Sitting of 7 March 1928

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Acton and Ealing," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EALING EXTENSION) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Ealing," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PERSIA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply to his last Note to the Royal Persian Government has been received; and whether he can now communicate the terms of his original Note, and the Persian reply, to the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  FOREIGN RELATIONS (FILMS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he takes any steps to inform himself of the nature of cinematograph films produced in this country, particularly those intended to represent episodes in the late War, from the point of view of their effect on our good relations with friendly Powers; whether he exercises any such supervision over those films known as war films in which assistance has been rendered by the loan of soldiers, sailors, and airmen in His Majesty's service, and of ships, artillery, tanks, aeroplanes, and other war material; and what steps he takes to prevent objectionable features from the point of view of the Foreign Office in such films?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. If objectionable features in a film are brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, it is always open to the Department to draw the attention of the Home Office to them.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who brings these matters to the notice of the Foreign Office—I am speaking here of films made with the assistance of Government servants?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Any kind of film can be brought to the notice of the Foreign Office by anyone. If anything of the kind is brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, they then take action.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a film, produced with the assistance of the Air Force, showing the bombing a Chinese villages, and has he made representations about it?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have no official status in the matter. If the attention of the Foreign Office is drawn to any particular film which seems likely to interfere with friendly international

  1111
  relations, we take an opportunity of approaching the Home Office on the matter.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that opportunity taken in an official or in an unofficial way?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that we have no official status in the matter; we have no powers.
  Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: And the Home Office has no powers either?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No; the authority lies with the licensing authority.
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: The county council?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the Foreign Office any power at all with regard to the employment of British troops or units of the Navy for this purpose?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is not a question for my Department.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the results of the half-dozen cases in which representatives abroad of His Majesty have protested against the exhibition of certain cinematograph films as derogatory to British prestige; and whether satisfaction has been obtained in all cases?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In every case the considerations advanced by His Majesty's Representatives were sympathetically received, and such action as was possible to meet our views was promised.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did we get satisfaction in these cases, apart from promises?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes; I looked very carefully through the papers with regard to these half-dozen cases, and I believe we have got full satisfaction.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, have we not an obligation to reciprocate, where our attention is drawn to something similarly obnoxious to a foreign country?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly; in cases that have come to our notice we have reciprocated.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then what did the hon. Gentleman mean when he told me, in answer to a previous question, that he has no official status in this matter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is perfectly true that we have no official authority in this matter; it lies with the licensing authority. When our attention is drawn to any particular case, we let the Home Office know, and the Home Office brings it to the notice of the Board of Films Censors or of the licensing authority.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SHIPPING CONVENTIONS.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that five great conventions relating to shipping questions, namely, the Freedom of Transit Convention, the Navigable Waters Convention, the Convention relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, the Railway Convention, and the Maritime Ports Convention, all of which were agreed to after the War by the States composing the League of Nations, are still unratified by some of the signatory nations; and whether, in the interests of international commerce, he will, through the League, press for ratification by these States?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I learn that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter at a meeting of the Council yesterday, and it was decided to instruct the Secretary-General to draw the special attention of all States members of the League thereto.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the international convention on bills of lading, incorporating the Hague rules, which was adopted by the Brussels Diplomatic Conference in 1923, and signed by 14 countries, has not yet been given legislative force by the signatory countries, other than those which are members of the British Empire; and whether he will raise the

    1113
    matter at Geneva in September with a view to obtaining the complete ratification of this convention?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that some of the foreign Governments, signatories to the Bills of Lading Convention, have introduced, although they have not yet passed, legislation to give effect thereto. As the Conference which resulted in the adoption of the convention was summoned by the Belgian Government, and the convention itself signed at Brussels, it is for the Belgian Government, and not for His Majesty's Government, to move in the matter of ratification. It is not a question which in the ordinary course would be raised at Geneva.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will not the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Belgian Government to move in the matter?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think that, as the Conference was called by the Belgian Government, and is entirely within the purview of that Government, it is for the Belgian Government to take the initiative in the matter.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are the Belgian Government themselves prepared to ratify the Convention?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the Belgian Government have ratified.

    SLAVERY CONVENTION.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a large number of members of the League of Nations have now signed, ratified, or acceded to the Slavery Convention, he will consider the advisability of raising again during the Assembly next September the proposal of His Majesty's Government that slave-trading on the high seas should be treated as piracy or, alternatively, that the appropriate commission should be asked to consider whether the time is ripe to take further action under Article 3 of the Convention, in order that an effective international instrument may be created for dealing with slave traffic on the high seas?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served by repeating the proposal of His Majesty's Government that slave-trading
    1114
    on the high seas should be treated as piracy, in view of the opposition which the suggestion previously encountered. The suggestion contained in the second portion of the hon. Member's question will be carefully considered before the next Assembly of the League.

    SUDAN (LIBERATED SLAVES).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the 39 slaves set free through the efforts of His Majesty's Consul at Jeddah and landed at Port Sudan are British subjects; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the Sudan administration to indicate in future Reports the nationality of any slaves liberated in this way?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no information as to the national status of the slaves in question, beyond the fact that they were of African origin. The attention of the Governor-General of the Sudan will be drawn to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  CHINA.

    WAR MEMORIAL, HANKOW.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the damage done to the war memorial at Hankow by the Chinese on the 4th January, 1927, has yet been repaired by the Chinese authorities?
    Mr. LOCKER ' LAMPSON: The damage, I understand, was slight, but I have no information on the particular point raised in the question. My hon. and gallant Friend may be glad to know that arrangements were made last July for removing the memorial to a position within the compound of His Majesty's Consulate-General, a suitable site having been allocated for the purpose.

    BOXER INDEMNITY.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the improved relations now existing between this country and all parts of China, he will consider giving effect to the recommendations of the Boxer Indemnity Commission; and whether for this purpose he will endeavour to secure the co-operation of

    1115
    the North and South Governments of China for the purpose of carrying out the proposals of that Commission?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: While I welcome the hon. Member's statement that our relations with the various regional administrations in China are greatly improved, I must observe that it is not yet clear that these administrations have yet achieved any degree of permanency, stability or authority, whereas they are in many instances undoubtedly hostile to each other. Apart from the factional quarrels in the Kuomintang ranks, the Party Conference recently held at Shanghai is reported to have declared its resolution to prosecute the campaign against the North and to continue the advance against Peking. In these circumstances, I fear that it would be useless to attempt to give effect to the recommendations of the Boxer Indemnity Commission so long as the present condition of confusion and uncertainty prevails throughout the country.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can my hon. Friend say what the North and South Governments of China, set out in this question, mean? Are there any defined Governments of North and South China at the present moment?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is really what I meant when I said in my answer that whatever regional Governments there may be at this moment show very little stability or authority.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not possible to find responsible men in both parts who might undertake this duty?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Under the provisions of the Act relating to the Boxer Indemnity, the money is to be applied for the welfare of the whole of China, and, until we find some kind of central authority to deal with it, it is very difficult to do anything at all.

    ZINOVIEFF LETTER.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the records of the Foreign Office show that Sir Eyre Crowe or Mr. Gregory had grounds to believe that the Zinovieff
    1116
    letter would be published on 24th or 25th October?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether there is any record in the Foreign Office indicating who decided to circulate the Zinovieff letter to the War Office, etc., on 22nd October, 1924; was it marked secret and confidential; and to whom was it to be shown at the War Office;
    (2) if there is any record at the Foreign Office showing that Sir Eyre Crowe knew, at the time of the conference at mid-day on 24th October, 1924, when the decision was taken to send the reply to the Zinovieff letter, that the letter itself was in the hands of the Press and might be published the following day?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: The Government have undertaken to afford an opportunity to the House for a, discussion on the Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting civil servants, a portion of which Report deals with the Zinovieff letter. I think it would be better to deal with the subject of these questions in the course of that Debate, rather than by way of question and answer.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be as well that we should know, before the Debate, what information the Foreign Office has at its disposal, more particularly as to who gave the orders or initialed the authority to circulate that document on the 22nd to the War Office, and, further, the definite information as to whether Sir Eyre Crowe did or did not know, when he sent the Zinovieff letter to the Press with the reply, that that information was already in the hands of the "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Opposition have asked for a Debate, and the Government have been glad to accede to their request; and I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that all the information at the disposal of the present Government will be given during the Debate, and any questions asked will be answered at that time. There is great difficulty in anticipating the Debate.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it the usual practice to refuse to answer questions put on the Paper because a Debate

    1117
    happens to be taking place at some later date?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are not refusing to answer questions. Any question will be answered during the Debate. It is not as if the Debate will be very long postponed. It will take place at a very easy date.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that only half-a-day is allotted for the discussion, would it not be advisable, for the elucidation of this important matter, to give specific answers to these questions now?
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire how the secret and confidential document, circulated to the War Office, Admiralty, Home Office and Foreign Office, and known as the Zinovieff letter, was communicated to the Press on 24th October, 1924; and whether either of the two communications to the Press was made by a civil, military or naval servant of the Crown?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I think it would be better to await the discussion on the Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting civil servants, during the course of which the matters raised in the question can be fully dealt with.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the Prime Minister realise that he has robbed one of his own followers of the chance of asking a supplementary question?

    EGYPT (CAPITULATORY RIGHTS).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received an invitation to a conference of the capitulatory Powers to be held at Cairo to consider the question of capitulatory rights; if so, what is the proposed date of the conference; and whom do His Majesty's Government propose to send as delegates?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The Egyptian Government laid various proposals before the Governments of all the Capitulatory Powers, including His Majesty's Government, with the suggestion that they should, if necessary, be discussed at an international conference in Cairo. So far as I am aware, how
    1118
    ever, no date for it has yet been fixed. The British representatives at such a conference would probably be His Majesty's High Commissioner and the Senior British Judge in the Mixed Court of Appeal.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ADMIRALTY).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the statement of the decision arrived at by the Board Committee as a result of the investigation of the organisation and methods of the Admiralty Office will be made public?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): No, Sir; the investigation is not yet nearly complete.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great importance of this matter in the interests of economy, and will he push forward re-organisation?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am perfectly aware of the importance of the matter.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman still considering the Report of the Estimates Committee, who agreed that there should be some re-organisation?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee agreed on certain recommendations in two sittings which we have been considering for two or three years.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOSPITALS.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval hospitals at home and abroad, if any, have been closed during the last three years on account of co-operation with other service hospitals in the vicinity?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No naval hospitals at home and abroad have been closed during the last three years on account of co-operation with other Service hospitals in the vicinity.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Has any disadvantage been found in consequence of this co-operation?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have not heard of any.

    BUILDING WORK (NAVAL RATINGS).
    Mr. VIANTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that work formerly done in His Majesty's Dockyards by building trade operatives is now being done by naval ratings; and, if so, will he state the reasons for such a change?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Naval ratings are occasionally employed on simple jobs of decorative and building work undertaken for the benefit of naval personnel when the Commander-in-Chief at the Port is satisfied that they can do the work satisfactorily and can be spared for the purpose. The Board see no reason for stopping the practice.
    Mr. VIANT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this has entailed the discharge of a number of building trade operatives from the dockyards?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have not heard of that. Of course, I could not say without a further question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Admiralty do all it can to encourage the Navy to rely on its own resources and not a parasitic reliance on naval dockyards?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: One of the objects which we have in employing ratings on this work is to give them the vocational training which they require when they go into civil life.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the fact that there is an increase in unemployment among dockyard employés generally, will the Admiralty do all it can to keep these men on work?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is no need to answer that question. It is obviously our intention.
    Mr. KELLY: Is it not a departure from the usual practice of the Admiralty, and, if so, when was it decided?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is no departure. It is a long-established practice.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that Nelson and his captains prided themselves on keeping out of dockyard hands?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman says there is no departure from established practice, will he look at a speech made by one of the Admiralty-officials at Devonport last week, who said that this was a new practice?

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether seeing that the reasons for which a sum of money was allocated for marriage allowance in the Navy Estimates, 1925, are as urgent to-day, he contemplates restoring this sum in the next Navy Estimates in order that officers may be provided with marriage allowance?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies of 23rd November, and 21st December last (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1772–3 and Column 429) to the hon. Members for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), and Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the reasons for granting this allowance are as urgent to-day as when the Admiralty decided to make them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member will only read the answer I have given, he will understand that we are bound by the decision announced by the Prime Minister, I think, in August, 1925.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why do not the Admiralty look after their own people better?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is not purely a Labour Department. The Government have to make decisions for all Departments.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it never occur to the Tory Government that they should make allowances for the working-class generally?

    OILERS (REPAIRING AND REFITTING).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the work of repairing and refitting oilers has been carried out in His Majesty's dockyards and private yards, respectively, in the past year; and what has been the expenditure in each case?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In the financial year ended 31st March last the proportion of the work of repairing and refitting oilers which was carried out in His Majesty's dockyards and private yards, respectively, was approximately as five is to eight.
    The expenditure was:

    His Majesty's Private

    dockyards.

    yards.

    1926–1927

    …

    £108,970

    £172,800

    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been drawn to a speech made by an Admiralty official at Devonport, who claimed great credit for the Admiralty in sending more of this work to the dockyards and, in view of the fact that figures show that private yards get more of this work, will he take steps to change the practice, so that it is in accordance with the spirit of that speech?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot say my attention has been drawn to that speech. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at past records, he will see that there is a great deal more work given to dockyards.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are these speeches by officials of the Department made with the cognisance of the Admiralty or not?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As I do not know anything about the speeches except what the hon. Gentleman tells me now, I am not in a position to answer that question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Admiralty bear in mind that Devonport dockyard is quite inadequately rated, which comes into the expenses, and that private shipbuilders have to pay Income Tax?

    SHIPWRIGHT RATINGS (AIRCRAFT INSTRUCTION).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that shipwright officers are now being appointed to do a course of aircraft instruction, he can see his way to allow shipwright ratings, working under the direction of these shipwright officers, to undergo a similar course?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not practicable at present to arrange for shipwright
    1122
    ratings to undergo a course of aircraft instruction ashore, as is done for certain shipwright officers. Arrangements are, however, in force for some of these ratings to undergo a somewhat similar course of instruction on board aircraft carriers as opportunity offers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour the total number of males and females between the age of 16 and 21 registered as unemployed in the West Riding of Yorkshire at the latest date possible?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

    MINERS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour if he will state what is the total number of miners registered as unemployed in the County of Yorkshire, and the total registered as unemployed for the whole of the United Kingdom, at the latest date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal mining industry who were recorded as unemployed in Yorkshire at 20th February, 1928, was 21,893, including 12,434 temporarily stopped from the service of their employers. The corresponding figures for the whole of Great Britain were 215,442 and 70,993, respectively.

    JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of training establishments in the area covered by the West Riding County Council for juveniles and for youths up to 21 years of age, and where they are situate; and what additional training establishments are to be provided during 1928?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are no juvenile unemployment centres in the area of the West Riding County Council, though the opening of a centre at Selby and the admission of boys from the council's area to a proposed centre at Barnsley are at present under considera

    1123
    tion. Three centres are open in Sheffield and Leeds, but these are established by the local education authorities in those areas and not by the West Riding County Council. As regards the establishment of additional juvenile unemployment centres I am ready, provided that a sufficient number of juveniles are likely to attend, to consider sympathetically any proposals local education authorities may wish to submit.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made by the Transference Board in the transfer of miners from the distressed areas in South Wales?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As there may be some misapprehension as to the functions of the Industrial Transference Board, perhaps I may point out that the Board was appointed on 7th January last, not to supersede existing departments, but to assist in every way possible the transfers of labour that are already going on through individual initiative, through the machinery of Employment Exchanges, through the Ministry of Labour Training Centres for unemployed adults and juveniles, and through the facilities for migration overseas. The Board, in constant association with the various departments primarily concerned, has been engaged in surveying all the possible means of easing the situation and in effecting closer co-ordination of all departmental activities which may assist transfers.
    Mr. BATEY: Is not the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has just given altogether different from the speech delivered by the President of the Board of Trade during the mining debate in December, when he said that the Government had decided to set up this Transference Board in order to transfer men from one district to another?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, not that I am aware of.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the President of the Board of Trade before he answers other questions and try to reconcile his answers
    1124
    with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put down a question.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we now to understand that the Transference Board is simply a hoax and that it does not exist for the transference of miners?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving an opinion.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if instructions have been issued to Employment Exchanges respecting the selection and transference of persons to another district where they are required; and, if so, what they are?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Where it is necessary to bring workpeople from other districts in order to meet the employers' requirements, the vacancies are circulated to areas in which suitable men are likely to be available, and so far as this is practicable an endeavour is made in appropriate cases to find openings for men from the most hard-hit areas.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of miners who have been transferred from the Wigan Employment Exchange to Manton, Nottingham, since 1st January, 1928; and how many men have refused to be transferred and have had their unemployment benefits stopped as a consequence;
    (2) how many of the miners transferred from Wigan to Marton, Nottingham, have refused to accept or have given up the work offered and returned to Wigan; whether they have applied to be reinstated upon unemployment benefit; and, if so, how many have been reinstated and how many refused?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made into the points raised in these questions and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman what a terribly disastrous effect it is going to have upon the country at large, when day after day we hear question after question put regarding the miners, the men who are engaged in the key industry of this country, while they are

    1125
    either on the Employment Exchange or are drawing parish relief? Is it not time this Government took action and did something to relieve the present state of affairs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The subject cannot be debated now.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED (ELLAND DIVISION).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men,

    CLAIMS for EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT considered by the Local Employment Committees at Brighouse, Elland and Greetland during the Period 13th December, 1927, to 13th February, 1928.

