there can be no retrograde step when British Guiana has had an opportunity for the last 120 years of working under this constitution. She has not been as successful as her well-wishers desire and it is high time that there was a change in this ancient constitution. Briefly, let me tell the
  1040
  House the rest of the recommendations we made in our Report. We urged the necessity of an enlightened policy of drainage and irrigation along the fertile and inhabited coastal area; that new industries, agricultural and mineral, should be assisted and encouraged, that the Public Health Department should be reformed and strengthened with the object of improving sanitation and stamping out preventable disease, that education should be thoroughly overhauled and reformed on the lines suggested by the Education Commission which visited the Colony in 1924, and that the interior should be opened up by railway construction with all possible speed, so that its vast and rich forest area might be exploited and developed. The much-needed population required in British Guiana—to-day there are only 300,000 souls in the Colony, which is the size of Great Britain—can, I think, be obtained by fostering and encouraging a properly-balanced scheme of immigration from the West Indies.
  But this is the important thing to remember. All these recommendations depend for their fulfilment on the financial position. These things are urgent, but I want to assure the House that grave as is the financial position, I am perfectly certain it is not hopeless, and if British Guiana sets about putting her house in order, with the aid of the Secretary of State, the position can be improved. She has reached a stage in her development when she is ripe for exploitation in its best sense. I assure the House that the hon. Member for East Woolwich and myself have no desire to see any of the land given to any private person. We never advocated that in our Report, but the whole Colony to-day is ripe for development, and it can only be carried out if this constitution is altered and the Government are made masters in their own financial house. I am sure the House will agree that under any political system it is absolutely essential that a Government should have the power to govern. That is what we want in British Guiana.
  May I make a brief reference to the Memorandum which was placed in the hands of hon. Members last night and regarding which my right hon. Friend remarked that either my colleague or

  1041
  myself might have something to say. This is a long Memorandum of 67 pages which was sent to England about two months ago by the elected members of the Combined Court and it is signed by every one of them. It contains accusations against our Commission. It states that we grossly misstated certain facts and distorted others. It attacks the Secretary of State, the Crown Agents and the contractors. In our letter to the Secretary of State, sending our comments upon this Memorandum, we said we were not concerned with the attacks on the Crown Agents, on the Secretary of State or on the contractors, but we were concerned very much with the attacks upon ourselves and on the report. This Memorandum contains every one of the alleged misstatements of the British Guiana Commission with our comments upon them, and I am certain that any hon. Member who reads those comments will be entirely satisfied that we made no misstatements, that the allegations against us of distortion of the facts are utterly untrue, and that we have quite a complete answer to this Memorandum. Before passing from it, may I call the attention of the House to this remarkable fact. This Memorandum, compiled and prepared, no doubt, with much study, by members of the Combined Court, contains some of the most amazing inaccuracies which I have ever found in any responsible document.
  I am sure the House will hardly realise that the 14 gentlemen who have signed this Report—the elected members of the Combined Court who claim to have the right and the capacity to-day to govern—do not even know the revenue of their own Colony. They have given the revenue as £1,950,000, but I can assure the House that it has never touched £1,200,000 during the last eight years of its history. I need not do more than refer to the fact that the population of Queensland is given as 322,000, while every schoolboy knows that it is nearly 900,000, but the Memorandum is full of inaccuracies. It should be studied with care. It is an interesting document, if only as showing the mentality of the people who compiled it, but I ask the House to reserve judgment on the figures given in this document. I have had to go very sketchily and hurriedly over the financial position and the report of our Commission but, for all the reasons I have attempted to
  1042
  give, I hope the House to-night will give a Second Reading to the Bill. British Guiana, as has been said by various Members to-night, is in a cul de sac. But perplexing and difficult as are the problems, financial and economic, with which she is faced, I, for one, firmly believe that if we can only enable her to get on to that path which will give the Government control over its own finance we need not despair of the future. Indeed, I would go further and say that in those circumstances, I believe at no distant date we shall see this backward, undeveloped colony marching steadily upon that road of progress and development which we all desire to find for her and which will lead her eventually, through a gradual process, to a large measure of self-government and to a state of peace and prosperity far beyond the dreams of any of her inhabitants to-day.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I would not have taken part in this discussion but for the fact that during the past three years I have had considerable correspondence and personal intercourse with men representing the people of British Guiana, and they are all, without exception, opposed to the proposal which the Secretary of State has put forward. Before saying anything further, I wish to join in the protest against the fact that we were only able to obtain copies of this document to-day. No one can properly discuss this question without studying all the documents issued by the Colonial Office, and I think most of us have been too busy to read them in the time which has been available. I should also like to say at the outset, that I regret very much that the two Commissioners should have treated this Debate as if those of us who oppose the view of the Secretary of State were sitting in judgment on them, or were desirous of censuring them directly or indirectly for anything they have said in their Report. I should be the last, with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) to call in question his bona fides and I have not, nor has any one of us, a shred of sympathy with the statements made about them. I have received myself most abusive letters in reference to both Commissioners but, instead of replying to those letters, I have handed them to my hon. Friend. But the position in which we find ourselves is this. We are

  1043
  told the Colony is in a difficult position, but from the speeches to-night I have not gathered that there is any charge of corruption against the people who have had the management of the Colony's affairs. Neither have I heard anything to-night which would lend countenance to the view that people who lend money to this Colony are not likely to be repaid, or that there is likely to be some default on the part of the representative people of the Colony. I know they are in debt and that at present they are not paying their way. I also know that if the Governor gets this reserve power and uses it, he will be using it perhaps to guarantee some loan and it is held, I understand, that his guarantee will be of more worth than the ordinary guarantee of the legislative council or Government of the Colony.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The point is this. The Colony can borrow in the open market on any constitution, but the loan could not be a trustee security under our Trustee Act unless the Secretary of State for the Colonies was in a position to secure the services of that debt or unless the Colony had full responsible self-government like a Dominion. That is our Colonial Stocks Act, and if they could borrow under the Colonial Stocks Act, they could borrow I per cent. cheaper than they could conveniently do it in the open market without that guarantee.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that was the case.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not a question of default; it is only a question of the trustee security.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I know that, and if we are agreed about that point I cannot understand why the Colonial Office or the Treasury cannot accept the Colony's own guarantee without this reserve power being given to the Governor. If there is no question of default then why make this proposal? You can only want to call in someone with a reserve power because you are afraid that these people will not pay of their own volition. You are showing towards them an attitude of mind which assumes that, if they borrow money, they may not repay it, but that when the Governor gives his sanction
  1044
  that is a sort of guarantee which will enable them to borrow I per cent. cheaper than they could borrow otherwise. Under the Colonial Stocks Act, if a Colony agrees to the Treasury conditions then the stock can be put on the market and get the best terms. It says:
  "Any Colonial stock with respect to which there have been observed such conditions, if any, as the Treasury may by order, etc., prescribe."
  As I understand it, the Treasury do prescribe certain orders, and the point I make is that the people who have had control of this Colony have not up to the present defaulted, and no question of corruption arises in regard to that. Therefore, I want to be told why it is necessary now to call m this new power of the Governor. What has arisen to make it necessary? So far in this discussion I have not heard from the Secretary of State or from anyone else any reason why that should be done. On the question of indebtedness, it is very easy for anyone to criticise this Colony, but I expect, if we knew all the history, we should discover that a great deal of this indebtedness was due to natural causes over which nobody could have any control. All who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division (Mr. Tinne) must have been riot only interested but instructed, and he was able to tell us from his own knowledge of the enormous sums of money lost in trying to carry out public improvements which nature, and nothing else, had broken down. Consequently, when we are considering this cul de sac, as it has been termed, and when we are discussing the financial liabilities of this Colony and inferentially assuming that it is not fit to continue as a self-governing entity, we ought to remember that portion of the gigantic debt—gigantic for a Colony of that size—is due to causes which the most enlightened administrator would probably not have been able to foresee or prevent. When we come to the question of the people who have said that they do not object to the proposal, I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite fair. I am not making any charge against him about it, but Mr. Woolford who issued a separate Memorandum in regard to the Report is, I understand, one who may be called a representative of the colonists, though not official and not associated with the Government, and he definitely

  1045
  says that he signed the Report with reservations. He says:
  "When invited by the Governor to serve on the Commission I then indicated that, while I was most ready and willing to do so, I did not approve of the terms of reference as settled by the Secretary of State—restricted as they were—nor did I consider that any real necessity had arisen for recommending the changes in the constitution suggested by him in his despatch.
  7.0. p.m.
  I cannot help being opposed to the very drastic changes in our constitution foreshadowed by him, and cannot conscientiously agree to any limitation or curtailment of any of the Constitutional privileges the Colony now enjoys. If I did so, I should be squandering all the experience I have gained and the knowledge I believe I possess of public affairs in this Colony. No such control as is being advocated will, I feel certain, habilitate the Colony's fortunes—the present financial position being due to our economic, and not to our political. difficulties. If our expenditure, though I admit necessary, had been properly controlled, we should have been able to balance our budgets quite readily and easily. I am, moreover, strongly of opinion that we shall recover our position in a few years' time, and that we should be allowed an opportunity of doing this. We shall then have profited by our experiences."
  This is the part on which the right hon. Gentleman relies. I am going to read it all, because it gives the man's point of view quite clearly:
  "Notwithstanding, however, the views I entertain, I should have been ready and willing at once to consent to the proposal that the Governor of the Colony, after consultation with the Secretary of State, should be given a reserved power of control in the last instance, if I were satisfied that some immediate material benefit would be gained thereby. If the Secretary of State had given any assurances, or even hinted, that if this power were given substantial financial assistance might be expected from the Imperial Government, I should have deemed it my duty in the best interests of the Colony to agree to such control being taken and preserved until the loan—if it took such a form—had been repaid by the Colony. No such prospect, however, is being held out to the Colony."
  That proves that this gentleman did not agree to give for all time power to the Government, or even temporarily, except for the one specific purpose of the loan. Yet the right hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that the Report was agreed to unanimously, and even that this man agreed, if he could be assured that some money could be forthcoming. It is proved very conclusively that the Report was not an agreed one, but was one from
  1046
  which the leading representative of the Colony definitely disagreed. Those of us who are going to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill will do so because we so thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that you have either to give a Colony self-government or to govern it. We thoroughly disagree —and the experience in India during the last few years has shown it—with this business of pretending to give self-government and retaining an overriding power in certain subjects, and especially in finance. It is not leading to peace and contentment, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) told us, but it is leading to a great deal of discontent and of conflict between the Governor and the people who are elected. In order that the House may understand why the Governor's reserved power leads to discontent, I will read out a passage that makes that clear, because I happen to have taken some interest in this case through the Labour Commonwealth group which meets on Monday, and before whom we have had the people representing this Colony. The statement in question is made in paragraph 23 on page 7:
  "Having regard to the absolute necessity of safeguarding at the present time the credit and financial stability of the Colony, we think that the mere possibility of a deadlock, although, we believe, a remote one, might have the effect of making it difficult to float the Colony's loans on advantageous terms, and might also give rise to doubt in the minds of capitalists and others who would otherwise be prepared to engage in commercial undertakings in the Colony. On these grounds we recommend that the Governor should be given power to reserve, for his own decision, any matter which he and the Secretary of State consider essential to the good government of the Colony, but that this power should not be exercised without a previous reference to the Secretary of State (should such be possible)"—
  I call attention to that reservation—
  "and in any event the Governor's action in this respect should be reviewed by the Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment."
  The Governor then may exercise his power and tell us afterwards, and in this House we know that it is extremely difficult to reverse an official decision once it has been made. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Commission contemplated disagreement between the elected body

  1047
  and the Governor on such questions as concessions given to capitalists, and others. That lends some point to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who said, and I hold the view strongly, that we ought not to give Governors powers to override the elected members' in regard to concessions and in regard to the granting or selling of leases for those valuable forests. It is possible that, in order to get a big loan right away, the Governor might think it advisable and right to give some monopolist company a lease over these very valuable timber forests which are waiting to be developed, and the people there might imagine that there ought to be better terms, or that it ought to be split up, or that it should be done in some different way. The people on the spot who live in the Colony ought to have the last word in that matter. It is not just a question of the financial stability of the Colony or of raising a loan, but it is a question of giving the Governor power to determine over the heads of the people how the Colony should be developed.
  I think that the India Office ought to have had something to say on this subject, because those who went there from India and the other colonists there went with the constitution as it is and with the idea of building up a Colony under a certain form of government. We are not entitled to ride roughshod over them because of these financial difficulties, which are not the fault of any absolute maladministration or corruption. These difficulties are no reason for taking away the power which this Colony has possessed all these years. When it comes to the Colonial Office having that power, we have exactly the same want of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and his administration as they would have in a Socialist administration. From my point of view, I do not trust them in this matter of granting concessions. I do not trust either the Governors or the Colonial Office. I would rather that the people, who have lived there for 150 years in the delightful manner which has been described to us by the hon. Member for Wavertree and the hon. Member for East Woolwich, people of all races and religions living happily together, should he allowed to decide their own future.
  1048
  It is because this Bill is a retrograde Bill, taking away complete self-government from a Colony that has possessed it for 150 years, that we shall go into the Lobby against it. The point on which we maintain it takes away that power is one which is vital to all countries governed under democratic conditions. We know that this House values the Power which we have to control finance. You are taking away from the people in the Colony the power to control finance and a much greater power to determine how, by whom, and when the natural resources of their country shall be developed.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With the possible exception of the hon. Member who has just sat down, the whole House seems agreed that the Bill is necessary, although it differs in its opinion as to what ought to be the Order-in-Council that will follow upon it. Everybody is agreed, with the exception of the hon. Member, that some change is necessary.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I agree that some change is necessary.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If some change in the constitution of British Guiana is necessary, then this Bill in its present form is necessary. There is probably no other authority than this Parliament that can alter the constitution which has remained in fundamentals unaltered and unalterable since we took it over from the Dutch. The constitution of British Guiana is unlike any other constitution in the British Empire, and I am very glad of it. It is not the constitution that we should ever grant, though it has an analogy to some which we granted in the 17th century. This constitution we took over from the Dutch, and it has a hoary antiquity to be proud of, but nothing else. In the first place, it is not complete self-government, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) seemed to think it was. It is a power to hold up the Government on finance at every turn and to hold up individual citizens. Under the British Guiana constitution, there is no element of self-government for the people of British Guiana either in legislation or in administration. Self-government, after all, means legislation,
  administration, and finance together. Neither of the two Houses in British Guiana has power to change the con-

  1049
  stitution fundamentally. In practically every other Colony the constitution can be changed and is frequently changed by Order-in-Council by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  There are comparatively few Colonial constitutions that have not been changed by Order-in-Council since the War. Those of the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika, Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon—the whole gamut of Colonial constitutions—have been changed, either as in the case of Southern Rhodesia, by the grant of Letters Patent, or by Orders-in-Council, and all that this Bill is designed to do is to give to this Secretary of State and successive Secretaries of State the power from time to time to alter the constitution of British Guiana, which is to-day absolutely in a cul-de-sac, unalterable, nobody at present having power to alter it in any direction and having no prospect of altering it. Therefore, I think that in many ways we might claim that the Second Reading of this Bill should not be opposed, though we quite recognise that in the main the opposition has come, not to the Second Reading so much as to the adoption of an act of administrative policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the local Commission.
  It is my duty to put one or two points in that regard before the House. When you begin to change an ancient constitution, quite frankly, you do not want to make more changes than are necessary, and the local Commission have clearly not gone deeply into these franchise questions and these other questions which are bound to come up and be gone into in future, or even into constituency demarcations and all the points raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in his interesting speech. Those questions are bound to come up, but the main structure of the old tradition, after all, is being retained; that is to say, the local Commission are retaining the 14 existing elected members, and they are giving to the constitution, to that structure, the necessary body to enable it to function as an effective governing machine, mainly by adding to the old Combined Court of 14 elected members
  1050
  two other officials and five nominated unofficial individuals. Those five nominated unofficial members will be selected by the Secretary of State and by the Governor in consultation from among any element of the community. I want to disabuse the House of any idea that it will necessarily be, or should be, from the "plantocracy" or any other "ocracy." The five men will probably be selected on account of their variety, and, in accordance with the almost universal rule for nominated unofficial members of the Council in the other West Indian islands, they will take their part freely and in a completely unbound way during the lifetime of the Legislative Council to which they are nominated.
  Therefore, British Guiana will still have an advanced type of Crown Colony constitution. The Government will still be in a minority as against the unofficial members. There will be 19 unofficial members, 14 of whom will be elected and five nominated individuals, free in every respect, as against 10 on the official side. The total is 29. I would like to reassure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—I do not think he is quite familiar with the country—that the whole of the voters are in a comparatively small area, and it is not a ease of the 14 elected members finding it difficult to keep in touch with their constituents. One of the troubles of British Guiana is that you are dealing, in effect, with an extremely small population, and so far from 14 constituencies being too few, there is a great deal to be said for the view that eight constituencies would be ample, but as there have been 14 elected members, the minimum of change to ensure the necessary results, and advance, and stability, and good government has been made.
  The next point about which I wish to speak is that which has been raised by several hon. Members in regard to the production of papers. After all, the main document was produced early last year, containing the Report of the Parliamentary Commission. Till the Parliamentary Commission came back, neither my right hon. Friend, nor the Governor, nor anybody else, had raised the question of the Constitution. They were given wide terms of reference, to

  1051
  inquire into things in British Guiana generally, and, quite apart from what they have recommended in regard to the Constitution, they have produced a most valuable, constructive, and helpful Report. But they did find in this anomalous Constitution, peculiar and unlike any other Constitution in the British Empire, one of the difficulties inherent in the situation. It is true that British Guiana, although it has great natural riches and resources, is faced with this difficulty: that, while its timber is the most valuable type of timber in the world and is growing there in great quantities, it has never been developed or brought to the service of humanity and the enriching of the Colony, very largely because it will not float, because it is too heavy.
  You are up against factors of that kind that do present great difficulties. It is no use blaming the Combined Courts, or successive Governors, or Secretaries of State, but, none the less, when all that has been allowed for, nobody, looking at the history of British Guiana for the last 150 years, can doubt that the perpetual friction between Governor and Combined Court that has gone on—and, quite frankly, that is revealed in the type of document that has been presented to-day, in the very language that is used there—is in itself a criticism of the type of Constitution which British Guiana has had. As to these documents, the basic document was this Report of the Parliamentary Commission, which suggested to my right hon. Friend that the right way to proceed was by local Commission. He proceeded by local Commission, and, therefore, I think it is a little hard that we should be blamed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for not imposing our ideas and evolving for ourselves—and I quite agree we might have done it better—a brand new Constitution out of our own heads at the Colonial Office. We have left it as far as possible to the people in the Colony, and the local Commission was composed of a chairman, three officials, including the Attorney-General, a singularly able man, one unofficial individual connected with the Colony, who has lived there most of his life, and two of the elected members. They have produced a scheme
  1052
  which, at any rate, at this stage of the revision of the Constitution, my right hon. Friend proposes to accept in the main, and he has been discussing one or two of the details with the delegation of elected members who have been over here.
  We presented last November the second main document, which has been before the House, therefore, for three or four months, namely, the plan of Constitution which it was proposed to adopt. The new document presented to-day contains material of a highly controversial kind from the elected members, which we received some few weeks ago, and to which we thought it important that some reply should be made by the people who were specifically referred to in the elected members' remarks. As hon. Members will see from the document, we only received the reply from the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), who are somewhat vigorously assailed in the document, on the 31st January; from the Governor on the 27th January; from the Crown Agents on the 1st February; and from the people who were almost more vigorously assailed than anybody, namely, the consulting engineers in connection with the Georgetown improvement scheme, on the 1st March. I must pay a special tribute to the work of the Stationery Office in this connection. Since receiving on the 1st March the final document in reply, they have been able to get out what is, after all, quite a formidable Blue Book, and they have done it very quickly.
  Mr. AMMON: You should have delayed the introduction of the Bill.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member knows that when we get into the financial work of the Session it becomes more and more difficult to find time for legislation, but let the House remember that, although usually it is not the custom to lay on the Table proposed Orders-in-Council changing Colonial constitutions, in this particular case, as it is the first revision for 150 years, we propose to lay the Order-in-Council, the draft of which has now begun and will amount to 70 odd Clauses, on the Table of the House, and, of course, it could be the subject of a Prayer. The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tinne) and the bon. Member for Lichfield have shown conclusively that the financial condition of

  1053
  the Colony is one causing very serious preoccupation to all who have the interests of this and any other Colony at heart, and I am glad that both of them, speaking, one with considerable commercial experience in connection with this Colony, and the other having been a Commissioner with considerable financial experience outside, ended on a note of some optimism, namely, that once a more harmonious relation between the present elements of the Combined Court and the Government has been effected, and once there is public confidence that the constitution is on British and not on exotic lines, there will be, both for public and for private finance, an element of confidence Which undoubtedly has been lacking and which will be very much needed in the difficult times of the next few years through which British Guiana must go.
  Make no doubt about it, that the change in the form of constitution will not work miracles, but will have to be followed by a very careful pruning of expenditure and a very careful overhauling of the present very heterogeneous system of taxation. It has been altered from year to year, very often by a series of compromises which have been most unscientific. One of the most effective results of the Report of the Commission, composed of the hon. Member for Lichfield and the hon. Member for East Woolwich, was to secure the passing of the Forest Trust Ordinance. We had been informed by the Governor that it was very unlikely that it would go through, and that any such proposal was infringing on ancient privileges and powers, When they saw the importance which these two hon. Members attached to continuity in forest policy and the conserving of national forest resources, and above all that the experienced forest officers should feel secure in their positions; and when they saw the emphasis which was laid upon that point, which had been emphasised frequently by the Colonial Office before, we secured the co-operation of many of the elected members in passing what had obviously never been passed before.
  I think we may say that already there are signs of an improved state of affairs.
  Quite apart from all proposals in the form of controls and the form of securing ultimate responsibility, not so much to an irresponsible Governor, but to a Governor acting under the authority of the Secretary of State here, who is responsible to this House—quite apart from all that is the proposal in the local Commission's Report for greater association between the unofficial elements, both elected and non—elected, in the work of the Executive Council. One of the problems in all our constitutional difficulties throughout has been that, while we have been thinking in terms of franchise and in terms of powers of bodies, we have forgotten the essential thing, namely, that ultimately it is the Executive Government that is the all important thing, and that in the growth and evolution of democracy it is the association of the ordinary critics of governments in the responsibilities of government that is the vital thing if we are to secure the advance in freedom, the advance in true democratic development that has been the genius and tradition of the British race.
  It is upon that side of the development of the Executive Council that I see the most valuable hope in the present change that we are recommending to Parliament. I am quite sure that really the House wants the change in order that British Guiana may have the chance that it has not had for the last few years. I am sure, too, that we are all fundamentally agreed in spirit in the aims and objects which we have at heart. We are bound by our different political traditions to have suspicions one of the other, and to have suspicions of particular views at particular times. I am, nevertheless, quite satisfied in the main that, when this Bill becomes an Act, it will not merely have the assent of both Houses of Parliament, but will have the goodwill and interest of all parties, and that we shall all endeavour to unite in supporting British Guiana in the future which lies before it.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 89.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [7.35 p.m.

