Sitting of 9 May 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bermondsey Borough Council (St. Olave's Garden) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PERSIA.

    ABADAN (PORT ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a satisfactory arrangement has now been reached with Persia on the questions raised by the Persian Finance Minister in regard to the administration of the port of Abadan; and whether the arrangement covers the right of British warships to lie at Abadan without the permission of the Persian Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I am at present unable to add anything to the reply given on 2nd May to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala).
    Mr. DAY: Has the point raised by the Persian authorities in regard to shore officers been withdrawn?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I can, at present, add nothing to the statement which I made on 2nd May, to which I beg the hon. Member to refer.

    CAPITULATORY RIGHTS.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign
    198
    Affairs whether he is aware that the rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed in Persia by British nationals and by the nationals of certain other countries will be terminated by the Persian Government on 10th May; whether His Majesty's Government have claimed a special jurisdiction for British subjects in Persia different from that of Persians; what reply has the Persian Government returned to this claim; and what is the ground for the claim?
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the denunciation by the Persian Government of capitulatory privileges in May, 1927, with effect of one year from the date of that denunciation, all such provileges to British and other foreign subjects will cease on 10th May, 1928?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The capitulatory system in Persia expires on 10th May. Conversations are at present proceeding between the Persian Government and the representatives at Tehran of the foreign Governments concerned regarding the position of foreign nationals in Persia after that date. I cannot make any further statement on the subject until these conversations are concluded.
    Mr. MALONE: What, then, will be the position of foreigners after to-morrow, if no conclusion is arrived at?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make any further statement on the subject until the conversations are concluded. How can I say what will be the ultimate results of conversation which are not yet concluded?

    CUSTOMS TARIFF.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Persian Government has introduced a new Customs tariff, to take effect as from 10th May next; under what tariff British trade with Persia is now being carried on; whether the Persian Government has proposed the immediate substitution of an independent tariff for the present tariff; whether His Majesty's Government have demanded

    199
    any concessions in return for their acceptance of the independent tariff; and by which other countries the independent tariff has already been accepted?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. British trade with Persia is now carried on under a tariff agreed upon in 1920, which is not due for revision until 1930. The Persian Government have, however, approached His Majesty's Government regarding the possible application of their new tariff to British trade, and negotiations are now proceeding on this subject. The new tariff has been accepted by Russia, as part of the general agreement reached between the Persian and Russian Governments last year.

    RHINE ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any correspondence with the German Government on the question of the withdrawal of the British Army of Occupation; and whether he will mark the expiration of the 10th year after the War by the withdrawal of all these British troops?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) on 9th February last.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to set some limit to this period of occupation, which is casuing great dissatisfaction, not only in Germany but throughout a considerable part of this country as well?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: When I say that I can add nothing to a reply which I have given, I mean that I can add nothing.

    OUTLAWRY OF WAR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been made on behalf of His Majesty's Govern-
    200
    ment, or received by His Majesty's Government, for a conference of jurists or other international body to examine into the recent American proposals for the outlawry of war; and, if so, what are the circumstances of this proposal?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the American proposal is one of the subjects proposed for to-morrow's Debate, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that it will be more convenient to deal with this matter then than by question and answer to-day.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that I put this question down in order to get information on this one small but important point before the Debate came on; and could we not have facts now if it is convenient?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought it not improbable that that was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's object; I am sorry he does not agree with me, but I must maintain my view that it will be more convenient to deal with the matter later on.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With very great respect, is not the right hon. Gentleman going rather beyond his rights in this matter? Surely he can give us an answer to this one small but very important point. It is on a question of fact which has appeared in the newspapers, and I want an official statement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants an official statement, and I propose to make one to-morrow. As the Opposition has chosen this subject for Debate to-morrow, I think it would be a convenient time and that I am entitled to use it.

    CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what provisions are being made for the safety of British subjects in the military operations now taking place near Peking; whether any advice has been given to these persons as to their movements; and whether, in case of the destruction of their property, any record is being kept

    201
    for the purposes of the later presentation of a demand for compensation to the military leaders concerned?
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to ensure the protection of the British community at Chefoo if fighting takes place in the neighbourhood?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the military operations taking place in Shantung British subjects at Tsinanfu were warned, on or before 20th April, to remove to places of safety. Tsingtao and Chefoo, being on the coast and accessible to His Majesty's ships, are in less dangerous positions, but warships are being sent to both these ports as a safeguard. I am glad to say that the reports so far received do not indicate that there has been any destruction of British property during the present disturbances.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or lives?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My information up to date is that no British lives have been lost.
    Mr. LOOKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the warships are expected to arrive at Chefoo?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I could not.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the British nationals at Tsinanfu were not even molested, and does not that show that it is far better when a civil war is in progress not to send troops?
    Sir W. de FRECE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many British nationals are in the area where these operations are taking place?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot. There should be no British nationals in Tsinanfu except officials or those who, in spite of warning, have decided to remain. There may be two or three missionaries who, in spite of warnings, have decided to remain.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question seems to me to be more suited to Debate than to this particular stage of our proceedings.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Were our nationals in Tsinanfu molested in any way?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No; as far as my information goes at present, they were not.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Does not the present position show that the policy of the Government has been extremely successful from the beginning?

    ANGLO-AFGHAN RELATIONS.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to impart to the House regarding the negotiations which have recently taken place between this country and Afghanistan?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not conduct any negotiations with King Amanulla or his Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs during the recent Royal visit to this country. I did, however, have an opportunity of discussing with His Majesty and His Excellency the general question of Anglo-Afghan relations and of explaining that the earnest wish of His Majesty's Government is to see a strong and an independent Afghanistan.
    Mr. MALONE: Are any negotiations in progress with a view to the removal of the restriction on imports through India?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think conversations on the matter have been proceeding, and no doubt they will be continued.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CORINTH (RELIEF MEASURES).
    Mr. DAYasked the First Lord of Admiralty what assistance has been rendered to the population of Corinth following the earth tremors that have occurred there; and whether the medical stores and supplies sent by the aircraft

    203
    carrier "Eagle" and the hospital ship "Maine" were furnished by the British authorities?
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement regarding the assistance rendered by ships of His Majesty's Navy to the inhabitants of the areas recently devastated by earthquakes in Greece?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The only vessels which were actually sent were His Majesty's Ship "Stuart" from 24th to 26th April and His Majesty's Ship "Eagle" from 25th to 29th April. I have not yet received the written report, but I gather that the assistance which was rendered consisted mainly of erection of tents, digging sanitary accommodation, erection of kitchens with material supplied locally and provision of bread.
    Mr. DAY: Were the supplies furnished by the British authorities?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As my answer shows, some of them were supplied by the British authorities and some were provided locally.
    Mr. DAY: Were the ships able to shelter the victims at night?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I said, I have not yet had a full report. I do not know about that matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Will the expenditure incurred, if any, be borne on the Admiralty Vote?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The incidence of the charge has not yet been decided.

    OARS (MANUFACTURE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that boat oars supplied for use in His Majesty's ships are manufactured in the United States of America; and will he explain why these oars are Rot made in the Royal dockyards?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am investigating this matter and hope to be able to give
    204
    an answer to the hon. and gallant Member in a few days' time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Next Wednesday?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes.

    EGYPT (WARSHIPS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the approximate cost involved in the recent despatch of warships to Egypt?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The approximate cost was £5,000.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and names of the warships which were recently instructed to proceed to Egypt?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The battleships "Warspite" and "Valiant" and the cruisers "Ceres," "Calypso" and "Caledon."

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Labour if he will give a Return showing, for every month from 1920 to the latest available date, the numbers of men employed in shipbuilding and repairing yards and in marine engineering shops, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Comparable statistics in respect of individual industries are only available from June, 1923, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information which is available from that date. The total number of insured persons in particular industries can only be estimated once a year from information derived from the exchange of unemployment books in July and monthly figures are, therefore, not available.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate separately the estimates for the repairing shops and the engineering works?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member had better look through the very elaborate table which I am circulating, and if it

    205
    does not meet all his requirements, perhaps he will acquaint me with the fact.
    Mr. KELLY: Are the marine engineering shops given separately from the shipbuliding yards and repairing yards?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, they are not.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Could not the hon. Gentleman give us a summary of these figures, which would be very interesting to Members in all parts of the House?

    MEN INSURED under the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS classified as belonging to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing, and Marine Engineering Industries in Great Britain.

    —

    Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing.

    Marine Engineering.

    Estimated Number of Insured Men.

    Number of Insured Men Unemployed.

    Estimated Number of Insured Men.

    Number of Insured Men Unemployed.

    1923.

    25th June

    …

    231,400

    110,436

    55,900

    13,872

    23rd July

    …

    …

    108,980

    …

    14,623

    27th August

    …

    …

    111,609

    …

    14,407

    24th September

    …

    …

    109,963

    …

    16,338

    22nd October

    …

    …

    108,054

    …

    16,962

    26th November

    …

    …

    103,456

    …

    15,788

    31st December

    …

    …

    85,468

    …

    14,033

    1924.

    28th January

    …

    …

    78,930

    …

    12,788

    25th February

    …

    …

    72,443

    …

    11,267

    24th March

    …

    …

    68,158

    …

    10,164

    28th April

    …

    …

    70,064

    …

    10,024

    26th May

    …

    …

    64,882

    …

    9,025

    23rd June

    …

    219,300

    63,528

    56,600

    8,502

    28th July

    …

    …

    61,625

    …

    9,211

    25th August

    …

    …

    66,176

    …

    9,293

    22nd September

    …

    …

    67,349

    …

    9,591

    27th October

    …

    …

    69,897

    …

    10,092

    24th November

    …

    …

    71,325

    …

    10,066

    22nd December

    …

    …

    72,088

    …

    10,049

    1925.

    26th January

    …

    …

    71,823

    …

    9,744

    23rd February

    …

    …

    75,025

    …

    10,066

    23rd March

    …

    …

    75,227

    …

    10,941

    27th April

    …

    …

    70,981

    …

    10,797

    25th May

    …

    …

    71,988

    …

    10,976

    22nd June

    …

    208,500

    75,426

    51,600

    11,482

    27th July

    …

    …

    76,258

    …

    11,975

    24th August

    …

    …

    77,415

    …

    12,525

    21st September

    …

    …

    78,153

    …

    12,643

    26th October

    …

    …

    81,324

    …

    14,053

    23rd November

    …

    …

    82,839

    …

    14,194

    21st December

    …

    …

    81,106

    …

    13,772

    Mr. BETTERTON: The table is a very long and elaborate one, and I think it would be better if my hon. and gallant Friend were to look at it when it is circulated and see for himself whether he thinks that any further information is required. It would be difficult to summarise it.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does it show whether employment is getting better or not?
    Mr. BETTERTON: There is another question on that point.
    Following is the statement:

    —

    Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing.

    Marine Engineering.

    Estimated Number of Insured Men.

    Number of Insured Men Unemployed.

    Estimated Number of Insured Men.

    Number of Insured Men Unemployed.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    1926.

    25th January

    …

    78,574

    2,318

    80,892

    …

    12,448

    670

    13,118

    22nd February

    …

    76,926

    2,091

    79,017

    …

    12,304

    595

    12,899

    22nd March

    …

    79,397

    1,571

    80,968

    …

    12,686

    588

    13,274

    26th April

    …

    74,830

    1,552

    76,382

    …

    11,616

    557

    12,173

    24th May

    …

    80,863

    3,644

    84,507

    …

    13,380

    942

    14,322

    21st June

    196,000

    83,677

    3,035

    86,712

    49,000

    13,665

    1,262

    14,927

    26th July

    …

    81,961

    3,172

    85,133

    …

    13,379

    1,248

    14,627

    23rd August

    …

    86,532

    3,040

    89,572

    …

    14,026

    1,133

    15,159

    20th September

    …

    88,056

    3,257

    91,313

    …

    13,895

    1,290

    15,185

    25th October

    …

    91,688

    3,744

    95,432

    …

    14,263

    1,697

    15,960

    22nd November

    …

    90,570

    3,764

    94,334

    …

    14,074

    1,863

    15,937

    20th December

    …

    84,081

    2,938

    87,019

    …

    12,620

    1,273

    13,893

    1927.

    24th January

    …

    74,125

    1,586

    75,711

    …

    11,587

    546

    12,133

    21st February

    …

    64,140

    1,307

    65,447

    …

    10,004

    647

    10,651

    21st March

    …

    58,657

    965

    59,622

    …

    8,682

    418

    9,100

    25th April

    …

    52,272

    920

    53,192

    …

    7 988

    318

    8,306

    23rd May

    …

    46,091

    1,184

    47,275

    …

    7,109

    350

    7,459

    20th June

    190,730

    45,848

    1,149

    46,997

    48,030

    6 582

    323

    6,905

    25th July

    …

    43,202

    1,137

    44,339

    …

    6,048

    221

    6,269

    22nd August

    …

    43,446

    1,543

    44,989

    …

    6,039

    270

    6,309

    26th September

    …

    42,271

    1,531

    43,802

    …

    5,985

    368

    6,353

    24th October

    …

    40,257

    1,521

    41,778

    …

    5,886

    256

    6,142

    21st November

    …

    40,972

    1,904

    42,876

    …

    5,264

    268

    5,532

    19th December

    …

    39,796

    1,867

    41,663

    …

    5,322

    278

    5,600

    1928.

    23rd January

    …

    36,014

    1,678

    37,692

    …

    4,840

    240

    5,080

    20th February

    …

    37,021

    1,655

    38,676

    …

    4,898

    406

    5,304

    26th March

    …

    39,806

    1,957

    41,763

    …

    4,891

    415

    5,306

    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour what change in wages or working conditions has taken place in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing trade within the last six months?
    Mr. BETTERTON: There has been no general change in the wages and working conditions in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. The only change in working conditions reported during the past six months has been the adoption of revised agreed working rules for ship-repairing on the Bristol Channel, involving alterations in the overtime rates of pay, allowances for dirty work and for certain other specified tasks.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether within recent months the hon. Gentleman has had any representations from either the employers or the operatives in the
    208
    industry in favour of the adoption of the Washington Convention for the purpose of making the eight hours' day operative in other countries?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I must ask for notice of that question.

    LUMINOUS PAINT WORKERS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are emplayed in painting the dials of luminous watches; what is the composition of the luminous paint applied; whether the work involves wetting brushes with lips or tongue; whether these workers suffer from any occupational disease; if so, what is its nature; and how many persons suffered from it fatally or non-fatally during the last complete year for which particulars are available?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Factory Department only know of three works in which persons are employed continuously in this process. The total number so employed is eight. The process is also carried on intermittently all over the country, chiefly by jobbing watchmakers, but the total amount of time occupied is small. The paints are composed usually of a zinc compound with minute proportions of a radium compound. The work does not involve wetting the brushes with the lips or tongue and the medical inspectors who have been inquiring into the matter, have found no evidence of any occupational disease arising from it.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman not seen the report issued from the United States of America showing the large number of the inhabitants of that country who have died owing to this practice?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member apparently has not read the report from the "Daily Mail" correctly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not the case that the deaths in America are owing to the fact that they lick the brushes with the tongue or the lips, a practice which is not permitted in this country?
    Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, has anybody died in this country as a result of using this paint?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not the fact that the Government have asked certain firms to have their employés medically examined, and have found no ill-effects at all?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: All these eight persons were examined by Government medical officers last week.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Is this paint imported from America or is it home-made?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CLYDEBANK AND DUMBARTON.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour how many claims for unemployment benefit have been rejected at Clydebank and Dumbarton Employ-
    210
    ment Exchanges within the past year; and what were the main reasons for such rejections?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Claims for Extended Benefit considered by the Clydebank and Dumbarton Employment Committees during the 12 months ended 9th April, 1928.

    Clydebank.

    Dumbarton.

    Applications considered

    3,585

    2,260

    Applications allowed

    2,596

    1,583

    Applications recommended for disallowance

    989

    667

    Grounds of disallowance:

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

    29

    26

    Insurable employment not likely to be available

    13

    11

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

    321

    376

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

    423

    155

    Single persons residing with relatives to whom they could look for support

    188

    79

    Married women who could look for support from their husbands

    6

    5

    Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance

    7

    6

    Applications recommended for postponement for a definite time

    2

    10

    Statistics of the disallowance of claims for standard benefit are not available.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as being unemployed at the Employment Exchanges of Clydebank and Dumbarton on 30th March, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Persons on the Registers of Clydebank and Dumbarton Employment Exchanges.

    Date.

    Clydebank.

    Dumbarton.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    30th March, 1925.

    Wholly unemployed

    2,014

    42

    297

    53

    2,406

    1,479

    38

    195

    63

    1,775

    Temporarily stopped

    3

    —

    1

    —

    4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    2,017

    42

    298

    53

    2,410

    1,479

    38

    195

    63

    1,775

    29th March, 1926.

    Wholly unemployed

    2,807

    97

    180

    100

    3,184

    1,585

    25

    159

    92

    1,861

    Temporarily stopped

    23

    1

    11

    1

    36

    82

    —

    —

    —

    82

    Total

    2,830

    98

    191

    101

    3,220

    1,667

    25

    159

    92

    1,943

    28th March, 1927.

    Wholly unemployed

    2,066

    68

    252

    76

    2,462

    930

    51

    132

    52

    1,165

    Temporarily stopped

    6

    —

    1

    —

    7

    24

    —

    11

    1

    36

    Total

    2,072

    68

    253

    76

    2,469

    954

    51

    143

    53

    1,201

    26th March, 1928.

    Wholly unemployed

    722

    58

    143

    94

    1,017

    331

    20

    91

    36

    478

    Temporarily stopped

    —

    —

    12

    3

    15

    4

    —

    26

    13

    43

    Total

    722

    58

    155

    97

    1,032

    335

    20

    117

    49

    521

    EXTENDED BENEFIT.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will issue a statement showing the number of unemployed persons in receipt of extended benefit at the Wednesbury, Tipton and Darlaston Employment Exchanges, respectively, on the last available day prior to 19th April, 1928;
    (2) whether he will issue a statement showing the number of unemployed persons in receipt of extended benefit on the last available date prior to 19th April, 1928?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that the information necessary for such a statement is not available.
    Mr. SHORT: Is it possible to obtain this information?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, it is not, because we have never separated the extended benefit claims from the standard benefit claims; but sample inquiries made same time ago show that, roughly, they are half and half, standard and extended.

    JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Labour how many young persons from 16 to 18 years of age in Scotland are in training at unemployment training centres; and where their training centres are situated?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During the week ended 27th April, 1,693 boys and girls attended the 29 juvenile unemployment centres which were open in Scotland. Statistics are not available as to the age of these boys and girls, but the great majority of them are between 16 and 18. 22 of the centres are in Glasgow, 4 in Edinburgh, 2 in Greenock and 1 at Motherwell. The possibility of establishing centres in the Counties of Fife and Ayr is under active consideration by the authorities concerned, and it is hoped that the centre at Motherwell will shortly be enlarged to serve the needs of boys from other surrounding districts.
    Mr. COUPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the West of Scotland has been described as one of the areas most affected by unemployment, if not the area

    213
    with the greatest proportion of unemployment in the country; and is it not desirable that the largest possible number of these centres should be created in that area in order to meet the demand?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The question of the hon. Gentleman applies only to juvenile unemployment centres, and we have made considerable additions in this respect in this area quite recently. The question of a centre or centres for adults in Scotland is now under active consideration.
    Mr. SKELTON: In the existing centres, is there any training for rural or agricultural employment?
    Mr. MACLEAN: How many of these trainees have been found employment by the Ministry of Labour at the termination of their training?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is any training given in these centres to fit the trainees for migration?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These matters do not arise on the question.

    BREWING TRADE.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women employed in the brewing trade in April, 1928, and the number of unemployed from that trade in the same month?
    Mr. BETTERTON: For the purpose insurance statistics brewing is included with aerated water manufacture and the bottling of wines, spirits, beers, etc., to form a group covering the whole drink industry. At July, 1927, the estimated numbers of insured persons in Great Britain aged 16 to 64 years classified as belonging to the drink industry were 78,840 men, 21,520 women and 6,490 juveniles. At 26th March, 1928, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of these insured persons recorded as unemployed were 2,489 men, 1,733 women and 222 juveniles.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is misleading that brewery employés should be included with aerated water workers, or is this a form of camouflage to hide the position from the teetotallers?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, the figures are not classified for that purpose, but
    214
    they are lumped together because it is impossible to classify separately all who are engaged in these two industries.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Would not a reduction in the tax on beer provide employment for all the 4,000 unemployed?
    Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, is not this unemployment in the drink trade due to the improved conditions under which the public-houses in this country are carried on?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would not employment be found for some of these men if there were a reduction in the taxation on drink?