    —

    13th December, 1927 to 16th January, 1928.

    17th January, 1928 to 13th February, 1928.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Claims considered

    214

    47

    261

    212

    31

    243

    Claims allowed

    169

    22

    191

    180

    17

    197

    Claims recommended for disallowance

    45

    25

    70

    32

    14

    46

    Grounds of disallowance:—

    Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.

    1

    —

    1

    1

    —

    1

    Insurable employment not likely to be available.

    2

    1

    3

    1

    —

    1

    Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.

    13

    2

    15

    6

    3

    9

    Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.

    20

    19

    39

    15

    10

    25

    Single persons residing with relatives to whom they can look for support.

    2

    —

    2

    5

    —

    5

    Married women living with husbands to whom they can look for support.

    —

    2

    2

    —

    1

    1

    Married men living with wives to whom they can look for support.

    3

    —

    3

    2

    —

    2

    Short-time workers earning sufficient for maintenance.

    4

    1

    5

    2

    —

    2

    NOTE.—During the period in question there were no applications for Extended Benefit from persons under 18 years of age.

    Statistics regarding disallowance of claims for standard benefit are not available.

    TRAINING, GLASGOW (WOMEN).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of women now receiving training in the City of Glasgow and the number for the same period last year; and if the training is confined to domestic training?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment that there are 40 women at present in attendance at their Glasgow Home Training Centre. In March, 1927, the number was
    women and young persons who were refused unemployment benefit in the Elland division during the months of December, 1927 and January, 1928, and the reasons for the refusal of benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    60. The Centre is confined to domestic training.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why each year during the past three years there has been a declining number of women who have been offered training in the city of Glasgow?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is really a matter primarily for the Committee who have charge with regard to women's training? It is a matter in

    1127
    their administration and is largely in their discretion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any financial restrictions at work, and if any efforts have been made by his Department to reduce the amount spent on this work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. The sum at their disposal this year is rather more than last year.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that when a girl is sent to a situation, particularly in domestic service, the Employment Exchange demands a character as to the girl's capacity and honesty; if the same is demanded from the proposed employer; and, if not, what steps are taken to protect the girl when sent to a situation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the case of domestic service vacancies references are usually required by the prospective employer, and if the applicant consents the Exchange takes up her references. It is not the practice to require formal references from employers in connection with such vacancies. Employment Exchanges are, however, instructed to satisfy themselves as far as possible that such vacancies are genuine. In the case of girls under the age of 18, the assistance of the Juvenile Advisory Committees is sought, and a parent or guardian is consulted before she is submitted for the vacancy.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, in the case of the women who are sent to employment as barmaids, any inquiry is made into the class of places to which they have to go?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Oh, yes. We do endeavour to satisfy ourselves as far as possible, and I have given what is done with regard to cases of persons under 18. I think on the whole sufficient care is taken to try and see that the places are suitable.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether when these vacancies are filled and girls are sent, inquiries are made to see how they are going on or whether they have found suitable places?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot do that in view of the number. I have had inquiries made in individual cases where I had any reason to suspect that inquiries were necessary, but I cannot undertake to do that in all the cases.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in cases where his Department had knowledge that in the past employés sent by the Employment Exchange have not been treated as they thought desirable, taken any steps to refuse to consider vacancies from those places?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put down any instances I will examine them, but, all that I can say is that, speaking in general language, I should certainly not wish to recommend people again in any case where I had really good reason to believe that the situation previously offered was not suitable.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: What would happen to a girl who left her employment because it was unsuitable and because the place was not fit to live in—would she be deprived of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be an hypothetical question.

    BOOKMAKERS (BENEFIT).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the decision of the official Umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in a test case which has recently come before him, in which a bookmaker may receive benefit during the interval between the end of the flat-racing season and the beginning of the next, if he only acted as a bookmaker during the flat-racing season; and if he is prepared to make any statement on the matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the case to which I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers, the applicant had been accustomed to work as a skilled mechanic during part of the year and to carry on the business of a bookmaker during the flat-racing season. The Umpire decided on the facts given in evidence that the applicant was unemployed at the date when the claim to benefit was made, which was outside the flat-racing season, and was therefore entitled to draw benefit

    1129
    in respect of the contributions he had paid as a mechanic.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Are we to understand that in future bookmakers may always claim the dole during the close season in flat racing?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. If the hon. and gallant Member had attended to my answer, he would have found the opposite.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not time that the hon. and gallant Member had enough intelligence not to call it the dole?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do not bookmakers collect money for the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are matters for debate.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that so long as any class of men pay contributions they are entitled to unemployment benefit, no matter what may be their occupation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is true provided they satisfy the necessary conditions.

    TRAINING SHIPS.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the training ships "Arethusa" and "War-spite," and the Watts Naval Training School, receive youths for training recommended by unemployment committees; and, if so, whether it is made known to such youths that the training given in these schools prepares men for the Royal Navy rather than the Mercantile Marine?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. Statistics are not available, but I understand that only in a few cases have boys entered these sea schools after receiving advice from juvenile advisory committees. I understand these schools prepare boys for both the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy, and I am not aware that there is any bias in favour of one or the other.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is made quite clear to the pupils that these schools chiefly prepare men for the Royal Navy?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not necessary for me to do what the hon. Member suggests, because I understand it is known that boys trained in these schools can go to either service.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Is not the right hen. Gentleman aware that these particular schools actually send most of their men into the Royal Navy, and, seeing the Navy has other means of procuring recruits, will he see to it that pupils recommended by the unemployment committees are sent to schools which train for the Merchant Service?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think there is any reason at all for the hon. Member's suggestion. Both Services have every means of getting recruits from these training ships. The boys who go there can at the end of their training go to either Service, and it seems to me that there does not require any further statement.

    INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any particulars or analysis of the various causes of the deaths of the 250 workpeople, other than seamen, who were killed in the course of their employment during the month of January?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These particulars are recorded by the Home Office, Ministry of Transport, and Mines Department. I have obtained from these Departments such information as is available, and am circulating a summary of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the summary:
    The appended statement indicates the cause of death of 128 of the 250 work-people, other than seamen, who were killed in the course of their employment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the month of January, 1928.
    As regards the remaining 122 work-people, no analysis by causes is available of the monthly figures of fatal accidents reported under the Factory Acts, though an annual analysis appears in the Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories.
    A compact presentation of statistics of fatal industrial accidents and their

    1131
    causes in 1910–1924, collated from several sources, was published in the 18th Abstract of Labour Statistics (pages 154–163), and these figures will be brought up to date in the 19th Abstract, which is in course of preparation, with a view to publication in the coming summer.

    Causes of Fatal Industrial Accidents, January, 1928.

    Persons.

    Railway Service.

    (A) "Movement" Accidents to Railway and Contractors' Servants:

    Being struck by trains, etc., when crossing or walking on the line

    9

    Being struck by trains, etc., while at work on the line

    6

    Being struck by engines or wagons during shunting operations

    5

    Being caught in motion when preparing engine

    1

    Falling when alighting from engine in motion

    1

    From movement of wagon which he was sheeting

    1

    (B) "Non-Movement" Accidents Railway and Contractors' Servants:

    Slipping on the permanent way

    2

    Falling off a scaffold or girder

    2

    Internal strain when fixing dynamo under a coach

    1

    28

    TRADE BOARDS ACT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of complaints received and the number of prosecutions that have arisen in Scotland and Glasgow, respectively, last year under the working of the Trade Boards?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of complaints received in Scotland during the year ending 31st December last was 156. No separate figures are available for Glasgow. There were prosecutions against two Scottish firms, neither of them in Glasgow.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the administration of this Act, particularly in Glasgow, and will he take any steps to see that it is much better enforced in its everyday working?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction as to the way it is enforced. If the hon. Member will give me any substantial grounds for believing that it is not enforced properly, I will most certainly have it looked into, but I cannot do it on mere statements.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of firms in the City of Glasgow and in the West of Scotland have not been visited for years by a Trade Boards' inspector, and can he say what steps, if any, he takes to see that the Act is enforced in the case of these firms?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Trade Board firms are visited by the Trade Boards' Inspectors. They are not all of them visited every year. Unless the staff were increased to a very large number that would be quite impossible. But a fair check is taken on these firms by inspecting them regularly, though not every year.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air if the construction of Airship R100 at Howden is being subjected to constant and systematic inspection by qualified examiners from his Department?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air if ample provision is being made on Airships R100 and R101 for the transport of 200 troops and their equipment?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; but the airships would be capable of transporting that number of troops if the necessity should arise.

    AFFORESTATION, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the hon. Member for Monmouth as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what afforestation has been done in Yorkshire in the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927; what action it is proposed to take during 1928; the number of small holdings that have been set up in connection with afforestation in Yorkshire; and where they are situate?
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The area planted by the Forestry Commissioners in Yorkshire in each of the last five seasons was as follows: 642 acres, 526, 932, 666 and 681. The programme for the current season is 880 acres. The number of forest workers' holdings set up by the Commission in Yorkshire is nine at Allerston, one at Selby, and one at Rosedale; in addition eight are in progress at Allerston and 12 at Rosedale, making a total of 31.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health whether in the administration of national health insurance a man disabled in the Great War, and in receipt of pension or otherwise in respect of the disability, is treated as eligible for treatment by his panel doctor for the disability; and, if so, whether any payment is made from the Ministry of Pensions to the insurance fund to cover this service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): A man disabled in the Great War who is insured under the National Health Insurance Act is entitled in the ordinary course of his insurance to medical benefit. This includes treatment for his War disability so far as it does not involve the application of special skill and experience of a kind which general practitioners as a class cannot reasonably be expected to possess. A man who is not so insured is entitled by virtue of Regulations under Section 59 (3) of the Act to similar treatment if he is in receipt of a disability pension and his total income does not exceed £160 a year. In neither case is any payment made to National Health Insurance Funds by the Ministry of Pensions towards the cost of the service.

    POOR LAW (VAGRANCY).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether in view of the increasing number of persons using the casual wards in England and Wales, he will request the guardians or other authority in control of the casual wards in London, Sheffield, and Manchester to prepare a Report showing the number of men and women resident in their respective casual wards on the night of Wednesday 14th March, giving age, birthplace, employment, and history since leaving school, with special reference to any service with His Majesty's forces and present medical fitness and conditions of health, and lay these Reports as a White Paper on the Table of the House?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will consider whether it is possible to obtain such a Report as the hon. Member suggests and how far the results of the inquiry would justify the very considerable labour involved in its compilation. It would not in any case be possible to secure a Report for so early a date as the hon. Member suggests, or to obtain with any accuracy all the particulars indicated in the question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Whatever return is decided upon, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the widespread interest which the public takes in this question of the character and physique of the men

    1135
    who are obliged to seek the hospitality of the casual wards, so that we may know what type of men they are?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will consider what it is possible to do in the circumstances.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether he has sanctioned the scheme adopted by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for dealing with persons who desire shelter in casual wards, which proposes to establish certain centres to which male casuals are to be sent for the purpose of subjecting such persons to a task of work known as stone breaking; will he inform the House of the details of the scheme, the amount of stone that is to be broken, the period such men are to be detained, the hour of the day when they will be released, and what punishment will be inflicted on those men unwilling or unable to carry out the task; will he state the food allowance which will be supplied to the men engaged on this work; and has he any information as to whether the Metropolitan Asylums Board propose to institute any tasks, such as oakum picking, for women?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that the Metropolitan Asylums Board propose to introduce a task of the kind described for a limited number of the casuals relieved in London. The proposal does not require my right hon. Friend's sanction unless the managers desire to depart from the requirements of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, which deals with the amount of stone to be broken and the other matters referred to by the hon. Member. I will inquire what is the practice of the managers as regards female casuals, but I may say that oakum picking is not now a permitted task.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the setting down of this scheme his right hon. Friend's sanction has been obtained?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, it is not necessary so long as the Order is complied with.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Order lays down that the task must be stone breaking?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire into that point.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his right hon. Friend will consider that this task is one of the most terrible tasks that can be imposed upon men of weak physique and that every Commission that has inquired into the subject has always declared against such a task being inflicted upon persons whose only crime is—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As a matter of patriotic duty, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake the task for himself in order to report to the House?
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether he has any evidence to the effect that vagrancy is on the increase; and whether he will supply any figures which may be available to illustrate the development of the problem?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of vagrants fell substantially after 1911–12 and during the War reached a very low level. The numbers have now increased again to the pre-War level. I am sending the hon. Member a note of the numbers relieved in successive years at the end of January.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the casual wards in such places were empty during the War, and is not that evidence that when there is work for men to do they do not need to seek the casual ward?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is advancing an argument and not asking a question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider putting in Palace Yard or some other place a cartload of the stone that these men are expected to break, and for which—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going back to a previous question.

    BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES).
    Captain FRASERasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the raising of the ban on the broadcasting of controversial matter, the Government will set up a

    1137
    Select Committee of both Houses to consider whether any parts of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament should be broadcast?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In 1926, after consulting the Leaders of the other parties and obtaining information through the usual channels, I came to the conclusion that there was a greatly preponderating body of opinion against broadcasting the proceedings of this House. I do not think there has been any substantial change of opinion since then, and in these circumstances I do not propose to set up a Committee such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Would not this Committee be better able to ascertain the proper views on the subject?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the House of Commons is a deliberative assembly and not a public meeting?

    BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN BUILT)
    Mr. COUPERasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships built abroad, and their tonnage, to the order of British owners and registered in this country during each of the last five years?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The total number of new ships built abroad, and registered as British, during the five years was 127, of a total tonnage of 162,452. With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for each year which he desires.
    Mr. COUPER: May I ask if the figures at the hon. Member's disposal show a progressive decline?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The figures for 1927 are the highest for any year so far as tonnage is concerned, though not in number.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether these are the same British owners who entered into international agreements and rings which deliberately penalise British trade?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That does not seem to arise out of the question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that his Department have been advertising "Buy British goods," and that the bulk of the people who have bought these ships are members of his own party, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to them?
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that the reason why the figures for last year are higher than before is that it was impossible to build these ships in this country owing to the coal strike of 1926?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time is the time for asking for information, not for giving information.
    Mr. BATEY: But, Mr. Speaker, that is not giving information.
    Following are the figures:
    The number of new ships built abroad and registered in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as British ships in each of the last five years was as follows:

    Year.

    Number of Ships.

    Tonnage (Gross).

    1923

    …

    …

    21

    10,810

    1924

    …

    …

    29

    22,173

    1925

    …

    …

    28

    44,967

    1926

    …

    …

    28

    37,429

    1927

    …

    …

    21

    47,073

  AGRICULTURE.

    LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of land drainage schemes which have been completed under the Land Drainage Act of 1926, the total cost of the schemes, and the amount contributed by the State, the owners, and the local authorities, respectively?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The powers of the Land Drainage Act, 1926, are exercisable by the councils of counties and county boroughs, and I have no information as to the cost of any schemes which may have been carried out by these authorities. The Act does not include any provision for State expenditure.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the alleged discovery by a Frenchman, M. Tonnelier, of a cure for foot-and-mouth disease; and whether he will consider a relaxation of the ban and postpone the slaughter of affected animals in this country in order that tests may be made of the method of treatment for curing the disease?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have seen in the Press reports of this alleged discovery. Our policy of slaughter has been in force for many years and has been endorsed by various departmental committees who have considered the question. I cannot consider relaxing it merely on the ground of the discovery of an alleged cure for foot-and-mouth disease. We have been in communication with the French Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of the alleged discovery of M. Tonnelier. Their attention had not previously been drawn to the matter, but the chief veterinary officer to the French Ministry of Agriculture has promised to inform us if M. Tonnelier's claims are substantiated.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: When the right hon. Gentleman gets information that the cure is likely to lead to good effects, will it not be desirable to isolate a few infected animals in order to test it?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that it will be justifiable to test the cure in that way. If we obtain strong evidence that this treatment was an effective preventive, then the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee would no doubt consider the question of testing it.

    POST OFFICE (BEAM SERVICES).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General the total number in the increase of communications since the inception of the beam system as compared to cables, and also the increase in receipts and profits?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The number of messages sent or received by the Post
    1140
    Office beam services during the week ending 26th February was:

    Australia

    …

    …

    7,130

    Canada

    …

    …

    4,686

    India

    …

    …

    15,122

    South Africa

    …

    …

    8,516

    I am not in a position to furnish statistics of the traffic on the various cable routes, but there is evidence that the total traffic with the Dominions by cable and wireless is now considerably greater than it was before the beam services were established.
    Mr. AMMON: Has not the inception of the beam system demonstrated a saving in expenditure, and an increase in traffic?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think it is a little early to draw exact inferences.
    Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask whether it is not the case that the great majority of the messages received by the beam system are most inaccurately delivered, and that when they are repeated, because they are inaccurate, another charge is made?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. I am certainly not aware of that.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into these matters? Is it not his business to do so?
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General what is the relative position of the Government and the Marconi companies with respect to the ownership and control of the beam system of wireless telegraphy?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The beam stations in this country which communicate with the Dominions and India are owned and worked by the Post Office. They were constructed by the Marconi Company under an agreement which provides for payment to the company of a lump sum for each station, and, in addition, a royalty of 6¼ per cent. of the receipts of each of the stations so long as it contains any valid Marconi patent. The Marconi Company use the beam system at certain of their own stations which conduct wireless services with foreign countries.