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

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

  Plicher, G.

  Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Bethel, A.

  Hamliton, Sir George

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxford, Henley)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Buchan, John

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Savery, S. S,

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Campbell, E. T.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

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

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smithers Waldron

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Cope, Major William

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Couper, J. B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  Lioyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Streatfeild. Captain S. R.

  Cunilffe, Sir Herbert

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Templeton, w. P.

  Davies Sir Thomas (Clrencester)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Edge, Sir William

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  McLean, Major A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  England, Colonel A.

  Macmillan Captain H.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. sir Malcolm

  Waddington, R

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Faile Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Forestler-Walker. Sir L.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wells, S. R.

  Forrest, W.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

  Withers, John James

  Glyn Major R. G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Womersley, W. J.

  Goff Sir Park

  Owen, Major G.

  Wood. E. (Chester, Statyb'ge & Hyde)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Grace, John

  Penny, Frederick George

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Day, Harry

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

  Dennison, R.

  Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dunnico, H.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Baker, Walter

  Gardner, J. P.

  Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Barnes, A.

  Gosling, Harry

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bromfield, William

  Greenail, T.

  Kennedy, T.

  Bromley, J

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Buchanan, G

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lansbury, George

  Charleton, H. C.

  Groves, T.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Clowes, S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lowth, T.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lunn, William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hardle, George D.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  1056

  1057

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Scurr, John

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

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

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)

  March, S.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Morris, R. H.

  Smillie, Robert

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Murnin, H.

  Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Naylor, T. E.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Welsh, J. C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stamford, T. W.

  Westwood, J.

  Potts, John S.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Whiteley, W.

  Riley, Ben

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Taylor, R. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Tinker, John Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Viant, S. P.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Edwards.

  Bill read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-marrow.—[Mr. Amery.]

  PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a short Bill with only four operative Clauses. It is necessary before we can consolidate the whole law with regard to the Petroleum Acts, which is now most desirable. The first Act was passed as far back as 1871. There was an Amendment, so far as motor cars are concerned, by the Highways Act of 1896. We substantially amended the law by the Act of 1926. The increased use of petrol by the general public, not only for motor cars but for other purposes, has made it necessary to introduce this short Bill and to consolidate the whole law on the subject, partly because it is extremely difficult for local authorities to administer the law as it exists now, scattered over a number of Acts, and partly because the Act of 1871 was not very well drafted and several difficulties have arisen with regard to the interpretation of it.
  I will take the four operative Clauses and explain them. Clause 1 refers to harbours. There has been considerable uncertainty as to the true interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1871 on two points. One is the definition of a "harbour authority," whether it is limited by implication to persons acting under a statutory jurisdiction, like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and bodies of that kind, or whether it applies to the owner of any little pier or jetty to which any small ship might be able to tie up.
  Of course it was intended by the Act of 1871 that the power of making by-laws should be restricted to statutory bodies, but owing to the wording this Section 2 of 1871 has been made to apply to individuals owning small jetties. That is not desirable, and it is necessary that we should have it amended, as is done in Clause 1 of this Bill. As regards another difficulty which has arisen under the Act of 1871, it is not clear whether the jurisdiction should apply to the authority exercising power over the whole harbour or whether it should also apply to subsidiary authorities exercising power over parts of the harbour. It was intended that where a statutory authority has subsidiary jurisdiction over part of a harbour that authority should have power to make by-laws. The second part of Clause 1 of the Bill makes that point clear. The reason why it is necessary to do so is that certainly in one case a dispute has arisen between a harbour authority and a railway company on the point.
  Clause 2 deals with the making of bylaws for substances other than petroleum. It is intended to remedy a defect which has been found to exist in Section 14 of the Act of 1871. In that Section 14 power is given to apply the provisions of the Act so far as they deal with petroleum to other similar substances such as calcium carbide, but power is only given to vary the provisions or modify them in two particulars, one as regards the quantity of the substance which may be kept without a licence, and the other as regards the vessel containing the substance. It has been found in practice that new modifications are necessary and that it is desirable that greater latitude should be given. For instance, it may be desirable to vary the amount of any one substance to be kept without a licence according as different conditions are observed, that is to say, whether it is kept in a reason-

  1059
  ably safe place or not. It is proposed wider this Clause that a general power should be taken to modify the provisions of the Act as applying to other similar substances, on the condition, of course, that there is no power taken to increase the stringency of the provisions that may be made.
  Clause 3 deals with the repeal of Section 5 of the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1896. That Section was a concession which was passed at that time and was applied to motor cars, which were considered to be light locomotives. Since that day petrol has come to be used for a great many other things besides light locomotives. It is used, for instance, for agricultural machinery, for motor-boats, for stationary engines used in the manufacture of electric light for houses, and for pumping water. It is desirable that the application of the full requirements of the Act of 1871 should be modified for this purpose as well as for the purpose of motor cars; otherwise they are unnecessarily burdensome. To begin with, by Section 7 it is necessary in every case to get a licence from the local authority. It is obvious that that should not be necessary in the cases that I have cited. If we did not modify this provision as proposed, the ordinary motor boat propelled by petrol would be, for the purposes of the original Act, a ship carrying petroleum, and she would be subject to all the regulations to which a ship carrying petroleum is subject when she goes into port. That was not intended.
  With regard to Clause 4, the last operative Clause, it is intended to give to canal companies a general power of making by-laws relating to the transport of petrol. At present some companies have that power and some have not. Towards the end of 1926. I think it was in September, a rather serious explosion took place on a canal in Yorkshire and resulted in a fatality. It was then shown to the Home Office that it was most desirable that all companies should have the power of making by-laws, even if they did not exercise them. Petrol is being carried on canals in increasing quantities, and that alone makes it most necessary that there should be adequate safeguards, in its transport. The House will observe that in the First Schedule a number of minor Amendments have been included. They are all small Committee points and
  1060
  they are necessary for two reasons, one as consequential on the operative Clauses of the Bill, and the other reason is that the Act of 1871 was drafted rather defectively. We want if possible to clear up one or two bad pieces of draftsmanship before we bring in the consolidated Bill, which I hope it will be possible to do later on.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before we pass the Bill, which would appear to be more or less an administrative Measure, we might have a little enlightenment on one point in particular, with which I tried to make myself familiar some time ago. Before I come to that however will the Under-Secretary kindly tell us what are the main provisions of the Act of 1871? His exposition would have been better if he had told us what powers local authorities have already under the Act of 1871. Then we should have better understood the Amendments proposed by this Bill. I am sure that the House would be glad to have a general outline of the main provisions of the Act of 1871. I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman one question only. Do I understand that under this Bill local authorities can make by-laws to improve the control and transport of petroleum and other very dangerous liquids through the streets of towns? When I looked at this question not long ago I understood that there was still a difficulty in dealing with the carriage of petroleum through the streets. There was a case, I believe in Northumberland, of a terrible explosion that occurred in conveying oil through the street, and people living in houses on both sides of that street were injured very badly. Will the Under-Secretary enlighten us as to the position now, and tell us whether a local authority can compel the carrier of the petroleum to remove the lights on his vehicle out of danger? I understood some time ago that the danger arose mainly through neglect in allowing lights to be attached to these vehicles. I shall be glad to get that matter cleared up.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: As one who opposed the Bill that is now the Act of 1926 on 15 different occasions, and got the seven Amendments through the Lords, I might say that there is no need for anyone to ask questions as to what the law is, because it is contained in all the printed matter that is available. I would like to deal with the question of "substance"

  1061
  as mentioned in Clause 2. When the original Act was framed it was not too well known what the substance petrol was; it was not clear how it was to be treated so far as an Act of Parliament was concerned. When you deal here with a substance you leave yourself open to a great many things. For instance, is tetra-ethyl lead a substance? If it is added to petrol does that combination still remain a body to be known by the word "petrol," and if so can I have a reply as to whether any combination of substances that give explosions, say in an internal combustion engine, are to pass under the name of petrol, or are we to be tied down to the word "substance," which may mean anything? Would potato raw spirit be called a "substance," or industrial alcohol? If petrol is to be called a "substance," are we to have some determination as to whether evaporation at a certain point is to decide what that body is. Even suppose you had a law which gave you the right to say that a body evaporated at a certain temperature was petrol, still you have to find means of expressing it, and the question is what may be added to your petrol itself and leave a "substance." Suppose you take the ethyl question at the present time. How are you going to
  determine what body that becomes? After you have got this ethyl mixed with petrol, does it cease to be petrol, or is the name ethyl to be the subject of legislation? That is a very important point. In the Bill we are to have the power to label a thing. That is a purely political expression, because we know that politicians—I am not a politician, thank God for that—label things. We have got peculiar stuff in our shops labelled jam and marmalade. If we are going on with this labelling proposal, does it mean that any kind of substance that may explode at a certain temperature is going to be called petrol? The Members of this House do not yet realise the dangers of lead tetraethyl, and will not realise them until it is driven in upon them by some very serious cases, one of which, as I know, is now developing. I would ask those in charge of the Bill to explain what they mean when they say "a substance." Is any addition to that which may have the nominal name of petrol to be included in the Bill? Whether or
  1062
  not that is to be done, there is a certain element that must be dealt with in some way or other to ensure the public safety. If the Bill is to permit the addition of any of these elements of which I am speaking, it will mean that every one who is making a "dope" for motor cars or any other form of internal combustion engine will be entitled under the Bill to call it petrol. I would ask those in charge of the Bill to take a very serious view of this point, because my only concern is to ensure the safety of the public. I represent a district of a great city, Glasgow, and I know exactly what has taken place in the past 30 years since they started using petrol in industry in the making of waterproof coats. I know what took place at the fire. I was at it. I know what took place in the Chemical Works at the top of Renfrew Street. I was there. I know from practical observation and knowledge what is causing all this trouble.
  If those in charge of the Bill will give a nod now to indicate that this Bill will be withdrawn until we know more about the subject, I will sit down. They are not prepared to do that? Very well, I will go on. When I opposed the Bill of 1926 before it became an Act I was told from the Government Benches that I was doing a very cruel thing, because the Bill was the baby of a man who had been 42 years in the Department and was retiring, and wanted to see the Bill on the Statute Book as one of the great things he had accomplished. I do not wish to detract from that man's capacity, mental or otherwise. He had been a faithful servant, and I should have liked to oblige him by seeing that the Bill was placed on the Statute Book, but let the House note how defective it was, even with the seven Amendments which I got put in. At that time, too, I was given a promise about what should be done in the first amending Bill which came before the House. I had that promise from the Home Secretary, but I had an experience of the Home Secretary during the coal stoppage, when he applied his Regulations to everybody else but his own friends, and when we brought cases up for review he was impertinent and stupid in his answers. But I was told that as soon as the first amending Bill came along the other questions I had raised, which were not included in the seven Amendments, would be dealt with. We know

  1063
  that the controlling Act was passed in 1871, and that between 1871 and 1926 practically nothing was done so far as the dangers of petrol are concerned, except, perhaps, in connection with rubber solution. In that period there were great developments in motor transport, and the danger has become correspondingly greater. Take the case of the motor bicycle. Any man can have a motor bicycle. Probably he is without any proper place in which to store it, and he keeps it in the entrance of his house, behind the front door. He also has a can or two of petrol, and these he takes into another part of the house. I was in a house two or three weeks ago when a gentleman came in with his motor bicycle. He pushed it behind the front door, and then brought in two cans of petrol, put them down beside the fire, sat on them and had a smoke. I say that something ought to he clone to deal with cases of that kind.
  Is it realised that in the 1926 Act and in this amending Bill we deal only with petrol in bulk? Is it not realised that the last Act was brought in chiefly at the behest of the vested interests in petrol. It did not deal with anything outside those matters which concerned the petrol industry; it did something for them, but left out everything else. I drew the attention of the Glasgow Corporation to what was taking place, and they came forward with an amendment, and sent a deputation to meet the Joint Committee. Thereupon the Committee realised the necessity of getting at least a promise that something more would be done. What is going to be done? Little houses are being built now, with garages attached. They are wooden garages, with simple doors, and people have found petrol disappear from the garage. As they do not want to question one another's honesty they now take the petrol into the house. That is where the danger comes in, and I want to know what is to be done about controlling from two-gallon lots up to what I would call "the maximum small quantity." We have had legislation dealing with the transport in bulk on roads, though even that legislation is not all that it ought to be. But are we going to do anything in the direction of introducing safety regulations in other cases? It is the
  1064
  question of safety with which I am concerned. It is not a question of increasing expenses or increasing the price of petrol or of insisting that something has to be done which will cost money; but it is a question of securing a measure of safety. The 1926 Act deals with persons keeping petrol for the purposes of trade and industry. It finishes up with "trade and industry." As if the use of petrol had not extended far beyond the confines of trade and industry, seeing that it goes into practically every home. Therefore, I once more ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he is prepared, having gone this distance, to nod his head in indication of his readiness to withdraw the Bill in order that we may get something better.
  There is no answer, and therefore I will go on to the question of the transport of petrol on roads. The hon. Gentleman gave us an illustration to-night of what happened in a canal explosion, but there is nothing in this new Bill which would prevent that happening, because the Bill, instead of stating definitely what is to be done, only gives permissive powers to this, that and the other body to make their own regulations, and that is not protection given by the Government. Each body will make its regulations just to suit its own business and not to meet the safety of the public, and the regulations will always be a minimum. Let us take the case of the petrol tanks now seen on the streets—a drum on four wheels holding, perhaps, 2,000 gallons. It is filled through an opening which is closed with two valves. Last summer I was riding on top of a bus in very busy street in the centre of London. In front was a steam lorry. The fireman had been detained too long—it was not his fault—and had to get up steam. He put on some fresh fuel. When he stirred the fire and started up there was a stream of sparks—and immediately behind was a tank of petrol! People will say, "It is all right; it was all closed up." Yes, but it might not have been. It is just the same as people saying, "Miners have safety lamps." The safety lamp was not produced to enable men to work in gas, but in protect them against the unexpected presence of the deadily enemy. It is the same in the case of petrol. The vibration of that tank in going along the street might have caused a loosening of

  1065
  the valves, and on a hot summer's day one knows that the evaporation of petrol is speedy, especially from an iron surface. It might have been better if the tank bad been covered with wood.
  I wish the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to understand that I am not opposing it, but merely asking for additions to be made to it. The Bill does not go far enough. If this had been a decaying industry instead of a growing industry, one could have understood this attempt to deal only with one or two aspects of the matter. Finally, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he can answer the questions which I have put to him. First of all I want to know whether any added substance is to be included as the nominal name of whatever substance is put in; that is to say, is industrial alcohol with some addition to be called petrol; is potato spirit with some addition to be called petrol; is petrol with lead tetraethyl to be called petrol? Is it to be a question simply of the label? If we are legislating for labels, let us remember the process of protection for the public which has been followed in pharmaceutical Acts. I am glad to see that a doctor is now present. There was a great fight about labels. What was the consideration behind the passing of a law requiring that poison must not be put in an ordinary bottle, but in a bottle of a certain shape, so that even though one picked up the bottle in the dark one would know that it was a poison bottle? What brought that about was consideration for the safety of the public. In the case of petrol we are dealing with a substance which is in far more common use than medicine, and is much more dangerous to the public, and yet here we have the Government, which always claims to have the best brains of the blue blood which produces the best brains, coming along with feeble Amendments all mixed up and dealing only with vested interests, all the while leaving the question of public safety where it was before. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to withdraw it now, or, at any rate, give us some guarantee that we shall have some redress before the Bill reaches a further stage.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I notice that the name of the Home Secretary is on the back of the Bill, and
  1066
  I should like to know why he is not present. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with some other kind of spirits put up in magnums. The hon. Member for Springburn who has just spoken (Mr Hardie) comes from the north of the Tweed; he represents a Scottish Division, and I presume that this Bill applies to Scotland. Why is the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the back of the Bill, and why is he not present? I know this Measure does not apply to Northern Ireland, but I presume it applies to Scotland, and there is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench at the present moment. I think this is treating the House very disrespectfully. Here we have under consideration a Bill of first-class importance dealing with a growing industry, and we are going to have a much larger number of motor vehicles running through the streets. Clause 3 provides that
  "The Secretary of State may make Regulations as to the keeping and use of petroleum spirit by persons intending to use it for the purpose of any class of motor vehicles."
  A provision of this kind is of the utmost importance, and, with every respect to the hon. Member in charge of this Measure, I contend that this question should not be left in charge of the second eleven of the Government, and that the Home Secretary ought to have been present. If the Secretary of State for War intends to speak on this subject I apologise, and perhaps he will tell us how this Measure affects his Department. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us something about the use of petrol in hot climates. I want to know if, in the carrying out of these Regulations, any differentiation is going to be made in regard to petrol coming from Russia. I think that would be quite possible under the loosely-drawn terms of this Bill.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I desire to call attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): There cannot be a count between a quarter past Eight and a quarter past Nine o'Clock.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to know if the President of the Board of Trade is doing everything he