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Labour what special steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to enable seasonal workers to appreciate their new position under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?
    Mr. BETTERTON: A leaflet, U.I.L. 13, explaining the new provision under which certain seasonal workers will be able to obtain exemption from Unemployment Insurance is available at local offices of the Ministry of Labour.
    Sir W. de FRECE: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to give instructions to his officers to see that the seasonal workers on the register have the system explained personally to them, as there are many complaints that they do not know of it?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure that that particular proposal would be practicable, but I am considering proposals with the object of giving greater publicity to these Regulations, which is what we all desire to secure. I may add that we are also endeavouring to ensure that the fullest publicity shall be given to them in the local Press in areas which are particularly affected.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Member also consider the question of whether at holiday resorts and other places posters can be put up in the Post Offices drawing the attention of those who are likely to be unemployed to the benefits to which they are entitled under the new legislation? I am sure it is the desire of the hon. Member to let them know what the position is.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am discussing that very question with the Postmaster-General, in order to see whether further publicity cannot be secured through the agency of the Post Office.
    Mr. PALING: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of putting up posters drawing the attention of the other workers to the reductions which are to be made?

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an unemployed miner, of Ripley, Derbyshire, has lost his unemployment benefit because of his working of an allotment of a quarter of an acre which he has possessed for a number of years; and whether it is his intention to restore the benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of the case, but if the hon. Member will give me the name and address of the claimant I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. OLIVER: I understand that benefit has been stopped pending the inquiry. While the hon. Member is inquiring into this case, will he also ascertain whether it is the custom of his Department to stop benefit while inquiries are going on?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I am making full inquiries into the case, but, quite obviously, we cannot pay benefit until we are satisfied that the claimant is entitled to it.
    Mr. OLIVER: I think the hon. Member misunderstood my question. Benefit has been paid, but is now being stopped. They stopped the benefit and are inquiring whether the man is entitled to receive it in consequence of working a quarter-acre allotment.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think this is a case in which the fullest inquiry should be made, because, presuming the statements in the question are true, I can, on the face of it, see no reason why benefit should be withheld. For that reason, I am making the fullest and immediate inquiries.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not perfectly well known to the local Exchange officials that a man in this capacity may work an allotment without having his benefit
    216
    brought into question? There is no occasion for the local Exchange officials to make any inquiry whatever, if they follow the regulations issued by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is exactly what I have just said—that on the face of it I can see no reason why benefit should be stopped, that is, on the facts as they are put in the question; and, therefore, I am making full and immediate inquiries into the circumstances.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of that, could not benefit be restored to the man in the meantime, seeing that the umpire has already decided a similar case in favour of the applicant?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am making inquiry into the whole ease, and I will do whatever is possible.

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUS DRIVERS (HOURS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether there are any regulations limiting the hours of labour and the distances travelled on the road during the 24 hours by the drivers of large passenger omnibuses undertaking long journeys into the country; and, if so, what are they?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) on 15th June last.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these hours want very closely looking into, and in many cases shortening.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Member endeavour to find out the actual facts? It is well known that men are driving for these hours and that they are a danger to the community.
    Mr. BETTERTONI would point out that the Ministry of Labour have no power to make regulations with regard to the hours of work.
    Mr. SMITH: Unless, of course, the Government carry out the Washington Convention.
    Mr. BETTERTON: It would seem to follow that we are entitled to look to the hon. Members opposite to support us in our policy of revision.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman had any complaints made to him, either in individual cases or collective cases, of the overwork referred to in the question; and, if he has, will he kindly look into them?
    Mr. BETTERTON: This really is not a matter which concerns the Ministry of Labour at all, and I would suggest that this question should be addressed to the Ministry of Transport.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Transport how many men are at present employed on the construction of the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road; and whether he is taking any steps to expedite its completion?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): About 1,000 men are now employed on the construction of this road. Every possible step is being taken by my Department to expedite completion.
    Sir EDMUND TURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of all sensible people the expenditure of public money on this new road between Glasgow and Edinburgh is wilful and wasteful?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. baronet seems to be giving his opinion.
    Sir E. TURTON: May I ask the Minister of Transport to see that there will be no excessive expenditure on this road, and will he devote more of this money to expenditure on county main roads and rural district roads?
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Would it be possible to hang a map in a prominent position in this building showing the state of these roads and other roads which are nearing completion?
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Could we also have a statement from the Minister of Transport giving an approximate view of the amount of damage done to all the local roads in Lanarkshire by the construction of this trunk road?

    ROAD MATERIAL.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the imports of broken road-stone from foreign countries in the three months ended March totalled 65,546 tons as against 38,675 tons in the same quarter last year, and that in the same period 23,846 tons of setts and kerb were imported, mainly from Norway; and whether, seeing that so many granite and roadstone quarry workers are unemployed in this country, he will make it a condition of grants from the Road Fund that British road material is used?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The figures quoted are, I believe, substantially correct. The policy of my Department regarding grants towards road works was fully explained in the reply which I made to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend on 19th March last, and I am not prepared to depart from it.
    Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate this information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that when the block grants are made for the road services under the Budget he will give a preference to those local authorities that use British granite?
    Captain STREATFEILD: In view of the very serious nature of unemployment in the stone quarrying industry, can the Minister of Transport influence his colleagues in the Government in regard to the urgent necessity of bringing this industry within the ambit of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: In view of the many questions which the Minister of Transport has received about this industry, and the nature of the answers, which have not always been satisfactory to the questioners, will he be willing to receive a deputation from Members upon this question?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, naturally.

    LIGHTING REGULATIONS.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that under the new Road Transport (Lighting) Act the official lighting-up time for both front and rear lamps is one hour after sunset; that the lighting Regulations of 1914 are still in force which says that

    219
    rear identification plates must be illuminated half an hour after sunset; and whether the Regulations will be amended in conformity with the Act?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. Ever since the making of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1921, the time for the illumination of the rear number plate has been half an hour after sunset, whereas "lighting-up" time, under Section 2 of the Act of 1896, has been one hour after sunset. The Road Transport Lighting Act of last year has the effect of establishing a uniform time of half an hour after sunset for these two operations during the winter months while leaving the position during the summer months unaltered. When next an opportunity presents itself for the amendment in other respects of the Registration and Licensing Regulations, I will consider the desirability of securing uniformity in this respect during the summer months as well.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when these amendments will take place, and can he inform the public in the meantime which is the right regulation to go by?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The right regulation is, for the number plate, half an hour, and for the vehicle, one hour.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANI SATION (DRAFT CONVENTIONS).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour how many draft conventions have been submitted for ratification to His Majesty's Government on behalf of the International Labour Organisation, and how many have been ratified?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Up to the present time 25 Draft International Labour Conventions have been adopted by the International Labour Conference. Of these, 13 have been ratified by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. YOUNG: May I ask, first, if there is any intention of ratifying any of the other Conventions; and, secondly, is there any document published showing the details of the recent Conventions?
    Mr. BETTERTON: In regard to the first supplementary question, no decision has yet been reached with regard to four of them. The four in question are the Repatriation of seamen and seamen's articles of agreement, 1926, and the sickness insurance (industry) and (agriculture) 1927. With regard to one other, the position is that ratification is conditional on the ratification by certain named States. Regarding the second supplementary question I will send the hon. Member a chart which will show him exactly the position with regard to the ratification of Conventions not only in respect of this country but in respect of all other countries which are members of the International Labour Organisation.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how long it will be before he can come to some decision in the matter, and say whether it is likely to be shortly?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That I cannot say. I think that question ought to be addressed to the Board of Trade.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
    Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTHasked the Minister of Labour whether he has had any communication from the engineer of the Middle Level Drainage authority with regard to employment of unemployed men in drainage schemes; whether he is in touch with the Minister of Agriculture on this matter; and whether he is prepared to give assistance, financial and otherwise, in the direction suggested?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply. I have received an application for financial assistance towards a scheme for the strengthening of the main barrier bank that protects the district of the Middle Level Drainage and Navigation Commissioners. The funds at, my disposal for assisting drainage works of this kind are now fully committed, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the assistance desired.
    Mr. PALING: Does this mean that nothing is going to be done in this area or in any other area reported upon by

    221
    the Drainage Commission until the whore business has been discussed by the Government?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Nothing will be decided until we have had an opportunity for full consideration.
    Mr. PALING: But is there any possibility of any individual scheme being proceeded with, by reason of the fact that it is very much needed, before a decision has been reached with respect to the whole of the schemes?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, yes, schemes will be considered on their merits, and, as a matter of fact, we have recently approved certain further small schemes in addition to those schemes already passed. The whole question depends on the funds available from year to year.
    Mr. PALING: In spite of the fact that the whole of the schemes have not been settled, is it the case that if a particular scheme is considered to be sufficiently important there is no reason why it should not be proceeded with?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot hold out any prospect of an immediate decision. We have no funds for the moment. Perhaps next year we may have more funds.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Could the right hon. Gentleman say in regard to the schemes which are being proceeded with where the money is being spent?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think that is another question.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not the fact that a very generous offer was made last year to the Ouse Drainage authorities and that every single one of them petitioned against it?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the Government have allocated for drainage schemes in England for the year?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTHasked the Minister of Agriculture how much of the million pounds voted by Parliament in 1926 for drainage schemes has actually been spent; how much has been spent in the Middle Level, the South Level, and the rest of the Ouse area, respectively; whether, when the Ouse Drainage Bill
    222
    was introduced, this fund was closed down; and whether any further grants have been made in the Ouse area since the miscarriage of this Measure?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am unable to state the amounts actually spent, as these vary from day to day, but the Ministry is committed to the carrying out of schemes involving Government grants estimated at £325,000. Of this amount, the grant to Middle Level works is about £31,000, to South Level works £72,000, and to other parts of the Ouse District £20,000. Apart from this, £625,000 of the original £1,000,000 was ear-marked for works contemplated under the Ouse Bill,, and is still being held in suspense on that account. A special grant from this £625,000, however, estimated at 11,000 has now been provisionally sanctioned to enable the reconstruction of Welmore Lake Sluice, which was one of the works included in the Ouse Bill. This £11,000 is, therefore, additional to the £325,000 above referred to.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Does that mean that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to introduce the Bill again at a fairly near date?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that there is not sufficient prospect of agreement within the area to justify our putting forward this Bill again, and my intention is to await general legislation.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Then may we have some of that 600,600?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think that, as we could not settle it in this special case, we may have to apply some of this money to the larger scheme.
    Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that this scheme has not been dealt with, and that there is £600,000 left, is there any possibility of some other scheme, such as the Doncaster scheme, being carried out within these limits?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It may well be that this money will be made available for other schemes outside the Ouse area, but until we have been able to give further consideration to the whole problem we are not able to say what will be done.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: With reference to the statement in the original question, that £1,000,000 was voted by Parliament in 1926, is the right hon. Gentleman

    223
    aware that all that has been allocated to Scotland, for this same purpose of drainage schemes, is a sum of only 211,000?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that there is an error in the question, which I had not previously noticed. The sum voted was not £1,000,000. The actual sum voted in the annual Estimates was a considerably smaller sum. The £1,000,000 was our proposal for the total programme.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that in his original reply the right hon. Gentleman stated that £600,000 had been spent on drainage schemes?
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Let the right hon. Gentleman himself reply.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that in all these cases the Scottish representatives pressed for their eleven-eightieths.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise, a year and nine months ago, to bring in a national scheme?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    ALL-METAL MACHINES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air the names of the various types of all-metal machines that will be used in the Air Service by the end of 928, giving the original cost of each machine?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The following six types of all-metal aircraft will definitely be available by the end of this year: Siskin, Fairey III.F, Wapiti, Atlas, Side-strand and Virginia. In addition, four other types may possibly be available, but the details have not yet been settled. It would be contrary to established Government practice to give the contract prices of equipment purchased for the Government service.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to replace all our present machines with all-metal machines later?
    Sir S. HOARE: The general policy of the Department is to push on with the
    224
    development of all-metal machines. I do not know that I can give a general answer to the hon. Member's question going beyond that statement.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it be possible to push on a little faster in view of the fact that a very large proportion of the machines in our air squadrons are of the same type as were in use at the end of the War?
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. We are substantially in advance of any other country in the matter of all-metal machines.
    Captain GUNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether machines are being fitted with the slotted wing device?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer, generally speaking, is Yes. There may possibly be exceptions, but, generally speaking, the answer is Yes.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect I am under a misapprehension in view of the fact that a very large proportion—I believe half, certainly more than a quarter—of the squadrons are equipped with Bristol Fighters, a type which many competent air designers consider to be obsolete?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is under another misapprehension. The question deals with all-metal machines, and in the matter of all-metal machines we are substantially ahead of any other country.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I have an answer with regard to this point I would like to get this point settled.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put a question on the Paper.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to give an approximate date, weather permitting, for the launching of airships R 100 and R 101, respectively?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot as yet add anything to the previous statements I have made on this subject.
    Mr. ROSE: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the day, or the week,

    225
    the month, can he give us the year, or say whether in the next 10 years we may hope to see these balloons go up?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have already told the hon. Member that I hope in the course of the year that both these airships will be flying.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air what, if any, arrangement has been or is being made with the Airship Guarantee Company, Limited, for the delay beyond contract time of delivery of Airship R 100; and will he state definitely the cause of such delay?
    Sir S. HOARE: The postponement of the delivery of the airship R 100 has been due in part to difficulties connected with the production of an experimental design embodying many novel features, and in part to delay in the supply of materials as a result of the industrial dislocation of 1926. The latter contingency is covered by certain provisions of the contract.

    TRANSATLANTIC MAILS (AIR PORTS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has under sympathetic observation the movements in Ireland and Canada to follow up the transatlantic air flight of Major Fitzmaurice and his comrades by establishing air ports in Ireland, on the one hand, and at the entrance of the St. Law rence, on the other, for the collection and distribution of transatlantic sea-borne mails; and whether he and the Postmaster-General will consider the advisability of conferring with the Governments of Ireland and Canada as to this means of quickening Empire mail services?
    Sir S. HOARE: The establishment of air ports in the Irish Free State and Canada is a matter for the Governments concerned. I can promise, however, that any development which, as a result of the employment of aircraft, will expedite the delivery of sea-borne transatlantic mails will have the sympathetic co-operation of both the Postmaster-General and myself.
    Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed this week that an air mail service has been started from
    226
    Rimouski, on the St. Lawrence, in connection with our ocean steamers, and does he not think that that is a matter which might well be considered by the Government?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have noted with satisfaction the starting of this line, and any proposals will receive the sympathetic co-operation of the Postmaster-General and myself.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it usual to establish air mail ports on the strength of a single flight failing to arrive within 600 miles of its destination, and carrying nothing but petrol?

    TOOLS (TRAINING CENTRES).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has recently accepted a tender for beechwood planes for use in the training centres under the control of the Ministry of Labour from a firm of merchants of factors of wood-planes; and if the result of the arrangement of this contract will be the training of British labour with foreign-made tools?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Two contracts have recently been placed for beechwood planes, one with a British manufacturer and one with a merchant. The merchant offered an article as British made, and if my hon. Friend has reason to believe that these planes are not made in this country, I shall be happy to investigate the matter if he will he good enough to furnish me with the information in his possession.

    COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines the period which may elapse between the permanent closing of a mine and notification of the same to his Department; and whether he contemplates taking measures to ensure that no pit is closed down until after the Mines Department has been advised?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): Under Section 19 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, notice of the abandonment of a mine must be given to the Divisional Inspector of Mines

    227
    within two months. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that his Department considers it inadvisable to have earlier notice submitted by owners when they propose to close down a mine?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir; I do not think any earlier notice would be an advantage, because it is in the discretion of the owner whether he keeps a mine open or not.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that it is the view of his Department and the Government that an owner can close down a mine for any reason whatever, without consulting the Mines Department?
    Commodore KING: Yes, it is a matter entirely within their discretion.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We seem to be having a Debate on every question to-day.

    BRITISH TROOPS, FAR EAST (CONDENSED MILK).
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War if the British troops in Shanghai and Hongkong are supplied with British or foreign condensed milk, and in what quantities?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The British troops at Shanghai are being supplied with Canadian condensed milk. Requirements are approximately six tons a month. Condensed milk at Hong Kong is purchased by the troops themselves from the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes out of a cash allowance provided for the purpose. I understand that the milk is of Canadian origin.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
    Colonel HOWARO-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act against blind and block booking are constantly being evaded; and whether he is taking steps to stop this practice?
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the so-called gooiwill agreements which are being entered into with foreign film producers by cinema proprietors in this country as a means of evading the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act; and whether it is proposed to take any proceedings to stop such arrangements?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. Williams): Allegations in general terms have reached me concerning infringements of Part I of the Act. Any person becoming a party to such an infringement is liable to prosecution, and proceedings will be instituted in any suitable case in which the necessary evidence is forthcoming.
    Sir F. HALL: Have any prosecutions taken place??
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think up to now the necessary evidence has not been forthcoming.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an immense lot of infringement of the Films Act and will the Department keep their eyes well open with a view to bringing to account some of these people?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I can assure my hon. Friend that we do keep all our eyes very wide open.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a horse and cart can be driven through this Act by means of goodwill and the so-called "gentlemen's agreements."
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot agree with that suggestion, but if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks so, it is rather a pity that he did not put down an appropriate Amendment when the matter was under discussion in Committee?
    Mr. DAY: If the hon. Gentleman finds any infringements are going on will he take steps to deal with them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

    HIGH-SPEED STEEL.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether

    229
    he has received any representations with regard to the importation of high-speed steel into this country; whether he is aware that the British and Saar Steel Company are importing and selling all kinds of tool steel, including rustless steel and iron, at about half the price which such steel can be produced in Sheffield; and if he will consider an inquiry with the view to deciding whether high-speed steel should be one of the industries to be safeguarded?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I have had no such representations, nor have I received information in the sense of the second part of the question. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: Has the time not arrived when the whole question of foreign competition in the steel industry should be considered by a Safeguarding Committee?

    LOAD-LINE (INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS).
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information regarding the proposal to convoke an international diplomatic conference to examine the possibility of adopting international load-line regulations?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any such proposal.

    SUEZ CANAL (BRITISH IMPORT TRAFFIC).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the imports which reached this country in 1927 via, the Suez Canal; and what proportion of such imports consisted of foodstuffs and raw materials for industrial purposes?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am unable to state the value of the imports which reach this country by way of the Suez Canal, but the total value of imports arriving by all routes from the countries lying to the east of the Canal amounted in 1927 to £265,000,000. This figure includes imports from Australia and New Zealand valued at £53,000,000 and £47,000,000 respectively, but does not include imports from British South Africa. Particulars are not yet available to show what pro-
    230
    portion of these imports consisted of foodstuffs and raw materials, but in 1926, when the corresponding aggregate imports were £266,000,000, the proportion represented by food, drink, tobacco and raw materials, and articles mainly un-manufactured, was 89 per cent.

    CHOCOLATE (IMPORTS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the approximate value of manufactured chocolate imported into this country from holland and Switzerland, respectively, in 1926 and 1927; and, seeing that the foreign competition which British manufacturers meet with in this industry n the Home mallets is due to lower wages being paid and longer hours worked by competing foreign firms, will he consider the imposition of safeguarding duties in this case?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the figures for which he asks. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind him that articles of food and drink are specifically excepted from the scope of the safeguarding policy.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table shows the declared values of the total imports of Cocoa Preparations into Great Britain and Northern Ireland consigned from Netherlands and Switzerland, respectively, during each of the years 1926 and 1927.

    Description and Countries whence consigned.

    1926.

    1927.