    EDUCATION (TEACHERS, ABERTILLERY).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the President of the Board of Education if he can make any statement respecting the teachers' dispute at Abertillery?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have nothing at present to add to the statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) on Thursday last, except to say that the suspension until 14th March of the notices given to the teachers has enabled the schools to be kept open, and provided a further opportunity, of which I trust that both sides will avail themselves, for the resumption of negotiations.

    Territorial Army Units which were up to Establishment on 1st February, 1928, and their Establishment.

    Unit.

    Establishmet.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Total.

    Royal Horse Artillery:

    "A" Battery, Honourable Artillery Company

    …

    5

    119

    124

    Royal Artillery:

    233rd (Kent) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    366th (10th London) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    294th (2nd Durham) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    244th (Stafford) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    216th (Hampshire) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    326th (Glamorgan) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    327th (Glamorgan) Field Battery

    …

    5

    101

    106

    Royal Army Medical Corps:

    125th (East Lancashire) Field Ambulance

    …

    6

    103

    109

    Royal Army Ordnance Corps:

    55th (West Lancashire) Ordnance: Company

    …

    3

    30

    33

    TAXICABS (POLICE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of his Department to adopt the Report of the Committee appointed to review the police regulations in London on the fitness of taximeter cabs?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been is, consultation with the Commissioner of Police and hope to announce my decision shortly.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask whether the reductions were advised from his Department?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Colonel ENGLANDasked the Secretary of State for War the names of the 10 units of the Territorial Army which are complete up to strength; and if he will give full details of their establishments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have had a Table prepared which, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the Table:

    KING'S PLATE, IRELAND (GRANT).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority the sum of £1,563 is annually voted by the House of Commons for the King's Plate for racing in the Irish Free State; and whether he will, in the interest of economy, have the Vote, Class VI, Vote 7, Sub-head G, removed from the Civil Estimates for the next year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The payment referred to has

    1143
    been voted annually by this House for nearly a hundred years. In view of the special nature of the payment and the comparatively small amount involved, it was decided to continue the payment after the establishment of the Irish Free State and the Northern Ireland Government.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it not the policy of the Government to economise on the main roads of this country and, therefore, to pay this money to racecourses in Ireland?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether any demand is made for plate for racing in England?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of these questions.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Financial Secretary consider having the latest stable information available for Members of the Liberal party and the Lloyd George party?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now that the hon. Member has gone to the Treasury as a new broom, cannot he sweep away one hundred years old abuses like this?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think the right hon. and gallant Member should be the last person in the world to abrogate an age-old practice.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government leave this matter to a free vote of the House?

    IRAQ (AKHWAN RAIDS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information that he can give the House with reference to the further raids which have taken place by the Akhwan tribes into the territory of Iraq?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply which I made to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) on the 27th February.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether we are to have any statement from the Government about these operations?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. Only yesterday I made a long statement.
    Captain EDEN: Does my right hon. Friend recall the fact that in the reply to which he refers he stated that Ibn Saud definitely disavowed these raids? Is that still Ibn Saud's attitude, or has he changed or modified it in any way?
    Mr. AMERY: It is not so easy to get in touch with Ibn Saud, but so far as our information goes I gather that he does disavow these raids.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether there is any truth in the statement made in the "Manchester Guardian" to-day that there have been raids from Transjordania into Nejd as well as vice versa?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. As far as I am aware there is no truth in the statement.

    AUSTRALIA (COMMISSION).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any further steps have been taken in conjunction with the Australian Government for the appointment of a Special Commission to inquire into the development of the resources of Australia; and, if so, whether the personnel of the Commission has been selected and the terms of reference yet agreed upon?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. Further steps have been taken in the matter and I hope that it will be possible for an announcement to be made shortly both as to the terms of reference and as to the personnel?
    Mr. COUPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be convenient for me to put down another question?
    Mr. AMERY: I cannot say, but I hope it will be possible to announce the terms of reference and the personnel of the Commission shortly.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  RURAL HOUSING.
  Colonel CROOKSHANK: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to rural housing, and move a Resolution.
  SYNDICATED PRESS.
  Mr. TINKER: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the syndicated Press, and move a Resolution.
  SOCIALIST PARTY AND FOREIGN PEOPLES.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the attitude of the Socialist party towards foreign peoples, and move a Resolution.
  DISTRESS IN MINING AREAS.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to distress in mining areas, and move a Resolution.
  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1926.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grant for Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain, for the year ended 31st March, 1927 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to printed. [No. 39]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Empire Settlement Bill): Mr. Snell.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise an alteration of the tunnel authorised by the Mersey Tunnel Act, 1925; and for other purposes." Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords.]
  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ROYAL NAVY (INVALIDING ANOMALIES).
  Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I beg to move,
  "That it is imperative in the interest of the Royal Navy and the nation that the rules by which the question whether disability is attributable to or aggravated by service in the Royal Navy, and the manner in which these rules are interpreted, should be re-examined by the Board of Admiralty."
  In view of the exodus of hon. Members, I fear that the Royal Navy is not as popular in this House as it should be. The task before me, for all that, is a pleasant one. I have balloted now for nearly 19 years, and this is the third time I have had the good fortune to win the ballot. The second time was a piece of luck. I see opposite an hon. Friend who won the ballot, but fortunately for me he was so unused at that time to the usages of the House, that he forgot to go to the Table and hand in his Motion. The consequence was that he was ruled out and I had his place. I am glad to say there was no ill-feeling about it, and that he thoroughly understood that I could not give way to him. My task is a pleasant one, but it is none the less arduous, although I am personally limiting it to the case of those unfortunate men who are put out of the Navy for tuberculosis. Hon. Friends of mine behind me will touch on the subject as regards rank as well as ratings. The Navy is with us and has been with us so long that we cannot imagine a time when it was otherwise. We are like little children out with their nurse. The nurse is part and parcel of the universe and of their daily life.
  Is an appreciation of His Majesty's Navy and its work necessary nowadays? Have we any doubt as to what we owed in 1914 and what we owe now, and what we shall continue to owe, to the Navy?
  "It is upon the Navy, under the good providence of God, that the safety, honour and welfare of the Realm does chiefly depend."
  Those were the words of King Charles, and they are as true to-day as they were then. And they will be true for all time. We have had many books by many writers on the Great War. The first,
  1156
  among them, and one with perhaps the greatest foresight and genius wrote these words:
  "The unarmed and untrained island nation which with no defence but its Navy had faced unquestioningly the strongest manifestation of military power in human record, had completed task."
  "Our country had emerged from the ordeal alive and safe, its vast Possessions intact, its people and Empire united as never before."
  Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is reading his speech, and what he has read so far has nothing whatever to do with the Motion that is on the Paper.
  Sir B. FALLE: I am reading a quotation. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the quotation that is not my fault.
  Mr. HARDIE: If the hon. Member assumes that people know it why should he read it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order. For greater accuracy he has brought a copy of the quotation to read it.
  Sir B. FALLE: The quotation goes on:
  "All the Kings and Emperors with whom we had warred were in flight or in exile. All their armies and fleets were destroyed or subdued."
  That is the record. It is one of which the Navy and this country may be proud. All our might and right are based on His Majesty's Navy. I do not seek in any way to lessen the great and manifold services of the Army—far from it; the more so as I had the honour of serving in a small capacity in that great Army, and I saw some of the work that was done, some of the sufferings and some of the gallantry which was shown. But there would have been no army abroad and no army at home if there had been no triumphant Navy to keep the seas, to feed the people of these islands, to feed the soldiers, to transport them abroad, to feed them when they were there, to arm them and to carry their munitions and all the thousands and one things that an army requires. The Navy had to do that, every day and all day for four and a half years, not only in the narrow seas—
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: And all night!
  Sir B. FALLE: I do not know whether the hon. Member goes to church. If so he will know that the world was created in seven days.
  Mr. BROWN: Does not, that include the nights?
  Sir B. FALLE: The hon. Member had better ask his own parson to interpret the words for him. I am not here to inform the hon. Gentleman.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 90 Members being present—
  Sir B. FALLE: It had to be done, as I was saying, not only in the narrow seas, not only in the Seven Seas, but in the great waters of the world and right well did the Navy fulfil its task. But for the Navy we might have been starved and beaten to the ground. Our men might now be fighting German battles for the German mastery of the world and we might be doing German work for whatever pay the Germans chose to give us, and our women and children might be in the condition of slaves—our glory gone with that of Greece, our history only a warning, like that of Rome. But that was avoided by the magnificent courage of the Royal Navy. We have done more than we promised—though that is not very much—for the men of the Royal Navy, and the men of the Services generally who fought at that time. It is little enough for those men who fought, those who died, those who were wounded and invalided and those who dropped by the wayside—the young men with all life before them, the young men with broken lives, aye, Sir, and the old men who gave the rest of their span, who gave up their ease and comfort and in many cases their lives for their country. Those lives were not less valuable because they had only a short span in front of them. All those are for the most part gone.

  "All that they gave, they gave

  In sure and single faith.

  There can no whisper reach the grave,

  To make them grudge their death,

  Save only this. …

  We, they redeemed, denied their blood and mocked the gains they won."

  We think of our honour and safety—our honour which is wrapped up in our safety and our safety which is wrapped up in our honour—and we think of those who,
  1158
  day after day, year after year have stood and still stand between us and what the Foreign Secretary of the day in 1914 called "death, destruction and damnation"—nothing less. It is noble to think and believe well of human nature. It would be comforting to think that no man wished us ill and no man coveted that which we had; but we must remember that over the greater part of the habitable globe, the Flag of this country flies, that we won those possessions by the sword for the most part and that we hold them by the sword. We believe unquestioningly that we hold these countries and these peoples for their own advancement and their own good, physical, mental and political. Yes, Sir, and for their religious and future good.
  "What lamp has Destiny to guide her little children stumbling in the dark?"
  Only the lamp we offer—the "Lamp of Life." We hold these places by our armed strength, by the armed strength of His Majesty's Navy. Let us look at the Navy itself. It is manned by the pick of the nation—the pick, physically and mentally. Let us see how it is recruited. First, there are the boys, the sons of naval ratings, who at the age of 11½ years have the good fortune to go to Greenwich School. There is a very strict medical and mental examination passed by them when they enter, and similar examinations continue through their service until at the age of 15½ they are drafted into training ships and later into the Navy. Then there are the boys from outside who enter training ships at the age of 15½. Their curriculum is exactly the same, and the examinations, mental and physical, are just as severe in their case. Then comes the man who at 18 enters the Navy direct from outside. He is treated in exactly the same way. He has to be practically perfect in every physical respect. He has to satisfy medical, dental and mental conditions, and every boy and man in the Navy, practically speaking, must have a "First-class life." Once in the Navy, the youth is well fed and well clothed. But let us look at some of the other conditions of the life of a rating when he enters the Navy. His sleeping accommodation for the most part consists of a metal tank. There are no port-holes and no light save
  artificial light. Very often there is no direct ventilation, and the only air is

  1159
  that which is forced through by means of a ventilating fan. We know the ventilating fan in the Harcourt Room, where it is a pleasant accompaniment on a summer evening—
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not like it.
  4.0 p.m.
  Sir B. FALLE: If my hon. Friend does not like it, he need not have it, but it is different with the naval rating. In a tank the fan causes a draught, and draughts are disliked—many people do not like even an open window in a railway carriage—and it is always possible I am told even where these ventilating fans function perfectly for them to be blocked or covered, and I know some instances in which they do not function properly. I ask the House, however, to imagine our men boxed up in these tanks, with their hammocks slung not more than two feet and a half apart in the best circumstances. Sometimes, when the ship is carrying a draft to or from a foreign station, the accommodation cannot be increased and the men must be packed more closely still. I ask the House to remember that these are the conditions in a world-wide service, which is not confined to any one type of climate and where the men may be serving not in cold latitudes only in the tropics. What are the chances of even a healthy man avoiding tuberculosis in these conditions? If a man is suffering from incipient tuberculosis, he does not dare to tell himself the truth. He may believe that he has the beginnings of tuberculosis, but he dare not complain because he knows that if he has tuberculosis he will be discharged, and if he has not served sufficiently long he may be discharged without a pension. A figure was given us a few days ago of the number of men who entered the Royal Navy last year, and out of every 10 who went up for examination, nine were not accepted.
  That is a terrible indictment. It surely means that the test must be severe, and it leads one to suppose that in the ordinary way, unless exposed to hidden dangers and hidden illnesses, such men as do pass could not be "physically unfit for further service" and discharged without a disability or other pension within a very few years of entry. But
  1160
  it is so. There is no service pension until a man has served 10 years, that is, if he entered before 1921. If he entered since 1921, he must have 14 years' service, in the event of invaliding, before he gets a pension, unless the disease for which he is invalided is acknowledge by the Survey Board to be "attributable to or aggravated by" his service, and then, I admit, he gets a small pension. There are nearly 60,000 men under 12 years' service in His Majesty's Navy.
  Mr. RILEY: I beg to call attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A Count has already been called, and 40 Members were found present.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that under Rule 112 any Count taken prior to four o'clock is not provided for, and Counts are only effective if after four o'clock; so that the Count for which my hon. Friend now calls appears to me to be in Order.
  Sir B. FALLE: Does the hon. Member opposite think it is a sufficient reason for calling a Count that very few Members of the Opposition are present?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has not quite appreciated the meaning of the Standing Order. The House cannot be counted out before four o'clock, but a Count can be taken earlier than that. We cannot have a Count so soon after the last one.
  Sir B. FALLE: I would appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that this subject is a very great one.
  Mr. RILEY: Where is your party?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Where is yours?
  Sir B. FALLE: No more vital matter could possibly be brought forward in this House. I need not repeat that, without the Navy, we should be a little plot of land in the North Sea, and we should be starved out of existence. In 1920, there were 124,000 men in the Navy, and in that year 265 were discharged suffering from tuberculosis. In the case of only 3 per cent. was it allowed that their illness was attributable to or aggravated by the Service. Therefore if they

  1161
  had under 10 years service they were put out without a service pension. As I have said, those men who enter before 1921 are in a different position, but after 1921 they have to serve 14 years before getting 1s. a day pension. Between January and September, 1926, 154 men were "cast' from the Navy for tuberculosis alone, and less than 4 per cent. were admitted as being "aggravated or attributable." The last return showed 180 cases of tuberculosis. Of those 180 cases, 18 were certified to be aggravated and attributable to service, and pensioned. That is a very much better figure, 10 per cent., than in previous years. I hope the figure will rise with great rapidity. Even at 10 per cent. it is absolutely insufficient, inadequate, and indefensible. The rating who shortly before was among the physical pick of the world, develops tuberculosis and his case is settled by the "Medical Survey of the Royal Navy." This is what the King's Regulation says:
  "The Board of Survey and General Survey consists of the M.O. in charge of the hospital (President) and three M.O.'s, two of whom are to be S.M.O. of hospital and one S.M.O. of the Fleet or Depot. When two M.O.'s of hospital are not available one suffices."
  This system was introduced in 1914. Previous to 1914, the President of the Board of Survey had to be a captain, Royal Navy (Executive). The advantage of that was that the rating brought before him recognised a man in whom he could place absolute confidence, because he was his own man, and the captain, of course, looked upon his rating as one of his own children. It gave the rating an advantage which he certainly has not got at the present moment when he is brought before the Board of Medical Officers, however able and however learned. I wish to emphasise most strongly, far from me be it to question or to undervalue the medical ability, attainments and the self-sacrifice of a great and noble profession. Incidentally, I would say that I myself am a medical student, and I have therefore seen some of the sacrifices which the profession has to make. The sacrifice is made daily, and not less by those medical officers who are in the Services.
  I know that the Admiralty is not unfriendly to the idea of a Board, and I say that a Board of Appeal must be
  1162
  granted to the rank and ratings before men are discharged from the Service for tuberculosis. If the Survey Board decide that there is no attributability or aggravation, as I have said, the men are discharged, if under 10 or 14 years' service, as the case may be, pensionless. Picture to yourself what happens to a rating discharged without pension or disability pension from the Navy. Picture to yourself his return to shore to his wife and his family, to a small room or rooms, broken in health, broken in heart, broken in body, broken in mind and in purse. He returns there, as I say, to see his wife and children starve, and that when he is suffering from a most hideous disease—a disease for which there is said to be only one cure, and that cure fresh air, fresh air, and again fresh air, and, perhaps above all and beyond anything else, nourishing food. Nourishing food—on the dole! That is what that man, if married, has to live upon, and to keep his wife and children and to keep himself in nourishing food. We work up in this House—in a much larger House than this—to white heat on the subject of domestic slavery in Sierra Leone. We have spent a great deal of money and a good many lives in trying to put down slavery in what they call the Triangle, north of Assam. We spend every year lacs and lacs of rupees in trying to put down Ethiopian slavery and the Red Sea traffic.
  When we come to our own country and our own countrymen, we cannot afford it. Why?? For the reason that if it is a good scheme the Army and the Royal Air Force say that they want to be in it. Immediately, of course, as we all know, the Treasury say, "We cannot." and when the Treasury speaks, most of us have to listen. But why? As they said in the days of my youth, "Why should London wait?" The answer is very clear. Why should the Navy wait? Because the other Services want to chip in. I say, why should not a beginning be made with the Navy, and why should not a beginning be made with one particular kind of disease, and that a desolating disease which affects the Navy? I am sure there is not a naval surgeon in the world who would not admit that any doctor might be wrong, particularly if that doctor were a civilian doctor, but the number of those