  1067
  can to encourage trade with Russia despite the differences that exist between the two Governments. Not long ago the President of the Board of Trade issued broadcast to the world—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:We must confine ourselves to the matters raised in the Bill.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I point out that Clause 3 provides that:
  "The Secretary of State may make Regulations as to the keeping and use of petroleum spirit by persons intending to use it for the purpose of any class of motor vehicles."
  Does that empower the right hon. Gentleman to make Regulations in regard to Russian petrol?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now the hon. and gallant Member is proceeding on still wider ground.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is one of the objections we have to legislation by reference. I will deal with another matter, and that is a question of petrol pumps. Under these Regulations, will the Home Office have any powers to enforce some decency in regard to the form of petrol pumps which at the present time are disfiguring the countryside? We have in this country a lot of beautiful scenery, and I want to know if the Home Office, in putting this Bill into force, only intend to pay attention to the question of safety, and pay no attention to the æsthetic point of view. Is there any intention of limiting the number of these pumps?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is another matter which is entirely outside the scope of this Measure.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that petroleum comes out of the ground, would I be in order in discussing the taxation of land values?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a joke of the proceedings of Parliament.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg pardon. I am very serious, and we are anxious to raise everything that we consider should be raised in this House.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only things which can be raised are those which are in order on the particular subject before the House.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was only asking for information.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I come now to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend behind me, namely, the special Regulations proposed with regard to the use of lead tetraethyl. The hon. Member for Springburn went into details in regard to this very extraordinary substance. In Switzerland the use of this highly dangerous poison is already forbidden. In the United States of America the use of this doped petrol resulted in five deaths, and 30 or more cases of poisoning. Although this substance has been advertised for months and has been placed on the British market, no warning whatever in regard to it has been published by the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health, or the President of the Board of Trade.
  I am glad to say that in another place—I should, of course, be out of order in referring to the details of the Debate—a Noble Lord drew attention to this matter, and this is the first opportunity that I have had of drawing attention to the matter here except at Question Time, when Ministers can always ride off by refusing information or shirking the giving of proper answers; and if we on this side try to press them they always have their claque from the benches behind them, and we are shouted down. This Bill is a Bill for the greater safety of the public in the use of petrol, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary if he can give me any explanation on this matter. After it has been raised again and again in this House and in another place—in this House, unfortunately, only at Question Time—an
  Inter-Departmental Committee is about to be set up. It has not yet been set up. I was told the other day by the Minister of Health that no members had been appointed, and that the Committee had not been called together. Now we are going to have further delay in setting up this Committee and waiting for its Report. One thing is certain, and that is that an Inter-Departmental Committee means delay. They will take very great care with their evidence, and their find-

  1069
  ings, and their Report; the Government will delay still further before they act upon the recommendations; and, in the meantime, a great deal of mischief will have been done.
  The danger lies in two facts. One is that the spirit itself is poisonous. If any of the liquid gets on to the skin, it can be absorbed and bring on lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is slow in its effects; the symptoms take some time to appear; but the poisoning is none the less deadly when it runs its course. Therefore, the innocent motor user who buys this "Ethyl" clothed in red—and red is a very suitable colour in this particular case—if he has some trouble with his engine, floods his carburettor, and gets a spot of this petrol on his skin, he may be poisoned; and who is responsible? The hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the Home Secretary were here, I should say that the Home Secretary was responsible, but, as he has not chosen to be present, I say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be responsible for the death of this innocent, law-abiding citizen, who is taxed to pay the salary of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, while the hon. and gallant Gentleman neglects his duty by not safeguarding the public by means of warnings. I say that this substance should never have been put upon the market—and it has been upon the market for some weeks—without Orders being issued, through the local authorities and the police, to all who have anything to do with the sale of petrol, to warn the public against handling this liquid. In spite, however, of what has gone on outside this Chamber, and of what we can drag from Ministers in this Chamber, the unfortunate liege has no kind of safeguard at all.
  That is one side of the matter. The other is the question of the effect on the general public. Every hon. Member in this House has had the misfortune to be in traffic blocks, and knows perfectly well that the fumes even of ordinary petrol are most objectionable. Present-day cities, especially here in London, with ever-increasing motor traffic, are suffering from a very foul atmosphere due to the exhaust fumes of motor cars. Now this petrol has been introduced, doped with lead tetra-ethyl, and here I want to pay tribute to a newspaper
  1070
  which is not always friendly to my party, namely, the
  "Daily Mail." This Government allows the country to be run by the "Daily Mail." As far as I can make out, the "Daily Mail" wins its elections for it, and, when it is in office, it allows the "Daily Mail" to carry out its scientific experiments, which its own Department of Scientific Research, money for which is provided out of the taxes, should be carrying out.
  This newspaper—I daresay in order to increase its circulation, but in the public interest as well, and I make no complaint in that regard, for I think the whole public should be as grateful in this particular matter to the paper as hon. Gentlemen opposite are for their occupancy of that Bench at the present time—this newspaper has carried out certain experiments, which have lasted for weeks, with this tetra-ethyl lead petrol, and, in its most recent report of tests made by the Research Department of the Association of British Motor and Allied Manufacturers, which was dug out by this paper and given very useful publicity, and which was founded under the auspices of the Government's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the distinguished chemist who carried out these experiments, and whose report is reproduced in this newspaper, has stated categorically that the exhaust vapour from the use of this petrol is poisonous. Therefore, you may have a traffic block in Bridge Street, just outside this House, and a quorum of Government supporters may be poisoned; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits there all unheeding.
  As I have said, the Government are still about to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to look into this matter, after this poisonous liquid has been for weeks on the market. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he is going to make regulations in regard to this matter. I judge the Department by its previous conduct, and the Department has been wholly negligent with regard to this poisonous, doped petrol which has been placed on the market; and, but for the action of Lord Buckmaster in another place, and of one or two hon. Members in this House, including a gentleman of medical knowledge who is a supporter of the Home Secretary—but for our action

  1071
  and the public-spirited action of a daily newspaper to which hon. Gentlemen opposite owe their office, and to which we owe a good deal of opposition, but which I nevertheless compliment, and I hope my generosity is appreciated, on its public spirit in this matter, the unfortunate public would have had no warning whatever. And yet His Majesty's Secretary of State for Home Affairs has not even the interest to come into the House and explain his Bill to us, but leaves the matter in the, I admit, competent and courteous hands of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This is how Parliament is treated; this is how the Opposition is treated; and, worst of all, this is how the unfortunate public is mulct in taxes to keep up this useless Department of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This is how the unfortunate public are treated, and I hope the opportunity will soon come for them to vent their displeasure in the only way that is open to them, by throwing these incompetents out of office.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I should be in order in moving that this Debate be now adjourned, until the Home Secretary Is here? This is his Bill, but he is not here, and his understudy has no experience, he is an amateur, and we are objecting to his trying—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I certainly cannot accept a Motion that the Debate be adjourned.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I beg to move,
  "That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied."—[King's recommendation signified.]
  1072
  The object of this Motion is to enable the Government to bring in a Bill to regulate the pensions of officers of the Diplomatic Service. I have issued a White Paper which explains the objects of the whole scheme and the proposed legislation. At present officers of the Diplomatic Service are in receipt of pensions under the Act of 1869 and difficulties arise from time to time because many diplomatic officers are transferred from foreign stations to Civil Service appointments at home, and vice versa. We seek to put diplomatic pensions on to the same basis as Civil Service pensions, with small modifications which will be seen at the bottom of page 1 of the White Paper. Officers of the Diplomatic Service interchange positions with officers of the Civil Service. When I say the Civil Service I mean the Foreign Office. There are provisions already existing dealing with the difficulties and anomalies which arise under these interchanges of position, but recently those difficulties, which have always been very troublesome, have increased owing to the combination in 1919 of the Diplomatic Service with the Foreign Office. In some cases the Act of 1869 has become almost, if not entirely, unworkable and certain hardships have been caused. For that reason we desire to put the officers of the Diplomatic Service on the same footing, with slight modifications, as officers of the Civil Service. An option will be given to existing officers of the Diplomatic Service to come in under the new Act. We do not yet know how many will come into the new arrangement but, assuming that they all come in, the utmost annual cost to the public purse would be £11,500 at the beginning and at the end a small sum which we think would not exceed £2,000 a year. The cause of the higher cost at the beginning is this. The new scheme provides for reduced pensions on the one hand and retiring and death gratuities on the other hand. Those gratuities do not exist in the present system. They will be payable immediately on retirement or death. Thus the larger annual increased cost will fall due at earlier dates. The pension reductions, however, will be spread over the whole life of the pensioner. That is broadly what the proposals are. If there are any other details on which hon. Members desire information I will do my best to explain them.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: An Ambassador is a man who is sent to lie abroad for the good of his country, and, when he comes to be retired, it is, of course, very right and proper that he should be properly pensioned. As far as I can gather from the hon. Gentleman's explanation which I am sure he tried to make as full and lucid as he always does, this is to bring officers of the Diplomatic Service in line with the Foreign Office. Does this also apply to the Consular Service? Is the Consular Service part and parcel of the Diplomatic Service? Could we have enlightenment on that point first of all?
  Mr. SAMUEL: It applies also to the Consular Service, because the, Consular Service is already part of the Civil Service.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very glad, because I have always thought it very necessary to improve the conditions of the Consular Service, perhaps even more than the Diplomatic Service proper. I think this is a move in the right direction. I see under the Superannuation Act of 1909 awards may be made as follows to members of these Services. After only 10 years' service, a pension may be paid, so that a man who goes into the Service at 21 and retires at 31 can take a pension. That is very extraordinary. [Interruption.] He does not serve abroad at all. My hon. Friend is not right. A clerk in Downing Street after 10 years' service can get a pension. Could we have some explanation as to the shortness of the term, because this applies to the whole of the Foreign Office staff and the whole of the Diplomatic Service. Is it to make provision for people who may have to retire through ill-health? There must be some explanation. I do not think I have heard of that in any other Service of the Crown.
  I would also like to take this opportunity of drawing attention to the disparity between the emoluments of this Service, with its very pleasant conditions—we are improving the residences of our representatives abroad; especially in the case of Turkey, for example—and what is paid to people in this country who do the work without which the community could not exist. At the present moment, in the County of Durham,
  1074
  where I was last week, a miner working six days a week, with the stoppages, cannot take home to his family more than 40s., and there is no pension for him until he reaches the age of 65. In our Diplomatic Service, according to the White Paper, there is a fixed annual allowance not exceeding £1,700 per annum for a first-class pension; £1,300 per annum for a second-class, £900 per annum for a third-class, and £700 per annum for a fourth-class.
  I do not abject to these people having emoluments. If you have an underpaid servant there is a temptation to corruption, and if it be true that even to-day it is impossible for our Ministers to occupy certain posts without large private means, there ought to be special allowances provided for them and they should not have to dip their hands into their private purses. I do not think it right at the present time that any public officer or any public servant should have to depend on private means in order to keep up to the standard expected of him and to carry out his duties. If we are underpaying our representatives abroad to that extent, then the State should step in and help, otherwise you limit the representation of His Majesty in certain capitals abroad to men of wealth, which is wrong. You limit your choice of selection, and it is mischievous and undemocratic in that no poor man will be able to rise to certain positions in the Diplomatic Service. But I cannot help contrasting the pay and conditions of service with the lot of the Durham miner who, working underground in heat, in damp and in danger, cannot to-clay earn more than 40s. a week, I cannot overlook the case of the South Wales miners who, in many of the fields, while working full time, if they are men with children—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the Resolution we are now discussing. In fact, he is straying a good deal beyond it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is the second occasion to-night that I have, unfortunately, come in conflict with your ruling, and I shall not, of course, pursue the matter further in that direction. I was only using as an illustration the fact that these men do

  1075
  not get a pension after 10 years' service, and I have said enough to call for a reply as to why a pension can be given after only 10 years in not a very dangerous and, perhaps, not too arduous, profession. If it is wrong to draw attention to the pay of men at the other end of the scale I will not, of course, do so. We are, after all, increasing the pensions by £11,500 for the first two years, and I should have liked to have drawn attention to other pensioners who cannot get the pensions to which they thought they were entitled. I am sorry I have transgressed twice this evening. I think I have said enough to call for a word of explanation, and I shall await the reply with interest.
  Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I do not want to pursue the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend because I apprehend that it will not be possible to enlarge this Motion in order to give pensions to all the people who, perhaps, deserve them. I only rise to say that this limited proposal, as far as we can understand it, is one to which we have no objection, and which is, obviously, for the convenience of the Service and in order to facilitate the interchange of officers from Downing Street to the other places further afield in which they have to serve instead of having two watertight compartments—one set of people in Downing Street who have never been abroad and another set of people abroad who have never been in Downing Street. I, myself, some time in the last century, suffered under such an arrangement in a neighbouring Office. I think the administration will be greatly improved if it be possible to interchange one set of officers with the other. As I understand it, this practically assimilates the pensions of the Diplomatic Service with the pension system of the Foreign Office and the home Civil Service generally. I are sure my hon. and gallant Friend need not be alarmed in imagining that this Motion will give every diplomat the option of getting a pension after 10 years if he chooses to ask for it. That is not the arrangement. I think there is nothing to which we can object in this proposal, and if the hon. Gentleman will give a reply probably he will get his Motion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to raise my voice in protest on behalf of the class
  1076
  that I represent here—the working class. Time and again—and this is one of the instances of class legislation—they tell us that there is no such thing as a class struggle existing in society and that we should not preach the class war. We Socialists do not preach the class war, but the Tory Government, in bringing forward this proposal for the payment of superannuation in the Diplomatic Service are embarking upon class legislation. We are proposing to give to certain individuals in the Diplomatic Service £1,700 a year pension. That does not seem very much to a rich man, but it is a tremendous amount to the worker, and it is the worker who will have to pay it—not the rich man. It is all rolled out of the flesh and blood of the working class. Who are these people? Whence are they recruited, these individuals who make up the diplomats who have time and again landed this country into war? Is it a case of outstanding ability? Are they poor men Certainly not. If it were a case of examination, my class would always come out on the top. We have no fear of examinations, we are always for making the examination as stiff as you like. My class will come to the top eventually. Before you can get into the Diplomatic Service, you must have an income of £400 a year.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure the hon. Member would not like to pursue an argument based upon a fallacy. It is not correct to say that an entrant to the Diplomatic Service must have an income of £400 a year. That has long been done away with.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The fact remains that until the working classes, the Labour party, became a power in the land, and until we were able to draw the attention of the country to what was going on, the rotten system was at work. That is not denied. Therefore, it ill becomes this Government to bring forward this Bill, when on every occasion they are trotting out the cry of economy: "We must have economy. We must economise on the education of the children." The Prime Minister said that it was essential for everyone to economise. Here is an opportunity to economise, if the ruling classes are in earnest. The country is becoming poorer and poorer every day, and cannot afford to pay to the men who produce the wealth of this country a

  1077
  decent living wage. How then do you expect that we who represent these men in this House are going to sit calmly here and allow the ruling classes to vote pensions to their own class?
  9.0 p.m.
  It is a fraud. It is nothing but a fraud. Nothing but a Government of robbers would dare to do anything of the kind. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Scottish diplomat in London, has arrived. We are trammelled in Scotland. It is impossible for us to carry out our desires, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot grant us our wishes, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is represented by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is in charge of this Bill, blocks the way. The Government have not the least compunction in coming forward and saying, "Here is a chance to help a body of men. Even if we take £10 a week off their pension they will never miss their breakfast." We represent men who are working hard and doing work in the absence of which there would be no such thing as the British Empire. The British Empire does not rest upon the diplomats any more than it rests upon the Government of the day. It rests upon the working classes, who have been treated by this Government in the most callous, brutal and unfair manner.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must apply himself to the Motion before the Committee.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am trying to show the difference of treatment that is meted out to the working people of this country and to those who do not work at all. To those—
  "Who toil not, neither do they spin.
  Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
  That is what is going on here. We are not in the Ruhr or in Canada or in Russia but in our own native land, and under the cognisance of this Government we have 28,000 boys, between the ages of 14 and 16, working in the mines.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member really must try not to bring these things into this discussion. They are not in Order on this discussion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am sorry to be falling foul of your Ruling, but when I see a White Paper issued like this, it
  1078
  brings me to my feet at once, because of what is implied here and what I see of the conditions of the people among whom I live and move and have my being—the people who are sent before the rota committees. These diplomats can retire, but there is not any given age for their retirement. They are not forced to retire, as are some of my class. With the worker to-day, it is becoming more and more a fact that when he reaches 60 years of age he begins to fear that it is time for him to pass away. We are living in an age as far as my class are concerned when they are wishing for the grave.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have called the hon. Member to order several times. I hope he will obey my ruling.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not wish to be rude to the Chair. On page 4 of this White Paper, there is a word which I do not understand. It is not Scots. Whether it is a crossword puzzle or not, I cannot say. It may be ancient French or Latin. It is probably Anglo-Saxon The word is "opt." This is how it is spelled: o.p.t. That is not English, neither is it Scots nor Welsh, and these are the only three languages permitted in this House. It may be Gaelic. Here is this word spelled o.p.t., and I want to know why the time of this House is taken up by words of this description. I have on occasions visited the House of Lords and seen them performing, and certain individuals rehearsing certain old Norman words—
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member continues to disobey my ruling. I must ask him to confine his attention to the Motion before the Committee. If he continues to disobey my ruling, I must ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am asking for an explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I hope he will, to the best of his ability, explain what is meant by the word "opt."
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think the hon. Member seriously wishes me to explain the word "opt."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It is very often used in the case of a committee, you co-opt on to a committee. You choose, or select, and in the connection in which it is used here, wishes, or chooses, or agrees.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why do you put it in?
  Mr. SAMUEL: We like to use a short rather than a long word. Let me now deal with the questions which have been raised—
  Mr. TINKER: Before the Financial Secretary replies, there are one or two comments I want to make on the White Paper. It says that the Act provides for awards of fixed annual allowances not exceeding £1,700 for a first-class pension, £1,300 for a second, £900 for a third, and £700 for a fourth, and on page 4 it says:
  "An ambassador or Minister may be pensioned before attaining the age of 60 if he has been recalled in the interest of diplomatic relations and cannot be employed elsewhere. This is a restricted form of a power given by the Act of 1869."
  I should like to know whether the pensions scheme of the Civil Service is a contributory scheme, and whether it is not the case that under the Act dealing with the workers' pensions scheme it, is a contributory one and does not operate before a man attains the age of 65. If his employer discharges him before he attains that age, there is no question of him getting a pension until he reaches 65. I want to put this point, on the one hand, if you have a servant who is called away or discharged before his time he is to have a pension; the industrial servant, if he is discharged before his time, is he not entitled to the same recognition from the State or the employer for work of equal value? People engaged in industry are as essential to the State as civil servants, and if that, is so, are they not entitled to the same kind of treatment? I had no knowledge or idea of the extent of these pensions until I saw this White Paper, and, therefore, I think we have a right to bring to the notice of the Committee the comparison between one class of person and another. I do not object to all people having some kind of pension, but I want some regard to be paid to those who are engaged in industry, so that when they have finished their work they can look forward to some recognition for what they have done.
  Mr. HARDIE: I read this in the White Paper:
  "That Act provides for awards of fixed annual allowances not exceeding £1,700 per annum for a first-class pension, £1,300 per
  1080
  annum for a second, £900 per annum for a third, and £700 per annum for a fourth."
  It is very remarkable that in this House, when salaries are well above the existence line, there is never any difficulity in getting a proposal like this through. In dealing with a superannuation scheme of this kind it would have been well if the Financial Secretary had given us some explanation of the matter instead of reading certain paragraphs. There is a great deal behind this Bill. In this matter speed is not essential. The people who have these salaries are not waiting for something to be done for them, as in the case of the industrial classes. Hon. Members opposite are silent when it is a proposal of this kind, when it is the case of pensions for their own class, but they are not so silent when it is a case of pensions for the working classes. The Government would do well to explain what is behind this proposal, and why there is so much trouble taken to oppose anything of the kind in the ease of work-men. Why is it so easy to get a proposal like this through Parliament? Is is because the salaries are so big that these people do not want pensions? Is is the case of the "fat sow must always be greased"? The hon. Member might give us some information on this proposal. It. would he interesting because it might he applied in many other directions.
  Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not want other classes in the community to know how these good things are obtained, perhaps they want to keep it a close combination amongst members of their own class. The House is practically empty at the moment but when it is a case of pensions for the working classes then the benches opposite are fell with hon. Members ready to vote against them, and when they are given they are only a mere pittance. When the question of pensions came up on the Electricity Bill, the same thing happened. The men who had received steady salaries all the years were considered, but the men who were off and on were looked upon with something approaching to disgust. It is a disgrace because such men were generally more useful than the fellows with the big salaries. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us a guarantee that working class pensions in future will be given the same attention as pensions for other classes of people.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary as to what he might do in regard to one point, when the Bill is being drafted. Page 4 of the White Paper contains a reference to the payment of temporary pensions in cases where there has been a rupture of diplomatic relations. I suggest that this should be amended so as to provide that no pensions should be paid to diplomats in cases where diplomatic relations have been ruptured. If that were done possibly there would never be another war and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go on the Chinese principle of paying the doctor for keeping you well and depriving him of his pay if you fall sick. I think the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of all efforts to bring about peace, and I make that suggestion to him as a contribution towards the peace of the world.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The White Paper states that the class of pension is to depend upon complicated provisions as to rank, service, length of residence abroad and classification of the mission concerned. I wish to know who is to decide as to the class of pension. Is that to be in the hands of the Department or in the hands of the Financial Secretary himself; and will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what these complications are and how they are to be cleared up?
  Mr. SAMUEL: In regard to the last observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, I am very much obliged to him for the suggestion which he has made, and I will give it proper consideration. With regard to the question put by the last speaker, II think he will find that it is answered by the paragraph at the bottom of page 1 of the White Paper, which states:
  "In the case of persons serving abroad pension is to be calculated on the salary, etc., of officers of corresponding rank serving in the Foreign Office."
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also asked a question about the Consular Service, and in order to make the matter quite clear may I say that Consular officers are in the Civil Service already, and this is a proposal to bring the Diplomatic Service on to the same basis as the Civil Service, so that the Bill does not affect the Consular status. I do not think there is any other question to which I need address myself ex-
  1082
  cept to say that these pensions are not contributory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has, think, made my replying speech for me on other points. He has said, in effect, that the terms of this Resolution are fair and that they commend themselves to the party opposite. I cannot say anything more explanatory than that; any criticisms that have been levelled at the Resolution have been met by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is one of the ordinary Measures of this kind in connection with the Post Office, which have become almost annual affairs in the House. It enables the Post Office to acquite certain sites for the purposes of its working, and as hon. Members who are familiar with previous Bills of the kind know, the Measure will after the Second Reading follow the Private Bill procedure by going to a Select Committee. It then comes back to this House for a further Committee stage and for Third Reading, and I can assure the House that there is nothing in the present Bill which calls for any detailed discussion at the present stage.
  Lieut.-Commander-KENWORTHY: How much money is involved??
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not state exactly. That is a matter for negotiation.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like some further explanation regarding this Bill. I, for one reason or another, have not been present when the right hon. Gentleman has introduced previous Measures of the kind, and I am not acquainted with all the circumstances which he has mentioned. For example, I should like to know more about sites which the Post Office has in view and in which areas they are. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought surely to be able