    £

    £

    Cocoa Preparations (including chocolate confectionery):

    Containing Sugar:

    Netherlands

    241,549

    255,461

    Switzerland

    1,208,830

    1,106,881

    Notcontaining Sugar:

    Netherlands

    43,153

    56,126

    Switzerland

    672

    304

    Total

    1,494,204

    1,418,772

    NOTE.—The figures for 1927 are provisional only.

    IRISH FREE STATE (BUDGET PROPOSALS).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has considered the effect of the new Budget proposals of the Irish Free State upon trade with Great Britain and other parts of the Empire; and whether it is proposed to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that only two of these proposals materially affect the trade of Great Britain with the Irish Free State. Of these, the first imposes Customs duties equal to those in force in this country on motor tyres and commercial motor vehicles, preference to the extent of one-third of the duties being accorded to this country; the second increases the Customs and Excise duties on sugar by ¼d per pound, with corresponding increases on molasses, glucose, saccharin and certain descriptions of sugared goods. A summary of the changes involved in the Budget proposals, all of which took effect under the Dail resolution as from 26th April, is being published in to-morrow's issue of the "Board of Trade Journal." The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. HURD: Has my hon. Friend observed how closely the Irish Free State follows this House in legislation affecting these matters?

    RATING RELIEF.
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount is estimated as relief in rates which will go to the cotton trade in October, 1929, under the Budget proposals?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No comprehensive information is available, but, on the basis of the available data, it is roughly estimated that the direct relief to the cotton spinning and weaving industry in respect of local taxation will be about £1,500,000 a year.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Are those data based on the Estimates for 1927–28, as in the case of the White Paper recently issued?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is a very rough estimate, and I presume it is based on the same data from which the White Paper was compiled.
    Mr. KELLY: in view of the reference, in the hon. Gentleman's answer, to spinning and weaving, do I understand that the cotton waste trade will be left out of the calculation?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that without notice I could not answer that question.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to exempt voluntary hospitals from the liability for payment of local rates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel AclandTroyte).

  SCOTLAND.

    LOCAL RATES.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to publish a Memorandum showing the total amount of rates for public local purposes levied in each rating area in Scotland in the financial year 1927–28, together with an estimate of the amount of such rates levied in respect of each of the principal classes of rateable property?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I hope to be in a position to publish at an early date tables giving information on the lines suggested in the hon. Member's question, but in a rather less detailed form.
    Mr. BROWN: Will this Memorandum follow the detailed Memorandum issued by the English Minister with regard to England and Wales, or will it follow the lines of the Memorandum in connection with the Rating Bill of 1926?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am considering the form in which it should be issued. It will be similar to, but not exactly the same as, that issued by the English Minister.
    Mr. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when we may look for this information?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I cannot give a definite date, but I am trying to expedite it, and shall get it issued as soon as I can.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (SHIEL ESTATE).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ex-service men have applied for small holdings on the Shiel Estate?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of outstanding applications from ex-service men in Gienshiel Parish for holdings on the Shiel Estate is five.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these five applications have been outstanding, and when it is likely that allocations will be made in these eases?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I am not in a position at the moment to reply to that question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that hundreds of ex-service men have been applying for small holdings for years, and their applications have never been met?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my supplementary question, is it not the case that two of these applications were lodged with the Board of Agriculture by two men who were then fighting in France, and that even now, 10 or 11 years afterwards, they have not received the small holdings for which they applied when they were fighting?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, some applications were submitted as far back as 1912. Some have been dealt with, and some, for various reasons, have been disposed of in other ways; and, as I have said, there are five now remaining.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to believe that it takes 11 years to grant a small holding in a particular parish in Scotland'? Is that the speed with which his Department acts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter for debate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that two of these individuals who applied while
    234
    they were in France are at the present time unemployed and are not receiving unemployment benefit?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how often the Board of Agriculture has had the Shiel estate inspected for the purpose of small holdings since the War; and whether he can state the Report made by the officials who made the inspections?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The estate has been inspected on three occasions since the War. The Reports showed that the cost of a scheme would have been excessive.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what were the figures given by the inspectors who examined the estate?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The Minister is responsible, in conjunction with the Treasury, for considering whether the scheme is a reasonable scheme or not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: As the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister in question, are we to take it that the holding up of this scheme is due to him?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I, of course, have full responsibility as far as regards any individual scheme, and that is my duty as Minister.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not due to the fact that there are some landowners in this particular parish whom the right hon. Gentleman wishes to shield?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that there are hundreds of ex-service men who have been waiting for years for small holdings, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing all that he can to discourage small holdings in Scotland?

    CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the continuance of restrictions imposed upon clubs during the War, he proposes to take any action this Session, whether by introducing legislation or otherwise, to deal with the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have no power to do

    235
    anything in this connection without legislation, and my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that, as the Prime Minister has said, legislation is out of the question this Session.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this reply will cause grave disappointment in many quarters? How does he reconcile his championship of the young lady voter with his continuing affection for old D.O.R.A.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are both of the same sex.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better to resolve the uncertainty which exists on this question and to say, once and for all, that no legislation can be expected.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HJCKS: No, I think not. That is not at all the answer of the Prime Minister.

    PRINCE CAROL OF RUMANIA.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Home Secretary whether Prince Carol of Rumania is exempted from the Regulations which govern the admission and residence of aliens in this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS,No, Sir.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what passport Prince Carol had on entering this country, and whether he was treated in exactly the same way as any other alien?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He is now asking a question about passports, and if he desires it, of course, I will get him full information. Prince Carol came here with a visa granted to him, and he is here under exactly the same Regulations as any alien.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman make the further statement he promised to the House yesterday on the receipt of the letter from Prince Carol?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon and gallant Gentleman will put down a question for to-morrow, I think I shall be able to answer it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this sufficient notice for to-morrow?

    REX v. BROWNE AND KENNEDY.
    Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the allegation of Mr. Bernard Shaw that evidence in the recent case of Rex v. Browne and Kennedy had been tampered with and that false evidence had been invited by offering a reward conditionally upon the conviction of the prisoners; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen in the Press what purports to be a copy of a letter from the gentleman in question. It would not be right for me to comment upon the suggestions made therein concerning the evidence at the trial. An appeal is pending. As regards the offering of a reward, the reward was offered by a newspaper. It is not the practice of the Government or the Metropolitan Police to offer rewards to persons who assist in detecting the perpetrators of crimes.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Has my right hon. Friend any information which he can give to the House with regard to the identity and antecedents of the person to whom Mr. Bernard Shaw addressed his letter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must confess that I did not pay very much attention to the letter.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the appeals made by or on behalf of convicted prisoners can be impartially and fairly heard if police and other records are allowed to be freely published during the time that these appeals are pending?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member must remember that the appeals do not go to a jury. They go to a selected panel of Judges of the High Court, generally presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, and I do not think that that Court would be in the least degree influenced by what appeared in the papers.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not in accordance with the usual judicial prac-

    237
    tice in this country to prohibit the publication of matter which may influence a Judge while an appeal is pending?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Anything that might influence the trial of an action is always prohibited, but in this case I have heard no suggestion that the Judges have been or are ever likely to be influenced by any such information as that mentioned in regard to this case.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Arising out of the original question, who is this Mr. Bernard Shaw?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand he is a writer.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the Home Secretary and his Department approve of the offering of these big rewards by newspapers which have the effect, as in this case, of bringing forward an ex-criminal to produce evidence in Court which is definitive in deciding the course of the trial?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The view of the police and of my Department is, that rewards are not desirable in any of these criminal cases. I am quite satisfied that the police do all that is humanly possible, and generally with great success, to bring criminals to justice, and I do not think it adds to the administration of justice
    that rewards of this kind should be offered. I have no power to prevent this.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that it will be quite possible for the Appeal Court to order a new trial, is it not possible, taking that view, for the right hon. Gentleman to prohibit the publication of any details until the Court has given its decision?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think even then I have the power. The power rests in the legal advisers of the person who is likely to be tried to apply to the Court to commit the newspaper for contempt.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Has the right hon. Gentleman got in mind that it is not possible for the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 126.

Division No 114.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Brittain, Sir Harry

England, Colonel A.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Albery, Irving James

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

Falls, Sir Charles F

Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

Buchan, John

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

Burman, J. B.

Fermoy, Lord

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Carver, Major W. H.

Fielden, E. B.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Astor, Viscountess

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Atholl, Duchess of

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gates, Percy

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Bainlel, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Goff, Sir Park

Barnett, Major sir Richard

Christie, J. A.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

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

Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

Grotrian, H. Brent

Bennett, A. J.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Cooper, A. Duff

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Berry, Sir George

Couper, J. B.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Bethel, A.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Hamilton, Sir George

Blundell, F. N.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

Hammersley, S. S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Hanbury, C.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Dalkeith. Earl of

Harrison, G. J. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Brass, Captain W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Haslam, Henry C.

Briggs, J. Harold

Eden, Captain Anthony

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Ellis, R. G.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Wattord)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

Hills, Major John Waller

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

. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Styles, Captain H. W.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Hopkins. J. W. W.

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

Tasker, R. Inigo

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Templeton, W. P

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Nuttall, Ellis

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

Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Oakley, T.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Penny, Frederick George

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hurd, Percy A.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Tinne, J. A.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Iveagh, Countess of

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Waddington, R.

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

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Jepheott, A. R.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Ramsden, E.

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

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Warrender, Sir Victor

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Remnant, Sir James

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Krox, Sir Alfred

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Lamb, J. O.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R

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

Watts, Dr. T.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Roberts, sir Samuel (Hereford)

White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple

Loder, J. de V.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Long, Major Eric

Ropner, Major L.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Looker, Herbert William

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Rlchm'd)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Lumley, L. R.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Sandon, Lord

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.

Womersley, W. J.

Maclntyre, Ian

Savery, S. S.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

McLean, Major A.

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

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Skelton, A. N.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Malone, Major P. B.

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

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Margesson, Captain D.

Smithers, Waldron

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Major Cope and Major Sir George

Meyer, Sir Frank

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hennessy.

NOES.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Oliver, George Harold

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Owen, Major G.

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

Hardle, George D.

Palin, John Henry

Attlee, Clement Richard

Harney, E. A.

Paling, W.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery)

Harris, Percy A.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Barnes, A.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Barr, J.

Hayday, Arthur

Ponsonby, Arthur

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, Right Hon A. (Burnley)

Potts, John S.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Purcell, A. A.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ritson, J.

Briant, Frank

Hollins. A.

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

Brorafield, William

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Rose, Frank H.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Runclman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Buchanan, G

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Scurr, John

Cape, Thomas

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Compton, Joseph

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Connolly, M.

Kelly, W. T.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Cove, W. G.

Kennedy, T.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

Sitch, Charles H.

Dalton, Hugh

Kirkwood, D.

Smillie, Robert

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawrence, Susan

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

Day, Harry

Lawson, John James

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lee, F.

Snell, Harry

Gillett, George M.

Lowth, T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Gosling, Harry

Lunn, William

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

Stamford, T. W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

MacLaren, Andrew

Stephen, Campbell

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govern

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

Strauss, E. A.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

March, S.

Sutton, J. E.

Groves, T.

Maxton, James

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Grundy, T. W.

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

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

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

Murnin, H.

Thurtle, Ernest

240

241

Tinker, John Joseph

WattS'Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Windsor, Walter

Tomlinson, R. P.

Wellock, Wilfred

Wright. W.

Townend, A. E.

Welsh, J. c.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Trevetyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Whlteley, W.

Varley, Frank B.

Wiggins, William Martin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Viant, S. P.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hayes.

PARISHIONERS' RIGHTS.
Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the rights of parishioners in respect of the presentation to benefices."
I should like to make two preliminary observations. In the first place, the Bill is non-political and is backed by representatives of all parties. Secondly, it is an earnest desire on my part to endeavour to bring peace within the Established Church of England, and order out of chaos. It is within the recollection of the House that when the Prayer Book was placed before us, it was rejected. When it comes before us again, whether it is rejected or accepted by the House, it will be equally impossible to get any peace within the Church of England. We have noticed the controversy that has been going on in the country and in the Press. I should like to give one instance with regard to what is going on in different parts of the country. I have received a letter this morning from Darwen saying that an Anglo-Catholic has been forced on the congregation there. He forced his views on them, but they would not tolerate it, and the only result will be that the Church will be emptied. I do not think we will get any peace in the Church of England as long as the Bishops or any lay-patron have the right to appoint a man whose doctrines are distasteful to the parishioners, and we know the Bishops have declared it is out of their power to control the clergy from introducing illegal doctrines into the Church. That being so, I do not think the Bill will abrogate or take away any power from the Bishops, and for this reason, that if a Bishop appoints a man and the parochial council approves of him, no power of veto would be exercised.
4.0 p.m.
In a case like Darwen and other places where either the Bishop or lay patron appoints a clergyman who introduces a doctrine which not only distresses and hurts those who attend the parish church, it is plain they are not doing their duty and the parochial council ought to exercise
242
this power of veto. We know very well that a Church cannot exist, or that there can never be any peace within the Church, until the Bishops have the laity working with them. The churches exist by the attendance of the laity. I think it is obvious that, unless the laity have the power to say whom they will have presiding in their churches, we are never going to get any peace in the Church. There might be two arguments urged against the Bill. One is that the parochial council are not representative. But that remark applies equally to the Church Assembly. If the parochial council were given the power to take a real and active part in the Church, I think we should get peace within the Church, and we should find that every parishioner would take very good care that he was placed on the electoral roll. I would like to read the main Clause of the Bill, which is only a short Bill.
Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but may I ask him a question?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has only 10 minutes in which to ask for leave to introduce the Bill.
Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I would be prepared to answer any question, but 10 minutes is a very short time for what I have to say. The main Clause of the Bill states:
"No presentation by a spiritual patron to a vacant benefice shall be received by a Bishop and no presentation by a lay patron, other than His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to a vacant benefice shall he followed by the institution or admission of the presentee by a Bishop and no collation shall be made by a Bishop to a vacant benefice in his presentation unless the parochial church council of the Parish to which the presentee in each case shall have been nominated or presented or shall be intended by the Bishop to be collated, shall first, having been duly convened, resolve by a clear majority of votes that such presentee is acceptable to the parochial church council and communicate the resolution in writing to the Bishop."
I would only say again that a Bill like this seems to me to be the only hope of

243
getting peace in the Church of England. I am confident that, unless some such Bill as this is passed, the Church will be split from top to bottom. I shall not keep the House longer, because it must be plain to everyone what the terms of the Bill are and what they mean. I would urge every hon. Member, irrespective of party, to give me leave to bring in the Bill, and by so doing give the vast majority of Churchmen in this country the chance of seeing that the principles fought for and established at the Reformation shall be maintained.
Major BIRCHALL: I wish to oppose the introduction of this Bill, and I shall explain my reasons for doing so. In the first place, I think the House will realise what the Clause that was read really means. It means giving the power to every parochial church council to veto the appointment of any particular minister, and obviously to veto any particular applicant until they get the applicant whom they desire. I express only my own opinion as to whether that is desirable or not. In many cases and churches I believe that it works quite well. But my point is that it is only one of many proposals for giving parochial church councils more powers than they possess at the present time. I myself am strongly in favour of the principle of more power for parochial church councils. My objection to the introduction of this Bill is, therefore, not so much on the principle of the Bill, as on these facts: In the first place, this is purely a Church Measure. This House has delegated such Measures to the Church Assembly, the elected representative body of the Church of England. I submit that this House will be limiting its freedom in future if by permitting the introduction of such a Bill it prevents the free and open consideration of the proposals in connection with patronage which will certainly come before this House from the Church Assembly within probably the next 12 months.
The House has set up certain machinery for dealing with such Measures, namely, the Church Assembly. Certainly the Church Assembly is actually dealing with this matter at the present moment, and there is a Patronage Measure which is being carefully considered by a Committee of that Assembly. That Patronage Measure will
244
come before this House in due course as the considered opinion of those who are capable of judging in the matter. The proper time for this House to express its opinion on this very difficult subject—a far more difficult subject than my hon. and gallant Friend has intimated—will be when the Measure comes before this House properly and in a constitutional manner from the Church Assembly. Without saying anything more on the principle of the Measure, because I agree with more power being given to parochial councils, I ask the House to refuse permission to introduce the Bill because the whole matter is bound to come before us in a proper manner in a very short time, and the House will be limiting its own freedom by allowing the introduction of a Bill which deals with this very important matter in a very lightly considered manner and a manner quite unsuitable to the very important question involved.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the rights of parishioners in respect of the presentation to benefices."
The House proceeded to a Division.
Lieut.-Commander ASTAURY and Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Sir Herbert Cunliffe, Sir Martin Conway, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Gerald Hurst, Dr. Watts, Mr. Crawfurd, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Dr. Vernon Davies, and Captain Streatfeild.

PARISHIONERS' RIGHTS.
  PARISHIONERS' RIGHTS BILL,
  "to extend the rights of parishioners in respect of the presentation to benefices," presented accordingly, and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection, that they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the

  245
  Agricultural Produce (Marking and Grading) Bill [Lords]): Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Barnes, Captain Briscoe, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, Major George Davies, Sir Thomas Davies, Mr. Guinness, Captain Gunston, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hollins, Colonel James, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Lawson, Sir Robert Lynn, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Robert Morrison, Major Price, and Mr. Skelton.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Newquay Water Bill, with an Amendment.

Hastings Corporation Bill,

Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill, with Amendments.

South Metropolitan Gas Bill, with an Amendment.