  1163
  who in any profession will admit that they may have been wrong is exceedingly small. There is no man who lives even to middle age who will not admit that fact. It takes a big man, a very large-minded man, to admit that he may have been wrong, and a bigger one still to say, "I have been in error; I have made a mistake." It is true that to admit error in the Navy is not, perhaps, a particularly wise thing to do. John Stuart Mill said:
  "How can great minds be produced in a country when the test of a great mind is agreeing in the opinion of small minds?"
  That is a profound counsel. The rating does not blame the surgeon who discharges him. At the same time, I think it would be kinder if the surgeon gave him a large dose of poison on the spot, and so save him much suffering, and his wife and family also.
  I say at once that I absolutely repudiate the suggestion and I fight against it whenever I can, for I do believe in the justice of great Departments, although perhaps not always in the case of individuals, but the sailor man has the honest conviction that if a surgeon is too kind-hearted or too generous to him, he very soon loses his cushy job, and is sent to another part of the world where it is not so pleasant. I say I do not for a moment believe it, but the men believe it, and it is not fair, right or politic to lay any man under such a suspicion, however mistaken and however ridiculous it may seem to us. I am persuaded that there must be some kind of appeal for rank and rating. This is not really a party question. It is a huge question, which should be settled by the better feelings of every Member of this House. A man may make a mistake which is very easy to make, and that is to overstate his case. I do not wish to do anything of the kind. I think my case is strong enough by itself. I will at once admit that there is an appeal to the Board of Admiralty, and never in my experience—and I may so frankly—has a Board been more generous, more just, more appreciative, more kindly or more fair to men than the Board under my right hon. Friend the First Lord and my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. But the Board is far away, as far away from the sailor as
  1164
  the sun is from the earth. The rating knows there is a sun; he has seen its light and felt its benign and beneficent influence, and he knows what sunstroke means, but he never dreams of appealing to the sun. It takes a brave man, a morally brave man, or else a desperate one, to appeal even to his Captain—and I know that, because I get very many instances of it—but to appeal to the Board of Admiralty, to My Lords! Well, if you put that before him, he will in most cases laugh at you. I specially ask my hon. and gallant Friend to note this, that if it could be definitely laid down in King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, and published in Admiralty Orders, that every rank and rating has the right, the right which cannot be taken from him, the right which is indefeasibly his, of appealing from the Survey Board to the Board of Admiralty, then the grievance which I am bringing forward, which is a sound and just grievance, a grievance which I have noted now for more than 20 years at the headquarters of the Fleet, would to a very great extent disappear.
  Let me give a concrete example of what I mean by telling of what was a successful appeal to the Board of Admiralty. A petty officer with 19 years' service—and so, of course, entitled to a service pension of £56 a year—in the year 1925 was unfortunate enough to develop pleurisy. He lingered on slowly, and he then took pneumonia, and in the month of December they sent him out in a torpedo-boat-destroyer to the Baltic, and in that torpedo-boat-destroyer they also sent a large draft of other men for the Baltic. Some of us have seen a torpedo-boat-destroyer, and we know the accommodation and what happens if 30 or 40 additional men are shoved into that ship. As soon as that man got to the Baltic—of course, it was by an error that he had been drafted there—they said to him, "Go home," and they sent him back in another torpedo-boat-destroyer, and when he got back, would you believe that that poor fellow developed tuberculosis?
  He went before a board which discharged him as suffering from a disease non-aggravated by and non-attributable to the Service. That is a pretty tall order, and the man went away and is no longer in the Service. The man had some pluck and appealed to his Member of

  1165
  Parliament, and the case was brought to the notice of the Board of Admiralty. They acted with generosity and kindness, and nine months after his appeal he was allowed a disability pension. He did wisely in appealing. That seemed to me to be a very hard case, and it was taken up, as I say, by the Board in a sympathetic spirit, but it is only a limited number of men who dare go to the Board. I will say at once that only yesterday morning my hon. and gallant Friend sent me a further case of a man who was discharged in October last and who yesterday had been given a disability pension. He was a chief petty officer, retired on a pension of £50 a year, and for the next year and until he is re-boarded he is to receive £118 a year, so that his chance of getting a little fresh air and good food, and possibly of saving his life, is a great deal better than it was.
  We must have a free appeal to the Board of Admiralty, or, if the Admiralty will not allow that, we must have a board which does not consist exclusively of naval medical men. It is not fair to ask a board of naval medical officers to sit in judgment on their seniors or on their juniors. There is fortunately an esprit de corps right through the Service, and you have to consider the esprit de corps naturally in all and every connection of the Service. I should like to see a board, if we cannot have the Admiralty, with a Captain R.N. (Executive) as President, with at least one naval medical officer sitting on that board, and—this is a new idea, perhaps—I should like to see a civilian of common sense, experience, and world-knowledge, which is more wanted than medical knowledge on that board.
  I feel sure that the Town Clerks of the great dockyard towns would be willing to give their services without fee. I know the City Clerk of the headquarters of the Fleet would give all the time that his duties would allow him to do—all honour to him—and that shows how universal is the feeling on the subject of disease in the Navy. He would give his time, and give it without fee, and I know that the Town Clerks of what I may call the lesser ports would give their services in the same way freely. Therefore, the cost to the Admiralty would be nil. That difficulty does not stand in the way. There would be no need to do away with the appeal to the Board of Admiralty.
  1166
  That would stand as it stands now, as a kind of North Star in the heavens for the bold matelot, but if my suggestion is not accepted, I think the Board should appoint a civilian doctor of eminence as a referee. That, however, means money, and there is none. Something must be done, and it must be done soon, and I hope it will be done by my right hon. Friend the First Lord. One bad case such as I have enumerated does more harm in every way than 20 instances of generosity do good. It causes more discontent, more feeling of hopelessness than can be calculated. It makes men desperate, poisons the lives of widows and children, and it is as bad for human nature as it is for this great Service.
  "Man's inhumanity to man
  Makes countless thousands mourn."
  Mr. WALLHEAD: We are always saying that.
  Sir B. FALLE: And it is very true. It came from a great man, and it is what the people on the other side call "frozen truth."
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) should have had to waste his "sweetness on the desert air," but it is quality that counts in addressing this House. The terms of the Motion cover the whole field of the question of the invaliding of men from His Majesty's Navy, but I propose to confine myself within fairly close limits to the more serious aspect of it presented by tuberculosis, and by pulmonary tuberculosis in particular, because this dreadful scourge is one that is comparable for other sections of the population and the other Services under the Crown. There is no getting away from it that at the present time there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in His Majesty's Navy among both the ranks and the ratings in consequence of the way in which invalidings are carried out and at the findings that are come to in regard to attribrutality to and aggravation by service in the Navy.
  It is a fact, as the Mover remarked, that we used to have an executive officer, a captain—sometimes, I think, a flag officer—who used to sit as president of a board called together to adjudicate on

  1167
  men who were to be invalided, and it worked very well. I am not aware of the reasons that brought about the change, but it may be that medical officers in the Navy are professionally adverse to anything of the kind. At the same time, I should be the last person to suggest that they have any feeling in their mind other than sympathy for the men who come before them to be invalided out of the Service, but I think it would be a very good plan to revert in one way or another to the old custom of having an executive officer of considerable rank to sit as president of an invaliding board. If that cannot be achieved, at any rate we must have something in the nature of a further and higher appeal board, to which men and officers can appeal after they have been sentenced to be invalided from the Service.
  I realise, as no doubt the House realises, and I think perhaps the men and officers in the Navy realise, that whatever the attitude of the Admiralty may be, it is not entirely the Admiralty who are bringing the pressure to bear and preventing anything in the nature of generosity in regard to pensions or gratuities that may be granted. I think they realise that it must of necessity be the all-powerful Treasury which lies at the back of this trouble, and I shall have a further word or two to say on that point in my concluding remarks. At the present time an extremely small percentage of the men who are invalided from the Service for pulmonary tuberculosis get either a pension for it or anything approaching a gratuity at all. It is a very tiny percentage, as the Mover of the Motion pointed out, and that very naturally creates a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and unrest. As I said, I have chosen pulmonary tuberculosis because of its prevalence right through the population of this country and the other Services under the Crown, and I will quote just a few simple figures to show how serious is the prevalence of tuberculosis in the Navy and how much it exceeds the incidence of that fell disease in the other Services and also in the civil population.
  In the Navy, in 1925, there were 102,600 men, and of that number there were invalided 197 for pulmonary tuberculosis, and 31 died in addition to the 197. The
  1168
  rate per thousand is the point that I want to put before the House to enable a comparison to be made. The rate per thousand of the men in the Navy was 2.19, and the death rate 34. With regard to the Army, in 1926, the nearest year for which I could get figures, there were 226,700 men serving and 173 were invalided with tuberculosis, and a further 23 died. The case-rate per thousand was 91 and the death rate 12. In 1926, there were 59,520 new cases of tuberculosis in the civil population reported to medical officers of health in the country. The other cases that I mentioned in the Army and Navy were, of course, new cases. I think that the death-rate among the new cases in the country is reasonably comparable to the death-rate among new cases in the Army and Navy. That will be allowed. Out of the number of new civil cases, 6,840 died. The case-rate is 1.52 per thousand, and the death-rate 17. In the Army the death-rate from pulmonary tuberculosis in the year was only one-third of that in the Navy, and in the civil population it is exactly a half of the rate in the Navy.
  I have said enough on that point—and I think my figures will bear close investigation—to make my case clear that pulmonary tuberculosis in the Navy is a very serious scourge, and has a more serious effect than it has on the other sections of the population. Two-thirds of the number of men who are invalided from the Navy for this disease are of over five years' service; that means that they served for five years before anything in the nature of the disease appeared, and they are constantly medically examined, so that opportunities are never lost of finding out whether they are suffering from it. That shows that, while they might have picked it up on shore, the probability is that they picked it up in the Service. More than one-half of those invalided were over 25 years of age. Men of the Navy join at a young age, most of them from 14 to 19 and 20, and this again shows that they have arrived at a very useful stage in their career, when this dreadful disease comes upon them. One other point, which is not an uninteresting one, is that the men in the Navy get tuberculosis at a higher rate than do the officers. That is not an easy comparison to make, but so far as my researches go, they prove that.

  1169
  The Mover of the Motion mentioned the conditions of life in the Navy; without wishing to speak too strongly, I have no hesitation in saying that the conditons of life in a man-of-war, so far as tuberculosis is concerned, are very bad indeed. It does not matter how much the medical officers may try, and how much the technical officers of the ships may try, to do all that is possible to provide good ventilation, it becomes to all intents and purposes impossible when the climate, and the technical details and difficulties of a ship are borne in mind. It is a fact that the men sleep to some extent nowadays head to toe, but, at the same time, their hammocks literally touch one another, and they are crowded together in ill-ventilated spaces. Whether we like it or not, there is no help for it in the small ships; they are battened down when the ship is at sea in anything like bad weather, and even in good weather ventilation is poor, and, altogether, the circumstances in which the men sleep would be condemned by any shore-going medical officer of health.
  That shows clearly that the risks that the men run are very serious in this respect. One has only to realise that one man may be courageous enough to carry on with a bad cold, which may be the incipient stages of tuberculosis, and thereby infect a large number of other men. I much doubt if anywhere there is such a serious wastage of first-class life from such a disease as there is in the Navy. I would like to quote my own personal experience. I have nothing in the nature of a grievance, but it is a fact that at the age of 20 I acquired the micrococcus melitensis, the germ of Malta fever, and for four months I was in bed. I was invalided home much more dead than alive, and had to leave the Service temporarily. On my papers, it was written that the cause of my discharge, and the loss of time that was the consequence of it, were not attributable to His Majesty's service. The micro-coccus melitensis is not to be found in Palace Yard or in Trafalgar Square or anywhere in London except in laboratories, and the House will agree with me that it was attributable to His Majesty's service and not as stated on the papers that were given to me. To show that service in the Navy does give you an opportunity of picking up other things, I
  1170
  would mention that a few years afterwards I managed to acquire a serious attack of malarial fever on the East and West Coasts of Africa, and that, I suggest, was attributable to service. Not so very long afterwards I acquired in the Persian Gulf another nice tropical disease, a form of gastro enteritis. I shook that off and then I had a very excellent attack of the worst form of dysentery in Cyprus and Syria. I mention these things, not because I want to cite my troubles, for they are all done with and past, but because I want to show that these diseases can only too easily be acquired in normal circumstances by service under the Crown.
  With regard to the question of the hard cases, I must mention one that came to my notice recently. That was of a petty officer pensioner who served 20 years in the Navy. At the age of 38 or 40 he was not feeling well in the last few weeks of his time, and he did his best, knowing that there might be some risk to his pension. He left the Service and within a very few weeks of his drawing the pension, he was a dead man from galloping consumption. His wife got absolutely nothing from the Navy because the disease was not attributable to His Majesty's service. That is only one of many similar cases which exist in large numbers, and something ought to be done at an early date to put this thing on a better footing. I realise, of course, that the question before the House is only part of a very much larger question—a national question. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty may accept this Motion, and that the Admiralty will do their best to make investigations. But the Motion goes further than that, and I would go so far as to say that, until the State gets a clear idea of its responsibility in regard to the health of the people whom it employs, and sets up in some way or another some fund—if necessary on a contributory basis—or some form of insurance, we shall continue to inflict hardship on men and officers who have no right to be so treated. Everybody realises the difficulty which a man has in bringing an action for compensation against a great Department of State such as the Admiralty. At the same time he has and would have in civil life in the ordinary way, a very good case in a large number of instances under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and

  1171
  other Acts that are on the Statute Book. But it is denied to the men of His Majesty's Forces, and, quite probably, similarly denied to officers and men who serve in civil capacities overseas in unhealthy climates. It is time we made a change. At any rate, in regard to the Navy, the position is profoundly unfair, and not creditable to the State nor to the Government. It cries aloud for investigation and a very early solution.
  Mr. AMMON: I associate with pleasure this side of the House with the Motion, and I congratulate the Mover on raising a matter which will undoubtedly excite the sympathy of all parties, and which cuts across all party divisions. May I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that he has escaped any permanent injuries from the curious hobby that he seems to have had in his early days of collecting rare diseases. Although the Mover and Seconder have laid special emphasis on tuberculosis, they do not, of course, mean to confine their Motion to that entirely, but to extend it to other diseases that might arise in connection with a man's occupation in the Royal Navy. There may be differences of opinion as to the need of a Navy, but there can be no question that, while it is in existence, the State accepts the responsibility for the officers and men who are engaged therein, and it is their duty to see that the best possible terms and conditions are given to them while they are engaged in that Service. The figures read by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) who has just spoken as to the prevalence of tuberculosis in the Navy make a curious commentary. One would have thought that, having regard to the calling, the disease would be less prevalent than it is in shore callings. It is not many years ago since, that in one Department of the Civil Service, namely, the Post Office, this disease was almost epidemic, and had the highest rate both for death and sickness in any calling in the country. Now it has almost been stamped out, and it is the rarest possible thing there. That has been due to the great care and attention given to the working conditions of the men. Probably something
  1172
  could be done along that line, and some investigation is necessary to see if it could be done in the Navy.
  However sympathetic we must be with men who fall victims of this disease, it is beginning at the wrong end to treat them when they have already fallen victims. What is called for here as much as anything is a searching investigation into whether reforms and a remedy cannot be found to prevent disease, rather than to deal with the effects of it. I was interested in two remarks—which I mention only in passing, so as not to throw any discordant note into the Debate—made by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. In one he said the House had been moved to a white heat in connection with slavery in Sierra Leone. I had not observed it. I have raised that matter here once or twice, and I have not received much support, rather have I been shouted down when trying to press the Minister on the subject. He also pointed out how difficult it is for men to nourish themselves fully on what he was pleased to call "the dole," but which is unemployment insurance benefit. That observation applies to others than those in the Royal Navy, and I hope the hon. Member will remember that. While his heart is soft, as it always is for the men of the Royal Navy, I hope he will have the same regard for men in other calling who find themselves in a similar position.
  Sir B. FALLE: One thing at a time.
  Mr. AMMON: I want to suggest to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion that something more is needed than is already asked for by the Motion, which asks that there shall be possibilities for consideration before men are finally discharged from the Service. It happens very often that the worst incidence of the trouble or disease reveals itself after they have been discharged, and there ought to be some opportunity for appeal on the grounds of accident or trouble which can be directly traced to the Service. Let me give this example. Only yesterday I had a letter from a man who had served some years in the Royal Navy, and who, in the course of his duty, lost the middle finger of the right hand. He was given a pension. Subsequently he obtained employment in the Post Office. After a time that was reported to the Board of Admiralty, and