  1083
  to give the House some idea of how much it will cost even if it is still a matter of negotiation.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I wish to raise one question on this Bill which interests me because it affects my constituency. In the city of Leeds there is a burial ground which was closed some years ago under the Disused Burial Grounds Acts. That Act provides that it shall not be lawful, when a burial ground has been closed, to erect upon it any building except a church or chapel or place of worship. This Bill proposes to erect a Post Office on the site of the burial ground in Leeds, and it is provided that if human remains are found the Postmaster-General shall, without being required to obtain any faculty, cause the same to be decently removed and interred in some consecrated ground to which the Bishop of Ripon may consent. I want to know why the Post Office, when they wish to erect a new Post Office, choose a consecrated burial ground as the site? I should have thought they could have found some more suitable site for the purpose. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Bill which is constantly before the House. It cannot always happen that the Post Office wishes to put up new buildings on a burial ground. The Act of 1884 says in terms that you shall not put secular buildings on a burial ground. Why should this particular burial ground be desecrated by a Post Office?
  There is another thing. The Bishop of Ripon, apparently, is to consent to the disposal of the bones buried in this particular ground. As far as I know, this burial ground was not closed so very long ago. It was in 1850, I think. How do we know that the persons buried are Members of the Church of England? Some of them may be Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. We do not know. At any rate, there is no particular reason why the Bishop of Ripon should consent to the disposal of the remains any more than the Bishop of any other denomination. We want to know why you are using a burial ground to extend this Post Office. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say that this burial ground is near an existing post office, and that that is the reason. I want to know whether this ground is being used
  1084
  at present as a public recreation ground. If so, is he closing an area where people may disport themselves. [Laughter.] The House seems to be very much amused, but it is really a serious question I am asking. First of all, there is the consecrated nature of the ground, and, secondly, the fact that this ground is now used by children and other people. It is possibly laid out as a park or open space—I do not know. We ought not to consent to this Clause going forward, although it may be said to be a Committee point—and after all, the whole Bill is only dealing with two post office sites of which this is one—without some assurance that the Post Office have looked round for further accommodation, seeing that this ground was used as a burial ground and was a properly consecrated ground for the interment of remains.
  Sir ROBERT THOMAS: I asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite at Question time to-day whether he would remedy a grievance which we have in Wales with regard to appointments in the Post Office, and I rise in order to protest against the very flippant answer which he gave. He said he saw no more reason for the appointment, in the case of future vacancies in the Post Office, of those who had an acquaintance with the Welsh language than he thought the Welsh Members ought to have an acquaintance with the Welsh language. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the Welsh Members as well as I do, he would know that they are conversant with the Welsh language. If he wishes me to address him in Welsh, I shall have very much pleasure in doing so, though I am afraid he would be rather bored before I sat down. I hope he will give this matter his very serious consideration. There are some people in some of the parts of Wales who are really not acquainted with the English language, and it is a slight and a slur on a gallant nation to refuse them the right to speak their own language in public places.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would not be in order on this occasion.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should not like to he discourteous to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), hut he will find all the sites set out in

  1085
  the Bill and the details are a matter for Committee. With regard to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), I am not at all surprised that he should have asked what was a very proper question. The facts are these: In that portion of his constituency there is this disused burial ground. It has been disused since 1854, as far as I am aware. My statements must be ex parte, because the matter must be examined by a Committee upstairs with proper evidence. As I am informed, the ground was never, in fact, a consecrated ground. It was burial ground of the sect known as the Inghamites. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed some apprehension lest this ground should be used as an open space for the recreation of children.
  Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that it was probably so used now, and my apprehension was that it would no longer be so used.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not have any apprehension on that subject. I now understand that he expressed apprehension that is might cease to be used as an open space for the recreation of children and other purposes. As a matter of fact, the area of the burial ground is occupied in part by the Postmaster-General at the present moment, although not built upon. As to the other part of the burial ground, it is occupied by the whole width of Toronto Street and for about 15 feet on either side of the street it is now covered with substantial buildings which have been there since 1891. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that this ground, as a burial ground, has long ago ceased to exist, and in these circumstances, I hope and believe the Committee will agree to this appropriation of the remaining part by the Post Office for the purposes of the Post Office.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we leave this point, there is a reference on page 3 to Mount Street Gardens, which are public gardens in the City of Westminster. Westminster is notoriously short of playing-grounds, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to put a post office on these playing-grounds?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why no reply was given to the hon. Member on my left who put a point that surely was worth being considered and replied to? Does the Postmaster-General think he can walk in here, and in that off-hand manner of his not care whether he does reply or not?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) was speaking on a point which was not in order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: If that be the case, I put it, with all respect to you, that it is too late in the day for you to say that, because you never objected, but allowed him to go on.
  Mr. HARDIE: I was moved by the reference to the Inghamites. I would like to know if there is anything in the archives of the Post Office which will tell us whether originally there was any protest from them when the matter was first raised, and was there any protest after the Inghamites were disturbed?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only speak again by leave of the House. The Inghamites, as far as I am aware, ceased to exist as an active force many years ago. It is believed that all the bodies in this particular portion of ground have long since been removed. It is said that that was done in 1891. It is, however, a little difficult to say, but a part of the ground is in fact covered by streets and buildings and the remaining part is in the occupation of the Post Office, and I do not think any question is likely to arise.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Why should the Bishop of Ripon have jurisdiction over the bones of defunct Inghamites?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Because, so far as I know, there are no residuary legatees of the Inghamites. In regard to the Mount Street Gardens, the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are in fact not well founded. It is not proposed to disturb the surface of the gardens, as the work proposed to be executed is a tunnel, which has to be not less than 16 feet from the surface of the ground.
  Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

  REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transference of the respective powers and duties of the Scottish Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, to Departments of Health and Agriculture and a Prisons Department for Scotland, and to make further provision with regard to the office of Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland and other offices in Scotland, and with regard to the Public Registers, Records, and Rolls of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of (a) the salary of a Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland, and (b) of the salaries of clerks in the office of the Principal Extractor of the Acts and Decrees of the Court of Session."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I think we ought to have an explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the amount of money that he expects to be saved as a result of this Measure. I know it is out of Order to discuss the details of the Bill, which have already been discussed on Second Reading, and we shall have further opportunities of discussing them in Committee, but we have never yet had from the right hon. Gentleman the slightest indication of the amount of money that he expects to be able to save to the nation as a result of the alleged
  1088
  economies in this Bill. Indeed, the more this Bill is examined in Scotland by persons well qualified to know the facts, the less does it seem to be likely that there will be any possible saving, and there are people who estimate that the net result of the Bill will not be to produce what is called a diminution in cost, but will be to add some net charges to the Exchequer. If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea of what can be saved by the change, for instance, in the Prison Commission—
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): That is not included. This Resolution only applies to the salary of the new Keeper of the Registers, and, secondly, to the salaries of the staff in the Extractor's Department.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I should like to be quite clear that the first two Clauses of this Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill are not to be discussed to-night, because, if so, I must confine myself to asking for an explanation as to the savings, if any, that are expected to be effected under Clause 4 and subsequent Clauses of the Bill.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is quite clear that this Resolution deals only with two points. The first is that there shall be a salary provided for the new Keeper of the Registers and Records in Scotland, who will in future be head of the Records Department. I cannot say what amount that salary will be at the moment. It will have to be decided eventually in consultation with the Treasury, and so it is impossible now to say what amount of saving will be made, but it is clear that there is the abolishing of one post at present carrying a salary of £1,200, and it may well be that some appreciable saving may he made under that particular head. In any case—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright that he did not know what was going to be the salary of this individual who is going to be appointed in charge of the registers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know at the present moment what the exact amount of the salary will be. That is a matter for arrangement with the Treasury when the appointment comes to be made after the Bill becomes law, and all that I am saying is that at present

  1089
  there is going to be a combination of the duties at present held by three separate holders of these offices, namely, the Deputy Clerk Register, at £1,200, the Keeper of Sasines, at £1,000, and the Keeper of Deeds, at £500, and it is quite conceivable, therefore, that there will be some saving to the Treasury. The other point dealt with by this Resolution is with regard to the staff of the Extractor, who now, instead of being paid as they have been by the Chief Extractor, will become servants of the State, and pensionable. The advantage to the clerks and the staff of the Extractor will be very material, and I do not doubt that that will meet with the approval of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to appoint a civil servant to do the work that presently being done by a board. That will, I take it, involve a charge on the Exchequer.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No. The present charges are provided for by Votes coming before this House, and they will continue to be provided on those Votes in the ordinary way.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Until they are supplanted.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No; when they are supplanted.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to oppose this Resolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland said he is going to engage certain men to fill high positions in Scotland, but he has not yet made up his mind, and has not yet got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what wages he will pay those men. I leave it to the House to say if ever this happened before, if ever an intelligent man in charge of a Department, or, say, a manager in charge of a works, advertised for certain individuals to execute certain work for him without his having made up his mind what wages he was going to pay Is that not proof that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not fit for the position that he occupies? Tories may think not, but the Labour party is satisfied that we could supplant him to-morrow by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson). I am going to
  1090
  ask my colleagues to go into the Lobby, and, if possible, we will vote them out of office.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I would like to reinforce the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). We are told in the Financial Memorandum that the object of the Bill is primarily efficiency, but that the change should also be conducive to economy, and should permit some changes in the staffs, particularly in regard to the Records Office, without an increase in the total cost of the Department. With a statement of that kind in the Financial Memorandum, surely the Scottish Office and the Treasury must have gone into the matter to a certain extent. The Secretary of State has told us that this Memorandum does not apply to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The Financial Resolution does not apply to Clauses 1 and 2.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, I am referring to the Financial Resolution. We understand that in bringing about the changes which are proposed in this Bill, the Secretary of State is going to alter entirely the status of the servants of the Scottish Office. He is going to make them civil servants.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the present boards, and the staffs in connection with the boards, are civil servants, and this Financial Resolution has no bearing on any part of that Clause of the Bill.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I put this point to the Secretary of State in that connection. I hold the view that when the changes that are provided for in the Bill come into operation, and the officers are recognised as part and parcel of the ordinary civil Service, the most, natural thing for one to expect is that the civil servants of the Scottish Office will be looking for as large salaries as the corresponding servants in the English Departments, and that in all probability, instead of a saving being effected, they will find that there will be an increase in the cost of administration. If I am right in assuming that, where does the Secretary of State get the power to provide

  1091
  for the increase if it is not included in the Financial Resolution which we are considering?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: If there is to be an increase of salaries, that will result in an increased Vote. It does not require a Financial Resolution. In the case of this Bill we do require and ask for a Financial Resolution on two points. The first point is that the Deputy Clerk Register has a salary fixed by Statute. That office is now being abolished, and a new post, more or less equivalent, is being suggested under this Bill, and, being a new post, it is necessary to have a Financial Resolution to provide for salary. The second point relates to the
  staff of the Principal Extractor. At present the Principal Extractor appoints his own staff, and they are not established civil servants. It is most desirable, as has been pointed out by at least two Committees, that that staff should be put on an ordinary Civil Service pensionable basis. There, again, in order to achieve that basis, it is necessary to have a Financial Resolution. Surely hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that this is a desirable change and is only fair to the staff or the Extractor.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES.

  [9.55 p.m.

  Aqq-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Albery, Irving James

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Ramsden, E.

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Rye, F. G.

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bethel, A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Sanders. Sir Robert A.

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crort

  Hendearon, Sir Vivian (Bootle)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Stanley. Hon. D. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Buchan, John

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.

  Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

  Camphell, E. T.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Cope, Major William

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Couper, J. B.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Waddington, R.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Cainsbro)

  McLean, Major A.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wells. S. R.

  England, Colonel A.

  Meller, R. J.

  Wiggins, William Martin

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

  Merriman, F. B.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff. South)

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

  Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  wilson. R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Womersley, W. J.

  Fenhy, T. D.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Forrest, W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Captain Viscount Curzon and

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Pitcher, G.

  Captain Bowyer.

  NOES.

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

  Ammon. Charles George

  Barnes, A.

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

  Baker, Walter

  Batey, Joseph

  Bondfleld, Margaret

  Lowth, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromfield, William

  Lunn, William

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Glbbins, Joseph

  Murnin, H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Greenall, T.

  Polts, John S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Greenwood, A. (Netson and Coine)

  Richardson, R. Houghton-le-Spring)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Riley, Ben

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hardie, George D.

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

  Welsh, J. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Eiland;

  Whiteley, W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smillie, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Kennedy, T.

  Snell, Harry

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Charles Edwards.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  FIGHTING SERVICES (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir G. Hennessy.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish to raise a matter of which I gave notice last week, namely, the political rights of Service men. These rights have been very seriously affected by recent Orders from the Service Departments, and as my constituency is very closely touched by the Orders, I am sure that the House will be good enough to allow me to raise this question for a few minutes. I see that the First Lord of the Admiralty is good enough to be present, and, therefore, I will confine myself to the Naval aspect of the case. But it applies equally to the other Service Departments. The matter arises out of a Fleet Order, dated 26th August, 1927, a date at which, as the House will observe, we were in Recess, That Order laid down that no officer or man is allowed to speak or appear on the platform at, or take any active part in, any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interest.
  The House may believe that that provision is wise, or may believe that it is unwise, but that it is a very fundamental change in the practice that had prevailed up to the last General Election, no one can contest. The First Lord shakes his head, but I hope to prove to him, as I
  have already satisfied myself, that I am accurate in what I say, because I shall take the previous Orders on the subject. Up to the year 1918 there was no let or hindrance on the political rights of service men. When Lord Charles Beresford contested Portsmouth, he had an election committee of lower deck ratings, and in the town hall he held mass meetings over which a lower deck rating presided. In this example, he was followed by Admiral Meux, and therefore there was no question that before the War, service ratings were permitted to participate in elections. Rightly or wrongly, that was the position. In 1918, for the first time, this position was compromised and the following Fleet Order was issued. The effect of the Fleet Order is to say that service ratings may enjoy full political liberty provided they are in mufti. I will read the exact words to the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that he has contested my point of view. Article 6 of that Order says this:
  "Any officer acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, advocating a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively prosecuting a candidate's interest, is not permitted to do the same in uniform. Men may in uniform attend political meetings and put questions. Any man who desires to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any other way actively to promote any candidate's interest, must do so not in uniform. Requests for permission to wear plain clothes for this purpose during the forthcoming general election campaign are to he favourably considered."
  Since then, I myself have contested three elections in a service town, and I can assure the First Lord of the Admiralty that that has been the practice at every single one of those elections. I am going to qualify that in a minute, but I am taking the story chronologically. At the

  1095
  elections of 1922 and 1923 service men in service towns were permitted actively to prosecute the interests of any political candidate, and nobody who is living can deny that, because it is a plain, simple fact. In 1924, however, the first inroad that had ever been made in modern times was made by a Fleet Order. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is present, because he was Financial Secretary to the Admiralty at the time, and has since expressed some indignation against the present Government for following, his example.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is that?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Order was issued during the régime of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell. it is dated 24th October, 1924, a few days before the polling, and also when the matter could not be raised in Parliament. All that can be said for this Order is that it is not so stringent as the Order issued by the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty. It is in the following terms:
  "Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest."
  That Order created considerable consternation in the service towns, but was not generally followed, because it was difficult for the service towns to adapt themselves to this entirely new system, and officers did not realise what the Order meant. At any rate it appeared only two or three days before the actual polling day. The present Order, which I have read to the House, goes very much further than that. It does not specify what rights are left to the service man. It is very important in a matter of this kind that service men should know exactly where they stand.
  I ask the permission of the House to take it very briefly through an amazing story, because it shows that the Government have not the vaguest idea what they mean by this Order which has come into being, or how it came into being without the sanction of Parliament. The first point to which I wish to call attention is that on 16th November, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any
  1096
  change had been made in regard to the right of officers or men of the Navy to participate in political activities—not actually to stand for Parliament—such as attending meetings during the General Election or voting. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I should like to have a definition of 'other political activities' before attempting to answer that question."
  I pressed him on the point, and he was unable to say. Evidently he was in some doubt as to whether any actual change had been made. Then the hon. Member for North Camberwell asked him, on the very same day, and I believe following that question of mine:
  "Is the position of officers and men of the Navy in this respect fixed by Statute Law or simply by order of the Department?"
  The First Lord of the Admiralty replied:
  "I should like notice of that question."
  Then the hon. Member for Camberwell said:
  "Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in that case, whether it is right that this should be done without consultation with Parliament?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1927; col. 1018, Vol. 210.]
  He had done it himself. [Interruption.] Precisely, there was no opportunity of consulting Parliament, but he made this very important point, and I am going to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will answer it now, because he has had plenty of notice this time. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me to-night whether this Order-in-Council is promulgated under any Statute, and, secondly, why Parliament was not consulted in an important matter of this kind? I have some other vital questions to ask him; perhaps he will make a note of those. Then I asked the Prime Minister if he would lay down for the purposes of clarity exactly what a naval rating could or could not do during a general election. For instance, could he ask questions and so forth, could he canvass, could he express his opinions? I asked the Prime Minister that question on the 20th February, and the Prime Minister said:
  "I think that it is better to leave the interpretation of this general rule to the good sense of those concerned rather than to attempt to lay down a number of hard and-fast detailed Regulations."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1213, Vol. 213.]