Dartmouth Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, relating to probate registrars and registries, and certain other matters, and to amend the law with respect to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and otherwise with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith." [Administration of Justice Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the urban district councils of Stretford and Urmston and the rural district council of Barton-upon-Irwell, and to vest in such Board the electricity undertaking of the Stretford Urban District Council and the undertaking of the Barton and Urmston Electricity Board; and for other purposes." [Stretford and District Electricity Board Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking.of the Isle of Wight Waterworks Company to the urban district council of Sandown; to authorise that council to supply water in and in the neighbourhood of their district; to provide for the
246
transfer of parts of the said undertaking when acquired by the said council to the Shanklin Urban District Council and the Isle of Wight Rural District Council; and for other purposes." [Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Weald Electricity Supply Company, Limited, to purchase, and the Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Company to sell, the electricity part of the undertaking of that company; to extend the area of supply of the Weald Electricity Supply Company, Limited, and to confer further powers on that company with regard to the supply of electricity; to empower the Crow-borough District Gas and Electricity Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes." [Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Wey Valley Water Company to construct further works; to extend their limits for the supply of water; to empower them to raise further capital; to confer additional powers upon the company; and for other purposes." [Wey Valley Water Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Company to run trolley vehicles in substitution for their tramway services and to provide and run omnibuses; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, Etc.) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the York Town and Blackwater Gas Company to consolidate and convert the existing capital of the company and to raise additional capital; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [York Town and Blackwater Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Governors of Bethlem Hospital to dispose of portions of their Monks Orchard estate at Addington, in Surrey, and Beckenham and West Wickham, in Kent." [Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the City of Sheffield; to authorise the Corporation of that city to construct street improvements

247
and additional tramways; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their tramways, waterworks, electricity, and markets undertakings; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the city; and for other purposes." [Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the abandonment of the tramways owned or worked by the Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company; to authorise the company to run omnibuses in substitution for tramcars on the routes of the said tramways and otherwise to enlarge their powers of running omnibuses; to change the name of the company; to reduce the existing capital of the company, and to authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."[Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company Bill [Lords].]
Stretford and District Electricity Board Bill [Lords],
Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords],
Wey Valley Water Bill [Lords],
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords],
York Town and Blackwater Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords],
Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.
West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Confirmation Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Torquay Extension) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Peterborough Extension) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Windermere Gas and Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Accrington Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A): Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The modern trend in the development of credit facilities has been primarily to meet the needs and convenience of joint stock enterprises. Agriculture, however, is an industry carried on almost entirely by small capitalists, dependent on the resources and administration of one man, and for that reason it has been left out of modern development and has been largely ignored in the framing of our banking credit system. The banking system of this country is in many respects a model to the world, but it has undoubtedly neglected the interest of the agricultural industry. In all the principal agricultural countries in the world governments have found it necessary to take special action to secure new credit facilities for agriculture. Germany and the Scandinavian countries took action many years ago, and more recently the matter has been dealt with in the United States and in various Dominions of the British Empire. None of these foreign or Empire systems is altogether applicable to our special needs and conditions in this country. Their experience and their legislative effort have shown that the problem of agricultural credit does not solve itself and that it can and ought to be dealt with by suitable Parliamentary action. The needs of agriculture in the matter of credit are two-fold. First, there is the need for fixed capital, for long-term credit, for the acquisition and development of land. Secondly, there is the need for working capital, short-term credit, for the growing, harvesting, and marketing of produce. These two sets of problems are distinct, and we deal with them separately in the Bill.
  Our proposals in regard to long-term credits are found in Part I of the Bill. It has been generally recognised that post-War conditions call for amendment in the system not of land tenure, as is held on the other side of the House, but of land finance. Many landowners, through taxation or other causes, are
  258
  unable to face the burdens and responsibilities of land ownership. Often, tenants feel it necessary to sink their capital in becoming freeholders, otherwise they would find their farms sold over their heads. We still believe that the landlord and tenant system is the best system, and it still applies to two-thirds of the area of this country. It supplies the fixed capital necessary to agriculture at a lower rate than it would be supplied by any other method, and we certainly have no wish to uproot that system where it exists. Unlike our opponents, we believe that nationalisation would not merely be unnecessary and undesirable but would be positively mischievous, because the control which it would involve would not be conducive to agricultural efficiency. [Interruption.] It is generally admitted that the agricultural efficiency of this country is equal to the agricultural efficiency of any country in the world. British stock raising and British arable agriculture has led in the van of world progress.
  Our problem is to deal with the cases where a transfer of land to the occupier is necessary, and we want to give the occupier access to supplies of fixed capital on the most favourable terms. In the same way we wish to make available funds for intermediate credit in the form of improving the land. There, again, we believe that under private ownership improvement in the development of the land, where it is economically justified, can be carried out more cheaply and more efficiently under private enterprise than if it were fettered by the control of the State under a system of nationalisation. To provide the necessary long and intermediate term credits we are arranging to form a land mortgage corporation. We have rejected the method of a State institution as being alien to the traditions and needs of this country. Our great banks possess branches throughout the rural areas in direct contact with the farms, and it would be wasteful to duplicate their great machine if we could get the advantage of their organisation and the special experience which they possess. At the beginning of 1926 I approached the great banks, through the Bankers' Clearing House, to see whether they would help us in this matter. From the start they showed themselves most ready to place their resources at our disposal. We came to the conclusion that

  259
  there was no case for a permanent subsidy from the State for agricultural credits. Given the necessary machinery, agriculture is just as well able to raise credit on its own assets and resources as other industries, and if the lender and the borrower can be brought together on satisfactory terms there is no more need for advancing State credits or by means of a guarantee, subsidising private credits, than would be the case in any other of Our depressed industries.
  Mr. MACLAREN: What is this Bill for?
  Mr. GUINNESS: This Bill is to provide long and short term credits. It is not for providing subsidised credits. I will explain the distinction. We have arranged for the formation of a Corporation to lend on mortgage, secured either on land or on improvements. This Corporation will be formed by the generous co-operation of the great banks, led by the Bank of England, who have arranged to provide £650,000 of paid-up capital. The banks at the present time included in the scheme are the Bank of England, the Westminster Bank, Barclays Bank, Lloyds Bank, the National Provincial Bank and several of the other clearing banks, including Martin's Bank, Glyn Mills & Co. and Williams Deacon's Bank. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Midland Bank?"] The Midland have, so far, not come in, but we are not without hope that after further examination they may see their way to take part in the scheme. It will, obviously, be a great advantage to have the branches of the banks as agents in this new work. Instead of the farmer having to write to London to settle the business which he wishes to transact, he will be able to go to his local bank manager. I should like to say how disinterested and patriotic has been the attitude of the banks, because the return on their capital has been limited to 5 per cent. It is certainly no advantage to them to lock up their capital in this way, and the House should recognise the great debt of obligation under which they are placing us by the way they are helping in this scheme.
  It is obvious that £650,000 of capital will be far too little to finance the longterm needs of British agriculture. The idea is that the money needed to lend
  260
  to the farmer should be raised by means of debentures issued in the money market. These debentures, being dealt with on the Stock Exchange, will allow the farmer to tap a new reservoir of credit. He will no longer be limited to borrowing from the banks money lent to the banks for short terms, or raising the money which he needs for his land purchase by private mortgage. We hope that by these means large new sources of credit may be made available. Although, as I have said, we do not think there is any case for a permanent system of subsidising agricultural credits, we do hold that special assistance is necessary in launching this scheme. On the one hand, the farmers are just now heavily embarrassed by severe depression, caused by the persistent fall of agricultural prices. On the other hand, the early stages of the new organisation are bound to prove rather difficult. We are justified, therefore, while ensuring the permanent soundness of the scheme, in providing the farmers who wish to have recourse to it with the immediate possibility of borrowing at the most favourable rate.
  At first, it is inevitable that the volume of business must be small, and while that volume of business remains small the cost of the new organisation must be unduly high. It will also take time to accustom the public to investment in an unfamiliar security. It is just in those early critical years, before the reserves of the new organisation can be built up, that the mortgages will be offered on less security, because the sinking fund will not have piled up and there will be much less security behind the Corporation, apart from the land, for the money which is borrowed. We are, therefore, proposing to help the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in regard to the security which is offered and in the administrative costs. The success of the scheme and its attraction to the farmer must obviously depend upon the company being able to borrow cheaply. In other countries agricultural mortgage bonds, based on the same principles that we propose, have stood at a very good price in their money markets; but while those securities are unfamiliar in this country we must calculate on a certain amount of diffidence on the part of the investing public. That is why we propose to strengthen the-security.

  261
  The debentures will, of course, be secured on the whole of the assets of the Corporation, first, the land mortgage; secondly, the paid-up capital and, thirdly, the reserves. The assets behind the Corporation will steadily increase as the sinking fund piles up. In our proposals we are enabling the Corporation immediately to enjoy substantial reserves. We are providing a guarantee fund equal to the paid-up capital, which, as I have mentioned is £650,000 as at present arranged, with a maximum limit of £750,000. Incidentally, this provision will cheapen the borrowing of the farmer, as otherwise he would clearly in his interest payments have to make provision for building up reserves at a higher rate than will be necessary under our scheme. This guarantee fund to a maximum of £750,000 will be free of interest for 60 years. Let us see what that amounts to. Even if it only amounts to £650,000, it means £32,500 a year available for building up these reserves and for reducing the rate of interest payable by the farmer.
  We have often been pressed during the examination of this scheme to assent to a Government guaranteed debenture. We have been told that as the State assented to the giving of guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act, they ought to do the same thing in this case. It has been suggested that £10,000,000 might easily be guaranteed on the first issue of debentures, to get the scheme started. That proposal, which for various reasons apart from those I am giving, was not acceptable, would be far less valuable to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation than the arrangement which we are embodying in the Bill, because we are advised that the difference between a guaranteed loan and a loan of such a character as the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will place upon the market will not exceed one-quarter per cent. This sum of £32,500 a year is one-quarter per cent, on £13,003,000, and there is no doubt that the assistance in the form which we are proposing will be more valuable to the Corporation than a guarantee of even £13,000,000, because this assistance will be permanently behind the Corporation, and will enable it to be in a very sound financial position from the start. Whereas a guarantee of debenture issue would be entirely temporary
  262
  in its action, this method will be of permanent benefit to those borrowers who have recourse to this new organisation. We are making further proposals for Government assistance in the shape of underwriting the first issues of debentures to a maximum of £5,000,000. Of course that is not the limit of debentures, that will be issued by the Corporation, if there is a demand for such facilities, but that is the maximum which the Government feel justified in underwriting. In addition to underwriting, we are taking power to invest £1,250,000 of Government money in the debentures themselves. As the administration charges in the first years are likely to be high, we are proposing to contribute £10,000 a year for the first 10 years under that head.
  Now I have outlined the machine, and I may perhaps describe how we expect it to work. The Corporation will be empowered to grant advances to farmers on the valuation of their land up to two-thirds of the value, to be repaid by equal yearly or half-yearly instalments of principal and interest spread over a long period. This is a new system; it is one, at all events, not previously applied generally in this country to the purchase of agricultural land. Mortgages, as we all know, are common; occasionally, there are cases in which money is repaid under an annuity system, and there are two very valuable companies which, on a smaller scale than we should have liked to see, are doing valuable work in this direction. This system, however, remains unusual. It is not the practice of the banks to give credit to farmers for a definite period, and to lay down in advance a rate of interest to apply throughout the whole term. This practice on the part of the banks is easily understood; as their deposits are their main sources for lending, it would clearly be inconvenient to them to lend for long terms, and to commit themselves to a rate of interest for a long period of years, while they are borrowing the necessary money for comparatively short terms. This system, however, which has not so far been applied to agricultural land to any great extent, has become the ordinary practice in the case of building societies, and we propose that the new Corporation shall apply to agricultural land the method which has been so successful with house property.

  263
  I expect that the limit of 66 per cent. of the valuation which may be advanced may disappoint a certain number of applicants who will have bought at high prices, but, after all, we made provision for farmers who bought in the boom period of the Corn Production Acts. In 1923 we made arrangements by which these purchasers should be given the advantage of State credit.
  Mr. HASLAM: Some of them did not get it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: They had four years in which to apply. This offer was open until last year, and I cannot imagine that any men, seriously embarrassed by having bought their land at high prices, and not being able to finance it, would have neglected after four years to apply for the assistance which the Government was Offering.
  Mr. HASLAM: Applications have not always been granted.
  Mr. GUINNESS: They were invariably granted for the first four years, when the conditions were fulfilled, and when the £5,000,000, which the Treasury considered to be a reasonable limit, had been exhausted, it was felt to be time to bring the system to an end. The reason that we have decided on the figure of 66 per cent. is that that figure is the long established maximum for mortgages which are authorised to be held by trustees, and a favourable rate of interest for borrowers can only be secured by giving favourable security to the lender. It would clearly be undesirable that the bulk of borrowers should have to pay more than they need, just because a few borrowers wish to raise a larger proportion of the value of their land. Of course, the actual rate of interest at which the money will be lent will depend upon the state of the money market, and must be left to the decision of the new corporation. The rate will clearly vary from time to time, but, at present, I am advised that the corporation should be able to raise debentures at an interest rate of very little more than 5 per cent. We must add to that, of course, provision for the sinking fund. On the 5 per cent. table, sinking fund payments for 60 years amount to an annual payment of 5s. 5d. per cent., running up steeply for shorter periods.
  264
  You must also add an unknown amount for administration and reserves, but, in view of the Government assistance in both these directions, I hope that the burden of the borrower will in these respects be greatly reduced.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May we understand that the interest will be within 6 per cent.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I should think it ought to be well within 6 per cent. If the money is raised at a little over 5 per cent., and the sinking fund is 5s. 5d. per cent., I do not anticipate that the remaining charges will bring it up to 6 per cent.; but, as I have said, it is impossible to forecast the rate which the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation may find it necessary to charge. The corporation will be solely concerned with the long-period side of our agricultural credit scheme. They will have nothing to do with the provision of short-term credits.
  Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Is there any maximum which one individual can borrow?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not see why any such maximum will be necessary, but that is a matter which will obviously be dealt with by the corporation, and I do not think that it is one which we need deal with at this stage.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about credit for improvements?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Credit for improvements will be dealt with by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and they will have the benefit of the public Acts which have been passed to deal with this side of the question. We have, at present, the advantage of the work done by the Land Improvement Company, but they are working under private Acts. It is proposed that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will have also a right to work under the public Acts which have been passed to deal with credit for land improvements, and they will be able to use the resources of cheap money which they will be able to raise for this purpose.
  Major PRICE: Has anything been decided as to the directorate of this corporation?
  Mr. GUINNESS: We clearly cannot say anything about that. The first stage will be for Parliament to accept the principle, and then the banks must come together and put up to us the articles of association for the corporation. We cannot expect them to come to any decision as to the directorate at this stage.
  Major PRICE: I did not mean the personality of the directorate, but whether the banks will have the entire control of the directorate.
  Mr. GUINNESS: It is proposed that the banks should have complete control. In the case of short term credits, there is no need for any new organisation to lend the necessary capital. It is a matter of altering the law so that agriculture may be in a position to mobilise its securities, and to borrow on its existing securities from the institutions and banks with which it now deals. At present, agriculture raises its short term capital partly from the banks, and partly from tradespeople. Banks are in the habit of financing the farmers partly by uncovered overdrafts, partly on the security of personal guarantors, and partly on the title-deeds of land and other assets, such as stocks and shares, and insurance policies. For the greater part, land is farmed by tenants, and they have no title-deeds which they can pledge, and many farmers find themselves limited in their security to their personal character, and to any life insurances, and so forth, which they can offer. Though the wealth of the agricultural industry in stock, in crops and in implements is very large, it is not now available as direct security to the banks for advances.
  It is naturally difficult in this matter to make an accurate comparison with foreign countries, but the figures which we have obtained seem to show that the volume of short term credit, employed by the farmers in this country, and raised from banks, is much less than in the case of other great agricultural communities. Mr. Enfield, in the most valuable report which he prepared on this subject and which was published in our "Economic Series," has given various statistics on this matter, with a warning that it is very difficult to give an accurate comparison. The most interesting figure shows that in 1922 the gross value of our stock and crops was
  266
  about £400,000,000 and the gross value of advances for trading purposes was just over £20,000,000, or only one-twentieth of these assets.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I take it that that is only bank advances?
  Mr. GUINNESS: That is what I meant. In the United States of America the comparable figure of the bank advances in 1920 was one-sixth of the value of stock and crops; that is three times as much in the United States, in proportion to their agricultural output, as was the case in this country. Of course, this figure is supplemented by trade credit —credit from merchants, auctioneers, and dealers. This credit is rather clumsy and unscientific in its character. It consists largely in leaving bills unpaid for long periods. It is far from my thoughts to criticise the helpful action of the merchants in allowing the farmers the benefit of all this credit. In the absence of a better system, these tradespeople have undoubtedly performed a great and valuable service, but agriculture deserves to be financed in a scientific and modern way, and, after all, this tradesmen's credit comes ultimately from the banks. If the merchant under the present system is compelled to run an overdraft for the farmer's benefit, it is obvious that the farmer must pay the cost of the overdraft in the price of the commodity which he buys, and it is most unsatisfactory that the farmer should not know the cost of the credit he enjoys, because without that knowledge he cannot accurately measure how much short-term credit can possibly be employed in his industry.
  We believe it is much better for the farmer to borrow direct from the bank. To do so, he must be enabled to borrow on the security of his stock-in-trade, to mobilise his credit on wealth in the making before it is fit for the market Part II of the Bill, therefore, enables farmers and agricultural co-operative societies to secure advances by creating an agricultural charge on their stock, crops, or other agricultural assets. We do not propose suddenly or violently to uproot the long-established system of tradesmen's credit. Therefore, we have been careful to include provision for protecting existing trading debts, with the object of preventing any danger of merchants feeling driven to secure their own position by pressing for payment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any official estimate at all as to what the extent of these tradesmen's debts is?
  Mr. GUINNESS: No. We have tried to get it, and it is quite impossible. The figures vary very much, and it is so difficult to say what are the normal lags in payment and what are inordinately long periods of credit that I am afraid that any figure which I could give would be very misleading. Our system, therefore, is merely an alternative to the present method, and we certainly do not suggest that there should be any compulsion on a farmer to go to the bank and make an agricultural charge if he prefers to carry on with the system to which he is accustomed.
  The proposals embodied in the Bill are the result of long negotiations. They have been considerably changed since I first discussed them more than two years ago, but in their final form they have been discussed with the banks, with the representatives of the various trading organisations, and with the farmers; and the National Farmers' Union write that they unhesitatingly say that, in their judgment, farmers ought to possess these facilities. Clause 5 defines what may be covered by a charge. The Bill does not prescribe the form of charge. That is left to be settled between the borrower and the bank. The remaining Clauses define the conditions of these proposed charges and lay down their legal relation to other liabilities. It is a matter of careful balance to avoid undue disturbance to the existing system and at the same time to furnish adequate security to the banks to enable them to take advantage of these new proposals. I am afraid that these Clauses raise some rather difficult legal points, and for that reason I have been fortunate enough to obtain the assistance of my learned friend the Attorney-General, who will be able to deal with these rather abstruse legal points. Under Clause 6 the farmer will be free to sell his property, subject to the charge, but he will be obliged to pay the proceeds of any sale into the bank in settlement of the debt, and if fraudulently he fails to do so, he will be liable to severe penalties. Clause 8 provides that the new charge will rank after rent, rates, and taxes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should not in his explanation skip Clause 7, which says:
  "An agricultural charge creating a floating charge shall have the like effect as if the charge had been created by a duly registered debenture issued by a company."
  I should like to know exactly how that is going to work and whether there is to be the safeguard, in the case of the operations under this Bill, that applies to debentures of a company under Section 212 of the Companies Act.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member knows that on certain events happening these charges become fixed charges. It may well be that this matter will need further definition on the Committee stage and further reference to other legislation, but I do not think that on Second Reading it would be satisfactory to the House that I should attempt to deal with these rather difficult legal questions. Under Clause 9 we propose that the memorandum of any charge in the prescribed form shall be registered at the Land Registry. It will be open to public inspection, but, the banks being the only lenders and the transactions being private as between them and their clients, we provide that the list must not be published in any newspapers. Clearly, if the farmer ran a risk of his indebtedness being publicly displayed, he would feel grave doubts about making use of the new system, and the agricultural charge would rapidly develop the stigma attaching to a bill of sale. Unlike a bill of sale, these charges do not affect the general public, nor do they affect the right of the farmer to sell, provided he pays in to the bank the money in reduction of the charge.
  All parties—bankers, merchants, and farmers—have agreed that these provisions with regard to publication are reasonable, and I would say that the National Farmers' Union attach the greatest importance to this precaution against undue publication and the fear of the farmer that he might be pilloried. Indeed, I think I should not be overstating the case in saying that if we did not have this provision, the National Farmers' Union would probably take the view that it would not be worth passing this Part of the Bill at all.
  Clause 12 makes provision against the danger, to which I have referred, that

  269
  creditors already existing might press for payment owing to the fear that the banks might forestall their security in the case of their clients failing. We propose that there should be three years' protection for such trade creditors to allow the merchants to adjust themselves to the new system before the banks can exercise their full powers. I think I ought to make clear the position of the banks. No part of this Bill has been asked for by the banks. The long and short term proposals alike have been initiated solely on the responsibility of the Government, but the banks throughout have taken a public-spirited view, more especially in connection with the first Part of the Bill, where those participating are placing the whole of their great organisations at the disposal of the Land Mortgage Corporation.
  I have now described, in broad outlines, the scheme, which we have based upon a careful and prolonged examination of the credit needs of the agricultural industry. It is intended to lay the foundation of an agricultural credit system on an adequate and up-to-date basis. It is not an emergency Measure being brought forward to relieve the present state of agricultural depression. This Bill does not touch, or profess to touch, the root causes of agricultural depression. It deals with an entirely different subject, and I want to make that clear, that we nowhere pretend that agricultural credits are going to be a remedy for agricultural depression; but, none the less, agricultural opinion, while recognising that credit cannot save a man who is already losing money, has unmistakably shown a conviction that the problem needs to be dealt with. Our critics outside the House and our friends inside the House have been equally impatient and active in pressing us to produce our scheme. This scheme is admittedly an experiment. Its further development and the amount of advantage which the farmers may take of it will depend upon factors which no one now can confidently forecast, but if, as I hope, it is successful in providing permanent machinery for long term credit and creating for that purpose a new channel by which savings can be made available to the agricultural industry through the medium of the money market, if we can enable the farmer to
  270
  mobilise his stock in trade and secure his much needed working capital, the passage of the Bill will be amply justified.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House, while sympathetic to all sound schemes for the encouragement of British agriculture, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, in its financial provisions, involves further subsidy from the taxpayers without ascertaining, in terms of ordinary Income Tax return, the precise economic position of agriculturists, establishes unnecessary machinery for dealing with the problem of credit, enforces conditions which many of the most necessitous applicants would not be able to fulfil, and otherwise is quite inadequate for the objects which are in view."
  5.0 p.m.
  I speak under rather difficult circumstances to-day because this Bill was published only a few days ago, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the details of it are so complicated and so technical, that it is a matter of extreme difficulty for any Member of the House, in the comparatively short time in which the terms of the Bill have been known, to form a really adequate judgment upon every part of it. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) would have been here to address the House on the Amendment which stands in his name and my own on the Order Paper, and to deal, perhaps more technically than I can do, with the financial provisions of the Bill. May I say, at the outset, that we are very much obliged for the very full and detailed statement which the Minister has made in introducing his Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill? His statement has made certain matters a little clearer. I think we might well say that his statement to the House makes it quite clear that he has had a rather difficult two years in this matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman said at the outset of his statement that the great banks met him from the very commencement with every desire to help him, but he indicated later on that the great bank presided over by such an eminent financial authority as the right hon. Mr. McKenna has not seen fit as yet to come