  1173
  the man's pension was then stopped, on the ground that he was capable of full earnings. That I regard as quite indefensible and wrong. Here is a man maimed for life during his work in the Royal Navy, and surely the Admiralty have no right to take into consideration any work he may get later in order to reduce his income in that way. The man now finds himself in an extremely difficult position. He has fallen on rather bad days, owing to ill-health, in the Post Office itself, where he has been employed for a number of years, and is likely before long to be discharged, perhaps without a pension, or with a very small pension, and he will now receive no pension at all for the actual injury received in the Navy, to which he is rightly entitled, just because at some period he was able to earn full remuneration for certain services in the Post Office. There ought to be some possibility of appeal in a case like that. A man ought to be able to have his case reconsidered, especially when there can be no doubt whatever as to the accident having arisen out of his service in the Navy.
  I agree with the hon. Member that we do not want to ask for co-ordination of the Services in this matter, because we shall have to wait till the crack of doom if we wait for that; and I may say in passing that if the hon. Member who last night raised the question of the political disabilities of men in the Royal Navy had only taken the trouble to look up the position with regard to the other Services he would have had a very much stronger case than he thought he had. In this matter it ought to be the line of the Navy to give a lead. One other point—is it quite the best line to take to ask for a right of appeal to the Board of Admiralty? Would it not be better if we had an independent tribunal or board composed of flag officers serving, or perhaps those who are on half-pay, with medical officers independent of the Service and, perhaps, a civilian by way of assessor? It is very much like appealing to the judge who has already pronounced sentence if appeal has to be made to the Board of Admiralty upon a decision which their officials have already given. However, for what it is, for the intentions behind it, and in the hope that consideration will be given to the matter by the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary
  1174
  to the Admiralty and his right hon. Friend, we are prepared to support the Motion. I think it will be accepted in the right spirit by the Admiralty itself, and I hope things will not rest there but that they will give us a real inquiry to see if something cannot be done on behalf of these men and officers who suffer from health or accident.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The question which has been raised in this Motion is one of vital importance and one—
  Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. If the time is up, I should like, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House was counted recently, and 40 Members were present.
  Mr. BATEY: I understand that it is more than an hour since it was counted.
  5.0 p.m.
  Dr. DAVIES: This question is arousing great interest, and a certain amount of anxiety, among Members of this House and the public generally, and I think I may say also in the service itself. We are constantly having cases brought to our notice which, on the surface, appear to be cases which ought to receive consideration from the Admiralty but which are turned down and held to be non-attributable. I will read to the House a statement showing what the Admiralty regard as the conditions necessary for attributability. This is a letter which I received from my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1926. I have been dealing with the subject ever since, but not with very much success up to the present:
  "Before a disease can be accepted as attributable to the Service it must be shown to have developed out of unusual conditions. Medical officers are required to give very careful consideration to cases where such conditions are suggested and cases of doubt would be represented specially. You may rest assured that when there is evidence that a man invalided for a particular disease has been exposed to exceptional conditions of the Service involving the risk of contracting that disease, this evidence would be accepted as proof of attributability."
  It is an exceedingly hard condition to fulfil, to prove that a man has been exposed to exceptional conditions. Sometimes there is no difficulty at all. In certain groups it can be settled straight away. In the group of accidents you

  1175
  can decide quite easily whether an accident was due to the service, and it is the same in the case of certain tropical diseases which have been already mentioned, including malaria and undulant or Mediterranean fever. Here I would enter a slight protect against my hon. and gallant Friend referring to undulant fever as Malta fever. That name is now quite dead, it gives great offence to the people of Malta and the proper medical and scientific name of the disease is undulant or Mediterranean fever. In cases like that there is no difficulty; the Admiralty will probably decide both to the satisfaction of the men and of the service. But there are certain difficult groups, comprising diseases found in civil life, which people in the services are also liable to have. Take the case of a man who has developed chronic bronchitis, and ultimately heart disease, whilst serving in the service and is invalided out. That man naturally thinks he is entitled to a pension, because the disease was contracted in the service, but there is nothing exceptional there, nothing in the life he has led to make us think that the disease was attributable to his service, and the man justly has no claim. But that does not make the man think so. The same thing might happen with acute rheumatism followed by heart disease. These cases are difficult because they are met with in civil life as well as in the service, and the Admiralty have a very good case when they refuse to accept some of these.
  But tuberculosis is in rather a different category. This case is causing the greatest dissatisfaction both in the services and in the country. There are only-two circumstances in which the Admiralty would acknowledge without any hesitation that consumption, or tuberculosis of the lungs, was to be held attributable to service. If a man had been nursing consumptive or tuberculous patients and had developed consumption the Admiralty would probably regard that as attributable and give the man a pension. They would also, I think, give a man a pension if he had been serving in a submarine and had developed consumption, and it turned out that there had been a consumptive man amongst the crew. In those cases I do not think there is any difficulty. In every other case there is
  1176
  a difficulty, and the Admiralty Board, who, are the deciding authority—have proved to be extremely difficult to convince. It is not a difficulty of diagnosis. The diagnosis causes no trouble at all. Everyone will agree on whether the man has or has not consumption. The difficulty is to determine whether it has arisen as the result of exceptional circumstances during his service, and that is purely a matter of opinion. No one can lay down a fundamental rule or law and say the man's case must fulfil that law. It is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore it is possible that one group of officers may decide in a certain case that it was attributable, whereas the next group may say, "No, you cannot point to anything which would lead us to come to that conclusion."
  Last year I obtained figures as to pulmonary tuberculosis in the Navy in the previous years, and the number of cases which were held to be attributable. I obtained the figures also for other services, and although I do not quite go so far as my hon. and gallant Friend in making out that the Navy is the worst service from the health point of view, and I think his figures would bear a little criticism, still, I find that out of the cases of pulmonary tuberculosis in 1923, 1924 and 1925 the cases held to be attributable were not quite 3 per cent. The figures were 4 cases out of 132 in 1923; 5 out of 150 in 1924; and 5 out of 197 in 1925. It, is an exceedingly small percentage to say that under 3 per cent. of cases of consumption invalided out of the Navy are attributable to conditions of service. As a result of questions in this House and a certain amount of sympathy from the Admiralty and other services I believe the Committee has been set up to inquire into tuberculosis. That Committee has been sitting for some time and I am inclined to think that they are likely to alter their opinion and take, if not a more humane view, at any rate not quite such a strict view as they took before. By questions and answers in this House, I find that in 1927 there were 180 cases invalided for tuberculosis, and 18 cases or 10 per cent. were held to be attributable to service conditions. In previous years it was under 3 per cent., and it has now jumped up to 10 per cent. No one can say that

  1177
  the conditions of service have altered so considerably as to increase phthisis rates by over three times. I have concluded that as a result of much talking on this subject and consideration the board have begun to think that they may have been a little too harsh in the past and that they have been taking up a position which is logically untenable. That is my argument.
  I contend that only in the few instances I have given is it possible for the Admiralty to definitely decide the attributable cases, and outside these the Admiralty would be logical in saying that no case is attributable. Nobody knows how a patient gets consumption. All we know is that at some time or other the germ of consumption is inhaled and gets into the lungs. You might say that if a man in the tropics gets malaria, and later develops consumption, it can be held to be attributable because that happens to be a debilitating disease, and this might be applied to almost any disease in the tropics. That is an absolutely silly argument because practically every man and woman inhales the tuberculosis germ, but it is not every man and woman who gets malaria that also gets tuberculosis, even in the tropics. The Admiralty may say: "We do not know how you got this disease, but it is not due to the conditions of service, and you might have got it in civil life." My hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) suggests in his Motion that the manner in which these rules are interpreted should be examined by the Board of Admiralty. That is purely a matter of opinion, when all is said and done. It does not matter how you revise the rules, you cannot alter the Board from having their definite opinion when you can offer no proof. One is tempted to ask: "Are the Commissioners at Chelsea so sure of their open-mindedness that they are always competent to decide"—
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut-Colonel Headlam): This point is not decided by the Commissioners at Chelsea, but by the medical officers at the Board of Admiralty.
  Dr. DAVIES: I have seen a letter which states that, "The Commissioners hold the disease to be non-attributable," and for that reason a pension has been
  1178
  refused. [An HON. MEMBER: "The award!"] Perhaps I am wrong and it should be the award of the Admiralty, and I am mixing up the two things. The decisions in these cases may vary with different boards and at different times of the year. I have a case in mind where an hon. Member of this House came to me last year and submitted certain papers for my observations. He said, "This is the case of a man who was in the Navy. He developed consumption and he has been turned out without pension." I went through the papers and I said: "In my opinion this case is attributable and if you cannot get this case through you will never get any case through." My friend then said: "I will take it up to the Admiralty and see what can be done." A few months afterwards he said to me: "You will be glad to hear that the Board of Admiralty reversed their decision. Although in the first instance they refused the case on the ground that it was held to be non-attributable, they afterwards changed their minds and said it was attributable." I think there are some slight indications that the Board of Admiralty admit that in the past they had made mistakes or that they may have taken too strict a view. The Admiralty are too apt to compare men in the Navy with men in civil life. They say that in the case of a man in civil life no one would give an applicant a pension because he had developed consumption. They say that a man in the Navy is under much better conditions and enjoys better health and if he develops consumption it must have been contracted in civil life and consequently the Navy deny responsibility. That may be perfectly logical, but it does not prevent very hard cases arising. One occasionally receives letters on this subject and with the permission of the House I would just like to read a few lines to show how the action of the Admiralty in these cases is viewed by the people concerned. Here is an extract from a letter:
  "As a father who lost a splendid son in November last, I know what the poor fellows suffer without help from the Service. My splendid boy was thrown out of the Royal Navy to die like a dog without a penny help. It broke his heart to think that a grateful country which gave him two service medals, won at 16 years of age, should leave him to die and starve for all they cared; simply stating non-attributable to service."

  1179
  That is the letter written by the father of a boy who gave his life to the country. That man naturally thinks the Admiralty is rather hard and he believes that his boy certainly contracted the disease in the Navy, and nothing in the world will convince that father otherwise. The case I have mentioned is only one of hundreds. I have a ease that came within my own knowledge of a boy who got into the Navy, passed A1, served for 10 years and was discharged with consumption which was held to be non-attributable. He had no parents—just a stepfather—he was sent to a sanatorium and we got a certificate from the principal medical officer there showing that in his opinion the disease was attributable to the conditions of service, but nothing was done, and that poor lad was allowed to die. That is the way some of the people of this country think that our gallant Navy is treating its equally gallant men. The cases are very hard, but I recognise that the Admiralty is in a difficult position that they can logically maintain the attitude that in the majority of cases they are not responsible. I felt so strongly about this matter that two years ago when I first brought up the subject I suggested a scheme of compulsory insurance for the Services and I think I showed at that time that by a scheme of compulsory insurance against tuberculosis the Admiralty might get out of their difficulty quite easily and honourably. My scheme was sympathetically considered by the First Lord of the Admiralty who referred it to the Board of Admiralty and they turned it down. That is just what we expect. The Admiralty believe that nothing good can come to them unless it originates from their own officials, and they are not going to take the advice of Members of Parliament. I know they have their own rules, and I admit that they always treat me very kindly and courteously. Later on I put my scheme before another Department and they thought there might be something in it and promised to inquire into the matter. I said to them, "Will you have my figures examined actuarily by the Government Actuary to see that the facts are right?" Later on I inquired and I found that this Department had the matter before them for nearly two years. They never placed the
  1180
  matter before the Government Actuary. They are still considering whether these cases are attributable or non-attributable, and when the Greek Kalends arrive we shall hear something about my suggested scheme. The Admiralty could have had that scheme examined in a very short time, but because it happened to come from a Member of this honourable House and did not originate in the Admiralty or one of the other Services, they have not gone to the trouble of finding out whether my scheme was sound or not. In the meantime, the men are dying and nothing is being done for them and everybody is dissatisfied. I hope this Debate will arouse more interest in the subject and that the Services will really tackle this question more seriously.
  We want to know are we responsible for tubercle or not? Can we prove this disease to be attributable or not? I agree that if the Admiralty care to do it, they can get out of their liability in the majority of cases but having done so they must recognise that for these poor men when invalided out all that remains for them is the National Health Insurance amounting to about 15s. a week for a short time and then they are sent to the Sanatorium. When they come out of those Institutions they have not enough money to keep them going and frequently they have not a friend to help them. Consumption is a debilitating disease and those suffering from it require very nourishing food and skilful treatment. These men are left to starve and die and the country is doing practically nothing to help them.
  If the Government brought in a compulsory insurance scheme, all this could be avoided by deducting 1d. a week and then we should know definitely that every man who contracted consumption in any of the Services and was invalided out would have a pension of £2 a week as long as he lived if my scheme is actuarially sound. Then I think the country could say with satisfaction that something had been done for these men. I think it would be much better that these men should be able to live in a certain amount of decency and comfort instead of being thrown on the scrap heap and having to trust to the kindness or charity of friends or else go into a Sanatorium and die derelict without any help from

  1181
  the State or the people of this country. I commend very heartily this Resolution to the House, and also to the attention of the Admiralty. I hope they will really recognise that it is a very serious matter, which is causing a very great deal of dissatisfaction in the country, and that they have the opportunity, if they will, of satisfying the men in the Services.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It might be thought, from what has preceded, that those who are interested in this case are claiming that every man invalided out of the Service should be granted a pension. The claim is far more modest than that. The claim is only that those who are invalided out of the Service should have a fair trial, should have a fair chance of getting a pension. It is a claim that an appeal tribunal should be established. There is no valid argument, so far as I am able to see, for resisting such a case as that. The facts have been stated sufficiently clearly this afternoon, and they need very little emphasis. What are they? In order to get into His Majesty's Navy you have to prove yourself to be a man of very exceptional physical characteristics. There is no chance of your getting through that net if there is the slightest defect in your constitution. Every month, 5,000 men try to get into the Navy. Of these, 4,500 are rejected, and only 500 succeed in getting in. The chances against your getting into His Majesty's Navy are, when fractions and so on are allowed for, about seven to one, and you do not try to get into the Navy unless you are a person of sound physique.
  After you have passed through what I have described as this net, what are the conditions under which you serve? They have been explained to the House this afternoon—bad ventilation, bad light, unnatural conditions, noise, din, confinement. Ninety per cent. of the men serving afloat in ships of war work—and rest—in artificial light and in artificial air. One would naturally expect that, arising from that, certain diseases would be contracted, and, curiously enough, it is those very diseases that are contracted. One would expect men to become deaf; one would expect their eyesight to become weaker; one would expect them to get chest trouble. That is exactly what happens, and these are the principal diseases for which men
  1182
  are invalided out of the Navy. When a man has contracted one of these diseases, what is the procedure? He naturally claims a pension. He goes before a doctor, who is an Admiralty servant, and the chances against his getting a pension are 16 to one. The figures are perfectly astounding, and they do require some adequate explanation from the Admiralty. Out of about 1,500 people invalided every year, only about 80 get pensions, and they are invalided for these very diseases which you would expect them to get. How, in those circumstances, can the Admiralty resist this case, and why do they make it necessary for us to advocate it in this House?
  My hon. Friend who has just sat down, and who speaks with great authority in these matters, has spoken about tuberculosis, and it is, indeed, amazing that, in the year 1925, of 189 people who were invalided out of the Service for pulmonary tuberculosis—to say nothing of those who died—only two got pensions. In every other case the Admiralty said, "This has nothing to do with us." If it has nothing to do with the Admiralty, with whom has it anything to do? These men, naturally, imagine that it is due to their service, and they want to know the reason why the Admiralty says that it is not due to service. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what the reason is. The Admiralty say that they do not consider a disease to be attributable to service when it is due to the ordinary conditions of the Service. To what else can it be due? If you put a man in a bad atmosphere, deprive him of light, make him lead an entirely unnatural life, and give him, as a result of that, a disease, you are not entitled to say that, if this disease is due to those very conditions, you will not give him a pension. There can be no other ground on which he can claim a pension.
  If you compare the life in the Navy with the life outside, it is a very different life. If these men were miners or glassblowers, and if these statistics were published with regard to them, the public conscience would be aroused, and it is precisely because of that that we have the Workmen's Compensation Act on the Statute Book to-day. A civilian who claims to have contracted tuberculosis or any other disease, arising out of his duty, can before a county Court. He does not go before a doctor; he goes

  1183
  before a county Court, and produces his evidence. Why should the Admiralty deny the servants of the State that which is the right of every civilian in this country? Why should not they even place this matter in the hands of the county Court? That, at any rate, would give the man the satisfaction of being allowed to state his case. A doctor who is an Admiralty servant, honest though he naturally is, is not the proper tribunal The place of the doctor is in the witness-box. His is the evidence of an expert; his is not the verdict of a Judge. The question whether or not a man is ill is the province of the doctor; to decide whether or not, taking all the circumstances into consideration, that man is entitled to some compensation, is the function of a man in the street, of a civilian, and it would be better to let it be judged by an ordinary serving naval officer than by a doctor.
  That is the claim. I shall be interested to know on what grounds it can be resisted. Of course, this Motion will not be contested by the Government, because the Motion does not mean anything, so far as I can understand. The Motion simply calls upon the Admiralty to make further inquiries. We do not want further inquiries; this matter has been inquired into for years past. We want to know why the Admiralty will not grant an appeal tribunal. Has it any justification for refusing such a tribunal, or is it afraid that, if such a tribunal is granted, these men will get what they cannot get under the present system?
  Viscountess ASTOR: We have spoken very often on this subject, and we have heard speeches that would have moved the heart of anybody, but it seems to me that we have never had a chance to stir the heart of the House of Commons, for, although it is almost incomprehensible, the House of Commons seems particularly vacant whenever this question comes up. If we had a crowded House for this Motion, and could put our case before it, the Admiralty would be bound to listen, but unfortunately, there are very few people here. The figures have been given this afternoon. There are 55,000 men who want to enter the Navy, but only 5,000 can do so. The Admiralty can say that application to enter the Navy is not compulsory, and that the reason why so few can be taken is not because
  1184
  of ill-health, but because they only want a certain number. As hon. Members have shown, there is a tremendous process of elimination, and we only get the best. The Admiralty might say, perfectly rightly, that they do not ask them to come, and they can get plenty of men. But, if the Admiralty told those young fellows when they came up that they had to, live under certain conditions, if they put before them the conditions of a modern man-of-war and showed them the high rate of tuberculosis in a modern man-of-war—which I do not believe it is possible to prevent under the conditions—if they showed them that, and said, "These are the things you will get, but, if you get them, you will get no pension," it would be quite a different matter.
  It has been suggested that the Admiralty ought to look into this question of the living conditions in a modern battleship. I have had a great deal to do with it, and I have asked, not only British experts, but experts who have devoted themselves to this question in the American Navy, where the rate of tuberculosis is also very high. It seems to be impossible to prevent it under the conditions of modern warships, and I do not see how it can be otherwise—that is one reason why I want to get rid of war—or how it could be made possible for men to live in modern warships except under the most appalling conditions. The Admiralty, therefore, have that responsibility, and the least they could do is to see to it that these people know that the conditions do not correspond with the lovely posters that you see, with pictures of ships afloat and the heading: "Join the Navy," but are something quite different.
  The results of tuberculosis are truly alarming, and I do beg the Admiralty at least to give these men the chance of appealing. It is no good telling us that it is not attributable to naval service. We who represent naval ports have to see, as was said by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), these men go out of the Navy and go back to their homes, with no pensions, and, worst of all, with a grievance. There is nothing worse for the health of a man who has been so weakened than a grievance, and, if the grievance were taken away, it would be possible to get rid of the disease. If they had that