  1097
  The House would not consent to a proposition of that kind for a minute. Our purpose as a legislative body is to tell people what the law is, and it would be most unfair if a naval rating were to find himself in prison because he had broken something which the Prime Minister thinks it better to leave in doubt rather than to define precisely. I pressed the Prime Minister on that day, and I asked:
  "Would it not be far more sensible to let these men know exactly what their rights may be, seeing that they have hitherto exercised them without any restraint? I have asked a number of particular questions in order to clarify the issue. May I know whether they may attend political meetings and ask questions of candidates? They are entitled to know that."
  The Prime Minister answered—
  "There has been no alteration in the Regulation, which has existed for many years, it is causing no trouble"—
  I ask the House to note this, in view of what follows:
  "and the fighting services have tried by means of definition to ease their position in the direction the hon. Member would undoubtedly desire to go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213 and 1214, Vol. 213.]
  In the first place I contest that this procedure is a procedure which bas previously been in force, and I contest the view that the effect of this Order is to move matters in the direction in which I would desire to see them go, because it is moving them in precisely the reverse direction. The Prime Minister further said on that day:
  "I am not aware of any difference in the situation to-day from the situation as I have known it ever since I have been a Parliamentary candidate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213–14, Vol. 213.]
  That is what the Prime Minister said on the 20th February. A few days afterwards I asked him exactly the same question again—whether he would define the precise rights of these men. I put down exactly the same question, and I got a very different answer. I was not referred to my previous question. I was told—this is on the 29th February—
  "In view of the large numbers of officers and men of the national army awaiting demobilisation in 1918, special permission was granted at that election to officers and men of all three fighting services to advocate their political opinions provided that they were in mufti. This special permission has
  1098
  since been withdrawn. and I see no reason for its renewal. The general rule in these matters for the three fighting services has now been formulated as a general prohibition of active participation in meetings held for party or political purposes, and the active prosecution of the interests of a Parliamentary candidate. This general Regulation, which I see no ground to modify, is clearly incompatible with the practice of, namely, canvassing, whether in uniform or in mufti, or in any other way of openly advocating the interests of a particular candidate. But personnel of the fighting services even in uniform are not precluded by the rules from attending political meetings and asking questions."
  Therefore, we have this great advance, that the position is now qualified to the extent that we know a service man may ask questions. Only a week ago we were told that it was better to leave these matters in doubt. The Prime Minister told us only last week that no change whatever had been made in the practice, and then, in answer to a supplementary question, he said:
  "I am no more infallible than the hon. Member; I have learned something from giving an answer in a hurry, and it is not to answer any supplementary questions of this kind without notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1928; cols. 397–98, Vol. 214.]
  This shows that the Prime Minister, having told us that there has been no change in regard to this matter during the whole of his political career is now obliged to admit a very fundamental change. In these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that if the Prime Minister held the view that no change had been sanctioned, he obviously could not have been aware that he was sanctioning a fundamental change taking place. What is the explanation of that? The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister took up the line that there had been no change at all on this question. I have always put the 1924 Order in all my questions because I want to safeguard myself against the Order of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). Until that date the rights of officers and men were untouched. In 1918, by the Representation of the People Act, officers and men in the fighting services were given votes simply because they were officers and men belonging to the fighting services. Under that Act, they were given votes for the first time, and they had no other qualification. I ask what is the good of giving them votes if you do not allow them to enjoy all

  1099
  that a vote implies? There are hon. Members in this House who have a special claim to represent these men, and the towns they represent would be virtually disfranchised by an Order such as the one to which I have alluded. Under that Order, no rating in my constituency would feel free to put questions to me which up to the present he has always been able to do. Here is a kind of letter I frequently receive:
  "I am going abroad on a three years' commission; will you look after my wife—in this or that particular—while I am gone?"
  That is the kind of question that every candidate for a service constituency has to answer. There are a large number of householders who are the wives of naval ratings, and the naval rating has been given a vote in order that his wife and family may be looked after. What has happened to make the Government afraid of naval ratings or of Service men? They are often Conservatives. I have already read the exact terms of both Orders, and, bad as the last Order was, this Order is very much more stringent. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that; he does not wish me to read it again, I am sure. I contend that, if the Services are fit to vote, they are fit to ask questions of candidates, they are fit to express opinions on the replies, they are fit to say to their colleagues that they should vote in this direction or in that direction, and there is no reason whatever to be afraid of these men. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions:
  Why was not Parliament consulted? Why should not Parliament be consulted, when the whole spirit of the Representation of the People Act is being violated? Will Parliament have an opportunity of being consulted on these Orders? Why have these Orders now been issued? Why was the Order issued in 1924, and why was it strengthened in 1927? Has anything happened to cause the country to lose confidence in the personnel of the Fleet?
  The right hon. Gentleman did say that this Order was the result of an Order in Council, but the Order in Council to which he referred at Question Time has nothing whatever to do with this sub-
  1100
  ject; it concerns the subject of officers standing for Parliament, a subject in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) is very much interested. and which he raised last week. I am raising the matter only as it applies to the men. That Order affected officers only in regard to standing for Parliament, and it does not touch the question of general political rights. Therefore, the First Lord of the Admiralty cannot base it upon that. Upon what, then, does he base it, because there is no such Order in the Civil Service? He has said on other occasions that it is necessary that all Government servants should be on an equality. If he is going to say that civil servants cannot express opinions amongst themselves as to which way they shall vote, I shall have occasion to contradict him, because I shall point to officers in his own Department who, with his cognisance and with the cognisance of the Admiralty, come down to my constituency and make speeches about dockyards. Therefore, he is not going to tell me that it is to put naval ratings on an equality with civil servants.
  Further, I want to point out to him this: He says himself that the Order is not clear. His exact words were that the Order is capable of being differently construed The Prime Minister admitted also that it was not clear when he said to me, "It is better that these matters should be left in doubt." The only meaning of such a sentence could be that the matter was in doubt under the words of the Order. Therefore, I give that as an additional reason why the Order should be withdrawn, and why, if it is necessary to substitute another Order, that next Order should lay down precisely, for every man to know, what his exact position is under the law. Then I would say to the First Lord that this Order has nothing to do with the Blanesburgh Committee, as he once asserted that it had, because the Blanesburgh Committee was not inquiring into the political—
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The beginning of the Order has undoubtedly to do with the Blanesburgh Committee.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That refers to candidature for Parliament, which I am

  1101
  not raising. I am raising the subject of the political activities of Service men. That is the sixth Article, and I have quoted it. The Blanesburgh Committee was not called upon to examine that question at all. I would ask the First Lord why, if the Prime Minister said that there had been no change, will he not withdraw the Order on these grounds, because, obviously, the Prime Minister did not intend that there should be a change? These are the questions that I would put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I hope that he has noted them, and that he appreciates the seriousness of the position. I hope that I have stated my case with restraint. After all, it does affect a large body of Service men and a large body of citizens in whom we have more right to be confident, and whom we have more right to trust, than any other section of the community.
  Mr. AMMON: I was not aware that there was going to be an oblique attack on myself and the last Government. The hon. Member might at least have given me notice and I could have refreshed my memory. So far as my memory serves me, I had some occasion, soon after the Government came into office, to go into the matter, with special reference to a dockyard official who had stood for Parliament and had been dismissed on account of his actions. That came up for review, and the man was re-instated in his position. I can say with confidence that, so far as the last Government was concerned, no alteration whatever was made in the exercise of citizen rights so far as officers and ratings of the Navy were concerned. The hon. Member himself has indicated that the Order was issued after the Dissolution and within a few days of the Poll. As far as I can gather from what he has said, it seems to have been just the usual Order that is issued throughout the Civil Service and the other Services when an election is pending, pointing out the line of conduct they should adopt when a General Election is in progress. It is, of course, usually left to the permanent officials to interpret the existing law and issue the Order accordingly, but I can at once say, whatever may have been the nature of it, it was done without my knowledge officially, and certainly it
  1102
  was not based on any alteration of the existing Regulations made by the last Government.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I should like to state what my experience has been with regard to officers, both in the Army and Navy at election time. In the 1906 election, a friend, an Army officer, was staying with me. He came over to Battersea and helped me, but the moment a General Election was called, he said it was absolutely out of order for him to attempt to take any part in active politics. As far as Plymouth is concerned, there has been no election there since 1910, when I have not had sincere and energetic support from men on active service in the Navy. I have never known an election occur when these men did not say, "We cannot appear in uniform; we cannot go to your public meetings; and we cannot canvass." I have never had support from them in that way. The more power that is given to the Navy to take part in elections, the more satisfied I and members of my party will be.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member who raised this question has not challenged the wisdom of the general intentions of all these Orders, which is to make it quite clear that Service members, either in the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or the Civil Service. shall be limited and restricted in their political activities. He has attempted to make out that some great change has taken place in the practice which did not exist before. It is true there was no codified practice before 1918, but it was generally understood as regards the Navy—he has only referred to the Navy to-night—that officers and men on full pay should not take an active part in politics. That was generally understood and observed. There may have been occasions when it was not observed, but it has always been the general practice.
  As far as the Army goes, there was an Army Order which prevented officers and men, in 1914 I think it was, from attending political meetings in uniform, but long before that it was generally accepted in this country that political activities of the fighting Services should be restricted. In fact on certain occasions the soldiers were confined to barracks on election day. The civilians of this

  1103
  country naturally felt rather suspicious about large bodies of uniformed men appearing at election time and interfering, or attempting to interfere, with what they felt was their freedom in election matters. So that it is no new idea in this country by any means that the armed Services should be restricted in their political activities. What has caused the hon. Gentleman so much trouble and annoyance, really, is that as a result of the election in 1918 being held at a time when the Army was being demobilised, all those restrictions had to be swept away, because they would have affected such an enormous proportion of the electors. Millions of men were being demobilised. He is thinking of the happy times of demobilisation, and trying to make us believe that they always existed before that time, and that it is only since then that some repressive change has been introduced. I do not know why from that time until 1924 nothing particular was done. I do not know the reason. But in 1924, under the Labour Government, a Fleet Order was issued, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said. It was issued in October, I think. He rather suggested that it was not issued under the authority of the Labour Party, but that it was issued just before the Election.
  Mr. AMMON: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said I took the statement of the hon. Member himself, who said it was two days before the election.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that his party were in office two days before the election and whether it was right or wrong, it was their responsibility.
  Mr. KELLY: Had they knowledge of it?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If they had no knowledge of it, they ought to have had. [Interruption.] They do not wish to dissociate themselves from it, I am quite sure. I do not know why they should, because it seems to me it is very essential that something in the way of restrictions should have been imposed. The hon. Member for Devonport said that there was an enormous difference between the Order issued in 1927 and the Order issued
  1104
  in 1924. I cannot follow the argument. What was the difference? The Order in 1924 reads:
  "Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claims at public meetings or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest."
  That was the 1924 Order—the Order of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The corresponding paragraph of the second Fleet Order which deals with this point and not with the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, says:
  "No officer or man shall be allowed to speak or to appear on the platform at or take any active part in any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interests."
  Where is the great difference?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Why was the difference made?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What is the difference?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is very much longer. It seems to me that the onus is on the right hon. Gentleman to show why these words have been strengthened.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It rests with the hon. Member to show the difference between the two Orders. There is no difference.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I oppose them both.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If they were very different, the hon. Member might have supported one and opposed the other, from what one gathered from his speech; but he opposes them both, because they are both the same. In this matter the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and I, whatever our own views may be about the activities of other people in electioneering, were responsible for similar Orders. The grievance of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) really does not exist.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not try to draw the hon. Member for North Camberwell into your camp.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member for North Camberwell has nothing to be ashamed of in associating himself with the actions of the party to which I belong. Whenever his party have done anything of that sort it has always been wholly for their benefit. It is not true to say that there was no let or hindrance until 1918. The hon. Member for Devonport said that he had had three elections in which there was perfect freedom, and, according to him, the activities of those who supported him were almost entirely unlimited. Was one of them the election in 1924?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then I am afraid that the hon. Member's constituents, although unnoticed at the time, must have exercised activities which they were not entitled to exercise.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I precisely said, if the right hon. Gentleman will do me justice, that until this Order was issued, two or three days before the poll, we did not know about it. It was never appreciated, and we could not stop the activities. It was something entirely new. Hitherto, naval ratings in mufti had been entitled to participate.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite understand, and it is very natural that when an Order was made very shortly before an election there might be some confusion, and no one would in fairness have taken advantage of it, unless it was in regard to some very flagrant case. But it does not prove that the change has taken place since 1924, because the hon. Member says that he and his constituents either did not know of it, or of they did know of it, took advantage of the fact when other people did not, and thereby gained an advantage. The hon. Member wanted to carry on as he had done before, and with the same result. I am sure he feels that even if his supporters had known all about it the result would have been no different. The hon. Member has asked me as to the way in which the Fleet Order was promulgated. It was promulgated in the same way in which any Fleet Orders in the interests of discipline are promulgated.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Not under any particular Statute.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member wants to regulate the proceedings by a Statute, all he has to do is to introduce a Bill into the House, and I am sure that with the persuasive eloquence which he enjoys and which we all admire, he will get a fair hearing, if not a successful Division upon it. He then went on to say that he was not satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply or with mine. I humbly apologise for the Prime Minister and myself. The matter, apparently, is one which has caused all of us some confusion, but this confusion seems to have lasted much longer in the case of the hon. Member than anyone else. Then he asked whether his friends could attend meetings and ask questions as to who was going to look after their mothers—[HON MEMBERS: "No, wives!"]—wives, if they were on service abroad. I shall be glad to reassure the hon. Member that that question, or any other question, asked at public meetings if they attend as private citizens will be in order, and I hope the desired result will be that every sailor who goes from Devonport will feel that wherever he may be his wife will be thoroughly well looked after.
  The other question which the hon. Member asked was whether they were allowed to canvass. That has already been answered, but, at any rate, the answer is in the negative. Then he went on to say that if they are not allowed to canvass we were really disfranchising these men. They were not allowed to canvass under the Order of 1924; and I have made no change. If the hon. Member wants to make a change in this respect he has only to convince the hon. Member for North Camberwell and myself, and the rest of the Members of this House, that such a change is necessary, introduce a Bill and get it passed. I shall listen to him with a perfectly open mind, but at the present time I am only carrying out what I believe to be the intention of Parliament, which is that these activities should be to some extent restrained, and that that restraint should be equally fair not only on officers as compared with men but on officers in the Defence services as compared with civil servants. That was our intention, and it was the intention of the hon. Member opposite, and in the Orders which have been promulgated we believe it has been carried out. I do not think that I can add anything more to what I have said, and I hope the hon. Member

  1107
  will go away with some faint hope that he will, in spite of all this, still be returned as Member for Devonport.

  DIVISIONS.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: Speaking on the adjournment I believe it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to almost any important subject which comes under the cognisance of the House, and I have a grievance which will not take more than three minutes to explain. It is this. We are frequently troubled by the pestilent behaviour—if that is unparliamentary I will say tiresome behaviour—of hon. Members of this House who, having called for a Division, do not then nominate Tellers. Having called hon. Members who are better employed in Committee, or perhaps at dinner, at any rate from distant parts of the House, into the Chamber at considerable trouble to themselves, they then refuse to go to a Division by not nominating Tellers. Can you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of your supreme authority, discourage this tiresome
  1108
  practice? Three times to-day—and I am not sure that there was not a fourth occasion—we have been called into the House, only to find that the Division for which we were summoned was "off." This clearly wastes the time of the House as a whole and of the individual Members, and I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to say something or, if it is in your power, do something to deprecate this very tiresome practice.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On that point of Order, Sir. I hope you will make it clear to the House that everything which has been done here to-day along those lines has been strictly in accord with Parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can do anything to prevent hon. Members changing their minds between the first call of the bells and the second call of the bells, but I understand that perambulation is good for the digestion.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  METALLURGICAL COKE SUPPLIES, WEST CUMBERLAND.
  METALLURGICAL COKE SUPPLIES, WEST CUMBERLAND.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  BRITISH MUSEUM (COMMIS- SIONAIRES).
  BRITISH MUSEUM (COMMIS- SIONAIRES).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
  COMMERCIAL ALCOHOL (TAXATION).
  COMMERCIAL ALCOHOL (TAXATION).
  TOBACCO LICENCES.
  TOBACCO LICENCES.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  COLLECTOR OF TAXES, MERTHYR (APPOINTMENT).
  COLLECTOR OF TAXES, MERTHYR (APPOINTMENT).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (CANDIDATES).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (CANDIDATES).
  MENTAL CASES.
  MENTAL CASES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DEPENDANT'S PENSION (MRS. DOGGETT).
  DEPENDANT'S PENSION (MRS. DOGGETT).
  WARRANT (MODIFIED INTERPRETATION).
  WARRANT (MODIFIED INTERPRETATION).
  PENSIONS INCREASE ACT.
  PENSIONS INCREASE ACT.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR MEDALS AND CLASPS.
  WAR MEDALS AND CLASPS.
  STAFF COLLEGE (CANDIDATES ON FOREIGN SERVICE).
  STAFF COLLEGE (CANDIDATES ON FOREIGN SERVICE).
  ENLISTMENTS (YOUTHS UNDER 18).
  ENLISTMENTS (YOUTHS UNDER 18).
  COST ACCOUNTING (STAFF).
  COST ACCOUNTING (STAFF).
  PHYSICALLY AND MEDICALLY UNFIT RECRUITS.
  PHYSICALLY AND MEDICALLY UNFIT RECRUITS.
HOUSING.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES (LOANS).
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES (LOANS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
  CONVERSIONS, HACKNEY.
  CONVERSIONS, HACKNEY.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  LOCAL TAXATION.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  COAST EROSION.
  COAST EROSION.
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.
  POPULATION.
  POPULATION.
EGYPT.
  ROBSON OUTRAGE.
  ROBSON OUTRAGE.
  ZAGHLOUL, PASHA.
  ZAGHLOUL, PASHA.
  CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
  CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
  WEI HAI WEI.
  WEI HAI WEI.
  INDIA (ARMY OFFICER'S ACCOUNT).
  INDIA (ARMY OFFICER'S ACCOUNT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  INDIAN RAILWAYS (ORDERS).
  INDIAN RAILWAYS (ORDERS).
  SILK MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS).
  SILK MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS).
  FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (BRITISH TRADE).
  FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (BRITISH TRADE).
  EXPORTS
  EXPORTS
IRAQ.
  NATIVE FORCE.
  NATIVE FORCE.
  HINAIDI CAMP, BAGDAD.
  HINAIDI CAMP, BAGDAD.
  RAILWAYS (FUEL CONSUMPTION).
  RAILWAYS (FUEL CONSUMPTION).
  ADMINISTRATION.
  ADMINISTRATION.
  DEPORTATIONS.
  DEPORTATIONS.
  TREATY WITH KING FEISAL.
  TREATY WITH KING FEISAL.
  CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (ELECTIONS).
  CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (ELECTIONS).
  KING FEISAL'S CABINET,
  KING FEISAL'S CABINET,
  MOSUL.
  MOSUL.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
  HONG KONG (TREATMENT OF CHILDREN).
  HONG KONG (TREATMENT OF CHILDREN).
  KENYA COLONY.
  KENYA COLONY.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, CEYLON.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, CEYLON.
  COLONIES (TREASURY BILLS).
  COLONIES (TREASURY BILLS).
IRELAND.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  MALICIOUS INJURIES AWARDS.
  MALICIOUS INJURIES AWARDS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  PASSPORTS (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  PASSPORTS (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
AGRICULTURE.
  SCOTTISH SEED POTATOES.
  SCOTTISH SEED POTATOES.
  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  CATTLE.
  CATTLE.
POST OFFICE.
  PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES (FORGERIES).
  PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES (FORGERIES).
  DELIVERIES, NORTHWOOD.
  DELIVERIES, NORTHWOOD.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  SUB-OFFICE, WEST LOOE.
  SUB-OFFICE, WEST LOOE.
  NIGHT MAIL SERVICE FROM PARIS.
  NIGHT MAIL SERVICE FROM PARIS.
  BROADCASTING LICENCES.
  BROADCASTING LICENCES.
  PRINTED MATTER (DERBY).
  PRINTED MATTER (DERBY).
  COLLECTIONS, MANCHESTER DISTRICT.
  COLLECTIONS, MANCHESTER DISTRICT.
  PARCEL POST RATE (PERISHABLE FOOD).
  PARCEL POST RATE (PERISHABLE FOOD).
  LYDNEY OFFICE (SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS).
  LYDNEY OFFICE (SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS).
  ST. MARTIN-LE-GRAND SITE (DISPOSAL).
  ST. MARTIN-LE-GRAND SITE (DISPOSAL).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (NON-INFLAMMABLE MATERIAL)
  RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (NON-INFLAMMABLE MATERIAL)
  BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON RAILWAY.
  BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON RAILWAY.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, RICHMOND.
  RAILWAY SERVICE, RICHMOND.
  ROAD VEHICLES (LIGHTS).
  ROAD VEHICLES (LIGHTS).
  FISH TRAFFIC (RAILWAY CHARGES).
  FISH TRAFFIC (RAILWAY CHARGES).
  STREET TRAFFIC (REGULATIONS).
  STREET TRAFFIC (REGULATIONS).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (RETIRING AGE).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (RETIRING AGE).
  DOWNING STREET (BARRIERS).
  DOWNING STREET (BARRIERS).
  MARRIED WOMEN ACT (MAIN- TENANCE ORDERS).
  MARRIED WOMEN ACT (MAIN- TENANCE ORDERS).
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT).
  DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT).
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (ACCIDENTS).
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (ACCIDENTS).
  HOLLOWAY PRISON.
  HOLLOWAY PRISON.
  GAMING AND LOTTERY ACTS.
  GAMING AND LOTTERY ACTS.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARIES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARIES.
  LIQUOR. TRAFFIC (LICENCES).
  LIQUOR. TRAFFIC (LICENCES).
  PENAL SERVITUDE (MINNIE FRENCH).
  PENAL SERVITUDE (MINNIE FRENCH).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE DEPART MENT.
  MERCANTILE MARINE DEPART MENT.
  FOOD STORAGE.
  FOOD STORAGE.
  ELECTRIC LIGHT SUPPLY, LONDON SUBURBS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHT SUPPLY, LONDON SUBURBS.
  BACON CONTROL (ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS).
  BACON CONTROL (ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS).
  GAS (CARBON MONOXIDE).
  GAS (CARBON MONOXIDE).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (S.S. "HARTINGTON").
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (S.S. "HARTINGTON").
  EDUCATION (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  EDUCATION (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  POST OFFICE THEFTS, LINLITHGOW.
  POST OFFICE THEFTS, LINLITHGOW.
SCOTLAND.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  OFFENCES BY YOUTHS, GLASGOW.
  OFFENCES BY YOUTHS, GLASGOW.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  DEPENDANT'S PENSION CLAIM.
  DEPENDANT'S PENSION CLAIM.
  MEDICAL RECORDS.
  MEDICAL RECORDS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
TRANSPORT.
  TOLL BRIDGES AND ROADS.
  TOLL BRIDGES AND ROADS.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1926 (PLANT).
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1926 (PLANT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  MEAT SUPPLY, GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
  MEAT SUPPLY, GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
  SUPER-TAX (DIVIDENDS).
  SUPER-TAX (DIVIDENDS).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPART- MENT.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPART- MENT.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to the division of counties into police districts; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FALSE OATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and simplify the law of Scotland relating to false oaths, declarations and statements; and to move that it read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DESTRUCTION OF VERMIN) BILL, [H.L.]
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the destruction of vermin and to amend the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926, and the Public Health (London) Acts, 1891 to 1926; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathspey.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AMESBURY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
BASINGSTOKE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
BUCKLEY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
DORKING ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
EPPING AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
LAIRG ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
LICHFIELD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
LOWESTOFT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
RUGELEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
THORNBURY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
WEST HANTS ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
NORTHALLERTON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name in reference to these Orders.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 7th of February last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD FUND.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had given Notice to call attention to the present condition of the Road Fund; and to move, That this House deplores the raids made by His Majesty's Government upon the Road Fund, which have delayed many necessary improvements and added to the unemployment in this country. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Resolution I am anxious to make one preliminary remark and that is that this Resolution is not meant in any way to affect the users of pleasure vehicles. In these days the number of pleasure vehicles, though comparatively large, does not, I think, represent anything like the majority of the users of the roads and certainly it is the motor lorry, the commercial light van, the motor omnibus, the business man's car, and the steam tractor, with wagons, which are the most frequent users of the roads—much more frequent than the Rolls Royces or the Daimlers. It is, therefore, in the interests of commerce, of industry and of trade that the roads and bridges in this country should be maintained in the highest possible degree of efficiency.
To take the first part of my Resolution, in his Budget Speech in 1925, Mr. Churchill used these words:—
"I believe that we ought to aim at a net reduction in the Supply Expenditure of not less than £10,000,000 a year. That is not taking an extravagant figure. It would be easy for me to get a more favourable response by giving a more illusory figure, but I should be content if we could be sure that the net diminution of our Expenditure was not less than £10,000,000 a year."
He meant each year progressively on Supply Services. He continued:—
"There should be certainly a saving of about £5,000,000 on the Debt operations of each year, and that will be, I trust and believe, a certain steady expansion of the Revenue."
To this figure of £10,000,000 a year it is only fair to add a certain automatic decrease in the expenditure from the decline in War Pensions, the reduced expenditure on Irish Services and so on. Those automatic decreases in three years totalled £12,000,000. Thus a reduction of £14,000,000 a year should have been effected on the 1925 figures. Then to that, of course, we ought to add the figure of £5,000,000 which, as Mr. Churchill said, we ought to be able to save on the Debt operations of each year.
Had His Majesty's Government carried out these hopes of economy which were held out by Mr. Churchill there would have been no necessity for a raid on the Road Fund. What do we find on the other hand? The national Expenditure last year was £46,000,000 greater than in 1924–25 and the Estimates for the current financial year show a sum almost as great. In 1923–4 the Expenditure was £788,000,000; and in 1924–5, it was £795,000,000. Mr. Churchill's Budget in 1923–6 was £826,000,000 and in the year 1926–7 £842,000,000; and for this year the Estimates, including Supplementaries, are no less than £838,000,000. Mr. Churchill attempted to defend the increased Expenditure in his 1927-Budget speech. Comparing the Expenditure of the Labour Government with his third Budget figures, he said he had to face "a little over £40,000,000 of increased Expenditure," which arose, he said,
"from the automatic working out of the decisions of previous Parliaments and Governments and from the effects of economic forces."
He omitted on that occasion to point out that the Expenditure was swollen by no less than £23,000,000 due to the coal subsidy and that in the course of the last two or three years the sugar subsidy has cost us nearly £10,000,000. The explanation was an endeavour to hide the real facts of the case.
The net reduction in the Supply Expenditure of not less than £10,000,000 a year, which he stated we ought to aim at, has not materialised. On the contrary, there has been an increase of nearly £20,000,000 a year in Supply Expenditure over the 1925 figures in each of the last three years. In 1927–8 the Estimates for the Fighting Services totalled £115,000,000, but it is probable that after full allowance has been made for the Shanghai Defence Force the total will be even higher than that. We are at present spending more on the Fighting Services than we did in 1924–5 and nearly £10,000,000 more than in 1923–4, when the lowest post-War figure was recorded. The other Supply Services show very substantial increases on the 1924–5 figures. The increase for the Civil Services is nearly £10,000,000, for the Customs there is an increase of £1,000,000, and for the Post Office an increase of over £7,000,000; though it is only fair to say, in passing, that those expendi-