  271
  into this scheme at all. I think the protracted nature of the negotiations—as shall hope to show in some detail later on—with the bankers, have raised a very large number of difficult and technical questions, as well, perhaps, as some general questions of policy. In fact we are inclined to think, after looking at the Bill and after listening to the Minister, in spite of his eulogies of the banks, that it is quite possible that the future name of this Bill will be not the Agricultural Credits Bill, but the Bankers' Protection Bill, for it seems to me that it is pretty certain that, whoever else loses under its arrangements, it will not be the banks. The need for agricultural credit is admitted in every part of the House. There is no division of opinion in any party in the House as to the need for the provision of a really sound system of agricultural credits, and I entirely agree with the Minister that agricultural credits are needed in order that the industry may be put upon a firm basis, not merely to deal with the temporary depression, but in order that the whole organisation of the industry may be put in a sound position.
  So far as the party for which I am speaking are concerned, they have, in their agricultural policy, from the commencement advocated a sound system of agricultural credits but, so far as I have yet been able to examine the Bill, and in spite of the very earnest effort of the Minister this afternoon, I think that the structure of the Bill can hardly be said to achieve that object. First of all, I believe that the whole structure is far too complicated to ensure any sufficiently rapid and permanent improvement in the organisation of the industry. I believe that a simpler form of procedure could have been adopted. The next point I want to make is this: The Minister went to some pains to tell us that there was no question of subsidy in the scheme which is adumbrated in this Bill, but, as one listened carefully to the remainder of his speech, one could see all the time that a subsidy was actually to be made. Let hon. Members take, for example, the question of the administrative expenses. It is provided that £10,000 a year shall be spent for fen years. That is a direct subsidy of £100,000 during that period.
  272
  [Interruption.] I do nơt complain. The Bill makes it clear that the provision for the underwriting of debentures will cost the Treasury £62,500, and it is perfectly plain that if you are to put up what the Minister called reserves, but what will be equal to the subscribed capital of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation free of interest, then the State will contribute, during the period of 60 years referred to in the Bill, something like £2,000,000.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is very difficult to arrive at that figure of £2,000,C00. Certainly, if you take all the interest and pile it up, it will come to about £14,000,000, but that is not the proper basis on which to approach it. It is quite true that the banks will receive in one way and another nearly £1,000,000, but it is not reasonable to take any particular period and assume that the interest which would have accrued during that period is to be taken as the measure of Government assistance. I think we can only measure this matter by taking the actual money which goes out from the Exchequer.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am obliged for the attempted explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am taking the right hon. Gentleman on his own speech, because he endeavoured to show to the House that he would be able to cheapen the money rate to the borrower because of the provision of these reserves at interest free, and that, in meeting the needs of borrowers, the figure of £32,500 a year would mean a saving of one-quarter per cent. Obviously, that £32,500 is to be the cost to the Treasury of putting money up year after year, so that I do not think that I have over-estimated in saying that in 60 years the cost to the State would be £2,000,000.
  Mr. GUINNESS indicated dissent.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am taking the figures upon the Minister's own statement. So that from the point of view of the various contributions that are to be made, I think it would be very difficult for the Government to suggest; that there is nothing in the way of a subsidy in this Bill. In fact, it is quite plain that a considerable grant is to be made—
  Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I think we are differing only in regard to the use of a word. I would distinguish between subsidising the banks, which we are undoubtedly doing, and subsidising individuals, as we have often been asked to do. I do not think we would attempt to use State money to subsidise the individual borrower, but we would allow him to borrow at rates lower than the market offers to the banks.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That entirely agrees with my point of view, and with the statement that I made earlier, that the Bill will be known as "The Bankers' Protection Bill," because a subsidy is now admitted, although the subsidy is to be paid to the bank and not to the individual borrower. As I said before, it is plain that whoever else loses on this Bill, it will not be the banker, and I am glad to have confirmation of my point of view from the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member will recognise that though we hope the banks will not lose, they cannot gain. They cannot make more than 5 per cent. on the paid-up capital they put into the concern. The hon. Member is well aware that banks have investments which would bring them in a far higher yield than that of 5 per cent.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I think it would be very valuable for the banks to have one certain investment guaranteed to bring in 5 per cent. I have no doubt, of course, that the great banking institutions have investments which bring them in more than 5 per cent., but it is very useful to the operations of a bank to have a fairly large sum invested which is guaranteed to bring in 5 per cent., because of the aid of a Government subsidy. I do not want to pick a quarrel on the subsidy, but I want to know exactly how the Government stand. I remember the White Paper of the Government in regard to their agricultural policy. They said that a subsidy was impossible. I do not want to go into all the details, but they practically said, in their White Paper policy, that they could not consider a subsidy for one moment. I remember a Debate that was opened last December by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A.
  274
  Sinclair), and I remember the remarks that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when the right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about the subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, "I am not afraid of subsidies." Speaking personally, I confess that generally I have no love for subsidies. We on this side of the House would say, however, that we are not afraid of subsidies in certain conditions, and those conditions are that the subsidy, if given by the State, will secure adequate control on behalf of the public, and that it must be proved before it is given that it will secure the object for which it is voted, it is very largely upon that basis that we shall have to come to some judgment of the proposals that are indicated in this Bill.
  May I say that it appears to me, in regard to the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the report of Mir. Enfield upon agricultural credits, which he justly eulogised—that in considering that report the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have adopted in this Bill all the suggestions then made I It is true that in this Bill there is some small provision that agricultural co-operative societies shall be able to obtain advances on floating charge, but there is in the Bill really nothing of any substance which will help to develop what we regard as vital—really co-operative institutions in regard to the finance of the agricultural industry, although it is quite clear to me, from my reading of that report, that although very strong support was given in it to making rather more use of the joint stock banks than has been done in the past, the report also stated that there were very strong arguments to be adduced in favour of a proper co-operative development.
  I have another word of criticism which I shall go into in more detail later on. It is this: I think the proposals made in the Bill are not likely to afford assistance to that section of the agricultural industry which is most obviously in need of it. I seem to sense a fellow-feeling on that point from the hon. Member who, from behind the Minister, just now twice interrupted him. May I come to the first part of the Bill, which contains proposals to set up an Agricultural Mortgage Loan Company to deal with long-

  275
  term credits? I should like to have much further time to go into it, and I hope that, between now and the Committee stage, we shall have opportunities of giving more technical consideration to the matter than we have yet been able to do; but at first sight it appears to be a clumsy and complicated procedure to secure long-term credits. The first thing I would say is that the reply of the Minister just now to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) makes it clear that, although this considerable amount of State aid is to be given to the agricultural mortgage corporation, there is to be no representation at all of the State on the board of directors who will govern it. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has made that public statement today, before he has concluded his final negotiations with the banks on the articles of association and the general structure of the company. It certainly raises a question of cardinal importance to people who are voting public money, and there is no question about the fact of the voting of the money, because we are going to deal with the Money Resolution tonight.
  It seems to me a very serious point of criticism of this Bill that this money is to be voted, and that we are to have no actual public representation upon this board of directors. Although the Bill has been made public only a comparatively short time, I have heard a considerable amount of criticism of the proposal to make the debentures trustee securities. I can understand that if the Minister wants to see his scheme successful, he wants to attract the largest volume of subscriptions to the issue of these debentures, and to make the issue a trustee security, because of the Government's backing, will, no doubt, facilitate that course, but surely when we are considering these matters we must be fully seized of the effect of a step of this kind on the general credit of the country. The creation of a still further new class of trustee securities will have a considerable effect upon our public credit position when we go on to the market for the conversion of existing debt. It must not be forgotten that this is only one of a, series of Measures by the present Government which, in fact, continually increase the contingent lia-
  276
  bility of the State. We had the beet-sugar subsidy. I am not going to criticise it this afternoon, because it would be out of order to do so. I only want to deal with its effect. It is evident from the repeated visits which Ministers have had to make to the House in order to get new Votes, that when we voted that Measure, first of all, we were not really in the position of being able to estimate accurately what would be the contingent liability of the State.
  Take the question of the Budget proposals for dealing with the relief of industry. We are going to create a very large contingent liability, it seems to me, with regard to the relief of rates. I agree that in the case of agriculture it is only going to be in relation to one-fourth of the assessable value, but that is because we have already given the other three-fourths. There is still the increase in the contingent liability of the State. Now we propose, at any rate as a first step, a scheme under which another £5,000,000 of debentures are to be earmarked as trustee securities with the backing of a State guarantee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I agree that the guarantee is not directly behind the debentures, but you can only make them trustee securities because of the Government assistance.
  Mr. GUINNESS: No. May I make it clear. Their claim to be trustee securities is that they are on all fours with mortgages. Mortgages are trustee securities, provided they do not represent more than 66 per cent. of the value of the land, and there is no conflict in principle between accepting mortgages up to the same proportion of the value of the land, and accepting the new debentures with exactly the same security behind them. The Government guarantee does not enter into it in any shape or form.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a public scheme for a new issue of trustee securities. It is a scheme which you are placing before the public. There is to be an additional issue, on the general market, of trustee securities and the greater the issue of these trustee securities, the greater the difficulty we will have in regard to general conversion issues. I do not think I can put it more fairly than that. As to the particular point of long term credits, I should be

  277
  glad to hear from the Minister whether he thinks the banks hold the view that they will be able to work the scheme successfully, and that it will do the work which the Government claim it will do —that is relieve the people who are at present overpressed by burdens in respect of existing holdings, or assist the people who desire to become owner-occupiers in acquiring their holdings. I notice a comment in the "Times" City Notes of 8th May as follows:
  "Generally speaking, the banks do not think that the scheme will go very far towards solving the problem of the agriculturist though it should make it possible for the farmer to obtain long-term credits at more favourable rates of interest."
  What is the view expressed to the Minister by the banks? Apparently they have expressed the view, just stated to the City correspondent of the "Times." I hope I am not putting presumption too far, but I think these correspondents are, usually, fairly well informed, and apparently the bankers have expressed their view that the scheme will not go very far towards solving the problem.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I made it clear in my explanation of the Bill that we do not think it is going to solve the problem of agricultural depression, and I take it that that is what is meant by "the problem of the agriculturist." But, as the reference which the hon. Member has just read out says on the authority of the banks, we think it will help the farmer to get cheap long-term credits on a new basis, and reducible mortgages, which are not open to him at the present time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not know about cheap long-term credits. I should say, rather more favourable rates of interest.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Is not that cheap?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I should hesitate to describe the terms mentioned by the Minister as "cheap."
  Mr. GUINNESS: Well, cheaper.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: A little cheaper than they have been. Perhaps that description would meet the case. This correspondent refers to "the problem of the agriculturist," and I take it the problem is to get sufficient credit to put the industry on a firm basis. [HON.
  278
  MEMBERS: "Prices!"] I will deal with that point in a few moments. In my view a much more simple method would have been an adequate effort on the part of the Government to stimulate the formation of co-operative credit societies under State supervision, if desired, and with State assistance where such was found to be necessary. The Bill proposes, by means of grants, which are to be made to this mortgage loan company, to give what amounts to a very considerable subsidy. I submit that the Government do not appear to have given sufficient consideration to the conditions existing to-day. In view of the financial and industrial position generally, there is a danger of our public credit being prejudiced, to some extent, by the contingent liability to which. I have already referred.
  Nor does the Bill provide for any steps being taken to ascertain the actual financial position of the farmers who are to be granted assistance, and I should like to say something in detail on this point. There is no doubt about the depressed condition of agriculture and the very serious experience through which the majority—shall I say?—of our farmers are passing. But I still think a considerable number of farmers in the country are doing fairly well. Of course, much may depend on particular circumstances, such as proximity to a specially favourable market, like a seaside town or the character of the holding. The condition of farmers is also accounted for, sometimes, no doubt, by their original capital position, and their ability to deal directly with the banks for credit. But we have no real information as to how this scheme will work as between the two classes of farmers, the class which is quite well off, and the great majority who are not nearly as well off, if they are not actually in dire distress. We submit from this side that a scheme of this kind ought not to be advanced in such a form until we have come to the reform of the Income Tax assessment. The Royal Commission in 1920 after taking a considerable volume of evidence reported quite clearly and unmistakeably that the law should be amended so as to transfer the assessment of Income Tax of farmers from Schedule B to Schedule D. In 1920, however, all that was done as the result of that report

  279
  was to change the assessment so that, while keeping it under Schedule B,, it only altered the incidence from one-third of the annual rent to the basis of the whole of the year's rent. I ask hon. Members to read for themselves the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax on that point and to note how strong is the report in that direction. We ought not to be voting public money which can be used to help those who do not need it and yet will often not be available to those who most need it.
  Mr. MACLAREN: May I remind my hon. Friend that the idea of long term credits is to facilitate land purchase and not to assist agriculture directly '? I gather from what he says that he is giving the impression that we on this side are endorsing the process of facilitating the speedy transformation of the present farmer tenant into an owner of land, and I do not think we are.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: My hon. Friend will no doubt await the conclusion of my speech before making any comments upon it.
  Mr. MACLAREN: We have waited half an hour.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Reference was made just now to the question of prices in connection with the recovery of agriculture. We want to complain to the Government that in the introduction of a scheme of this kind there is, apparently, no effort to secure that better prices shall be obtained by the farmers. In other words, our point is that if you are going to introduce a widespread scheme of this kind you ought to introduce at the same time something which will facilitate the reorganisation of the production and marketing of agricultural produce, so that we can move more rapidly towards something like a stabilisation of prices. As long as the present chaotic conditions of marketing prevail, then you may have your credit scheme and you may advance large sums of money on long-term credits, either for existing holdings or to enable occupiers to buy holdings, but, with the violent fluctuations of price that take place, there will be no permanent remedy for the agricultural industry as such. We regret the lack of any concrete suggestion on that point to-day.
  280
  The Bill, in our judgment, does practically nothing to assist the people who are most urgently in need. They are the farmers who purchased their holdings during the period of enhanced prices which prevailed during the currency of the Corn Production Act. I want to explain how I think the Measure is likely to work, and why I am confirmed in my description of it as a Bankers' Protection Bill. If the Minister turns to Clause 2, Sub-section (3 b), he will observe that conditions are to be laid down for the regulation of loans. It seems to me that what will happen to the people who to-day are in the hands of the banks and who are the most hardly pressed people will be this. The banks will say to them, "Now we have a new scheme, and you already have a very large advance from us, based upon the purchase' price of your farm in 1919 or 1920. We think it necessary that we should have a re-valuation." I take, for example, a farm for which £6,000 was paid and against which the bank advanced £4,000. If we take present values, it may be said that a re-valuation now would not place the capital value of such a farm at more than £4,000.
  Then, in connection with any new proposal for a loan they would be bound under this Measure to advance only two-thirds of the new valuation. The Attorney-General seems to dissent from that view. Of course you may call this a mortgage corporation but, in fact, with these long term credits, it is acting very largely as a land bank. That bank will re-value the farm and will say, "We will only advance you, under the Act, two-thirds of the revaluation and in regard to the advance already made, there is a considerable balance of your loan unsecured."
  Mr. GUINNESS: What is to prevent them doing so at the present time?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I dare say they do not do so at the present time out of consideration and because there is not, at present, actual provision made in an Act of Parliament of the kind I am about to indicate. I would like the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this point. If there is a revaluation and a reduced amount is advanced under this Measure, on the new valuation the banker will say to the farmer "There is still a

  281
  large portion of your original account outstanding. Now we are going to ask you, under this Act, to secure that as a floating charge on other assets." Has the Minister considered that point?
  Mr. ROY WILSON: Is not the hon. Member confusing two things? The bank, in the first place, would be one of the joint stock banks which had given this advance of £4,000. The debtor of that bank need not go to this agricultural loan institution unless he likes and therefore it is not a question of the bank being asked for these advances.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: How can you avoid the fact that when this scheme comes into operation the banker will be in a position to say to the farmer, "You have an overdraft in this matter which we think now, on the new value of your land, is not fully secured. Therefore that overdraft has to be called in. There are now new facilities to be obtained from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Therefore go to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation." Then the overdraft is called in and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will not place the value on that land, which was placed upon it by the bank in 1919–1920. Of course not. That is not the present value and when the much smaller ratio has been advanced from the new corporation and the man goes to the bank to be financed for the rest of the credit he needs, they will say, "Oh, yes. We will finance you if you give us a charge on the rest of the assets, provided for in the second part of the Act." Anyone who thinks over the position must see that that is the kind of thing most likely to happen. The bankers themselves will be the first to say that they are not in the banking business because they are philanthropists, nor can anyone say that bankers to-day feel sure about all their outstanding commitments in connection with the farming industry or that they will not welcome an opportunity of putting themselves in a more secure position by the legislative facilities afforded in a Measure of this kind? In a case like that, the very person who is most in need of help, will in fact get no further facilities at all for credit. The effect of the Measure in most cases will be to dry up the credit that the farmer was already getting. Anybody who has given thought to the matter must see that that is a very great
  282
  danger. If it is not so, will the Minister tell us that there is a guarantee from the banks to the Government that that course will not be adopted?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Since the hon. Member asks me that question, I will say that at our conference with the banks, the merchants and the National Farmers.Union, I put it straight to the banks. I said that fears had been expressed by the merchants that the banks might use the agricultural charge, not to issue further credits but to secure existing credits which are now held to be insufficiently secured. I asked if that was in the minds of the bankers and the idea was ridiculed by the bankers. They said there was far too much competition among the banks for any such thing to be possible and that they certainly would not dream of administering this new power except for the purpose of giving more money to the farmer. It was the opinion of the banks in that conference that the agricultural charge would make available to the farmer a larger volume of credit than he now enjoys.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That does not give us any guarantee at all. I should have been much more satisfied if there had been a firm agreement, with an actual letter to the Minister, stating that they did not propose to take any such procedure as I have suggested. I cannot for a moment regard the reply of the Minister as being satisfactory. It is obvious that the first part of the Bill will operate in a very large degree, if it operates at all, in favour of the landlord who wants to effect capital improvements to land. We join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he made that the landlord and tenant system is the best possible system that could obtain in this country. He knows quite well that that is not our view. The condition of agriculture in this country to-day, although we agree that it is depressed in some other countries as well, is pretty bad in spite of the excellent arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman says exists for the conduct of the industry upon the landlord and tenant system. It is perfectly plain that when advances are made at favourable rates for land improvement, with the help of the Government, that the capital value of the land will increase, and if the landlord and tenant system is maintained there is no guarantee at all