  1185
  right of appeal, it would do away with the grievance, which I think at present is perfectly justified. I have seen many fine men, particularly among the writers, who come back with this disease—men devoted to the Navy, and just as proud of it as any Admiral in the Navy. They come home without, as I say, any right of appeal. They go back to their homes—good homes now, because the men in the Navy have good homes; but soon their home goes, and then everything goes, and, at the end, they are taken away, generaly to die, with a grievance due to lack of pension and, really, to lack of sympathy.
  I do not want to be hard, or to make a party case of the Navy. I think that that is a dreadful thing to do, because the Navy is a, national Service; it belongs to no party, it belongs to the nation. Of this I am perfectly certain, that, if we had a full House of Commons, that could listen to our arguments and bring pressure to bear on the Admiralty, or what-even Department is concerned, then, if they could not grant a pension, at least an appeal tribunal would be granted. The men ask that their cases should be judged by someone—for instance, their Captain—to whom they can explain the circumstances. They go before the medical officer, and the medical officer examines them as an expert, but the Captain sees the conditions under which they have to serve, and the things that they have to do. There is a wonderful spirit among the officers in the Navy, and there is a general feeling that it is not fair that there Should not be an appeal tribunal for these cases.
  As I have said, we have said nearly everything that we could say. We have pleaded, we have spoken with the tongues of angels, but, evidently, the Admiralty is not moved. We cannot do anything. We cannot threaten them. A Motion like this means nothing. It is like a little gunboat threatening a battleship for anyone to get up individually and threaten the Admiralty, and the Admiralty is always the, same, no matter what Government is in power. [Interruption] The feeling that one is up against them terrifies one. At least, I must say it has never terrified me, but it does make a great difference. I beg of them to take the point of view of the man who goes before the medical officer, and is put out
  1186
  of the Navy. There is no one else to whom he can go. But you say he goes before the Admiralty Board. What do the Board do? They confirm the decision and send it back, unless the man appears himself. They could put their case if they had the chance to put it. I beg of the Admiralty to listen, because I am certain there is no more tenderhearted Member in the whole House than the Parliamentary Secretary. I should not like to tell him some of the stories of these men, because I am afraid he would weep. I know he is particularly tender-hearted. But, if this has to come up before the House again, I shall bring such cases that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will almost rather resign his position than have these appeals go on year after year. We do not ask for the impossible. We are asking for what is possible, a right of appeal, and the Admiralty should have responsibility for the enormous number of men invalided out owing entirely to the conditions in modern battleships.
  Mr. GROVES: I was very keenly interested when I saw this Motion on the Paper, not that I profess in any way to be either a military or a naval man but I have had considerable experience with constituents who have come to me. I have placed their case before the Admiralty and we get the usual stereotyped reply. I am amazed that we refuse to give the same degree of medical fair play, so to speak, to the naval man as to the soldier. When a soldier has some dispute with regard to an award, he can go to the appeal tribunal and in many cases the award given in the first instance is reversed or considerably amended. I have sent two or three cases recently to the Admiralty. The last case I sent was that of a man who had served some years in the East. He was invalided from the Navy and the doctor said he had tuberculosis, and certified that he was suffering from the effects of black fly, which could only have been contracted during his service in the East. I wrote to the Admiralty and got the usual courteous reply that their medical advisers had carefully re-considered the case and could see no grounds for altering their previous decision. The man died in the. London Hospital and on the death certificate the doctors mentioned black fly. When the case was sent to the

  1187
  Admiralty by the widow, and a claim made, they saw the weight of the medical opinion from the London Hospital and paid out. The point is one that applies to every Member of Parliament. A constituent goes to his Member, the Member goes to the Admiralty, the Admiralty go to the medical men and you get really a repetition of the original statement. My original overture to the Admiralty got the usual stereotyped response. When the man died, the Admiralty—I do not know whether it was the medical side or whether it was the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite; I hope it was he, but certainly someone took into consideration the medical opinion as to the cause of death and paid out to the widow. We talk about theories in the House but when you have two or three isolated instances where your rules and regulations are proved inefficacious, the persons concerned with the maintenance of the rules and regulations ought to have another look at them.
  One of my constituents, who has been in the submarine service, suffered from tuberculosis and went to the sanatorium at Dagenham. The doctor there said that, in his opinion, the disease was due to his long service in the submarine, and a local doctor will take a perfectly honest view of a case, neither for or against the Admiralty. I appealed to the Admiralty but nothing doing. I got six separate letters saying the case had been reconsidered but there was no just ground for departing from the original decision. The man died. It will not have any effect to continue to repeat hard cases. Probably individual cases prove next to nothing. There appears to be a fair application of British justice for British ex-soldiers. If they have a medical grievance, they can go before an independent doctor and the original award is often amended or reversed. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, I think he ought to do more than read rules and regulations, drawn up in the time of Queen Anne, or Queen Elizabeth, or Noah. It is a modern question. If there is a Statute precluding the Admiralty from giving the same facilities to men in the Navy as are given to men in the military service, there would be no question of support being given to any Bill brought in to remove any anomaly. I am sure an
  1188
  anomaly exists. I may sit in opposition to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on party grounds but I would not accuse him of being pleased at the existence of regulations that keep these naval men outside a further appeal, and I believe he would be glad to do anything that could be done. Here are the grievances, this is the place to air them, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is the person responsible for the Government. I trust he will consider the position and make what changes he can this year in order that next year people turned out of the Navy because of their disabilities are really going to get British justice.
  Sir GERALD HOHLER: I support the Motion. I really doubt whether the Secretary to the Admiralty is in his heart opposed to it. I cannot help thinking, from long experience of this class of case, that the Admiralty act upon a kind of fixed rule. They say the man has been invalided out by the doctors, it is difficult to hold an inquiry and we must adhere to our decision, and the result is that there are men who have been invalided out of the service and bitterly resent what has been done. Nothing will satisfy them, and indeed I am often of opinion that they are right in their reasons why they are not satisfied, that justice has been done them. I had a recent case which has been before the hon. and gallant Gentleman of a man who had served his 12 years and been allowed to re-engage for pension. Within a few months he was sent to Eastern waters, where he contracted malaria. The ship's surgeon ordered him to hospital and then he was sent back to Malta, with a view to going to England for a complete change, but it was inconvenient or impossible to send him home and he was sent back to the Persian Gulf. He got worse, was sent home to England and was invalided out of the service. Those facts really prima facie satisfy me that the cause of his invaliding was attributable to the service, but the surgeons of the hospital had reported against him and nothing could be done.
  I think I have written twice to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, about it and I mean to persist in the case because I believe in it. Nothing will satisfy me, having regard to the facts which the man has stated and which have not been

  1189
  controverted, but that this man's invaliding was primarily attributable to his service. What does the man say? He says, "I had sacrificed 12 years of my life before I re-engaged for pension, and I looked forward to a pension at the end of my service." There is no reason to doubt that the man would have obtained his pension if he had remained in the Service. He is now thrown out of the Service to which he had given his life—it was the career of his life—without any prospect of pension, and he is thrown on to the labour market to do the best he can. He complains, and complains bitterly, of the manner in which he has been treated I am supporting this Motion, because I believe there should be some final board of appeal to whom the man may appeal to see whether the doctors in invaliding him out of the Service were right. If he is invalided, the question at once arises: Was his disease attributable to the Service? If this be the case, I venture to submit that he ought to get some pension. It might not be the full pension to which he would have been entitled had he served his 22 years, but some pension that would enable him to make some provision for the future.
  We are asking only for that which really exists in industry. We are only asking to extend to the Admiralty and its administration the rights given to the worker under the Compensation Acts. There are hurt certificates in the Navy and something is given in respect of them, but you may get illnesses wholly due to climate and the exigencies of the Service which sent you to that climate. Why should not a man have the same adequate protection in His Majesty's Navy as that which is afforded to the man who takes part in industry? I have had in my experience, not a great number of cases, but a sufficient number of cases to justify the adoption of this Motion. I think the Board of Admiralty themselves would be relieved if they could say, "Well, this man complains that he has not been justly treated and that the doctors who invalided him were mistaken." Doctors often follow one another like sheep when they give an opinion. What we really want is an Independent Board so that cases may come before them and be decided in an atmosphere outside the Service and on the best skilled opinion that can be obtained.
  1190
  I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will accept this Motion and will do something to remove a real grievance on the part of the men. It is not a question of malingering. These men are thrust out of the Service. It is not that they do not want to work. They do want to work, but they want to do so in the profession they chose for themselves. When you have men admitted to the Navy after a most careful examination in regard to health and other physical conditions it does seem hard, more particularly the longer they have served, that they should be thrown on to the world to find work. I have already appealed for this unfortunate fellow to whom I refer, and I am going to appeal again, because I find that sometimes two or three letters are better than one letter. I mean to fight on. Meawhile, this is an opportunity, in my judgment, to point out that it is the unanimous feeling of the House—and this is by no means a party question—and of the country that these men, when invalided from the Service and their disability is attributed to the Service, should receive just compensation in regard to the service they have undertaken and rendered to the State.
  Mr. KELLY: I shall not keep the House more than a few minutes in view of what appears to be the unanimous support for this Motion. The only fault I have to find with the Motion is in regard to its weakness. I wish it had demanded that these people should be adequately and properly treated for the services they have rendered to the State. I notice that one or two of the speakers paid some regard to petitions to the Board of Admiralty. I hope that whatever consideration is given by the Board of Admiralty to the re-examination of this question there will be no petitioning. The days of petitioning to my Lords of the Admiralty ought to have passed long since, because those of us who saw something of it in the earlier days never had any regard for it, and I think the Board of Admiralty had less. I trust that the Admiralty will allow someone outside the Department to examine these cases, although, for the time being I can see nothing better than the County Court. I do not mention the County Court because I love this method. There is too much of the lawyer

  1191
  about the place, and lawyers in compensation matter are a very expensive medium of which to make use. I hope that someone may have a chance of doing justice to these people. I hope the Admiralty will agree that these men should not be turned aside as they have been, but that they should have an opportunity of presenting their case so that compensation of an adequate kind may be paid to them.
  I want also to stress, if I may, the point put by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) that the Admiralty themselves should, instead of having to deal with the effects, find out what are the causes of so many of these diseases. I think that in ordering their ships they pay more regard to having huge machines of war than they do to the living accommodation for the men. It is small wonder that so many of the men are troubled with tuberculosis when you realise the inadequate living accommodation provided in many of the ships. I trust that, in examining this question, they will look into some of these causes and see if something cannot be done in order to deal with tuberculosis, which is such a serious menace to the men who serve in the Navy. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who is about to reply, will not consider that we are at all satisfied with the machinery that operates in respect of the Army. We do not look upon the tribunals that exist for the men in the land forces for dealing with their compensation and pensions and so forth
  1192
  as adequate at this time. These tribunals are too fond of stating that a man is not suffering at the present time by reason of anything that came to him consequent upon his service. I think that it will be essential to go outside that particular type of body in order to secure reasonable compensation.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us that we are asking for more for men in the fighting Services than is given to the civilian in the employ of the Admiralty. A civilian in the employ of the Admiralty is not allowed to proceed to the County Court, and he is not allowed, even for workmen's compensation, to take his case before Courts of the country unless the Admiralty agree beforehand that he may go outside the particular scheme in operation. Even with regard to the treatment meted out to the civilians employed in the dockyards and Admiralty establishments, I trust that they will re-examine the whole position and that they will not give us a report 12 months hence. They should examine the position for immediate action, so that these men may have something which is denied them at the present time, and that, when they have suffered by reason of their service to the country, the country may reward them for that service.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at Two Minutes before Six o'clock until To-morrow.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ARMY PENSION).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ARMY PENSION).
  MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
  MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.
  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.
EDUCATION.
  INFANTS' DEPARTMENTS.
  INFANTS' DEPARTMENTS.
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TEACHERS' COURSE).
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TEACHERS' COURSE).
  SIZE OF CLASSES.
  SIZE OF CLASSES.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND REGISTRY, NORTHERN IRELAND (CLERICAL OFFICERS).
  LAND REGISTRY, NORTHERN IRELAND (CLERICAL OFFICERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WELSH MINERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WELSH MINERS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  MAGISTRATES (PLACE OF RESIDENCE).
  MAGISTRATES (PLACE OF RESIDENCE).
  WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
  WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
OXFORD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of these Bills.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT 1921 AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IRISH FREE STATE CIVIL SERVANTS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, a series of Questions stood upon the Paper for to-morrow in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, dealing with, or arising from, a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—[in the action of Wigg and Cochrane versus the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State]—the treatment of that decision in the Irish Free State, and an announcement made by my right hon. friend, the Dominions Secretary, in another place upon the subject. The decision of the Judicial Committee in question was one delivered on behalf of the Committee by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose absence from among us, and the cause of it, we all so much regret. It would naturally have fallen to my noble and learned friend to deal with any matters arising in this House from that judgment, and indeed he alone is equipped with the authority and the knowledge of this special case which would have enabled him to do so in the manner I conceive most satisfactory to your Lordships. He cannot, of course, be among us at this moment.
I discussed this matter with my noble and learned friend Lord Carson yesterday, and he was good enough to agree, in virtue of the communication which I made to him, to an arrangement under which, in the hope that it might be possible for the Lord Chancellor himself to be present at the discussion of this matter, it should be postponed for a period, not, in any event, exceeding a month. The Government feel as strongly as Lord Carson that it would not be reasonable to ask for a maximum postponement for a longer period than a month. If it should, unfortunately and contrary to our hopes, prove to be the fact that the Lord Chancellor is not able to deal with that matter in debate in this House within that period, I have been asked by my noble friend who leads the House to make such answer as the Government wish to give to the Questions which Lord Carson has asked. It only remains for me, to express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for the consideration with which he met the
382
views of the Government in a matter of great anxiety in the particular circumstances.

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
EARL GREY EARL GREY rose to call attention to the growing discontent with our present electoral system, due to the ever increasing number of three-cornered contests, and to the urgent need for accurate knowledge of the working of other electoral systems. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the last occasion when our electoral system was under discussion the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said that in his opinion the whole question of electoral methods was deserving of much closer study than it had received. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships also that the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, which sat in 1910, reported that, although they could not say that a case had been made out for a change in our electoral methods at that date to the single transferable vote, they considered it possible that circumstances would arise which would make its adoption desirable.
I do not wish to ask your Lordships to agree with me that the time has come to make a change to the system of the single transferable vote to which the Royal Commission alluded in their Report, but I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that since the date of that Report a great mass of new material bearing upon the constitutional developments with which the Report dealt has become available, especially since the War, and that all that new material is well worthy of close and careful study. At present the Journal of the Proportional Representation Society is the only publication I knew of that sets itself to analyse the tremendous influence which the methods of electing Parliaments has upon their personnel, their legislation, their national policy and even the formation and maintenance of Governments. I cannot help feeling that it is rather curious that in a country which has been so pre-eminent in constitutional history as our own a closer study of the question has not been made. Whether that is due to our wholesome dislike of disturbing systems with which we have become familiar from long practice and which

383
have worked well, or whether it is the pre-occupation with all the other great changes which have rushed upon us since the War, I do not know, but it seems to me that we are facing the present electoral situation as if the only question we have to deal with is who is to have the vote, and that we need not bother ourselves as to whether that vote is effectively exercised. Yet I should have thought that the number of voters was probably the least important part of the electoral position with which we have to deal.
If we made a comparison with twenty years ago we should find that there were about 5,000,000 electors then, and that next year, presumably, there will be over 25,000,000. There were then two main Parties. At the next General Election, I suppose, there will be at least four main Parties. Again, your Lordships have no longer the power you had then of delaying legislation until it is possible to ascertain the will of the people. Finally, there is the growing discontent with three-cornered elections. In the last twenty by-elections there have been eighteen three-cornered elections. On twelve occasions the member returned to the House of Commons did not receive a majority of the votes cast. It would be hard to contend, I think, that this was satisfactory; indeed, everything points to the contrary. He would be a very bold man, it seems to me, who would prophesy that half the members returned at the next Election would receive a majority of the votes cast. Under such conditions the authority of the House of Commons and of the Government must be in danger of being challenged; and soon the Government may find itself forced to change the electoral method for this, if for no other, reason, that it cannot afford not to move.
I believe there are still some people who think it is possible that we may return to the two-Party system. I cannot believe there are really very many of them or even that they are very optimistic. I know that Viscount Grey of Fallodon, speaking at Birmingham last October, was reported to have spoken as follows:—
"I realise the inconveniences of the three-Party system and long for the old simplicity of the two-Party system, but the tendencies, the forces that have brought about the
384
three-Party system are much more likely to go on to make four Parties than to reverse their energy and enable us to revert to two. If men and women have the practical sense that government must be carried on—a sense which has never yet failed the British people—the new system will be made workable."
What seems essential, if democracy is to survive the dangers which threaten it, is that we should find some method of ensuring reasonable continuity in national policies. Is that going to be our chief aim when we come to the time that we have to reshape our electoral methods, or, on the ground that it did not work so badly in the past, are we to remain content with violent swings of the pendulum and large majorities alternating for Parties far more fundamentally opposed to each other than they have been for a very long time past?
I am afraid, if this question of large or small majorities is debated between industrialists and politicians, you will find that opposite views are taken, and that the weight of argument lies with the industrialists. Politicians seem to me to have an exaggerated horror of small majorities, which is rather hard to justify merely from a study of the records of Parliaments which have not been blessed with large majorities. Legislation under such conditions may not be spectacular, and may, possibly, throw considerable strain upon private members. But that does not mean that the country suffers. The virtues of the tortoise have long been recognised. On the other hand, when big issues are at stake, the swing of the pendulum has not been conspicuously successful. The Irish problem, for instance, proved quite insoluble by that method.
The late Lord Oxford and Asquith, speaking in the House of Commons, made a most interesting allusion to the subject of small majorities in 1917. During the debates on the Representation of the People Bill he is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT to have said this:—
"I have been a Minister of the Crown when the Government of the day had the smallest majority on record, and next when the Government of the day had the largest majority in its support on record. I am not at all sure, looking back on my experience of these two diverse conditions, which of the two I would prefer. A small majority is by no means an unmixed evil.