345
tures are in regard to revenue-producing Services. Then Mr. Churchill tried to defend that increase by attributing it partly to increased expenditure in the repayment of the National Debt. When, however, account is taken, of the Budget deficits—which are added to the Debt—the actual amounts repaid have diminished each year. In 1923–4 we repaid £88,000,000; in 1924–5, £48,500,000; in 1925–6, £36,000,000; in 1926–7, 123,500,000, and we have yet to learn what His Majesty's Government will be able to repay at the end of the current year.
His Majesty's Government have resorted to various devices in order to meet increased Expenditure. First of all, there was the transfer of £1,100,000 from the balance of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund to the Exchequer under the Economy Act, 1926. Under the same Act they reduced the State contribution to the Health Insurance Fund by nearly £3,000,000 a year, the exact sum being £2,800,000. They reduced the State contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by £3,740,000 a year. They shortened the brewers' credits by one month under both the 1926 and 1927 Budgets, and, above all, they raided the Road Fund. The raids upon the Road Fund were only made possible by the policy which had previously been pursued by the Ministry of Transport. For some time the Ministry, under Treasury instructions, blanketed proposals which came from county surveyors, and no programmes of roadworks for the relief of unemployment were initiated in 1926–7 and 1927–8. Schemes of road and bridge improvement were held up or not approved. The proceeds of the Motor Taxes accumulated and the size of the Road Fund balance was artificially inflated, and that naturally gave rise to the idea that there was a large sum mounting up which nobody wanted and which indeed nobody wished to use. This state of affairs enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take advantage of it when he, found himself hard pressed for money or to find additional sources of revenue.
In two successive financial years he has raided the Road Fund by appropriating money not only from its reserve created in this artificial manner but also from its current revenue. Under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1926, in the first
346
place, £7,000,000 was taken from the reserve, and, secondly, one-third of the net proceeds of the Licence Duty on motor-cycles and all vehicles taxed on the horse-power basis. That amounted to over £3,400,000. Under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1927, further sums were transferred to the Exchequer—namely, £12,000,000 from the reserve, which was practically the whole credit of the Fund at that time, and one-third of the tax-revenue on motor vehicles taxed on a horse-power basis. The yield from this source is estimated at £4,000,000. During the two years the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appropriated no less than £26,400,000 from the Road Fund.
Assurances have been given from time to time that the proceeds of these Motor Duties would be used for the upkeep and improvement of the roads of the country and that not a penny would be touched for Exchequer purposes. That was a pledge which motorists accepted with pleasure at the institution of the Road Fund. In 1909 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George, stated that the brunt of the expense for the improvement of the roads must at the beginning be borne by motorists, and to do them justice they were willing and even anxious to subscribe handsomely towards such purpose, so long as a guarantee was given in the method and control of expenditure that the funds so raised would not merely be devoted exclusively to the improvements of roads, but that they would be well and wisely spent for that end. Later on Mr. Lloyd George declared:—
"This tax…has been imposed purely for the benefit of the roads of the country and it is no part of the general scheme of the Government for raising revenue. It is purely a tax raised to enable us to set aside a Fund for the purpose of improving the roads of the country."
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of the Government when that declaration was made.
VISCOUNT PEEL: 1909?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: 1909 and later. At any rate, when this new Fund was instituted on an entirely new principle, this was the pledge which was given and which was acquiesced in by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was a member of the Government. In moving the Roads Act, 1920, when Mr. Winston Churchill was

347
still a member of another Government, Sir Eric Geddes said:—
"It is a specific Act to ensure a specific revenue to be devoted to a specific object. From whom? For what? From road users for the improvement of the roads."
Then Mr. Arthur Neal, the Parliament Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, in the Second Reading debate on December 2, 1920, said:…
"The motorists have consented to raise money by this particular tax on the definite undertaking that the money shall be expended in the improvement of roads. Therefore this Fund, specially raised by taxation of a particular class, is specially safeguarded against its expenditure being diverted from the use for which it is raised to the relief of general taxation."
These pledges, given in 1909 and confirmed as recently as 1920 by spokesmen for the Governments of which Mr. Churchill was on both occasions a prominent member, have been broken by his action in 1926 and again in 1927. That Mr. Churchill was contemplating this breach of faith is clearly shown in speeches which he made on August 4 and 7, 1925.
The raids materialised and motorists, whose consent and active co-operation was obtained in creating and maintaining the Road Fund, now find themselves compelled to make an additional contribution to the general Revenue of the country while those who are not motorists are free from a corresponding obligation. There is no justification whatsoever for the suggestion that the proceeds of the Road Fund are in any way earmarked for "expensive roads." On the contrary the Fund is expended at the discretion of the Minister of Transport, on maintaining and improving existing highways, and constructing and maintaining new highways, but at least two-thirds of the total sum available is reserved for existing highways. Hence the work of maintenance and improvement of existing roads is the more important, and it is just this work which is being hindered by the Chancellor's action. The backward condition of most of our roads, the weak state of many bridges, the increasing congestion on the main thoroughfares through the development of motor transport clearly demand increased rather than reduced expenditure.
There is no doubt that the diversion of the Road Fund from its legitimate
348
purpose has and will have a material effect on road construction, improvement and maintenance and will indirectly affect rates and unemployment by increasing rates and unemployment in the country. The effects of the raids have been twofold. In the first place, schemes already approved have in some instances been modified, cut down or cancelled. Many highway authorities had planned programmes for continuous development to meet the needs of an expanding traffic only to find them held up. Nor are highway authorities now encouraged to put forward new schemes. Secondly, work on other schemes has been slowed down and delayed. It is difficult to point specifically to road works where these results have followed in consequence of Mr. Churchill's Road Fund policy. The county surveyors are dependent upon the Ministry of Transport for sanction of their schemes and they decline to make any official pronouncement—not an unnatural position for the county surveyors to take up in the circumstances. The Treasury, in turn, exercise pressure on the Ministry of Transport to prevent the publication of any statement which may be detrimental to the Treasury's policy. Therefore it is not surprising, when the Daily News motoring correspondent asserted that
"three glaring examples of the practical abandonment of road development are the Oxford Road, the Great North Road, and the Great Western Avenue improvement scheme,"
that the Treasury should have denied immediately that "road schemes were being delayed by lack of funds."
Nevertheless a few examples of the hold-up of schemes of road improvement and construction, consequent upon these raids on the Fund, can be cited. In the South of England, the Western Avenue affords the most typical example of a scheme directly held up by the Exchequer. This road was intended to extend from Bayswater to beyond Uxbridge, a total length of twelve miles. The section from Greenford to the Oxford Road has not been started, although the first section of the road has been completed for some years. The final section was actually put out to tender in 1925, prior to Mr. Churchill's first raid of £7,000,000 in April, 1926. Following that raid the Treasury refused to release

349
the money to permit the road to be completed, although it is one of the most urgently needed outlets for Western London, and although the Middlesex County Council is fully prepared to pay 50 per cent. of the cost. I think it is impossible to find a more stupid example of extravagance than to begin a road, finish the middle part of it, and deny people access to either the one end or the other, but to leave just the middle part, on to which nobody can get. That is surely far from being economical, and is a great waste of public money. Yet that is the position in which as I understand it, the Great Western Avenue finds itself at the present time.
Other examples of the way roads are held up, and delaying the business life of London are the Shooters Hill Pass and Colnbrook, Those of us who sometimes motor in that direction have for long cast wistful glances at the beginning and end of the Colnbrook by-pass, the completion of which is held up, I understand, because of some difficulty with regard to a bridge. I must apologise to the noble Viscount for not having given him notice of this particular matter, but if he could give us any assurance that the bridge is likely to be finished within reasonable time, I am sure we should be very pleased indeed. The fact is that these arterial roads end just where they ought to begin. They end just where the traffic into London is at its very worst, and when these large commercial cars use these arterial roads they find themselves planted in London just where the traffic begins to be of the very worst kind. These roads do not enable one to get out of London either. The inadequacy of the bridges across the Thames creates congestion, and the narrowness of several of them results in bottle necks. The ideal to work for is a completed circular road all round London, great extensions of the new thoroughfares right into the country, and new bridges to facilitate cross-river traffic.
The Roads Improvement Asociation made the following statement in their annual report for 1926–7:—
"The raiding of the Road Fund has been responsible for a great restriction in the volume of new road work authorised during the year, and the abandonment of many previously approved schemes. The full
350
effect of the raid, however, has not yet become apparent to road users generally, as road work authorised in one year is actually carried out in two or three ensuing years."
Although unwilling to provide specific details of schemes delayed, local authorities have not hesitated to protest vigorously in general terms, both individually and through their association, against the policy of Mr. Churchill. I might give a number of examples, but I will content myself with a few. Mr. Snowden, in the House of Commons on July 5 last year, stated that the West Riding County Council had made repeated applications to the Ministry of Transport for financial assistance from the Road Fund, and for sanction of the necessary loan, and in reply received the following communication from the Ministry:—
"I regret, however, to inform you that there are at present no funds available from which such assistance can at present be given, but the scheme will be registered with a large number of others, and will be considered if and when funds become available."
In December, 1927, the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire convened a conference of some 140 highway authorities of the West Riding to protest against the result of Mr. Churchill's policy, and to press for higher maintenance grants. The highways committee of the County Council pointed out that they had been forced either to turn down or defer demands on the County rate by local highway authorities for road improvement schemes amounting to half a million pounds. Again, a special committee of the Northamptonshire County Council, recently appointed to investigate the possibilities of economy in the maintenance, repair and improvement of main roads and bridges in the County, reported:—
"During recent years the sums provided in the estimates for improvements on main roads have been kept, as the committee has been informed, at an exceptionally low figure. Numerous applications have been received from local authorities for improvements in various parts of the country, and have been deferred owing to lack of funds."
What has happened in fact has been that the local authorities have been discouraged from submitting schemes, or pressing them forward by the knowledge that there is no money available for them, and that the Road Fund would not go on increasing as motor traffic grew.

351
It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world for a Government Department to defer improvement schemes actually submitted, and to postpone the actual submission by months, by the simple process of not telling local authorities what assistance they are likely to get. It is not so much that the scheme has been damped down, or repressed or rejected, as that the whole initiative of the local authorities and of everyone concerned with road construction has been ham-strung.
Moreover, the raids have thrown an additional burden on the rates. The total expenditure of local authorities on highways and bridges (other than expenditure out of loans) in 1925 was £51,750,000. This is nearly £1 4s. per head of the population. Roads are amongst the heaviest burdens borne by the rates. Of the expenditure out of county council funds 15 per cent, is for highways, and out of rural district council funds 59 per cent. or nearly three-fifths of the total expenditure, so that every reduction in the monies of the Road Funds means a heavier burden on the rates, an increase in the rates which have to be paid by the ratepayers of this country. The matter is really an urgent one, and one of those which ought to be dealt with immediately, and dealt with in a broad fashion. The startling increase in motor traffic during recent years calls attention to the great urgency for dealing with the problem of road reconstruction and development.
Striking figures of the rapid growth of motor traffic are given in the Report on the Road Fund. The approximate number of motor vehicles licensed in Great Britain was 1,729,000 in 1926 as against 1,141,000 in 1923—an increase of over 50 per cent, in three years. This great extension of traffic has taken place in a period of great depression. The figure for 1926 represents one motor vehicle for every twenty-six persons in Great Britain, as compared with one to six in the United States and one to eleven in Canada, so that we are far from having reached the saturation point. Moreover, recent traffic censuses have shown that the average weight of traffic has considerably increased on all roads. I will give one or two examples. Among Class 1 roads, the Carlisle-Edinburgh main road has increased from 1,979
352
tons per day in 1923 to 4,392 tons per day in 1924, and the London-Worthing road has increased in the same period from 2,278 tons per day to 5,213 tons per day. Among Class 2 roads, the Purley-Epsom-Burnt Stubbs road has increased from 838 tons per day in 1922 to 1,505 tons per day in 1924, and the Margate-Broadstairs road from 1,415 tons per day in 1922 to 2,616 tons per day in 1924.
The existing road system is obviously inadequate for modern traffic requirements. The County Councils Association, in a memorandum based upon information supplied by the county surveyors of fourteen representative counties, in 1925, stated:—
"Approximately only 48 per cent, of the existing classified main roads are fit to carry modern traffic. Of the remainder approximately 38 per cent, require reconstruction at an estimated cost of nearly£25,000,000; approximately 27 per cent, require, in addition, widening or diverting at an estimated cost of nearly £44,500,000.… In many places there are no foundations or foot-paths, narrow carriage-ways, old bridges, and dangerous corners. … In ten typical counties approximately only 7 per cent, of unclassified main roads are equal to the burden of the traffic noon them. Approximately 89 per cent, of the remainder require reconstruction at an estimated cost of over £4,500,000, and approximately 48 per cent, require widening or diverting at an estimated cost of nearly £5,750,000.… The proportion of district roads unfit to carry the traffic which they are now called upon to deal with is probably greater than is the case with regard to county main roads."
The same thing applies with regard to bridges There are a large number of bridges wholly unfitted to carry modern traffic. The County Councils Association has figures relating to bridges also. In seventeen counties 740 county bridges require reconstruction. The latest Report on the Road Fund calls attention "to the inadequacy under modern traffic conditions of many of the older bridges" and adds:—
"From many parts of the country urgent representations have been made to the Minister by manufacturers, traders, chambers of commerce, road-hauliers, etc., that grave disabilities are imposed upon trade by the weakness of these bridges. … The inconvenience is naturally most acutely felt in the busiest industrial areas where the intersections of roads with railways and canals are most frequent."
Modern traffic developments have led to increasing congestion on the roads,