  283
  that rents will not be raised against the farmers, and, on the other hand, it will also mean the raising of the capital value at a time when the landlord is going to sell. The Minister did not seem to shut that out of his mind altogether; because he said that if the farmers could not be assisted towards purchase they were always in danger of having the farms sold over their heads. We know that it has happened again and again in the past. If this Bill is used by the landlords as we anticipate it will be used they will be put in a favourable position; and if that be so, then the State ought to have some means of taking back to itself the improvement in the capital value of the land. There is, however, no provision for that being done.
  I would like to say a word about another Clause which I mentioned while the Minister was speaking, but about which he is unable to give me an answer. Clause 7 says:
  "An agricultural charge creating a floating charge shall have the like effect as if the charge had been created by a duly registered debenture issued by a company."
  I understand that the Attorney-General will reply later to points of this character, and I would like him to give his attention to Section 212 of the Companies Act, 1908, and let us know exactly whether it is intended that there shall be equal protection to creditors under this Bill as is afforded by the Companies Act. Section 212 says:
  "Where a company is being wound up, a floating charge on the undertaking or property of the company created within three months of the commencement of the winding up shall, unless it is proved that the company immediately after the creation of the charge was solvent, be invalid, except to the amount of any cash paid to the company at the time of or subsequently to the creation of, and in consideration for, the charge."
  It seems to me that under this Bill you are going to create a floating charge which will have the same effect as a debenture issued by a company; in the event of the person going into liquidation there is no protection at all to creditors, except those to whom the debenture has been secured. That is a point of serious criticism from the point of view of the existing creditors. Then I would like to say a word about Clause 12. The Minister attached some importance to it, and I have no doubt
  284
  the Clause has been a subject of considerable negotiation between himself and the merchants who supply the needs of the agricultural industry. Clause 12 practically gives priority to the existing trade creditors over the banks who are dealing with short term credits over a period of three years. I suggest this Clause is likely to make this part of the Bill largely inoperative. I am not at all sure that it will not be worse than that. I asked the Minister during his speech whether he could give me anything like an official estimate of the volume of credit outstanding in the agricultural industry from private traders. He gave us the figure of the bank advances as something like £20,000,000 or £25,000,000. I think the Enfield Report said something like £25,000,000 in 1926. The Enfield Report was issued in 1926, and since then we have had two bad harvests, and I should say that it is not unreasonable to estimate that the amount of credit outstanding in the agricultural industry, in addition to bank advances of £25,000,000, would be something approaching £100,000,000. What is likely to be the effect of this Bill if it becomes an Act? I suggest that the other people who are creditors of the farmers to the extent of this £100,000,000 will say, "There is an Act which is going to change the basis of the credit system. We are given three years in which to get the money. If we do not get it before the end of the three years, we are going to become only second claimants behind the banks who are given definite security." The merchants will then say, "We must press for the money now." Hundreds of farmers will be forced into liquidation. Those interested in agriculture ought to examine the Bill from that point of view. I should think it is a point of view which has not yet been considered by the Minister. It shows the strength of the case put by Mr. Enfield in his 1926 Report when he suggested that a period of severe depression was the least opportune time to introduce a new credit system. This Bill is not intended, as the Minister said, to cure depression; it is a move to set the industry on a proper basis. It is quite probable, in view of the bad harvests since 1926, and that the industry was already in a bad condition, the virtual statement to the merchants, "You have three years in which to get your money and no longer,

  285
  and after that you will have only a second preference to the bankers," will mean that there will be a wholesale closing in upon people in debt and a very large number of people forced into bankruptcy. From that point of view the Bill appears to be entirely unsatisfactory.
  The next point I want to make is that where other countries have been successful in organising a sound agricultural credit system it has been largely for the reasons stated in the Enfield Report. There has been adequate machinery for mobilising the productive wealth of the industry upon which the credit can be advanced. What effective steps have been taken in this country to have the productive wealth of the agricultural industry so mobilised that credit can be effectively issued upon it? Practically no progress has been made in that direction. During the term of the Labour Government in 1924 there was an Empire Co-operative Conference at Wembley. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), who was then Minister of Agriculture, was in the chair when a resolution was carried unanimously by representatives of the agricultural industry from all over the Empire stating that it was essential if these things were to be done that there must be a development of co-operation amongst farmers themselves. Since that date, the Horace Plunkett Foundation has been engaged upon research throughout the world, and it is perfectly plain to me, as a result of their researches, that we are the only great civilised country in the world in which substantial progress has not been made in agricultural co-operation. While every one of the countries referred to in their reports has made substantial progress, in this country, although there may be bright spots here and there, and I do not want to understate the case, I am not at all sure that in the last four years we have not gone back in the matter of agricultural co-operation. In my judgment the National Farmers' Union, which has apparently given the Minister its blessing upon this Bill, if it has not actively discouraged, has certainly not shown any very active sympathy towards the development of co-operation in agriculture.
  I have kept the House longer than I desired to do, but I wanted to say a word on that point and perhaps more will
  286
  have to be said on another occasion, because it is perfectly plain from the experience gathered by those who have been engaged in research that it would have been better for the Government to move along co-operative lines—with State assistance, if necessary, to give it a start —and to develop amongst agriculturists here the same spirit of co-operation and of effort which upon the Continent has made such an enormous success of the Rauffeisen Credit Banks of those countries. I believe, first, that time will prove that this Bill will not provide the increased credit which the Minister hopes it will. Secondly, I believe that it will not help those who are most in need of help, those who bought their farms at peak prices, and that it makes no provision for public control of money voted by this House. It is not likely to be of real assistance to those who want to become occupying owners. It is introduced in such a way that it may bring an immediate financial threat to those who are at present under the burden of private merchants' credit. Though we welcome any sound proposal for assisting agricultural credits in this country, we very much regret to say that we do not think this is the best kind of scheme or one worthy of the fullest support.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In moving the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister of Agriculture said he had been discussing this question with the banks for more than two years. That reminded me of the Speech from the Throne in 1926, when the Government suggested that credit facilities were under discussion and were likely to be provided at an early date. When I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of that during this year he rather deprecated the idea that this matter had been under discussion for so long.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, no. The hon. Member is mistaken. I perfectly well remember that this was one of the very first subjects I took up when I went to the Ministry, and I would remind the hon. Member that when the Speech was made from the Throne at the beginning of 1926 we had no means of foreseeing the trade stoppage, which was the definite ground on which the banks advised us that it would not be advisable in those' circumstances to go on with the

  287
  examination of the question or to anticipate an early introduction of the scheme.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the dispute of 1926 was as nought compared with the refusal of the banks in 1926 to take any part at all in this scheme?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The banks did not refuse. The banks had gone a long way towards agreeing, but we were advised by the banks during that stoppage that it was hopeless then to attempt to work out the basis for a permanent scheme of agricultural credits. They advised us that for a very long period after that stoppage the money market would be so disturbed that it would be launching the scheme with an impossible handicap to attempt to legislate under those conditions.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Which in no way deprives me of my point of view, that had it not been for the refusal of the banks, prior to the introduction of the King's Speech in 1926, credit facilities on the lines of this Bill would have been made available. My point is not that 1926 was less hopeful than 1925, or that 1928 is more appropriate than 1927, but that it has taken the right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues more than two years, and a gift of approximately £2,400,000, to persuade the banks even now to take part in this credit scheme. The right hon. Gentleman interposed when my hon. Friend the Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander) made the statement that this was a subsidy of approximately £2,000,000 to the agricultural industry. If he takes the bare rate of interest on the £750,000 at 5 per cent. for 60 years, without compound interest at all, plus 10,000 per annum for 10 years, plus E62,000 for underwriting, he will find that the actual subsidy, in terms of hard cash, is over 22,400,000. Whether it seems an extraordinary figure or not, there it is, and I do not think he will he able to refute it. Like my hon. Friend, I do not object to a subsidy in certain circumstances. What I am suggesting, however, is that slowly and surely, over a period of two years, the right hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by the banks to make such a financial contribution as would induce them to come into the scheme.
  288
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlord and tenant system in this country.was the best. How does he reconcile that statement with his persistent endeavour to increase the number of owner occupiers. If the landlord and tenant system is the best, why try to create more owner occupiers at the expense of the State? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He laid particular stress on the wonderful Report issued by Mr. Enfield. I agree that it is a remarkable document, and I would commend it to every Member of the House and to all those outside who are interested in agriculture. But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he and his Department have been so anxious to give effect to the recommendations of the Enfield Report of 1926 relating to credits, while at the same time refusing to consider the Enfield Report of 1925 relating to the marketing of agricultural produce and the stabilisation of prices, which alone could have made the Enfield Report of 1926 a real, practical, living possibility and a real support to the agricultural industry? He has welcomed the Report on credit facilities, but, apparently, has put into the background the Report upon stabilisation, which alone could make Part II of this Bill workable. On page 64 of that Report, Mr. Enfield states:
  "Credit can only play its part in the economy of the farm efficiently when its functions are fully recognised and when its uses are adequately measured. The problem of agricultural credit in its wider aspect cannot he solved by machinery alone; the machine will always need a high degree of skill in its use. Like other productive industries, agriculture requires not only a scientific but an economic technique."
  He also quotes Mr. J. A. Hobson on the question of the credit system in this or any other country:
  "The financial basis of the whole credit system is the estimate of earning capacity, the ability of the actual business apparatus to market goods at such a rate and at such a margin over cost as wilt enable a profit to be made."
  6.0 p.m.
  I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether before he introduced this Bill he paid any attention to the exposition of the subject of credits which I have just read. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that, with the present fluctuation in prices, and the speculative business in which farmers are engaged,

  289
  one out of every 50 farmers can guarantee that the ultimate price will provide the means to repay the interest on their credits and leave an actual profit? Mr. Enfield states definitely in his Report that the basis of all sound credit schemes must be that the producer or the farmer can so estimate the value of his produce, or the ultimate price, that the use of credit is going to be useful to him. I suggest that, desirable as new credit facilities may be, unless they are coupled with a definite co-ordinated marketing system where the ultimate price can be estimated, no farmer could, under Clause 2 of this Bill, feel safe in accepting the credit facilities determined under Part II of the Bill. We feel that the permanent agricultural problem and not a period of depression, is being dealt with in the wrong way. If the Government have £2,000,000 to spare to help agriculture to place itself on a scientific basis, they would do better by spending the money in organising a more perfect marketing scheme, and until that takes place I do not see how this credit scheme is going permanently to help the agricultural industry.
  With regard to the first part of the Bill, we do not think that huge financial subsidies should be granted to any industry without some guarantee to the nation either that such a procedure is warranted by the economic condition of the industry, or unless or until there is a definite guarantee that a proper marketing scheme is to be undertaken. The Labour party do not think that Part I of this Bill is going to have the effect desired by the Minister of Agriculture. First of all, the person most in need of credit facilities is at the present time so far involved with banks or merchants, or with both, that not a penny will be available to that individual under the terms of this Bill; and, as Mr. Enfield writes, the other section of the farming community can obtain terms with their banks or accommodation on terms equal to those offered under this Bill. The result will be that the only party to whom this Bill will prove advantageous will be the person who never gave the serious side of agriculture any consideration but wants to become an owner-occupier. This Bill is going to create an opportunity for certain persons to become owner-occupiers. I know the
  290
  Minister of Agriculture does not agree with that argument, and he contends that the landlord and tenant system is the best. From the point of view of credit facilities it seems to me that this Bill will fail in its purpose, and the persons most in need of assistance will not obtain any advantage from the Bill.
  I suggest that the Labour party policy, either with regard to credit, the ownership of land, or finance, would be superior to the scheme of this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture has often said that we have no recommendations to make. I know the right hon. Gentleman has behind him Mr. Enfield, and when one refers to the Labour party agricultural policy as affecting credits, we say there that the nation should make up its mind between long and short-term credits, and there should be a special loan fund administered by the Ministry of Agriculture through the county agricultural committees. Mr. Enfield argues against that policy on account of publicity, but Clause 10 would compel all agricultural charges under Part II to be registered, and that is valuable information for any person who cares to pay the price of examining it. The argument about publicity does not hold good. The county agricultural committee, which has some knowledge of agriculture and the applicants for credit facilities, would meet applicants fairly and sympathetically, and I am convinced that the experience gained would enable the Minister of Agriculture, working through the agricultural committees, to provide credit facilities for farmers without that publicity which has been referred to.
  We think that short and long term credit facilities could be supplied without the hybrid body which is to be established under the Bill. I do not think short term credit facilities ought to be used to bolster up the present obsolete system of farming and marketing. Those are principles by which we are prepared to stand. We feel that this Bill is one, of many which the Government have introduced, which is not likely to be of any permanent good to the agricultural industry. More credit is required in the agricultural industry, but the reason why that credit has not been forthcoming is that the farmers have no guarantee that their income is

  291
  going to provide means by which the interest on the credit can be paid. In the past the farmers have dealt with banks, merchants, dealers and so forth, and in this way they have involved themselves in an almost infinite variety of obligations. The difficulty of the Minister of Agriculture and the nation at this moment is to provide ways and means whereby the farmers can escape from the obligations into which they have entered over a long period of years. We want to divert the farmer from the merchant, the dealer and the auctioneer, but we do not want to drive him to some other authority equally vicious in his treatment of farmers.
  Probably the banks would be the best authority. I am convinced that if the merchant, who has got the farmer entirely in his power, gives him credit on the understanding that all the produce is to be sold hack to the merchant at the merchant's price and at such time as the merchant thinks fit—if we are not going to free the farmer from such individuals they will, as a result of Clause 12, take the earliest possible opportunity of demanding the £100,000,000, and the inevitable result to the farming community will be disastrous and will send thousands of farmers into the bankruptcy court. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would not like to see that occur. While we do not feel that this Bill is going to have the desired effect, we do feel that it will ultimately prove disastrous to the farmers unless it is greatly improved during the Committee stage. I feel that the principle of the Bill as a whole is bad. It gives a financial subsidy without guarantees to the nation, and that is a thing which on this side of the House we are not prepared to support. We do not think that the farmers who need credit facilities most will be able to obtain them under the terms of this Bill; and under Part II of the Bill we feel the danger of disaster is greater than hopes of any real benefit to the farmers.
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I should like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture upon two things. In the first place upon the two speeches which we have just heard attacking this Bill, because if they represent the most
  292
  damaging criticism against this Measure, the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in producing a Bill which will meet with general acceptance. Secondly, I should like to tell my right hon. Friend what I think is really a substantial achievement, and that is the ingenuity with which he has contrived to arrange a financial scheme whereby so relatively a small State contribution will have so large an effect upon the initiation of a new system of credit. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said he thought the principles underlying this Bill were wrong. I should like to say straightaway, as a farmer, that I think the principles of this Bill are right. No one thinks that a Bill of this kind, or any Bill which can be introduced dealing with agriculture is going to relieve the farmer of all his difficulties, or is going to put his balance sheet into a position in which it will show a profit. I am convinced that one of the advantages of agriculture in the past has been a system of long-term credits under which, so long as the annual or half-yearly instalments were duly paid, the farmer was under no risk in regard to his borrowing or of having his loan called in, or of having his rate of interest increased. That was a system under which the capital amount of the loan outstanding diminished year by year as provided for under this Bill.
  The second thing that was badly needed was relatively easy access to short-term credit—in other words, working capital—at rates of interest which the farmer understood. Let me take the long-term credit first. So far as regards long-term credit for purchasers, it is not a question of promoting a Measure like this to encourage the creation of occupying owners, or to promote the purchase by individual farmers of land which they have occupied as tenants; it is merely a matter of facilitating and cheapening the borrowing of money by a man who has bought, or must buy, and, giving him a better chance of getting over that transaction without financial difficulties than he has had in the past. At present, long-term credit is quite foreign to our English banking system. The banks have done a very great deal for agriculture, but it was quite outside their normal business to lend money repayable by gradual instalments over a long period. They never have done it; it

  293
  would upset their system; and it has, therefore, been necessary to form a new organisation. It is not the first organisation that Parliament has set up for that purpose. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, there are already two statutory companies doing this very thing in a small way, and I am going presently to say a word or two about the work of those companies, because it has a very distinct bearing upon the problem that is in front of the new corporation which will be set up under this Bill. Before I refer to that, I want to deal with a point which has been raised by both of the speakers from the opposite benches, who have suggested that this Bill, so far as long-term credit for improvements is concerned, is merely a device to help the landowner at the expense of the tenant. I cannot follow their argument, but—
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can refer to any statement of mine in which I said that the Bill was designed to help the landlord against the tenant.
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I owe the hon. Member an apology. It was the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) who said that, and one of his colleagues, I think, in an interruption suggested it. I must apologise to the hon. Member for the Don Valley. At any rate, it has been suggested twice from the benches opposite that this was a device to help the landlord. Let me tell the House what happens now under the Improvement of Lands Act. The common practice is for the tenant to come to his landlord and say that he wants some new buildings, or he wants a new cowshed to bring his buildings within the requirements of the Milk and Dairies Order, or he wants a Dutch barn, or a silo, or something of that kind, and he asks the landlord, will he put it up for him? The landlord says, "I am perfectly willing to put it up for you if I can borrow the money under the Improvement of Lands Act. I will provide the security by charging my property for the loan, and I will pay the increased Schedule 14 assessment to Income Tax, while you who will have the use of the improvement for which you ask, will pay the loan charge." That is being done every day scores of applications for such loans are passing through my hands in the Lands
  294
  improvement Company's office every week; and, although it is true that the tenant is paying the loan charge, it is not true to suggest that he is paying for the benefit of the landlord. The landlord, on the other hand, has charged his property in order to provide security for the erection of a new building or improvement which the tenant wants. That is working exceedingly well, and I very much welcome the inclusion of land improvements within this Bill, because anything that will tend to cheapen the rate at which money can be lent for these improvements will facilitate a system which I believe to be thoroughly useful and to have no serious drawbacks. As far as I can estimate, it should be possible, as a result of this Bill, for the rate of interest at which money can be loaned for improvements to be reduced by something like 10s. per cent. It may not, perhaps, be quite as much as that, but I hope and think that it will be as much as Ms. per cent., compared with the interest rate at which money is obtainable for this purpose to-day.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough gave an extraordinarily tangled account, or interpretation, of the effect of Part I of this Bill. So far as I can understand it, and I think my interpretation is correct, the Government are trying to ensure that this new corporation, which is being formed for this purpose of longterm agricultural credit, shall start off without the impediments with which a new corporation would be faced, and for which they would have to charge in the form of an extra rate of interest to their borrowers, if they had not their reserve fund and so on built up for them. The result of the Government underwriting the first block of £5,000,000 of debenture; or bonds to be issued will be, not that the corporation will itself get the benefit, but that it will get the whole amount of its first issue. If it issues, say, 5 per cent. bonds at par, it will get the whole £100 available for lending to the farmer. But for the Government's assistance, it would only get £97 or £97 10s., or something like that, out of the £100, and, in order to be able to redeem the bonds or debentures at maturity, 50 or 60 years hence, it would have to add slightly to the rates of interest, in order to build up a fund to cover the difference between the 97 per cent. which it receives in cash and

  295
  the 100 per cent. which is the face value, and, presumably, the figure at which redemption would take place.
  It is a great advantage to the borrower that his loan should not be saddled with that extra charge in order to make up the premium of 2 or 3 per cent. In the same way, the Government grant of £10,000 a year for 10 years should suffice to cover the unremunerative expenses of administration which are inevitable before a new organisation gets on to the most economical lines, and that, also, will avoid any necessity for putting an extra charge upon the borrower in order to cover what I might call the inevitable errors of a new administration. Exactly the same argument applies to the reserve. A new lending corporation would be bound to take steps to build up a reserve fund rapidly, and that would mean a quite substantial addition to the annual charge made for loans, in order to create that fund to provide against default. What the Government have done is to do away with the necessity of making that extra charge for a reserve fund, by themselves opening the reserve fund at the commencement of the undertaking. I think I have interpreted my right hon. Friend's intentions correctly, and I think that, by so doing, he has, as I said before, done more to start the new credit organisation on a sound basis than could have been done by any other use to which he could have put so relatively small a sum as it is proposed to provide.
  Now may I say a word or two about the short-term credit which is dealt with in Part II of the Bill? The hon. Member for Hillsborough was very critical of this part of the Bill, because he fears two things. One is that it will lead to the existing trade creditors of the farmer putting the screw on and producing a great deal of trouble and bankruptcy among farmer borrowers; and the second is that he thinks the banks will take advantage of this new form of charge in order to get additional cover for their overdrafts. Surely, both of those arguments lose sight of the existing position of the farmer with regard to trade credit. No one can form an opinion as to what is the aggregate of the debts of farmers to tradesmen. I very much doubt whether it amounts to the £100,000,000 suggested by the hon. Member for Hills-
  296
  borough, but, even if it does, that figure does not alarm me at all. Anyone who has studied the official Return of Agricultural Output, which was made, I think, about two years ago, will recollect that it was estimated there that the production of new wealth each year on our farms, in the shape of crops, flocks, herds and so on, amounts to a figure which is put at £200,000,000. To that must be added a certain amount of movable property which is not new wealth, such as machinery, vehicles, tools and things of that kind, all of which is chargeable under Part II of this Bill. Therefore, it appears that there is at least £200,000,000 worth of security available for loans of this kind.
  The loans from tradesmen, which take the form of extended credit, or leaving bills unpaid, as my right hon. Friend expressed it, are, surely, a very undesirable form of credit. The farmer very seldom knows what rate of interest he is paying, he has to tie up himself and his crops absolutely in the hands of the man from whom he has bought his manures, his seeds, or other requirements, and in any case the amount of credit that he gets from the tradesman is always limited to the value of the goods which that particular tradesman has supplied. In the production of that £200,000,000 of new wealth summer by summer, the seeds, manures and things of that kind, which the farmer buys from the tradesman, and for which he gets extended credit, form only a relatively small part of the expenditure in producing those crops, and so on. This new form of charge will, as I understand it, enable the farmer to get a credit which will not only cover the purchase of his manures and seeds and so on, but his expenditure on labour. It will mean that, as the new wealth and the new crops come into being, so will his borrowing capacity increase, which is what is desired. Anyone who has had any experience of practical farming knows how frequently it happens that a crop is spoilt or, at least, is much less satisfactory than it might be, merely because the farmer in the later stages of its growth runs short of money. We all know the occasion when the crop is backward, when an extra dressing of nitrate of soda or sulphate of ammonia will just get it going again, and when, in a wet summer, a few extra hands engaged in connection with the crop of