385
There is a strong sense of discipline and responsibility and of support for the Government. When you have got a very large majority a member may feel that it does not matter very much whether he supports the Government or not. I believe the Whips' experiences are the same, and on the whole they prefer working with a majority which is not too large. In the Parliament to which my right hon. friend referred and of which both he and I were members—that is from 1892 to 1895—as be truly says, the majority of the Government never exceeded forty, and sometimes dropped to ten, and on one occasion, when discussing the Welsh Church, to seven. I am not at all sure that it does not compare favourably in actual results with Governments which were much better situated as regards their numerical support."
At first sight it may seem a curious transition, but I want to go from Governments with small majorities to National Governments, and to say a word about them.
I think it is admitted that the National Governments which came into being during the War were the best instruments for steering their respective countries through the crises that faced them, and I think it is a point in favour of small majorities that to a large extent they share with National Governments the limitation that they cannot pass very contentious legislation. Both have to carry the country with them. I think it is also striking that before these Wartime National Governments left the stage, in almost every case, they changed the electoral methods previously in force in their countries—mostly the single-member system—and they adopted systems which aimed at securing minority representation, and which, in practice, have returned no large majorities. The experience of those Governments so introduced shows that not any of them have been Governments which on paper were thought to be strong Governments with large majorities. I suggest that the interest of that lies, not in the similarity or dissimilarity of their political conditions to our own, but in ascertaining whether the Governments produced by those methods have been, in fact, able to lead their countries forward steadily and usefully in spite of not being strong Single-Party Governments.
The two countries faced with the greatest difficulties since the War are probably Germany and the Irish Free State. In Germany there have been
386
several Governments since the War, but all have been combinations of middle Parties. Dr. Stresemann has said that a German Government must be based upon the middle Parties and gather up the common forces; yet Germany has not stood still. All things considered she has made remarkable progress. Proportional Representation, under which those German Governments have been formed, may have created internal difficulties in Germany. If so, I have seen no allusion to them. But at all events it has this to its credit, that it has saved Europe from a Germany governed by either of the two more extreme political wings, either of which would have made the Locarno policy impossible in Europe.
Again, in the Irish Free State there has been remarkable progress, such as nobody in your Lordships' House could have hoped for a few years ago. Of course, there have been great difficulties, but government has remained in the hands of one Party, and during the last five years the Irish Free State has progressed from a reign of terror to the position which it occupies to-day. An Irishman, writing in the Round Table, says of the Irish Free State:—
"Our political conditions are certainly more stable than they would have been under a less accurate system or representation. The Fianna Fail Party have obtained a representation proportionate to their strength in the country, and have learnt that, whilst they cannot hope to denounce the Treaty, neither can they pose as a persecuted and powerless minority and refuse to face their responsibilities. It cannot be doubted that this smooth adjustment to new and changed conditions is of greater value to our infant State than the violent swings of the pendulum to which we would be liable under the old system."
In speeches recently delivered at the Dublin Rotary Club, business men have testified to the moderating influence exerted by the spirit of fair play inherent in their method of election. It would be quite easy, if it did not take too long, to multiply this sort of instance, as a similar type of government has been evolved in all the Scandinavian countries and in Belgium during the last decade, but my object is not to try to prove more than that there is a great mass of new material bearing on constitutional developments which could not be put before the Royal Commission

387
which sat in 1910, and that it deserves most careful analysis.
I have only one other word to say, and that is to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether, in preparing their Franchise Bill, the Government have really finally determined to deal with no large issues except the one issue of who is to be given the franchise, and, if that is the case, whether he does not think that the collection and publication of accurate information of the recent developments that have occurred in electoral methods in the Dominions and on the Continent, and of their political reactions, is an object well worth undertaking. I venture to stress the words "accurate information" because, at present, there is very little doubt that, though the allusions in the Press to possible alterations of our electoral methods, or rather to discontent with our present methods, are infinitely more numerous than they have ever been before, yet when these allusions pass to descriptions of what is being tried in other countries they are frequently most misleading.
If we are going to be called upon in the near future to make up our minds on a subject about which the country is still so profoundly ignorant, I do suggest that we must have sources of information to turn to which can be regarded as accurate and impartial, and which are not open to the accusation of being the product of interested parties. The facts of the case ought not to be in dispute. We ought to know the way in which these other electoral systems have worked in practice and the facts ought to be presented, it seems to me, with the authority of the Government. I think it is Dr. Simpson, in one of his books on the Second Empire, who says—
"What Englishmen condemn is nearly always worthy of condemnation, if only it has happened."
Surely, this is a matter in which it is of vital importance to us in this country that we should know what has happened.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to support the views which have been put forward by the noble Earl in favour of inquiry into electoral methods. I should like to support him, to use his own words, in the urgent need for
388
accurate knowledge of the working of other electoral systems. I agree that this is not an occasion to go into any particular electoral methods in any detail. That would be matter for subsequent discussion after the information which he asks for has been accurately ascertained. That the present system does not give effective representation is hardly denied by anyone, but when I come to the possible alternatives I must guard myself, because those with whom I am nearly always in cordial agreement do not hold my views upon this topic. My views in that respect, therefore, are personal and not Party views.
As the noble Earl pointed out in his speech, this is by no means a novel question in this House. I will not go back as far as he did, but I will go back to what happened in 1918, to events in which I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House himself took a leading part. At that time I was Chairman of a Committee dealing with the subject of Proportional Representation, and the Committee included members from all Parties in this House. Notable, amongst them were the late Lord Lansdowne and the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am not quite sure, but my recollection is that the noble Marquess was also a member of that Committee. At any rate, if he was not a member of that Committee he was cognisant of the negotiations that took place, in order that the views then expressed in this House might be introduced into the Representation of the People Act of 1918.
The result of that inquiry was that there was an overwhelming majority of opinion, not from one Party but from all Parties in this House, in favour of some system of Proportional Representation. The late Lord Lansdowne, when the matter was being considered in this House, moved a Resolution, which was adopted and became part of the Representation of the People Bill, providing that Proportional Representation should be tried in a number of selected constituencies, partly rural and partly urban. That was in accordance with a resolution which had been passed, I think unanimously, by the Speaker's Conference, an entirely nonpolitical Conference, in favour of the establishment of a certain number of Proportional Representation constituencies in our densely populated areas.

389
I recollect that among these hundred seats which were recommended my own County of Buckingham was included, and I recollect particularly the case of Leeds where, I think, there was an almost unanimous desire for Proportional Representation. I suppose the result of that Inquiry is still in the hands of the Home Office or of whichever office it was by which the Inquiry was directed. But when the matter came again before the House of Commons they rejected the experiment altogether, so that, although the expression of opinion in your Lordships' House was entirely in favour of it, and although your Lordships' House actually provided that it should be tried as an experiment in certain cases, nothing in fact was done.
Viscount Younger in a speech—I do not know whether it was on that occasion or on some other occasion—used a very homely expression as regards our present system. He said that it was not a system with which anyone could be satisfied. That is, of course, only a first step towards recognising the necessity of an Inquiry. I do not believe that any one will be ready to say that our present system is satisfactory. In the first place it is not truly representative. We know that you often get a distorted representation, and you get it in two ways. You get it by a disfranchisement which may go to the extent theoretically of 49 per cent. of your voting power, and which, in fact, does go to the extent of 35 per cent. in certain parts of the country, or has done so in the past. So far as Proportional Representation is concerned, the maximum of disfranchisement is in the neighbourhood of 18 per cent. Surely there can be no worse system than an electoral method which disfranchises voters to whom, under the Enfranchisement Acts, the vote is intended to be given.
I recollect, in this context, President Garfield speaking in America of the minority in a particular election in the place where he lived. He said that so far as these persons were concerned, although they had a nominal vote, they might just as well live at the North Pole so far as they had any effect upon politics, and that the result was that they lost political interest. That, to my mind, is a very important point. If you are to have, as I suppose we have, a system
390
of democratic government, it is very important that you should encourage political thought and political reasoning amongst as large a number of your voters as possible. You cannot expect that interest will be taken where voters know for a certainty that they can never influence the election because they are in a permanent minority in a particular single-member constituency.
There is another important factor to which the noble Earl referred. You not only get a large measure of disfranchisement, which is entirely wrong in principle, but even where the voters have substantial power you do not get any accurate result. I do not want to treat a matter of this kind as a political question, but the noble Marquess knows quite well that on representative principles the present Government is a minority Government. Although it has an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, yet on the test of votes, as against the other two Parties, it is in a minority. That is not right in relation to representative principles. Let me say one word more upon that point. There is no doubt that the representative principle of government is on its trial at the present time. I do not want to refer to particular countries, but Spain and Italy are well known examples of countries where the representative principle has been placed on one side. We are the nation among all others which has brought to the greatest pitch of constitutional perfection and organic working the principle of representative government, and surely we are lagging behind if we do not appreciate that our electoral method as it exists has not been brought up to date.
We have in practice three Parties at the present time. If you have three Parties and a single-member constituency it is quite a fluke or a gamble whether the person elected represents a majority or not. In very many cases he certainly will not, and in any case it is a gamble. If you believe in representative government you ought not to leave these vital matters to a gamble. A Government that is in power for five years under our system ought to be set up on a truly representative basis. I am no advocate of frequent Elections—I do not think that they are conducive to stability—but if you have a Government in power

391
for five years that is not really representative, leading the House of Commons, which should be a microcosm of general public opinion, it is surely a very serious consideration that practically the whole future of the Empire and the nation may be determined by a Party which has obtained power, not on representative principles, but by reason of a bad electoral method.
I listened to the noble Earl with great attention. I know that there is a suggestion that true representation may lead to what is called a weak Government. I am not against a weak Government in one sense, and I will explain what I mean. But where the method has been tried that has not been the result. I think that where the representative principle is in force, that Government is strongest which has the largest amount of public opinion in its support. As the noble Earl pointed out, the Government framed during the War on that basis was the best Government that could have been framed to give full weight to national considerations in a time of national danger. The idea that extremists should be in control of the Government is, I think, certainly a mistake, unless you believe in some other form of government than representative government, and that, I think, has been found to be the case on many occasions. You want a system which really represents the maximum of consent amongst the electorate.
I agree with the noble Earl that it is not necessary to go into the question of Proportional Representation. This system has been adopted in practically all the north-western parts of Europe and also, as we know, in Germany. He also referred to the very prominent case of Southern Ireland. The conditions there were extremely difficult. If one considers the state of feeling in Southern Ireland when they first became practically independent, one cannot help thinking that it was a triumph in favour of a system which practically allowed all the reasonably strong people to go into the Irish Parliament and carry on a Government there apart from either extreme Party. A new experiment to which I would direct the attention of the noble Marquess will be made shortly in this connection. There will be an Election in France, where they have never had Proportional
392
Representation, though they have a second ballot, and there will be an Election in Germany, which will be conducted on the basis of Proportional Representation. I should advocate upon a question of this kind that we should get information from every trustworthy source, and certainly not embark upon a change in our electoral method until full and accurate information has been obtained.
In his speech the noble Earl referred to knowledge of the working of other electoral systems. So far as I know there are only two other electoral systems which have been suggested. One is the double ballot. I need not say anything upon that topic, because it has already been discussed in this House, and did not find favour. The reason why it did not find favour was admirably stated by Sir Arthur Hardinge, our representative in Belgium in 1908, because in 1908 the double ballot existed in ten or twenty countries, although I believe it exists nowhere at the present time, except in France. He pointed out that in Belgium you had the Clerical Party, the Liberal Party and the Socialist Party, and the effect was that by a combination of two Parties against the other you did not get any true measure of representative government. The system has been abandoned by common consent in every country where it has been tried, except in France. I know of no other country where the double ballot is still in force. I have here a list of countries where it has been tried, and that list includes Austria, Hungary, Bavaria, Germany (for the Reichstag) Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Therefore, there have been ample tests and experience, and the result has been that the system has been abandoned everywhere, except in France.
The only other system that I know of, which can be referred to as a working electoral system, is what is known as the alternative vote. The alternative vote has been described as the first, cousin of the double ballot, and it operated very much in the same way, but rather more disastrously, because it operated principally to deprive leading men of the position to which they were entitled, owing to the jealousy of other Parties. Of course, an electoral system which results in cutting off the heads of some of the

393
leading statesmen in the country is never in itself to be commended. Therefore I do not think that either of these systems is to be commended. That, however, is not my point to-day. Let us really think this thing out again. Let us really realise what are the difficulties of the present system. Let us feel that it is our duty, as protagonists in the system of representative government, to think out the best alternative system. It may be that we cannot find one. I am in favour of a particular system, but that does not matter. The thing has got to be worked out, and I thoroughly support what was said by Lord Grey, and I hope that the noble Lord will do what he can to publish accurate information, in such a form as to be available for the study of all of us, in order that if possible we can come to the best conclusion. That is all I wish to say, except that I am entirely in support of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, a discussion of this kind is always interesting to people like myself, who have been in their lifetime largely engaged in electoral struggles and in considering various proposals made with regard to our electoral system. I have never been able to believe in Proportional Representation as being at all suitable, even in the past, to our situation, and it appears to me to be quite impossible now. With probably four or five constituencies grouped together, in which you might have 200,000 or 250,000 voters, how it would ever operate satisfactorily I cannot think. It would certainly entirely divorce from the Election any advantage which the candidate might have personally in conducting it, and would open out a vista of probabilities which I think would tend, no doubt, to what Lord Parmoor has just said—namely, the return of a weak and comparatively useless Government.
I saw, or rather received the other day, a very ingenious variant of the old Proportional Representation proposals, under which the final result would be based on the figures which the noble Lord deduced about the present position in the House of Commons, with the result that the representatives actually elected were to correspond exactly to the percentage of votes cast for each of the Parties in the whole Election. I cannot imagine
394
Party managers being enamoured of that proposal, however ingenious. It would take considerable time, because nothing would be decided until the whole of the votes had been calculated, and the proportions taken out of the various Parties who were to be represented in the House of Commons. After that, according to a particular scale, the Liberals, Conservatives, and Labourites were to be selected. A man might be at the head of the poll for a particular constituency, and yet not have a seat in the House of Commons. That is reductio ad absurdum.
The noble Lord quoted me as saying that I did not think any one could say the present position was satisfactory. I have said that, and I think so now, but the difficulty is to find what you would put in its place. I should rule out Proportional Representation, and when you come to the transferable vote you have exactly the position expressed by the noble Lord as occurring in Belgium, where a couple of Parties make an agreement beforehand to kill the third Party. For instance, the Socialists and Liberals agree to give their transferable votes to each other, with a view of killing the Tory party, or the Conservatives and the Socialists may make a similar agreement against the Liberal Party. That is surely a most unsatisfactory situation, and particularly so when you consider that where there are three candidates it is the transferable vote of the man lowest on the poll which is going to settle the Election. You have, say, 10,000 votes for the Conservative, 9,000 for the Liberal, and 8,000 for Labour. It is the second votes of the 8,000 which are going to settle the question as between the other two. It seems to me quite absurd that the Electors who vote for the man lowest on the poll shall, by using their second votes, be able to give a majority either to the 10,000 man or the 9,000 man. There is also, of course, a chance of jerrymandering, which would be fatal.
The other day, in a debate in this House, I ventured to say that if you want to secure an absolute majority, which is a very desirable thing to have, of course, the only possibility is by having a second ballot, but then we know that there are great objections to that also. It would be very expensive and