353
and, although it is impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy the money cost of delays through congestion, one or two figures serve to indicate the magnitude of the losses suffered. The London General Omnibus Company, according to a statement made in November, 1927, by Mr. Frank Pick, "lost in actual out-of-pocket expenses £1,000,000 a year" through delay in congestion on the streets. The general secretary of the Commercial Motor Users' Association puts the cost of traffic congestion in Greater London as high as £25,000,000 per annum. I think that is enough to prove my point that necessary improvements are being delayed.
I turn to the effects upon unemployment. Mr. Shrapnell-Smith, a member of the Roads Advisory Committee, Ministry of Transport, stated in an article in the Municipal Journal of January 28, 1927, that—
"The Road Fund is now in a sense the spring and inspiration of employment for about one-tenth of all employed persons in the country. Directly and indirectly the total is some 1,200,000. There are approximately 820,000 employees in commercial road transport, apart from manufacture. The other 380,000 are divided between constructors of vehicles and parts, contractors for road-making and maintenance, and a proportion of those in the service of local authorities. Whilst, perhaps, only 120,000 of these men are now on pay-rolls directly met out of payments from the Road Fund, the livelihood of all the others is dependent upon the continuance of good and strong roads. Any abuse of the Road Fund by abstraction or diversion has now become fraught with most serious economic effects of an adverse character."
It is noteworthy that despite the continued prevalence of serious unemployment in this country, to which we have often called the attention of your Lordships' House, no further schemes of road work for the relief of the unemployed have been initiated during the last two Years, and even programmes sanctioned in previous years have been revised and some works cancelled. That is sufficiently proved by figures which I will quote. In 1920–1 the revised figure of the total assistance offered by grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of road works expedited for the relief of unemployment was £2,808,000. For the next year the figure was £4,068,000. In 1922–3 the figure was £5,255,000, in 1923–4 it was £7,494,000, and in 1924–5 it was
354
£13,623,000. In 1925–6 and in 1926–7 no further programmes were initiated at all.
The main effect of the raids on the Fund has been to restrict or hold up further developments and to stop great schemes. We have an example in the Great Western Road in Scotland which was estimated to cost £2,500,000. That would have supplied work for 5,000,000 men-days, or a year's work for 16,000 men, apart from indirect work to a further number of people in providing material and machinery necessary to make the roads. These schemes would have given employment to many thousands of men. Of every pound spent by the Road Fund it is estimated that ten shillings goes in direct wages, and of the other ten shillings a good part goes in indirect wages to workers in the industries supplying materials and machinery. In direct wages alone there is a loss of £13,000,000 through the raids. That is equivalent to a year's employment for 80,000 men at ten shillings a day. If allowance is also made for the indirect expenditure in wages the raids are tantamount to depriving 130,000 men of a year's steady work. I say that the policy of the Government has been to hold up schemes of road improvement and development, and its result has been to add very materially to the number of unemployed in this country.
The policy which my noble friends and myself would advocate is diametrically opposite. Instead of raids and reduced programmes we would advocate a reversal of that policy. A great deal might be done by capitalising the Road Fund and intensifying the programme of road works to be carried out as soon as possible. The Report of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry, which I am glad to see the noble Viscount has been studying with great care, says:—
"It will be still possible, by raising a loan on the security of the rapidly increasing income of the Road Fund, to undertake a very large programme of road construction without any additional charge to the taxpayer or ratepayer. This would be in every way wise and justifiable finance, The policy of road development should be consistent and continuous, but, if any variation at all is to be made in the amount to be expended, it should be in the direction of increasing, and not reducing, the amount of expenditure in times of depression. If the Road Fund is to be at the mercy of Budget exigencies, it will be just at the time of depression when it is likely to be raided,

355
whereas it is just at this time that the whole of its resources should be concentrated on the large-scale policy of road development as a contribution to the unemployment problem and a counterpoise to the falling off of purchasing power in other directions."
I say that expenditure of this kind is, in the truest sense, economy. It means wise and productive expenditure which is to the advantage of the people of this country.
For the benefit of noble Lords opposite, I would like to make a quotation from the Report of the United States Department of Agriculture, in which the Department say:—
"Improved roads are not a luxury to be enjoyed if we have the means and put aside if we have not. The fact is that we lose more by not improving them than it costs to improve them: so that we may say that we pay for improved roads whether we have them or not and we pay less if we have them than if we have not."
A good many years ago, just before the last Liberal revival, we heard a great deal on the subject of economy and efficiency. Refusal to carry out necessary works is not economy, and certainly it does not relieve unemployment. Efficient roads are necessary for the trade and commerce of the country to-day. If we hope to see a revival of trade it must be assisted by an improvement in the roads of the country. We need these roads, and inefficiency in this direction can only lead to greater extravagance in the end. A refusal to spend necessary money is not true economy, and I think the figures and facts that I have ventured to put before your Lordships are sufficient to show that there are a large number of works which are urgently necessary and which have not been undertaken by His Majesty's Government, and that there has been a large amount of unemployment which might have been cured if only these unfortunate raids upon the Road Fund had not taken place. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House deplores the raids made by His Majesty's Government upon the Road Fund, which have delayed many necessary improvements and added to the unemployment in this country.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is always the difficulty, in discussing in this House a question which involves finance, that we are bound to feel that we cannot do anything effective in the matter. But
356
that is no reason for not raising the question which the noble Earl has raised and calling the attention of the House to the deplorable state of things that he has sketched to your Lordships. I recollect very well the occasion when this tax was first suggested and proposed to motorists, and I desire, if I may, to pass a little beyond the detailed figures of the noble Earl, valuable as they are—perhaps your Lordships will appreciate them even more fully to-morrow when you come to read them—to some of the general considerations involved. At that time motorists, represented by their organisations, were immensely flattered at being, as it were, consulted by the Government about this new taxation, and they permitted themselves very easily to walk into the net that was spread before them. I ventured at that time to advise them that no Government was to be trusted and that no promise made by any Government had any validity in this country, where we have, no Act of Parliament which cannot be repealed in the following year. The advice that I ventured to give them was that their only protection was to adopt the attitude of a militant and well-organised body like the Licensed Victuallers' Association and to make themselves into a body so forcible in votes that these pledges were more likely to be kept. They did not take that advice and they walked readily into the trap that was spread before them.
The noble Earl was fully justified in saying that there was a definite pledge and a definite understanding. I know that this matter has been discussed before. I know that it was discussed in another place when the raid on the Road Fund first took place, and various explanations and various softenings, if I may use the word, were given in mitigation. But the fact remains that there was a perfectly clear understanding, as the noble Earl has said, between the taxer and the taxed that these Funds, when raised, were to be devoted to road improvement and were not to be diverted to the general taxation of the country. That pledge has been broken. What was the object with which this tax was imposed? It was not imposed as a luxury tax and it was not suggested at the time that it was imposed as a luxury tax. If it had been, it would have been appropriate to suggest many other luxuries that would have been fitting objects for

357
taxation. For instance, as I am not an owner of racehorses, it has always seemed to me that a tax of £100 a year for each racehorse that a man may keep would be a very moderate and equitable tax if you were taxing luxuries. But the object of the tax was said to be that those who used the roads should pay for them. I confess that I considered this to be a bad principle in itself, because I thought it was going back to the principle of the Turnpike Acts. I have always taken the view that roads are valuable to the whole community and not only to those persons who actually with their wheels traverse them, and that they should be paid for by the community as a whole. That was said to be the object of the tax. Great improvements were promised and very great improvements have been made. I will make the concession that I think that in some cases there have even been unnecessary improvements here and there and that there are a few instances of needless extravagance. But the necessary improvements that have been made far exceed anything of that sort.
These Funds had an ample use before them, even as they were in their unraided condition. There is not merely the contribution to the upkeep of the roads, which has not been very much interfered with, but there is also the construction of new arterial roads, the rounding off of dangerous corners and all those other improvements which your Lordships see as you go about the country. Those improvements from the motorists' point of view—and I beg your Lordships to understand that I am not speaking from the motorists' point of view; I am merely mentioning his point of view, but I am speaking as a person interested in principles of taxation—from the motorists' point of view those improvements were worth paying for. They have reduced considerably the cost of motor travel and they have reduced the cost of commercial motor transport. It was for that reason, among others, that I was inclined to think, on general principles of taxation, that they should have been paid for by the community, because the van which you see running along the public roads carrying parcels is carrying your parcels, and it is in your interest that those parcels should be carried cheaply and that it should be possible to make a cheap rate for your parcels, for heavy stuff or whatever it may be. There is, I say, an
358
ample use for these Funds. What has happened, as the noble Earl has truly said, is that improvements have been held up and improvements that have been contemplated and arranged for have been stopped by the raid on the Fund. I use the word "raid" because it is a Parliamentary word. I confess that I should not hesitate to use a very much stronger word—
VISCOUNT PEEL: What word?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not propose to use it, but I say that I should not hesitate to use a much stronger word in other surroundings. It would not be suitable to your Lordships' House. Let me give you one specific instance. Your Lordships will remember that this Government appointed a Committee with instructions to report urgently upon the question of London bridges, That Committee did report, and recommended an expenditure amounting to a considerable sum. It has been pointed out that this expenditure could be met and financed on a loan basis by an annual subvention of a comparatively small amount from the Road Fund every year. But that amount is not available. And what has happened to the Report and to the urgent matter of Waterloo Bridge? So far as I know, nothing has happened. The Committee were asked to report urgently and I think it is a year since they reported—it may be more—and nothing has been done about it, and we do not know how the matter stands. There is a matter on which the Road Fund could most properly have been expended.
I wonder if many of your Lordships remember a speech which gave me great pleasure at the time, though I was not optimistic enough to hope to see it realised, which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, made some twenty years ago regarding radiating roads in London. That always seemed to me to be an eminently necessary and desirable scheme and, if it could have been carried out ten years ago, the roads would, of course, have cost less than one half of the sum that they would cost if they were made now. But, even so, they are held up. The western exit is not completed, and the additional part of it that was expected to go westward along the Cromwell Road is not completed. The

359
circular road round London has been in contemplation and has been talked of for many years, but it is not completed. There are portions that are said to belong to the circular road, but they are not yet dealt with and they cover very large stretches. All these are matters in which I agree heartily with the noble Earl that expenditure would be a real economy for the country, because you would be getting value for your money in every sense of the word.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he took this money, said, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that the Exchequer proposed to act as banker to the Road Fund. That, I think, was one of the phrases that were used. What is the good of a banker who will not honour your cheques? That is now the position when local authorities apply for authority to get on with these projects. They are told, as we have heard, that there is no money. These Funds cannot possibly support the loss of 226,000,000, a large part of which really was pledged to schemes of development made many years in advance. Many of these large schemes take three years, or it may be five years to complete, and a local authority has to consider that long time ahead and to budget that long time ahead, and, of course, has to rely upon the Government promise of contributions. How they will ever dare to do so in the future, if they feel that they cannot rely upon the contributions promised by the Government, I do not know. It seems to me that until confidence is restored, you will have a great deal of difficulty in getting the local authorities to undertake this large expenditure, and these large road developments, again.
The noble Earl mentioned in the course of his speech a body called the Road Improvements Association. I have been a member of that association since its foundation, and it is, and always has been, an association employing very moderate and very reasoned language, and your Lordships have heard what they thought proper to say in their last report about this matter. Twenty years ago, on that association, we regarded with hope, but without much expectation, an expenditure of £1,000,000 a year upon the roads of this country, and we felt that if £1,000,000 of national money was expended, it would be something
360
to be thankful for. Now the amount expended is very much more than that, and the necessity is something out of all proportion to the necessity which existed twenty years ago. It is still growing day by day and with very great rapidity. Your Lordships must have seen calculations constantly appearing as to the cost to the community of traffic delays, and of the amount of money wasted. That hurts the trade and progress of the country. In that association we have pressed, and always shall press, that the roads of the country may be given their proper share of attention.
I want to say a few words upon, as they seem to me, the ethics of these raids upon the Road Fund. You have raised this tax for a particular purpose, and finding a sum of money there, you have suddenly seized that sum of money, and applied it to the needs of the National Exchequer. That is taxation of a particular class of the community for the national needs, under a pretence that you are taxing them for something else. That does not seem to me to be ethically a sound proposition. You have no particular reason, so far as I can see, for saying that those who use motors upon the roads should contribute, out of proportion to their means, to the National Revenue of the country, as compared with other taxpayers; but you desired to do this, among other reasons, I suppose, in order to take sixpence off the Income Tax, which ought never to have been taken off, in my opinion. You are now going to tax a particular class of the community, and without any excuse for taxing that particular class. If the taxation of cars, which is very heavy, is producing more than is required for the roads, then that taxation ought to be in some way reduced, and I will point out to your Lordships one manner in which it ought to be reduced, in equity.
When this tax was first instituted, it was provided that cars more than, I think, seven years old should pay at a reduced rate. That date, of course, has long gone by, but you ought to make that obviously a progressive figure. You ought to provide that cars which are more than five or seven years old should pay tax at a reduced rate. A car which is five years old, or seven years old,

361
nowadays, is almost unsaleable, because the annual tax comes to something like 20 or 25 per cent. of the second-hand value of the car. It may be desirable that old cars should be scrapped while still capable of service, though that is not real economy, but the result of the tax now is that old cars are practically unsaleable, and people cannot use them. There is another result that is incidental, and that is that many people would keep a second car, or a car of an old type, for a station car, or something of that sort, if the tax were reasonable, but no one can do that now unless a car is in full and continuous use. If you have too much revenue, obviously what you ought, in the first place to do is to reduce the tax upon old cars.
What the noble Earl asked the House to do is really of extreme mildness—so mild that I hope the Government may see their way to accept it, because he only asks the House to deplore the raids upon the Road Fund, and I cannot help thinking that your Lordships must deplore those raids, and should deplore them. I can only say that if my noble friend thinks fit to go to a Division upon the matter, I certainly will vote with him, hopeless as any Division on such a matter would be in this House; but I ask your Lordships to consider this matter in its general aspect of taxation, and not with particular regard to motorists or the roads, and also to consider it from that other important point of view, the point of unemployment. This is a method by which, not by wasteful but by useful expenditure, you can employ a very large number of the unemployed, and it was at one moment much pushed and commended for this very reason. You have, however, stopped that, and you are not reducing the army of unemployed, but are throwing extra burdens upon the rates to the benefit of the National Exchequer.
I have always disapproved of the sort of indirect taxation which is involved here. If you find that this revenue is more than is wanted for the roads, then the proper course is to reduce that revenue. If it is not more than is wanted for the roads, then it ought to be spent upon the roads, and in the present condition of unemployment, and with the number of schemes which are waiting
362
to be carried out—schemes of first-class importance, and of the greatest benefit to the country—I do not think the noble Viscount opposite will be able to show that the revenue is more than is reasonably required. I do not know that I altogether envy him his task. I do not know whether he is going to explain with gusto that he represents the burglar and rejoices in the diminution of the sums at the disposal of the Ministry of Transport. It is, I suppose, the Ministry of Transport that he is going to represent when he replies, and if so, he is going to show a very Christian and forgiving spirit. The Ministry of Transport have to deal with the matter, and to make the allocations. That they should be pleased to have their opportunities of improving the roads of the country interfered with I cannot imagine, and therefore I should be surprised if the noble Viscount's defence comes from his heart, rather than from his instructions, or, if he prefers it, from his head. I do regard this as a very serious matter, and think that a very serious wrong has been done. I regard it as a breach of a Parliamentary pledge, which is in itself unfortunate, as a bad method of taxation, and a very unfortunate thing from the point of view of unemployment. For all these reasons we should get some assurance from the Government that this vicious practice, which has been carried out for two years running, will not be repeated. We cannot hope that they will make good sums which have once been put into the National Exchequer, but if they will give us an assurance that this will not be repeated, I think we shall feel more comfort than we are able to feel at present in this matter.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, if I might for a few minutes speak from the point of view of the county councils and the County Councils Association, I would say that there are other aspects of this question besides that to which the noble Earl mainly devoted himself. It seems to me that the schemes under which money might be borrowed specially to provide employment in order to make particular improvements that otherwise would not come within the practical programmes of road authorities, are not what is really required at the present time. As one concerned with county administration I am interested in the meek man

363
who really bears the burden of it, and that is the ratepayer. When I consider the enormous burden resting upon the ratepayer it seems to me that what is really required is not great new schemes, but the application of all our resources to the proper maintenance and improvement of the roads we already have in use.
In 1888 Parliament accepted the principle that half the cost of the roads should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and provision was made at that time for that purpose. The whole cost of the roads then was £2,000,000 a year, and the contribution then made was not increased, and, of course, has become, if it still exists, entirely negligible compared with the enormous sums which we are now spending. The local authorities, as the noble Earl told us, are spending over £50,000,000 a year upon road-making, and of that sum the ratepayer—who, in matters of education and police, sees the Imperial Exchequer providing 50 per cent. to meet his contribution of 50 per cent.—is paying between 70 and 75 per cent. It is admitted that the grants from the Road Fund have been large, and, so far as money is available, generous, but they are not sufficient because the cost of our roads is out-running the ability of the ratepayer to pay.
I recently had occasion to go into the figures of a scheme for reconstructing a considerable length of main road in the county with which I am most concerned. The reconstruction of main roads costs about £15,000 a mile. That is £8 10 s. a yard, or, if you like to come down to smaller units, it is £2 17 s. per foot or 4s. 10 d. per inch of length of road. Towards that sum the ratepayer of the county has to provide £1 8s. per foot—that is, if he pays ready money; but if he obtains a loan for a long term of years he and his successors will pay from 10 s. to 15 s. a foot more than the figure I have given. This cost is incurred upon roads where up to 95 or even more per cent. of the traffic may be through traffic, This oppression of the ratepayer is becoming, I think, more than it is fair to ask any Englishman to tolerate. The road programmes of counties are limited by the amount which they think they can fairly ask for in rates, and they constitute a heavy item for the counties and for the rural or urban districts.
364
It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to turn our attention from schemes of what may almost be called luxury improvements, the great by-passes, the vast roads which are necessary to carry at its highest speed that very great amount of traffic which is now on the roads, and which is particularly noticeable in the neighbourhood of London on Saturdays and Sundays—when, I may add, trade and commerce are not at their height—and we ought to spend what money is available in helping the ratepayer, because otherwise the improvement and necessary reconstruction of roads are delayed, or held up indefinitely. If, therefore, we desire to make the best of the present situation—and I have not attempted to touch upon the particular aspect of finance which has already been dealt with—we should focus our attention on endeavouring to get larger contributions for the ratepayer towards the ordinary expenditure and the ordinary schemes of improvement which are going on every day.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has introduced this subject in a very eloquent speech, and not unprovided with figures and quotations. I was thinking of another eloquent speech he made only a year ago in which he was urging on us all the practice of economy. I always admire a man who displays versatility, and what struck me most was that, whether he was urging economy upon us or driving us to expenditure, he displayed the same force, the same conviction, and the same eloquence. And, indeed, I cannot help thinking that he was to some extent stimulated on this occasion by this great document to which he had already alluded, and which I hold in my hand. I do not see his name as one of the Executive Committee, nor indeed the name of any noble Lord on that Bench, but, having studied Chapter 22 of this book, I came to the conclusion that the noble Earl himself had not only studied it but agreed very closely with some of the passages in that book. Because while he was making that eloquent speech I was myself reading some of those passages, and I found that word for word, and sentence for sentence, there was a remarkable coincidence between the speech of the noble Earl and the passages in that book.