  297
  sugar beet will make all the difference between a first-class crop and an inferior one. Those are the times when the average farmer needs the extra short-term credit which he does not get now and cannot get now, but which, I hope, he will be able to obtain under this Bill.
  What I am not quite clear about is, whether the banks—in this case it is the banks and not the new corporation that is concerned—will find that they are able so to extend the aggregate of their lendings as to meet the increased payments which may come in for loans on this new class of security. I cannot see that their deposits are likely to increase materially owing to the operations of this new scheme, and, as far as I understand their banking methods, the amount of their loan will necessarily be limited and will have to bear some relation to the amount of the deposits they receive from their depositors. Thus the banks will be asked, no doubt, to increase the ratio above the figure to which they are accustomed now, and whether they will be able to face the position time alone will show. Perhaps my hon. Friend opposite will throw light upon it. Possibly it may lead to an inquiry as to whether the operations of the Bank Charter Act, as far as the limit of the issue of currency is concerned, may require some investigation and variation in view of the increased demands of the credit facilities which this Bill will, no doubt, induce.
  There are two other matters to which I want to call the attention of the House. Up to the present I have said that I think the Bill is a good one in principle, but I cannot let that go without one or two criticisms on minor points. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Don Valley said, that this Bill will fail to bring assistance in the form of credit to some of those farmers who need it most grievously. I am afraid that that is inevitable. At least it will be inevitable, unless the Government are able to pledge the State's credit to a very much larger extent than they can safely do under existing financial circumstances. What the farming community really need in the shape of long term credits is, that the advances should be for a far higher proportion of current value than the 66 per cent., which is the limit in this Bill. I quite realise and I accept the statement that such a thing is impossible, but
  298
  it will be a disappointment, no doubt, to many greatly interested in agriculture, and it will, for that reason, fail to help many of those who need our help most.
  There is one other point with regard to Part II—it may be said to be a Committee point—with which I hope the Attorney-General will deal. I would not trouble the House very much but for the fact that I know that he is going to answer legal points. Am I right in assuming that as Part II is drawn it will exclude the benefits of the short term credit system from farmers who operate in a partnership or who operate as a private company? There are very many farmers or groups of farmers who carry on their operations as private companies, and I hardly think that it can be the deliberate intention of the Minister to exclude them from the benefits of this Bill merely for that reason. I mention the point so that it may be dealt with now. I hope I may be wrong and, if so, that the Attorney-General will correct me.
  Lastly, I want to say a word about the relationship of the new corporation which this Bill will set up, with the existing statutory bodies to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred in his speech—the Lands Improvement Company and the Farmers' Land Purchase Company. These two bodies, one of considerable age and the other relatively new, were set up by special Act of Parliament to do the very work which this new corporation will do. I hope that use will be made of their organisations for carrying out the work of the new corporation, and that the Minister will make representations to that effect to the prospective board or committee of bankers who are to organise the corporation. My reasons for doing this are two-fold. In the first place, this making of loans repayable by annuity over a long term is quite a new thing to the banking community. It is rather a highly specialised form of business which, I think, cannot be picked up very rapidly or very readily, and to get that experience will be rather a costly and painful process. That applies whether one is talking of the mortgage or of the improvement side, and, particularly in regard to the improvement side.
  I think it would be a great mistake for the new corporation to lose the opportunity of utilising the existing organisa-

  299
  tion of these old statutory bodies and the experience they have gained. In the case of the Lands Improvement Company it is an experience extending over a period of 79 years. Further, these statutory companies have certain advantages—I do not want to exaggerate them; they are not very great advantages—but they have certain facilities and advantages under their private Acts which the public Acts do not give, and it is desirable, I think, that every advantage should be available for the new corporation so that they may lend under the very best auspices. My only other reason for calling attention to these bodies is that of avoiding hardship and injustice. These two bodies have been financed by public-spirited people who have invested money in taking up partly paid shares. These people have gone into these companies, not for the purpose of making large profits but in order to enable useful work to be done. These bodies are practically public utility companies. Without the assistance which the Government are giving to the new corporation they will not be able, in the future, to compete successfully with the operations carried on by the new corporation if there is no cooperation between them.
  What I mean is this: I said just now that I thought the new corporation would be able to lend for capital improvements at 10s. per cent. less than the Lands Improvement Company. The Lands Improvement Company has to get its money without the assistance of the Treasury, and it has to pay the whole cost of its own administration, and, of course, has to collect that payment from its borrowers. These two companies have considerable sums of money. The Lands Improvement Company has nearly £1,000,000 out on loan, and some of these loans extend over a considerable period. The longest loan will only be wound up in 59 years from this year. Therefore, these companies have to maintain their organisation for the purpose of collecting and passing on to the insurance companies, who provide them with their funds, the instalments during the whole of this period. If they have to do that without the capacity of doing any new business, it will simply mean that they will be carrying on at an inevitable loss a work which they cannot legally stop, and that loss will have to be met by call after call upon the uncalled liability
  300
  of the existing shareholders. That would be an obvious injustice, and I hope that, from whichever point of view it is regarded, whether from the point of view of the advantage to the new corporation or from the point of view of justice to the old companies, the Minister will represent to the new corporation the desirability of utilising the organisation of these two bodies, both of which have offered their services, because they exist to serve precisely the same purpose for which the new corporation is being called into being.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The House always listens to the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) with very great interest whenever he addresses it on agricultural subjects. I think we may bestow on him the highest praise that in a Debate of this kind the House can offer. We all, with one accord, know that he knows what he is talking about. He has given the most unqualified support to the scheme. I am afraid I cannot give unqualified support to it, but I can be friendly to it, for this reason, that I have examined it purely from the point of view of the farmer, and I cannot see that he can be worse off, and he may possibly be better off. That is rather lukewarm praise, but I hope to show it is not too lukewarm. Even if he is better off, it is in the interests not only of agriculture, but of the country as a whole that we should endeavour to tide him over extremely bad times, and leave him in the future a freer man than he is at present. In the first place, the long term part of the scheme, which is to provide for a 66 per cent. loan—that is 66 per cent. of the capital involved—is not going to give as much relief, I believe, to the farmers who bought their farms as many of us suppose.. The men who are really in difficulties, who are occupying owners, are those who bought in time of inflation. They are not singular in that respect. In all sorts of businesses men paid far too much for their property, for their works and their equipment during the years 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921. They are not in a peculiar position, but many of them are very gravely embarrassed, and some of them are the most enterprising farmers of the country, men who have really done a great deal for the development of agriculture not only on their farms, but in their counties.

  301
  If we can help these men, by all means let us do it, in so far as it is consonant with the public interest. But the 66 per cent. is not to be two-thirds of the price they originally paid. It can only be two-thirds of the present value of the farm, otherwise the security for the debentures would be diminished below its true market value, and there could not be economic flotation. As many of them are still sadly embarrassed, there will obviously be a large gap to be filled. I hope nothing that is provided for in the scheme will disable them from finding other accommodation. It may be a very difficult thing to do, but I trust the Minister and his financial advisers will be able to meet their case somehow or other, and at all events leave them no worse off in the future than they have been during the last year or two. The difficulties that can arise over these fluctuations of value are very well known to the hon. Member who has just spoken. He, in his own experience as chairman of the Lands Improvement Company, had to deal with a somewhat similar situation, and I can imagine no better adviser than the hon. Gentleman when the Ministry or the corporation come to actual grips with the problem with which they will be faced. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is going to provide through the corporation money at a really cheap rate? I do not know how he has made his calculations, but I cannot see much below 6 per cent. in what he has laid before the House, and 6 per cent. is a high rate of interest for an occupying owner who bought in bad times, and even those, perhaps, who have a gap left entirely uncovered and unprovided for. I am not quite sure that the farming community will be very grateful for a 6 per cent. advance. I appreciate the difficulty of seeking gratitude from them upon any terms, but I do not think 6 per cent. will prove attractive, and I trust there will be some means by which the advance will be much nearer 5 than 6.
  There is another consideration into which, I have no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has gone very fully. That is that the provision he is making through the Financial Resolution is, in fact, subsidising what, in truth, will be a statutory debt of a privately owned Corporation. I submit that when the State is paying a subsidy to any Corporation, no
  302
  matter what it is, it is entitled to representation on the management of the Corporation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be too antagonistic to the idea of providing for a representative of the State upon the Board of the new Corporation. I cannot imagine that those who are to provide the bulk of the money for the Corporation would resent such a nomination. After all, the banks have not gone into this scheme because it was evolved in their own board-room. The initiative has not come from the banks. Some of them have undertaken to play their part in the scheme somewhat reluctantly, and only because the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to their public spirit. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that this can be called a Banking Protection Bill. I think he a little overstated the provisions that are made against the possibility of loss by the banking investors. I am sure he has not forgotten that the banks are not investing the money of the directors themselves. They are investing the money of their depositors. They are in the position of trustees, and they are entitled to as full protection for the money they put into this experiment as they would get if they were putting it into trustee securities. It is as much incumbent upon the directors to look after the depositors' interest as it is upon us to look after the interests of our constituents.
  There is this subsidy, and there ought to be public representation on the Board of the Corporation, and I think you can count on the banks, in so far as it lies within their power, doing what they can to facilitate the smooth working of the scheme. But do not let us shut our eyes to the fact that it is going to be most difficult, and that it is quite possible that it will not be very popular. We can only make a trial of it. It is experimental, and I hope if the experiment does succeed, either the right hon. Gentleman or his successor at some early date will provide some further and better means by which the occupying owner can survive during times of serious depression. I have not the same objection to helping the occupying owner that is held by some hon. Members above the Gangway. I believe there is no land system better in

  303
  the world than that in which the farmer who is tilling the soil should also be the owner of the soil.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading when he stated that the landlord and tenant system was the best system in the country.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I was comparing that system with proposals for nationalisation. I say at once I think the system of occupying ownership is an admirable system as well.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think we need go very far in what we each believe will be the most admirable form of land tenure, but in the countries where the occupying farmer owns the soil he shows more inclination to put permanent value into the soil and to strive to get more out of the soil, and on the whole he is more successful, than in countries where you have more complicated tenure. We have to accept that what we have in this country is governed to a large extent by past history and tradition. We can improve on it from time to time. One direction in which there has been considerable improvement within the last generation has been in the large increase of those actually tilling the soil who now own the freehold.
  When one comes to the next portion of the Bill I am not sure that the farmer will be as well off in some conditions as he is at present. The financing of farmers nowadays is done primarily by their own banks, and in a secondary degree by their merchants, who supply them with seeds, or implement makers, who are prepared to take payment in instalments, and by others who give them credit. A considerable list, no doubt, has been in the note hooks of the farmers all over the country—seed merchants, feeding stuff merchants, merchants of chemical manures, potato merchants who sell potatoes for seed, and, very important in some parts of the country, cattle dealers who sell cattle for stocking or lean cattle for fattening, and accept their payment not all at once but generally over the whole season, and makers of engines, and last but by no
  304
  means least in these mechanical days, those who repair engines and machinery, and do not ask for their payments cash down immediately they have rendered service or supplied material but mostly receive payment in the last three months of the year. The hon. Member for Hillsborough thought the amount owing to the merchants might reach the large total of £100,000,000 a year. I do not know how he arrived at that figure. It may be right, but I suggest to him that there is a qualification to that estimate, and that is that during December, January and February the £100,000,000 is materially reduced. It may be a comparatively small sum and in ordinary seasons, with ordinary farmers, a great many of their debts disappear during the period when they are realising their stock and selling off some of their crops.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is probably true, but I also pointed out that since 1926 we have had two very bad harvests and as a consequence the merchants are in a much worse position than they were previously.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The farmers are in a worse position and I dare say, indirectly, the merchants are also. They have not such large security as they had before. As I said just now, we have to accept, in the farming custom of the country, traditions which have grown up, and relationships which have been built up as the result not only of the hardships of the time but the amount of personal knowledge in the country districts as between bankers, merchants, auctioneers and farmers. It is this personal knowledge which has been the very essence of credit in the agricultural areas. Do not let it be imagined for a moment that the banks have not been giving accommodation. They have been giving it to an enormous extent all over the country. It has been perhaps a little more difficult, under the new joint stock system and under the big amalgamations, for the local bank managers to keep in as close touch with personal customers as it was in the old days. If they are moved about too freely it is possible that they lose the enormous advantage of personal knowledge, but where that personal knowledge exists it is a far more valuable security than even a chattel mortgage. That is the

  305
  essence of banking business, especially in farming. If there is going to be anything which will tend to divert the farmer away from intimacy with the bank manager and with the auctioneer, if there is anything that is going to make either the auctioneer or the bank manager feel he is not having a full disclosure—if there is a full disclosure being made elsewhere but not to him—he will not have that personal confidence which is so essential for good banking in rural areas. The Bill provides, I know, for the registration of the chattel mortgage, and I am not at all sure it does not also provide that the only lenders who are to be entitled to the charge are to be the banks. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can let me know if that is so.
  Mr. GUINNESS: That is so. We are proposing to authorise the banks to create the charge in that way.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that is so, that places the banks in a preferential position over other creditors, and I am not altogether sure that is a justifiable step to take. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be amenable to reason on the point and I have no doubt representations will be made to him by those interested. I am far from wishing to see banks put to a disadvantage, but they ought to be put on exactly the same footing as other creditors, and not be given an advantage which is withheld from others. The scheme is imperfect, but it is the best we can get. It is certainly sadly needed. If we do not have this scheme we must have something better, but, while the present Government is in office I do not hope for anything better. If this scheme to to be set working, I hope that all those who have the cause of agriculture at heart and all those who will be asked to co-operate in working the scheme, such as the great banking institutions, will do all they can to give greater facilities to the farmer.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: I should like, at the outset, to congratulate the Minister on producing this Agricultural Credits Bill. I know something of the schemes with which he has been faced since the first announcement of the Government's intention was made, and I wish to pay my tribute to his capacity in introducing a Bill which, though it may not give the
  306
  farmer all he wants, will certainly, under some circumstances, be of real help to some sections of the farming community. As the Minister has explained, this Bill deals with two distinct classes of agricultural credit. The first section deals with long term credits, and the second section deals with short term credits protected by chattel mortgages. I propose to confine my observations exclusively to that section of the Bill which deals with long term credits. The Minister has explained to the House exactly what the Government's liability is in connection with this new agricultural institution which is to be formed. They are going to provide, over a period of three years, £750,000 towards a guarantee fund, and £100,000 over a period of 10 years towards the cost of the administration of the company, and they are going to underwrite the first £5,000,000 of debenture bonds.
  I would ask the Minister one or two questions, which seem to me to be very important, and as to which we who are interested in the farming industry will want to have information when this comes into operation. First of all, if this new agricultural institution is to be of any use at all, it must be in a position to make advances to farmers upon a reasonable rate of interest and upon such other terms as have been referred to this afternoon and which really must be of benefit to the farmer and must not impose a hardship upon the borrower. The first question I should like to ask the Minister to consider—I do not know if he can reply to it to-night, but I would like him to consider it when the scheme is gone into more in detail—is, what are the fees which are to be paid by the borrowers? If these fees are to be very high scale fees, if the borrower has to meet very heavy fees for valuation and registration, and he is a small man, that is going to add materially to the cost of his borrowing. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that we must really regard this scheme as one which—for the time being, at any rate—is applicable mainly to new borrowers.
  I am sorry to have to say it, but I do not think that, under this scheme, the man who is to-day and who has been for some time heavily in debt to his bank on mortgage in respect of his farm

  307
  land or property, will be able to obtain advantage under the scheme. But, that notwithstanding, I do want the scheme, when it is launched, if it is to be a permanent scheme, to be a thoroughly well thought out scheme in all its details, so that, if it does not meet with the immediate success that some of us hope will attend the flotation of this new company, it will, at any rate, be based on a sound and reasonable foundation, which the farming community can look forward to as a permanency and as a real advantage, if not now, at any rate, in the future, to their industry. I have spoken of valuation fees, and I am sure hon. Members who are acquainted with the valuation fees charged in country districts will confirm my opinion that these valuation fees can be very heavy and very onerous. In Egypt, for instance, where agricultural banking is a very important part of that great agricultural country's banking operations, valuation fees are paid on a very low scale—£1 per £1,000 of the value of the land, with a minimum sum of £4. In a, country like that, where charges are high, that works out at a very modest sum for valuation. The question of registration fees is also an important one.
  One of the most important things in connection with this new bank, if it is to function properly, is the question whether the borrower has the right to repay his loan before the expiration of the period of 60 years. I do want to press upon the Government to make full representations to the banks, who are going to form this agricultural institution, on this vastly important point because, if the borrower is to take a loan for a period of 60 years and he is to be bound during the whole of that period to pay the interest and sinking fund on his loan with no right to redeem, it is going to be not only a hardship on the borrower but, in my judgment, a perfectly impossible position to adopt. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture knows this, and that the banks in London, the "Big Five," who are going to undertake the formation of this company, know it too. In Egypt, when a borrower goes to these mortgage banks for these loans, he has a right to redeem at any time upon the forfeit of six months' interest on his loan.
  308
  Another important point is this: Some hon. Members on the Labour side have questioned the desirability of the Government contributing such a large sum of money as -£250,000 per annum towards what the Minister has described as a guarantee fund. I attach the greatest importance to a guarantee fund being built up by this new institution at the earliest possible moment, and for this reason: I hope that, when the scheme is launched, we shall find that there is to be some provision made by this new agricultural institution that a borrower, who has unfortunately made default with his interest, does not lose his property without notice, and is not put in the position of seeing his property foreclosed upon by the new institution at a moment's notice. If a procedure of that sort is adopted, it will not only be a great hardship upon the borrower, but will also be a grave reason for further depreciation of agricultural property and land in this country by reason of too rapid foreclosure in the case of default.
  It is for that reason that it is essential, in my judgment, that this new company should at the outset have a substantial reserve fund. This reserve fund should, among other risks, provide for a sum of money for all contingencies in the first few years of the bank's operation. I should like the bank, at any rate during the first few years of its existence, to arrange that where a borrower defaults, the bank will not at once foreclose upon his property, but will do what the agricultural banks in other countries do—give the borrower time, and in the meantime, under certain circumstances and conditions, if they are entirely satisfied with the security, nurse the property until such time as the borrower has had a reasonable chance to get back into a sound position or until such time as a purchaser at a real market value is found. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was saying a few minutes ago that it could be done within five days. That is not the position at all. That is the position in Part II of the Bill with regard to chattel mortgages, but not with regard to long term credits.
  For those reasons I attach the greatest possible importance to seeing that a reserve fund should be built up, and