395
it would be extremely harsh to saddle the candidates who were first and second on the poll with the cost of a second contest. It would give, in the interval which took place between the first and second elections, an opportunity of judging, and an opportunity probably of jerrymandering. It would give you an absolute majority anyhow, and it is the only way in which you could get it by a straightforward vote. We know the weakness of our present system, but on the whole I am not prepared to say that at present it is possible to find anything better. At the present moment 20 per cent. of the members in the House of Commons are minority representatives. I think that is a very large percentage. No doubt they are all good men, but there it is, and I do not see how either Proportional Representation or the alternative vote would put us in a better position at the present moment. They would bring into the electoral arena some very obectionable possible practices, and on the whole I am very much inclined to leave things alone.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it may be convenient if at this stage of the debate I state very briefly what is the position of the Government with regard to this question. I think most people would be willing to agree that there has been a growing discontent with the electoral system not only in this country but in a great many other countries, and many attempts have been made by Parliament to secure improvements in that system. The Royal Commission of 1910 had only two schemes before it to secure this object. One was the alternative vote, which has already been dealt with by two of the speakers, and I do not think I need say much about that. The Royal Commission of 1910 recommended the system as the best for obtaining an absolute majority, and it is worthy to be noted that the Speaker's Conference of 1917 also made the same recommendation, and that the Representation of the People Bill, 1918, as passed by the Commons, contained provision for it, but objection was raised in your Lordships' House, and it was dropped. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp, on March 20, 1923, introduced an Alternative Vote Bill, but the Government did not accept it, and the Prime Minister stated, on November 29, 1927,
396
in the House of Commons, that the Government did not contemplate legislation for the purpose.
Then we come to the question of the second ballot, which was dealt with in your Lordships' House on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, a year ago. My noble friend behind me has drawn attention to the inconvenience and the very great expense of a second election, not only for the Treasury, but for the candidates and the returning officers, and he has also pointed out that the people of this country now have a surfeit of elections for every sort of board and local body, as well as at the Parliamentary elections, and it is very doubtful whether, however much money you spent, you would a second time stir the people up to sufficient political interest to make them vote again. The result obtained by a second ballot, as has been pointed out by my noble friend behind me, might, owing to fraud and to many other reasons, be extremely unsatisfactory.
The next solution is Proportional Representation. I do not propose to enter into this rather difficult question. I am not at all sure that I am not a subscriber to my noble friend Lord Grey's fund. I know I was a little time ago, but I must say my enthusiasm for the cause has of late been somewhat diminished. I think it looks most attractive on paper, but I doubt whether in operation it would prove the success which it is claimed to be. Proportional Representation has already been put into operation in this country. The Parliament of Northern Ireland, the Dail of the Irish Free State, the University constituencies of the United Kingdom, and the education authorities in Scotland all work on the principle of Proportional Representation. This matter has been discussed and considered by the Committees and Commissions of 1910, 1917 and 1918. With regard to Northern Ireland it is going to be dropped there, so apparently it is not looked upon as a very great success in that quarter. With regard to the Parliament of Southern Ireland, there was a famous incident in which the fate of the Government hung upon one Party, and by the abstention of a member of that Party the Government were saved. That merely shows that if you have two or three strong Parties and a lot of other

397
small and somewhat insignificant Parties, these, by combining, really exercise a determining influence on the question whether the Government shall be in or out.
My noble friend, in his Notice, speaks of "the urgent need for accurate knowledge of the working of other electoral systems." The Prime Minister has already stated that he does not propose to introduce at the present time any electoral changes in this country; and how is this accurate knowledge of the working of other electoral systems to be obtained? The actual information can be got from any book. But what I suppose is wanted is information about the effect of these systems on the Parties, whether they are fair in operation, and whether the minorities approve of them. How is this information to be obtained? Is there going to be a Commission, or Commissions, wandering about the whole of Europe to ascertain the actual effect of the working of their several electoral systems? I do not suppose that such a Commission would have a very warm welcome, say in Russia, and perhaps not a very warm one in Italy. But it would be absolutely impossible to collect this accurate knowledge of the working of other electoral systems unless there were competent Commissions going about to various countries, obtaining all the evidence on the spot, working out the effect of those electoral systems on the general policies and social conditions of the countries, and then returning home. I would ask my noble friend behind me and many other noble Lords whether it is worth while going to this very great expense in view of the pronouncement which has already been made by the Prime Minister, that the Government do not propose to make any great changes in the electoral system of this country.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am sorry I was not in the House when the noble Earl raised this question, because I should have been very glad to hear what he had to say. I was one of those who had the honour of being members of the Speaker's Conference, and took part in framing the Report which that Conference produced. In that Report there was a clause dealing with this particular point. Very unfortunately, as I think, this House rejected that clause when it was sent up from the House of
398
Commons. The whole, matter had been thoroughly discussed, and I think I am right in saying that we came to a unanimous conclusion that this protection against three-cornered contests would have been effective. The noble Lord has said that no inquiry is needed. We know what has happened and how members are elected to the House of Commons by a minority vote. For my part, I think no one ought to be allowed to sit in the House of Commons unless he has polled half of the votes recorded at an election. If there are five, six, or seven candidates, and the top man has polled more than half of the votes recorded, of course he would take his seat. On the other hand, if there are four or five candidates and 20,000 voters, it is possible for the man at the top to receive only 6,000 votes, and it seems ridiculous to say that he is representative of the constituency.
We are talking nowadays of increasing the representation of the people by enabling young women to vote. I think that step ought not to be taken until such time as the matter of three-cornered fights has been dealt with. It is not as if this matter has not been considered. My noble friend Lord Desborough said just now that it was dealt with by the Committee of which, I recollect, the noble Marquess who leads the House was a member. I am not an advocate of Proportional Representation. I want simplicity, and I think there would be no difficulty if a small Committee were set up, in saying how provisions should be framed for doing away with three-cornered contests and for preventing the return of a man as a minority representative, as happens fairly often at the present time. I did not come down to your Lordships' House with a prepared speech, but I have in mind what the Electoral Reform Committee thought would be effective. As I have said before, the suggestion of the Speaker's Conference was accepted in another place, but your Lordships took out the clause dealing with this matter. For some reason the House of Commons did not return the Bill for the reinsertion of that clause. I think I may say, without doing an injustice to anybody, that they were wondering whether the Liberals or the Conservatives would get the most out of it, and thought that their purpose would be better served if the clause remained out. It seems to me that was a

399
very great mistake, and if the discussion of this subject is not finished to-day and if nobody else will do it, I will try to draft something of a practical character to get over this difficulty. I am sure your Lordships do not desire representatives to be elected to another place by less than a third of the votes recorded at an election. It is not in the interests of the country that it should be so. I do not wish to discuss at the moment exactly what should be done, or how it should be done, because that will want some consideration; but I have not the slightest doubt that it ought to be done, and I have said these few words in protest against the matter being left as it is.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grey prefaced his remarks by saying that he thought there would always be three Parties. I am not prepared to enter into controversy as to whether there will be three Parties in the future or not, but my own view is that there will be only two, the Conservative Party and the Socialist Party. I think that the Liberals will gradually disappear. They may disappear in the next year or two, perhaps in the next five or ten years; but that they will gradually disappear is, I think, almost a matter of certainty. The noble Earl suggested that Proportional Representation might be a success, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, spoke strongly in its favour. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, or for that matter the noble and learned Lord, quite understands what Proportional Representation is.
EARL GREY: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but I did not advocate Proportional Representation. I merely asked for an Inquiry into the new conditions which have arisen.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think my noble friend was very wise in not advocating Proportional Representation and, therefore, I will deal only with Lord Parmoor. I said that I thought it very likely that he did not know what Proportional Representation was, and I made that remark for this reason. Some years ago I was a member of the Proportional Representation Committee in another place. I voted for Proportional Representation certainly once, and I rather think twice, in that House; but
400
I never could thoroughly understand it myself and I have never met anybody else who could understand it. After its results in Northern and Southern Ireland, at Oxford University and, I think, at Cambridge University as well, I felt for the first time in my life that I was wrong and that in advocating Proportional Representation I was committing an act of foolery. Therefore I turned completely round. I think the result of the last Franchise Bill coupled with the result of the next Franchise Bill will make it impossible to carry out Proportional Representation. First of all, as my noble friend Lord Younger has said, you must have constituencies of between 200,000 and 300,000 electors. I do not wish to discredit the electors or their intelligence in any way, but I am certain that when they went to the poll the great majority of them would not know in the least what to do. Consequently, there would be much greater confusion and much worse results than there are at present.
The noble Earl told us with regard to the Parliament of 1892 that Lord Oxford made some remarks as to the majority in that Parliament. I happened to be a member of that Parliament, and I am certain that every member of the Liberal Government and every member of the Liberal Party regretted that their majority was so small and would have given anything for a large majority. I took the opposite view, because their majority was so small that they could not do anything or very little, and I thought that was a good thing. I am certain that if my noble friend Lord Salisbury was leading the House of Commons he would much prefer a large majority to a small one. But it is my belief that the best Government is a weak Liberal or Socialist Government with a strong Conservative Opposition; because in such circumstances the Conservatives oppose Socialistic measures, whereas a strong Conservative Government generally passes them.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I really should not have risen to address your Lordships this evening but for an appeal which has been made to me personally and to which I must reply. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Grey for bringing to our notice a very interesting

401
subject; but I am sure he recognises that it is to a certain extent an academic one. There is no prospect, of course, as I think he knows, of His Majesty's Government introducing any modification into the method of voting at the same time as they are engaged upon the new Franchise Bill which is about to be produced. I am not going to be drawn into saying what the provisions of that Bill will be. It would be very irregular and very inconvenient; but it is safe to say, as indeed the Prime Minister himself has said, that it will not deal with any such subject as the method of voting. So the subject is academic in that sense.
All that my noble friend has asked for is that the information which is already at our disposal on this subject shall be further elaborated. That is a very modest request, and I will not absolutely refuse a proposal so put forward. If my noble friend will allow me, I will look into the subject personally, and see whether there will be any possibility of adding, without undue expense, to the information we already possess, but I am sure my noble friend will realise that anything like a roving commission, such as someone has described, all over Europe to find out how the various electoral systems work would be a great waste of energy and of money. I think my noble friend will realise how difficult that would be if he would look at the matter from the other side and imagine a foreign Government who wanted to find out the precise working of our electoral system which sends representatives here. I confess that I think any Commission sent from a foreign country for that purpose would have their work cut out. It is doubtful whether there are any Englishmen who thoroughly understand the working of our electoral system, and I am certain no foreigner would be able to get a glimmer of it, except after a very long inquiry indeed. Such things are not feasible. But it may be possible to add to our information on the subject without any such heroic remedy as that.
I should like to make one observation with respect to the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor), who was not merely interested in this question of Proportional Representation but declared that the present system is very unsatisfactory because His Majesty's Government are supported by
402
a majority of members who do not represent a majority of the electors. That is a different point. But I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, even if the facts be as he states—though I am sure he said what he believes to be true—because our representation has never been a pure representation of numbers. The representation of the House of Commons is not merely numerical but is local, and personally I value the local character of the representation in the highest degree. It is not an answer to our present system to say that if you put all the votes of one Party together all over the country, and all the votes of the other Party a different result would have been produced from that which we see. That is not the way we have ever looked at it. The various parts of England, Scotland and Wales have their different representation, and to place them all on a numerical basis would be a most revolutionary proposal from the point of view of British history and British traditions. Neither does it involve the question of Proportional Representation. Even if you had one of the systems suggested you would still have enormous differences between the value of the vote of one man as compared with the value of the vote of another. So far as the principle is concerned, it is clear that that rests upon a wholly different footing. It is true that these three-cornered fights are in many respects unsatisfactory. They do not correspond altogether to an ideal system, and if some method could be devised by which they could be eliminated, it would be well worth consideration.
Let me say one further word. I myself have been in the past a great supporter of Proportional Representation, but not in that particular Committee to which several noble Lords referred. If I remember aright, I resigned from that Committee because I did not approve of the method by which it was conducted and the direction in which it was moving. But that is by the way. I have been a supporter for many years of Proportional Representation, but there is this matter which I think it would be well your Lordships should consider. The system of Proportional Representation which attracted me involved the creation of large constituencies. The system which is called "the single transferable vote" involved large constituencies, and I have become convinced that there is certainly

403
one great objection to large constituencies, and that is that they largely increase the mechanical power of electoral organisation. That is not a healthy system. I forget when the caucus was introduced into this country, but probably forty or fifty years ago. The caucus has not been a blessing. The elaborate organisation of voters, in the course of which the merits of the question are sometimes entirely lost sight of, and voting by a system of discipline is not very elegant either in its ideals or in its working. That is a great blemish on any system which has to be worked by means of large constituencies. It is true that the more accurate representation of the people is an advantage to set upon the other side. But I should not like your Lordships to forget, when you are dealing with this subject, how serious are the machine-made politics which we have to encounter in the present day. I revert to what I said when I rose to address your Lordships. I will take care to look into the information which is at our disposal to see whether it can be developed on reasonable terms, but anything like a vast. Inquiry into the system of electoral representation all over Europe is, I am sure, not what my noble friend would wish, and not what your Lordships would support.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONVEN- TION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, this Bill, as its Preamble suggests, is to make such amendments of the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 and 1919, as are necessary to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the protection of industrial property. Industrial property includes patents, utility models, industrial designs and models, trade marks, trade names, and other indications of sources or appellations of origin. Before the Convention in its present amended form can be ratified, it is necessary to bring the law of this country into accord with the terms of the amended Convention and this Bill is brought forward to amend the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 and 1919, to carry out this. The Bill does not involve any additional expense,
404
and is only confined to small amendments to enable the obligations which will be incurred on a ratification of the amended Convention to be carried out in Great Britain. There are only a few clauses and the matters dealt with are of a minor kind. Clause 1 refers to the question of priority of patents. The second makes it clear that the term of three years may elapse from the date of the grant before the applicant is bound to work the patent, or become subject to penalties. Clause 3 provides that inventions used on vessels or aircraft and land vehicles which temporarily or accidentally come into other countries belonging to the Union, shall not be regarded as infringements of the rights of the patentee. I do not think there is anything very startling or revolutionary in this Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, being interested in these matters I have studied this Bill with care. I think it is an admirable Bill, in itself, and it is very necessary, I think, having regard to the Convention. But there is one matter to which I should like to call attention. I have had considerable professional experience of patents and designs, but it took me a very long time to understand this Rill even with a library at hand. This is a very bad illustration of legislation by reference. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not quite so bad as one or two Bills last year.
LORD PARMOOR: All the same it is very bad. I want to ask the noble Viscount, when we have clauses and subsections providing that sections and subsections of some previous Act shall be altered and read in a different sense, whether he could not have the actual amended section or subsection put in the Bill. It is a very easy thing as a matter of drafting and you would then have an intelligible document. I cannot go further now than to ask whether he will consider that. I think we have arrived at the time when what I call the scandal of drafting by reference ought, if possible, to be put an end to. It could be avoided if, instead of putting in a reference to

405
old Acts, you put in the particular Amendment as a whole so that it could be understood from the actual Bill itself. It is not difficult, though it may cause a little more trouble to the draftsman. As the noble Viscount said, this is not the worst instance, but it is a very difficult instance and it took me a long time to understand the Bill. I would ask him to look into the matter with the draftsman and see if it is possible in this case to stop drafting by reference so that we may have a document, which is intelligible to any ordinary person.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course I will look into it at the request of the noble Lord, but may I remind him of my experience last year. One of the Bills of which I had charge was the Unemployment Bill and in order to assist your Lordships I made myself responsible for a certain White Paper which contained all the clauses with the new bits put in. I was rather discouraged, I am bound to say, at that time because I received rather severe castigation from Earl Buxton. I do not know whether it was for having done it or for not having done it sooner, but I was a little abashed by the way it was received. Of course I will look into the matter, but, as the noble Lord knows extremely well, while it would be a very easy thing with regard to Bills in this House, because your Lordships always practise a certain abstinence in the number of Amendments you bring forward, that is not the case in another place. The noble Lord knows how many Bills would fail to pass if the whole of the sections in which Amendments were introduced were set out. I will certainly discuss the matter, if he presses it, with the draftsman, but I think he knows the difficulties which stand in the way much better than I do.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Viscount will not weary of well-doing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If you will encourage me I will not.
LORD PARMOOR: It may be difficult, but it can be done. This is not a big Bill and if it could be done in a case of this kind it might serve as a precedent in other cases.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, may I say to the noble Viscount that the only animadversion made last year was that the very excellent document which he produced, and which I think everyone appreciated, arrived on the scene so late. I think that was the only complaint. It was not his fault, no doubt, but I think that was the only complaint. For the document itself everyone was very grateful.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But no one said he was grateful.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, this is a subject which comes frequently before me and, as I am anxious to keep in harmony with your Lordships, I should like to enforce what the noble Lord has said as to the undesirability of encouraging legislation by reference. I notice that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has gone some way to meet us, but I have some difficulty in understanding how Clause 5 (3) is to work. It appears that if your Lordships pass the Bill in its present form and it receives the Royal Assent the principal Act will be printed, regard being had to the words added or omitted by this Bill, by the Stationery Office. I feel rather uneasy about a clause of that kind, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount if he will discuss that also with the drafts man. It seems to me that it is going to be rather difficult if an Act of Parliament is passed in one form and is then printed in another form, not on Parliamentary authority, but on the authority merely of the Stationery Office.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.

GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]—SUBSTITUTED BILL.
Presented, and read 1a.

OXFORD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.],
BLACKPOOL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.],
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

V. Younger of Leckie (Chairman),

L. Sinclair,

L. Strathspey,

L. Fairlie (E. Glasgow),

L. Glenarthur:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday, March 15, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.