365
I further note, that though the noble Earl was not on this Committee, he has, as it were, by the appropriation of these passages set the seal of his approval upon them, and that we may take it that that is the definite policy of the Liberal Party represented in this House. I was so interested in the views of the noble Earl on these questions of economy and expenditure that I ventured to make an extract from the speech that he made last year. He said:—
"Economy is not the same thing as extravagance; economy does not mean spending more money, but spending less money."
His present view is represented by a quotation which I took almost with the premonition that it might be used by the noble Earl, and he has used it. It is from this work on "Britain's Industrial Future." Economy is not synonymous with the restriction of expenditure—Oh, no—that is my gloss—
"Economy means wise and productive expenditure."
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not criticising the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I know that he and his Party are in favour of expenditure. I do not make the least complaint about him, because he and his Party are always telling us that if they get into power the rates must rise and taxation must rise, and millions more will be taken from savings. Therefore, I hope he will not think I am criticising him. I know that he and his Party like expenditure. I was only pointing out what I thought was a slight discrepancy between the principles enunciated with so much force by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, last year and those which he has expressed with such skill to-day. I may, of course, be wrong; but if I may say so, it seems to me that these adjectives "wise" and "productive" do not mean anything at all. I have a distrust of adjectives and I never use them if I can possibly help it except as terms of abuse. Of course, we regard our expenditure as wise and productive. Is there a Government which would say: "We want to spend this money but it is not a wise expenditure"? Moreover, the Minister will tell you it is productive expenditure, and if you ask: "Where are the dividends?" he will say "No sordid dividends; nothing of that sort. I meant dividends in the increased health, pros-
366
perity and happiness of the people." Therefore, we can cut out the words "wise and productive" and we are left with the apothegm: Economy means expenditure. That is the true theme on which the noble Earl held the House entranced for twenty-five or thirty minutes this evening.
I do not think I need go into his criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the suggestion that it would be a very good thing if we could save £10,000,000 a year. After all, so formidable of himself is the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not need any defence from me. But will it be forgotten what difficulties and troubles afflicted us in 1926, and was a saving of £10,000,000 to be expected then in exactly the same way as if there had been no General Strike and no coal dispute? I should prefer rather to deal with realities and to pass to other matters. There is one thing to which I object, if I may say so, in this Motion. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thinks it perfectly harmless. He does not think it is strong enough and he cannot imagine why I am not able to accept it. For one thing, I do not like accepting words which do not accurately represent facts, and I think the noble Earl has really prejudged the situation by talking about raids. After all, a raid may suggest hurried determination and action; but there is a sense of obliquity about it which I do not like. Therefore, I do not like accepting the Motion because no obliquity can be cast on any action of the present Government. The noble Earl will understand that I really cannot accept it for those reasons.
I want to say a word in a moment as to what the raid means and what was the particular financial transaction that was criticised. From my point of view I do not think it was stated with fullness and carefulness by either of the noble Earls who spoke. I was rather surprised to hear the contention of one noble Earl. It was not that of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. He did not speak of any moral obliquity; he did not say that he was very much distressed by the ethics of the case. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, however, was suffering from a deep sense of moral wrong because certain funds had been diverted from the Road Fund to general taxation. It is true that at first in 1909, which is a substantial time ago, there was a suggestion—I

367
do not like to use the word pledge, but anyhow I believe that Mr. Lloyd George used in his Budget speech the phrase that the money should be used for the purpose of improving the roads and that the motorists should pay for it. But you could hardly build upon that or even on the subsequent statement in 1920, a pledge that for all time all the money that was raised, whether increased or lowered or doubled, from motorists and those using the roads, whatever might be the developments in motoring, should be for ever used for the purpose of the roads. There are great difficulties sometimes when, as for instance, in trusts, the money is so piling up that you can hardly use it. There cannot possibly be any pledge or principle laid down that one particular tax shall always be used for one particular purpose. That, after all, is contrary to the whole principles of our finance in this country.
We have moved from the medieval principle that one particular purpose should be met from one particular fund, to the principle of the whole of the money being paid into the Exchequer and the whole of the expenditure being dealt with from the total. I might have asked the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, what contract there was between the Government and any taxpayer or any set of taxpayers that what was drawn from them compulsorily by taxation should always be used for the same particular and specific purpose. But the sole question which we are discussing to-night is what proportion of that which is raised for taxation can wisely and usefully be spent upon the roads? It is a question of proportion. One of my difficulties to-night is that the noble Earl ranged over the whole finance of the Government during the last two or three years, which is a big subject. The amount of money to be spent each year upon the roads must obviously depend upon the particular financial condition and all the considerations which come before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that year. So that really to weigh up this subject you want to recall and recast the whole of the atmosphere that determined the formation of the Budgets in 1926 and 1927, and that is a formidable task.
I only ask this because I think it is a fair question to put to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. Take the transference of £12,000,000 in 1927 from the Road
368
Fund to general taxation. There was a gap to be filled. As the noble Earl well knows, owing to the terrible events of 1926 there was a great shortage of money from taxation, and the question arose as to how that great gap was to be filled. It could have been filled in many ways, but I only suggest two. Another threepence could have been put on the Income Tax. I do not know whether that appeals to the noble Earl, Lord Russell; but it is certain that if at that time, when trade and business were staggering under the tremendous weight resulting from the crash of the General Strike, an extra threepence had been put upon the Income Tax, it would have had a far more damaging psychological effect on our reviving trade than, perhaps, four times that sum put on at a different time. And the amount of unemployment that would have resulted can hardly be measured. The other way would have been to take it from the Sinking Fund. I apologise for going into these details, but they are practical questions because the money had to be found. Surely it is far better that we should show that we were able to meet the full amount of the repayment of the Debt, even in the year after the General Strike, than abate the amount of the Sinking Fund and not transfer this money from the Road Fund.
I want to say a few words about the so-called raid itself—the transfer of the money. The noble Earl was very meticulous on this point, insisting that the money taken from the Fund should only be used for the roads. If that is so, I do not quite see why money coming from other sources should be used for the roads. Both noble Lords have, I think, forgotten that in 1920 there was a grant from the general Exchequer Fund of no less than £8,000,000. If you are going to examine the matter from a profit and loss point of view, or the balancing of some particular account with another, that £7,000,000 obtained in the year 1926 might be regarded simply as a repayment to the Treasury and a very cheap repayment for the £8,000,000 granted to the Road Fund by the Government seven years before, and for which no interest was ever charged. The noble Earl referred to one-third of the receipts from Motor Licence Duties paid in respect of motor cars and motor cycles, amounting in 1927 to £3,500,000—I think he hoped it would be £4,000,000 in the coming year.

369
That sum, no doubt, was transferred from the Road Fund, but another tax was put at that time on heavy commercial vehicles and large hackney vehicles, and the amount produced from that tax practically filled the gap which was made by the transfer of £3,500,000 to £4,000,000 to the General Account. Therefore those two matters may almost be considered to be wiped out.
Then there was the question of the £12,000,000. I do not want to go in any great detail into a defence of it. This sum was practically the capital of this great business of the roads. From the point of view of the country and the Exchequer it was absurd to have two working capitals—a great working capital for carrying on the work of the country, and a special working capital for carrying on the road business. The Treasury, therefore, undertook the duty of financing the Road Fund—that is to say, in the first nine months of the year the Treasury meets the expenditure of the Road Fund, and then there comes the magnificent rush of payments for motor taxes, and the whole of the money which the Treasury has previously advanced for road work is repaid to the Treasury. It is very difficult, therefore, to see that by merely handing over to the Treasury the financing of this Road Fund any of these great evils of the curtailment of road schemes and delay in dealing with them can possibly be brought about.
EARL RUSSELL: Would the noble Viscount make it quite clear what he means by the word "financing"? Does he mean repaying to the local authorities such an amount as has been taken out?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I mean that if money is required before the taxes have come into the Road Fund, that money is advanced by the Treasury and repaid at the end of the year. It is, in fact, very much the same thing as happens in the case of all the financing of the country.
EARL RUSSELL: Not a repayment of what is taken out, but merely an advance on what is coming in?
VISCOUNT PEEL: An advance, and then a repayment. The money advanced by the Treasury is repaid by the Road Fund when the taxes come in.
EARL RUSSELL: I want to be clear about this. This does not mean that
370
there is any repayment to the Road Fund of any of the £12,000,000 taken out of it?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not suggesting there was the repayment of that particular £12,000,000. I will not be meticulous about a million or so, but the £12,000,000, or a great part of it, must always have been kept as a balance in the Road Fund to meet expenses that would be incurred. Now it is not necessary to have that balance in the Road Fund because the financing of it has been undertaken by the Treasury. As regards the so-called moral obliquity, the situation is, I think, very much altered by the facts which I have put forward. I want to meet the point that was really made by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that a great deal of work is required to be done upon the roads, and that that work is being held up unnecessarily, and also that useful developments are being delayed. I think the best thing is to give figures. I can show very easily on the figures that the amount spent on new roads, or advanced for road maintenance or re-conditioning is increasing from year to year. I will read the figures of net revenue, after the appropriations of which I have spoken:—1925–6, £16,700,000; 1926–7, £17,300,000; 1927–8, £19,255,000. The payments out for these different purposes have been:—1924–5, £14,750,000; 1925–6, £16,000,000; 1926–7, £17,000,000. The estimate for 1927–8 is £19,000,000. Therefore, so far from all these wonderful schemes being curtailed, there is, on the contrary, a steady growth by a million or two millions a year from the Road Fund for financing these schemes. It is merely inaccurate to say that this is increasing unemployment. On the contrary, more employment is constantly being given by the funds which are expended in this way.
EARL RUSSELL: Those figures include maintenance, and not new schemes only.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Certainly. I am dealing with employment. The noble Earl knows that whether the money is spent on maintenance or new roads, men are employed. As regards assistance for the maintenance of roads, we have had a very strong plea from my noble friend behind me, who said in effect "We want far more money from the Exchequer; we want a much larger percentage of the

371
money paid for road maintenance." The noble Lord rather deprecated great new schemes, whereas it was these great new schemes which had excited the imagination of the noble Earl, and which he so strongly impressed upon us. The House is familiar with the grants for Class 1 and Class 2 roads. For the current year, as regards Class 2 roads, the grants have been increased from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. Not only that, but a special grant is being given and is increased this year for rural roads which have been scheduled. I am advised that the result of that is that almost every rural road of any importance is included under the schedule system. That is a very solid contribution, I think the noble Lord will admit, towards the relief of the rates, and especially towards the assistance of agriculture.
I must give one or two figures, if your Lordships will bear with me. Take the total mileage of all highways in England and Wales, and you get these figures:—The total mileage of all highways is 153,661 miles. Class 1 roads, with a mileage of 19,392 miles, get 50 per cent. grants, representing 12.6 per cent. of the total. Class 2 roads, with a mileage of 12,038, get 33.3 per cent. grants, representing 7.8 per cent. of the total. The scheduled roads, with a mileage of 36,000, get 25 per cent. grants, representing 23.7 per cent. The total classified and scheduled roads in the whole country, representing 67,775 miles, get 44.1 per cent. That is a very substantial proportion which are assisted. As regards the main roads for which the county councils are responsible the figures are very interesting. The total mileage of these main roads is 30,702. Of Class 1 roads there are nearly 17,000 miles, of Class 2 roads 7,500 miles and of scheduled roads 5,000 miles. The total of classified and scheduled roads is 29,668 miles, representing 96.6 per cent. of all the main roads in the country. There is only left over about 1,000 miles of roads which are neither classified nor scheduled, and they are mainly old dis-turnpiked roads which bear very little traffic. I have given these figures to show how very wide the net of the Road Fund is cast, and how great are its activities in the improvement of the roads.
Then comes the question of new roads. That has been pressed strongly by some
372
local authorities in the past, but now, I think, that is changing, and there is an opinion which has been very well voiced by my noble friend behind me, who says that we do not want great new roads, but what we want is large sums for the maintenance of old roads. I am bound to say that some of these authorities have made very large demands, running up to as much as 75 per cent. But the rural district councils beat the larger authorities altogether. They say: "75 per cent.! Not a bit of it. We want the lot. We want you to bear the whole cost." I leave your Lordships to consider what might be the effect on local government if the whole expenditure was to be borne by the Central Fund. There is also the question of the reconstruction of roads. I will not go into the details, because I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I may say that in 1924–5 a sum of no less than £6,500,000 was allocated towards the reconstruction of 500 miles of some of the main trunk roads of Great Britain. The total cost of reconstruction, when it is finished, will be in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000.
Then there is the question of reconditioning important roads in rural areas. In the four years 1923–1927 no less a sum than £6,250,000 has been spent on that. From whatever aspect you examine the work of the Road Board you will see that, although the noble Earl may say we ought to have done more—it is easy to say we ought to have done more—certainly the Board have done a great deal. Then there is the question of bridges. That has caused a good deal of anxiety to the Ministry of Transport, and in the coming financial year a sum of £250,000 is to be set aside for special grants to assist highway authorities in dealing with some of the bridges that most require reconstruction. The idea is to initiate in this way a scheme of bridge reconstruction which will be continued until the bridges are able to bear loads comparable to those carried on the roads themselves.
There is one other point, that of unemployment. Of course, all this assists employment. The noble Earl, I think, complained that during the years 1926–7 no new schemes had been set on foot. As a matter of fact one reason for that is that the programme started in 1920, which was to cost £52,000,000, has not

373
yet been worked out. There still remained in December, 1927, about £13,250,000 to be disbursed on that general programme. Obviously it would not be wise to launch any big scheme of this kind before finishing existing schemes. I say that in all these matters, new roads, reconditioning of rural roads, and provision of employment, enormous sums have been spent and great activity is being shown by the Road Board. I will not go into the question of London bridges, which was referred to by the noble Earl, but he knows that schemes are being put in hand for the improvement of these bridges, and that there is also the Victoria Dock Road and other big schemes of that kind. May I calm the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, by telling him that I have just received information that the bridge on the Colnbrook by-pass will be opened in July, so that when he goes westward in July he will have the opportunity of motoring down that by-pass.
Now let me just give three reasons why it really is inadvisable to proceed in too hurried a way in road-reconstruction and the making of new roads. There has first to be considered the great question of the redistribution of population. The redistribution of population is affected by the roads; certainly in newer countries and probably also in older countries. It is not possible, with the great changes that are going on in the industrial situation, to prophesy at present what will be the ideal system of roads to be laid down all over the country. We must go perhaps more slowly than otherwise would be the case because of these great industrial changes that are taking place. We have heard a great deal about competition between road and rail. In looking at the roads and considering the immense development of motor traffic on the roads, you must not give heed to one form of transport only and forget all about the other. It may be right to develop the roads, but you must consider how that will affect the railway position and what would be the proper distribution of weight of traffic carried on rails and on roads. And there is another technical matter to which I should like to allude—that we have not yet arrived at the ideal system of road construction. There are all sorts of problems which are being worked out, problems of slipperiness of surface and so on, and, as the noble Earl said, this
374
question of building roads is like building battleships. Each year you get a little more experience. You do not want to build all your battleships in one year, and it would be a great mistake to cover the country with a great mass of new roads and find that they had to be rebuilt nine or ten years hence because they had not been properly constructed.
I hope I have shown that the situation is not nearly as dark as the noble Earl has pictured it, and that really we may congratulate ourselves. Though much remains to be done, much is being done, and when we compare ourselves with any other nation I think we may say that our roads are probably the best in the world. Let us take a little comfort and not be too gloomy about it. If we were lashed last year for our extravagance, and if we are criticised and put on the rack by the noble Earl this year for our parsimony, I trust that next year—and next year is a very important year because it is the year of the General Election—the noble Earl will arrive at the conclusion that so far from being extravagant or parsimonious we have hit exactly the line which divides those two great principles, and that we shall go on our way unalarmed and unterrified by the lean and haggard throngs of economists on the one side and the roaring hordes of spenders on the other. I am afraid that there are certain words which prevent me accepting the Motion.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, after the very clear speech from the noble Viscount I hesitate to occupy your Lordships' time, but perhaps you will kindly allow me to mention in a very few words one or two points which have occurred to me. We have heard a good deal from the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, about so-called "pledges" and I hope I am the last person to minimise Parliamentary pledges or to say that they should not be carried out. But whatever those pledges were in 1909 and 1920, can any one say that they mean that, whatever the necessities of the country may be, whatever the magnitude of the Road Fund, on no account would it be right to take one farthing from the Road Fund and apply it to the necessities of the country? I think that this would be an extravagant, construction to put upon any of the pledges, and I do not imagine that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, would go so far as

375
that. He certainly does not go so far as to express that view in his Motion, and I feel pretty certain that he would not go so far as a deduction of that kind from these so-called pledges. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is evidently a high priest of financial and ethical purity, would not, I think, go so far as that, and I hope I have his assent when I say on his behalf that he would repudiate any such construction being placed upon those pledges. The truth is that a pledge, if it is to be called a pledge, must be construed in accordance with the widely different conditions of to-day and of the time when it was given, and I venture to say with some confidence that the highest financial purist would not hold that in a time of great necessity, if you have a large fund which can be utilised, it is not perfectly right to take something from it to meet the needs of the country. Lord Beauchamp deplored the raids that took place. I do not deplore them at all. So far as I am concerned, the so-called raid in 1927 was more than justified and, speaking only for myself, I am very glad that it was made.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is the character of the great expenditure that is now being made upon the roads. To my mind a great part of that expenditure is of the most extravagant and unnecessary kind that you could imagine. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, candidly admitted that there were certain so-called improvements which he could not justify. I think he said that they were unnecessary and, if I may be allowed to say so, I cordially agree with him. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, laid down the right principle to be followed in road expenditure at the present time. Do not let us embark, he said, upon these enormous, grandiose, extravagant schemes for new roads all over the country; let us maintain and reasonably improve the roads that we have. That is what I understood the noble Lord to say, and it seems to me that, at a time like this, when economy in every respect, and especially economy that will save the pockets of the ratepayers, is so vital, this extravagant expenditure on roads is greatly to be deplored. If the noble Earl, instead of deploring the raids, had deplored the extravagant expenditure, I
376
should have been most delighted to support him.
What do I mean when I speak of extravagant expenditure? I have recently been motoring, in order to see what is going on rather than for pleasure, on some of these great new tracks, which have been spoken of with such pride, radiating from London in different directions. I confess that they filled me with horror. These vast new tracks are to my mind nothing more than racing tracks for the amusement of people who want to break the law and to go fifty or sixty miles an hour, as I saw them doing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: How fast were you going?
LORD DANESFORT: I was going at the normal pace of from twenty to twenty-five miles an hour—
EARL RUSSELL: Twenty-five?
LORD DANESFORT: —which is quite enough, I think, for anyone who wants to admire the beauty of the country. Let me call your Lordships' attention to another point. Who were the people using these great racing tracks in the neighbourhood of London? They were not commercial people, carrying goods here and there for the benefit of the consumers and the poorer class of people. They were out for "joy rides." I do not complain of people going for "joy rides," but I do say that you ought not to spend enormous sums out of the pockets of the taxpayers and ratepayers for the purpose of providing "joy rides" for people who want to travel at fifty miles an hour on Saturday and Sunday. I think that their desire for pleasure would have been adequately met without these enormously expensive tracks. So much for these great tracks near London. But, like many of your Lordships, from time to time I have to go along country roads, and I confess that I have been horrified to see what goes on. There is a gentle bend in the road, which is really rather useful for preventing people going at an extravagant speed, and I see in many cases that great pieces of adjoining fields are bought by the county council for the purpose of abolishing such a slight bend, not for reasons of safety but for the purpose of enabling people to go faster. I frequently see the road widened enormously without any necessity.

377
I grant that all these works are in some ways excellent in that they give employment, and I entirely endorse anything that is done to give legitimate employment. But I want to know who really pays. In the first place the Road Fund pays, and in the second place the ratepayer pays. I do say that, at this time of all others, when farmers are in such desperate difficulty, no extravagant schemes for new roads ought to be embarked upon that would throw additional burdens upon them. Whatever might be done in a time of great prosperity when we are able to pay more taxes and rates, the present time is not the time for indulging in this expenditure upon the roads. From that point of view, as well as from the point of view that I have already indicated, I cannot deplore the so-called raids, and I trust that the ratepayers of the country will insist upon smaller commitments and that the Road Fund will in that way be relieved to some extent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the various questions that I put to him. He gave me, as he always does, a very full and complete answer. It will not surprise him to know that it is not my intention to ask your Lordships to divide on this Motion, but perhaps he will permit me to make one or two remarks. In the first part of his speech he told us how much he disliked the use of adjectives. He was economical in his use of adjectives at that stage, but when he came to his peroration he was extravagant beyond words. For my part, I find it difficult to reconcile his economy at the beginning of his speech with his extravagance at the end of it, and that within so short a period as twenty minutes he should be so economical and so extravagant filled me with admiration at the way in which he manages to combine the two qualities in one oration. I turn from that point to one remark of the noble Lord behind him (Lord Danesfort), who spoke of the money contributed by the Road Fund and the money contributed by the ratepayer. He seemed to forget the very large sum contributed by the motorists as their contribution towards the upkeep of the roads. That, however, was not really the question around which the discussion has ranged this afternoon. I am much
378
obliged to the noble Viscount for his information with regard to Colnbrook Bridge, but I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say I shall not invite him to accompany me when I journey westward.
The discussion has really ranged over two points mentioned in the Resolution—unemployment and the raid upon the Road Fund. Of course it is quite clear, as the noble Viscount claimed, that money spent on the roads will increase employment, and that the more money is spent the more you reduce unemployment. I think there are some large extensions which might be made in this direction, which would have the effect of reducing unemployment. There is no real point of difference between us on that matter. The real point is one of economy and extravagance. I confess that I do not see any inconsistency, such as delighted the noble Viscount so much in the first part of his speech. Let me take an example from his own Department. Would he think it true economy to neglect the repair of this great building in which we are now sitting? Surely you must go on spending money year by year. To neglect a building entirely means that you must spend a great deal more money in the end upon maintenance than you would spend by proceeding in the economical and careful way in which I am sure the noble Viscount administers the funds at his disposal for the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament. So it is with regard to the roads of the country. There must be a very large extension of the road system of this country, both in the improvement of existing roads, and in making provision for increasing traffic, year by year. It seems to me, therefore, to be the truest economy to be ready, and have your roads ready, before traffic really becomes congested, and that it is not true economy to wait until the roads are so congested that they cannot be used for the purpose for which they were intended, with the result that you cause traders and commercial users the loss of a large sum of money. It is not necessary that I should now detain your Lordships any longer on this matter, and I will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.

BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
OXFORD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Bromborough Dock [H.L.],

Bournemouth Gas and Water [H.L.],

Dover Gas [H.L.],

Weald Electricity Supply [H.L.],

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company [H.L.]—(Substituted Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House, namely:—"That it is expedient that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons." The said Message to be taken into consideration on Thursday next.