  309
  that the borrowers should feel, in embarking on this new undertaking formed under Government auspices, that the new bank is going to move quietly and slowly until it finds its feet, and is going to move on a system of long term advances, akin to the system which has been proved and tried in a great country like Egypt, where the borrower can feel that he will have reasonable treatment and is perfectly safe in entering into this arrangement. I know something of the difficulties surrounding the formation of an institution of this sort and, notwithstanding the fact that we in this country—by which I mean the banking community in this country—know really very little about agricultural land, I feel quite satisfied in my own mind that it will succeed, if it is launched on sound, cautious lines, and if, during the beginning the rules and regulations laid down—and I hope that the Minister, as he is contributing a large sum of the taxpayers' money, will have a voice in this—will be such as will cause no hardship to borrowers, but will give them the very best consideration possible.
  The Minister has definitely said to-day that it is not the Government's intention to have a nominee on the Board of this new institution. I for one rather regret that statement. I am not sure that some other way might not be found for some form of Government supervision if the Government are not to have a nominee on the Board of the new institution. If the decision not to have a Government nominee is definite, I should like to think that, in some sort of way, the operations of that bank can be reviewed by the Minister or Department of Agriculture so as to satisfy the Minister that the bank is proceeding on the right lines, particularly in matters like foreclosure and valuation, so that no hardship shall be caused to those who undertake these operations.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: First of all, may I add my congratulations to the Government on bringing in this Bill and thereby fulfilling the last of their election pledges? The various associations connected with agriculture have had plenty of time to think about this Bill, and I know that the Central Landowners' Association has worked out its scheme. I would like to look at it from the point of view from which we
  310
  worked out our scheme. The first thing we thought about was that, if the credit scheme was to be of any use, it must not entail payment of more than the annual value of the man's holding. If you have a holding worth £1,000 bringing in £50 a year, you must be able to borrow money at a rate which is not more than £50 a year. I rather doubt whether this Bill meets that stipulation. The other thing that seems to us essential is that, if too large a part of the purchase price is asked for, many farmers whom we want to help would not be helped by this Bill. Having considered those two matters, we thought that neither of those two conditions would be fulfilled unless the State arranged a low rate of interest in some way or other with their Credits Bill or guaranteed to the bank the repayment of their loan. I understand that had that attitude been adopted, we should have been able to look forward, even if we had not been able to get a lower rate of interest, to being able to borrow up to 80 per cent., instead of only up to 66⅔ per cent. on our holding.
  I would impress upon the Government that this scheme will not be used by many of those who need it most. A constituent of mine told me a few weeks ago that when his landlord was selling his estate he was enabled through his own landlord to be able to purchase his holding at 4 per cent. The landlord again finds himself in trouble and he has called in that money. This man, one of the best farmers, is again put in the position of having to borrow money. He cannot afford to find £2,000 of the £6,000 required. He must borrow nearly the full amount, otherwise the place will be sold over his head. He is the type of person who needs help and one whom we should like to help. If the Minister cannot give better terms than 66⅔ per cent., the Bill will not fulfil the objects for which it is promoted. Before we knew what would be the memorandum and articles of the new company, we were doubtful whether we should be informed as to the rate of interest that was likely to be charged; but I am glad that we have been informed that the rate of interest is to be something under 6 per cent.—5¾ per cent., if possible. I hope the Government will be able to do something to reduce that amount. With the weight of the Government behind

  311
  the issue, I cannot see why the debenture holders who will take shares in the new company should not be satisfied with a less interest than 5 per cent.
  I would emphasise what has been said by other speakers as to the necessity of popularising this form of loan, especially at the beginning of the credit scheme. If the banks could be induced, perhaps by way of example, to take bonds in payment of their loans, in order to popularise the new credit scheme, it would he a very good thing. Although I am afraid that many people will be disappointed that they will not be able to make use of the scheme, I trust that it will be given a fair trial, that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that in Committee many improvements will be made which will make it a useful Measure for all those who require help.
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: I congratulate the Government upon bringing forward a Measure which has been a long-felt want in this country. As one who has continued to urge upon the Minister of Agriculture the necessity of bringing in a Measure of this kind, particularly including a provision for short-term credits, I am very glad to find that the Bill does include short-term credits for farmers. The hon. Member for Hillsbrough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, opposed the Measure very forcibly and very eloquently because the administration was to be in the hands of the bankers, I welcome it for that very reason, because I have great admiration for and confidence in the banking system of this country, which I consider to be second to none in the world. I would far sooner see the administration of any scheme of this kind in the hands of people who have proved themselves capable of administering a great organisation, rather than it should be in the hands of a Government, particularly in the hands of a Socialist Government, because if any party has proved itself incapable of understanding or showing any sympathy towards the agricultural industry, which this Bill is supposed to assist, it has been the Socialist party.
  During their tenure of office, which was, of course, a brief one, the Socialist Government provided no means what-
  312
  soever of alleviating the difficulties of the farming community, although they do take credit for having introduced a Measure which added very largely to the burdens which farmers have to bear. I refer to the Agricultural Wages Board. I grant them full credit for that Measure, but what they failed to do in bringing forward a Measure which lays down a minimum wage for farm labourers, was to provide means by which those wages were to be paid. In that they were only following the precedent set by the Liberal party who, in the Budget of 1909, increased the Death Duties to such an extent as to lead to the break up of the landlord and tenant system in this country, and provided no means for the tenant farmer to purchase his land. One would have thought that before introducing any Measure which, as was stated at the time, was intended to break up landlordism, the first thing they would have considered would have been some means of replacing that system. Means should have been provided for farmers to obtain credit in order to purchase their holdings. That provision was not made, and in many cases farmers were unable to purchase their land and landlords were unable to keep their estates together, with disastrous results to the tenants.
  This Bill does provide the means whereby farmers may obtain considerable relief, providing it is administered in the proper way. On this point I would emphasise the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), that if this is to be a scheme with considerable financial support from the Government behind it, the Government should have some representation on the administrative body. I hope that that suggestion will be considered by the Minister of Agriculture and that the taxpayers will have some representation on the governing body of the Mortgage Corporation. One hon. Member asked why farmers want credit at the present time? I am only dealing with short-term credits, and I have found many cases where farmers who were very urgently in need of credit were unable to obtain it under the present system. Over 80 per cent. of the holdings in this country to-day are in the hands of people farming 100 acres or under. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that loans

  313
  should be obtained on growing crops, on improvement of stock and on the purchase of new stock. That is a provision which is not made at the present time, with the exception of loans that farmers may obtain on occasion through dealers and other people. That is what I consider to be the reason why the short-term system of loans should be provided by this Bill.
  I hate to say anything against the dealers and merchants in this country; they have done a great deal for farmers in many cases by helping them, but in many instances that have been brought to my notice recently, farmers were entirely in the hands of dealers and were unable to make any profits whatsoever from their stock. It is well known that while the farmer is in the hands of his dealer, as far as loans are concerned, it is at the discretion of that dealer whether the farmer retains his stock until markets are favourable or whether the dealer presses him at an unfavourable time and insists upon him paying back his loans, with the result that he has to dispose of his stock at a time when there is no possible chance of making any profit from it. It is absolutely necessary that some provision should be made for those cases. Instances have been brought to my notice of small holding farmers who, on their existing production of milk and dairy produce, were unable to make sufficient profit on the turnover to carry on. They have pointed out to me that if they had a little more capital with which to increase their stock, and thereby increase their milk production, they would be able to make their holding pay. They have found difficulty in obtaining that credit because the banks would not advance money for the purchase of stock. I have urged upon the Minister that he should make some provision to meet cases of that kind and I am glad to see that in the second part of the Bill provision is made for loans for the improvement and purchase of stock. It is well known that in some cases farmers have stock which are not of sufficiently high grade to produce sufficient milk to make their dairies pay. It is necessary in these cases to weed out the existing stock and replace it with new stock. Therefore, a loan is necessary, and I hope that by this Bill those farmers will be able to get the necessary assistance.
  314
  There is a growing demand in this country for short-term loans. Although I do not hold out very much hope that this Bill will be of any great assistance to the long-term borrower, I do think that if the system is properly administered there will be a great opportunity for improving the lot of the smallholder and the small farmer. I should like to see the system extended to the cottage holder and to the smallest land holder in the country, in order that the greatest possible number may benefit and that the Bill may bring about an improvement in agricultural conditions generally. I should also like to see the system extended to co-operative farming. There is scope for a Measure of this kind to assist in co-operative farming, which has been neglected up to now. Farmers are, however, beginning to realise that they must co-operate if they are to compete with their competitors overseas. It is being brought home to them that, though the individual farmers may be efficient in this country—and I believe they are as efficient as individual farmers in any other part of the world—they are not competing with individual farmers in other parts of the world, but with combinations of farmers. Therefore, it is up to them to combine in the same way, and only by co-operation can they attain that end. Co-operation must have a lead from the Government, because farmers themselves, I am afraid, are rather suspicious of each other and very slow in taking the lead in supporting any cooperative societies. I have heard it expressed on many occasions that if the Government would only do something towards setting up co-operative dairies or co-operative boards of some kind, with some supervision, farmers would be willing to give it support. For these reasons I heartily welcome this Bill, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything possible to see it carried through at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that the agricultural community will welcome it.
  Mr. GILLETT: I do not think the Minister can be impressed by the support that the Bill has received in the House, although there has been a good deal of lip service rendered to it. I was amused at the halting support of the right bon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman); probably the shadow of a county constituency looming in the distance may

  315
  have induced him to look more kindly on the Measure than he would have done had he been remaining in an urban constituency. I should not be anxious to give support to a Measure if I could not say any more for it than he has said, because, after all, there is this to be borne in mind that the passing of this Measure may prevent a more satisfactory Measure taking its place. What is it that the Minister wants to do? I gather he wants to supply credit, long-term credit especially, to a greater extent than it can be obtained at the present time, and at a better rate. That is the problem which we have before us.
  The first question that comes up is, what body is to control the administration of this credit, when it has been obtained? I approach the question with some hesitation, because it engenders a certain amount of heat in some quarters. Would not the Minister have been wiser if he had kept control of the body, which is to administer this credit, entirely in his own hands? I do not want to raise the question of bank nationalisation, but I want to put this side of the question to the House. Every Member knows that there are certain things for which, automatically, we consider the State is better adapted than private enterprise. There are also certain things that are administered by the State, because nobody else cares to do it. One of the reasons the Minister comes here to-day is that, for some reason, private enterprise is not supplying this need, if private enterprise was providing the credit long enough and cheap enough, the Minister would have no problem before him. Therefore, virtually we are facing the fact that private enterprise does not consider it is worth while doing this.
  We get then to the point that the Minister is anxious to see that this credit is supplied. He goes to the banks. The position of the banks is this: the large banks do not want to have anything to do with long credit, because the banks do not want to lend their money on long term. They are only doing it to oblige the Minister. If he put up another institution to supply long term credit, the banks would not object, because they do not want to do it; they would only be too glad to be relieved of long term loans. By not having control himself, the Minister is going to lose any driving force that
  316
  he has got. If he kept it in his own hands, he would keep asking himself, "Is this credit getting into the right hands?" But he is putting it in the hands of a body of people who will lay down terms on a financial basis. If this scheme could have been done on business principles, the Minister would never have had to do it. He has to do something that is not going to be based on ordinary business principles, otherwise the bank, or some other business concern, would have satisfied these demands before.
  I have had some experience on a Committee dealing with co-operation and credit, and I have seen some of the weaknesses and difficulties of a credit scheme in co-operative societies; but still I wish this thing could have been done through a co-operative system somewhat on the lines that it is done in Germany. The Minister has a very good illustration in the Export Credits Department. The export credits are financing certain trade requirements, because no private concern will do it. No one calls that Socialism, and it is doing very useful work. I believe, if the Minister had said, "No one is doing this satisfactorily, and I am going to run a Land Bank," he would have been acting on the same principles as those on which the Export Credits Department is run. If it is too late to alter the lines on which the scheme should be run, I hope he will see that he himself is represented on the board of this corporation, in order that some driving force may be given to it. It is only fair that where you have money contributed by the Government, the Government should be represented. I come to the question of interest. I confess that when I heard the rate at which the Minister was going to advance a long loan, I very much doubted whether the scheme was going to do very much good. What is wanted are not only long loans, but cheaper loans than farmers can obtain now. The Minister has recognised that, because he is giving a subsidy. In that respect he has passed away from the ordinary business footing.
  A friend of mine, who has for a number of years been connected with the farming interest on the banking side, told me that what was wanted most of all in the county with which he was connected were loans of the amounts of £2,000 or £3,000 provided at as cheap a rate as possible.

  317
  The rate he mentioned was, not 6 per cent., but 4½ per cent. The Minister may say that that is impossible, but would it not have been better if the subsidy which he is providing could be used to cheapen the rate of money? That is really one of the things that hon. Members sitting behind him have said. In their support of the Bill they have qualified that support by a number of "buts," one after the other. If the Minister could not see his way to use the subsidy to reduce the rate of money, I suggest that he might have met the difficulty that was raised by the last speaker. He said that he wished that, instead of the proportion being the orthodox figure of two-thirds of the value of the land, loans might be advanced on a higher percentage than that. I put it to him that, if he does not care to use the subsidy for artifically reducing the rate of interest., could not it be used for artifically increasing the proportion to be advanced on loan? It seems to me that what the Minister is doing is that, having first of all said that something will have to be done by the Government, he has gone to the bankers for their advice, and the bankers have given him sound business advice. He recognises that the bankers are not able to do it, and yet he is now taking their advice in order to make the scheme a success.
  I cannot help feeling that when the new corporation comes into being, it will be found that the subsidy has not been definite enough for the scheme to be sufficiently novel to provide the needs of those who want it. Hon. Members opposite said that the very people they want to help are not to be helped. The only help that could be given would be by some kind of subsidy, but the Minister is not doing that. The Minister is trying to do two things, and is falling between the two of them. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the sum of about £20,000,000 as the amount advanced by bankers upon short terms. Although actually these are the correct figures, when you come to the practice of banking, really more money is being advanced. The banker knows that the farmer has certain stocks, and makes the advance without having technical cover. Therefore, we cannot actually judge how far the proposals of the Government, while they may increase the actual figure, will increase the amount of money lent by the banks to the farmers.
  318
  In conclusion, I cannot help feeling that there are many flaws in this scheme and that the Minister has not been nearly bold enough in his attempt to tackle this problem. I should like to know what is the actual position of the Government with regard to the new Corporation. Sup posing it fails, I take it that the bankers' money will be lost. The second point I should like to know is this: technically, I suppose the Government guarantee is not being given with respect to the money that this Corporation will raise. It is hoped that the Corporation will have such a high standing that it will get money at the rate at which the Government can borrow, but actually it will not have got the Government's guarantee. If this thing went fairly well and some £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 was finally floated on the terms suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and if the Corporation got into difficulties, does the Attorney-General think that this Government or any Government would dare to allow a corporation that had all this official backing to fail? It would be said that the Government had subsidised the Corporation and were, therefore, behind it, and the claim would be made on the Government to see that the Corporation was put upon its feet.
  It seems to me that we are in the unsatisfactory position of proposing a new Corporation with Government backing, and yet it is not actually being guaranteed, although in an emergency we might find that we were committed to support it. My own feeling is that the rate of interest is too high and that the terms are not bold enough, and I cannot help thinking that when the right hon. Gentleman tries to work this scheme he will find that it fails in helping the people whom he most wants to help. I think the success of the scheme is so doubtful that in a few years' time we shall see that the Government have accomplished hardly anything by these proposals.
  Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) made the observation that this Bill had been received with faint praise. I cannot agree with him. I think the criticism that has been levelled at it has been criticism of detail and has been such as to show that at heart there is a strong feeling that here at all events is a real effort being made to deal with a pressing problem in a practical way. I

  319
  do not propose to add either praise or criticism with regard to the positive provisions of the Bill. I rise, I am afraid, merely to express my very great regret at what is omitted from the Bill. I think it is a real misfortune and a very great mistake that this Bill should be confined only to England. It is clear that some day and somehow it is intended to have a similar machinery set up for Scotland. Indeed, it would be impossible that such an intention should not be in the mind of the Government, because I find, on refreshing my memory of the Government White Paper on the subject, that this paragraph comes at the close of that document:
  "The provision of long term credit is equally important to Scotland, where occupying owners are increasing."
  Therefore, it must be taken that the Government do intend to apply at least the long-term credit system to Scotland. I can quite understand that, with regard to Part II of the Bill, it might have been convenient to have a separate Bill for Scotland, in view of the difference of Scots law, but that argument has no weight with regard to Part I compared with the grave practical disadvantages which are obviously incurred by dealing with this matter in two divisions, one for England and one for Scotland.
  I make this point here and now for this reason, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading, correctly pointed out that the early years of the Corporation will be years of considerable administrative expenditure, and that was one of the reasons why a grant of £10,000 a year is given. Surely that argument is of immense importance and ought to prevail when it is a question of whether you are only going to have one Corporation for the whole country or separate Corporations for England and Scotland. Similarly, all of us who have watched the development of this policy with interest and with hope are very well aware that it has taken the Minister of Agriculture two years to persuade the English banks, if I may use a colloquial phrase, to get a move on. I shall be glad to hear if I am wrong, and I hope that if I am wrong it will be stated before the Debate closes, but, as I understand it, no effort at all of any sort or kind has been made by the Secretary of
  320
  State for Scotland to get in touch with the Scottish banks in this matter, and I think it is extremely likely that at. least the same period, a couple of years, will have to be spent before the Scottish banks will be prepared to follow in the wake of the English banks in this matter.
  I confess that in view of the sentence of the White Paper that I have read it seems to me a very great misfortune that Scotland should be kept probably two years behindhand in getting the advantages of a long credit scheme, which, as the White Paper said, is of great importance to that country. Further, I cannot see—and I have heard no arguments in private discussions on this matter—why the whole provision of long-term credit should not have been done by one Corporation covering the two countries. Everybody knows that the connection between several of the Scottish banks and the English banks is close, and in any case why should not the Bank of Scotland, for instance—which, I gather, has no opposite number in England or no amalgamation with any English bank —have been negotiated with at the same time as the English banks and been one of the participating banks in this scheme? I venture to say that this is a very grave piece of slackness and idleness on the part of those who are responsible for developing in Scotland a policy which is approved by the Unionist Government, and it is one of the examples which I very much regret for this reason in particular, that I do not believe you will readily be able to institute in Scotland a separate.Corporation such as is going to be instituted in England, and I very much doubt whether in Scotland a Corporation of the limited size that you must necessarily have will have anything like the same confidence on the part of the public as if there had been one large Corporation in which the important Scottish banks found their place as well as the English banks.
  I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to explain to those Scottish Members who have been, to the best of their ability, furthering the Government policy of long term credits for farmers, why, when at. last this long delayed birth takes place, Scotland has been entirely left out of a policy which I, for one, think will be a fruitful policy, and which, in the actual form in which it is put before this House, although there may be

  321
  ground for detailed criticisms, yet seems, particularly so far as the long term credits are concerned, to deal with the problem in a way that may very well be highly successful. That is all the more reason why an explanation is needed as to why this policy has been so rigorously confined to England, and why we who are Scottish Members, and who, I think, care not less than English agricultural Members for the welfare of the industry in which so many of our constituents are interested, are having no assistance in this matter.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I welcome this Bill very warmly, even though it probably does not go nearly as far as I should like it to go, but I value its introduction chiefly for one reason, a reason which was given very clearly and lucidly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture himself in introducing the Bill this afternoon. He said quite clearly that the scope of the Bill was not drawn wide enough to give to agriculture as a whole a loophole out of its very serious state of depression, but he did say that it provided hope for the future, in that the State was going to recognize by this Bill the fact that the operation of the cultivation of the land of this country has not been sufficiently recognized in the past as a channel for investment for the financial resources of our country. It is perfectly certain that in agriculture, the industry which above all industries has the slowest turnover, a free flow of credit is an essential if that industry is to prosper, and anything which can be done to stimulate the flow of credit to agriculture as an industry must be of very great value.
  I should like to say a few words about the long term credit part of the Bill. The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and, I think, other speakers in the Debate, have urged the representation of the Government on the Board of the Corporation that is to be set up. I will not express any view as to the wisdom or otherwise of such representation, but I would like to feel that there should be on the Board of this Corporation some representation of the agricultural industry..I feel that the presence on that Board of somebody representing the industry would add great force and weight to the Board's deliberations, and that such a repre-
  322
  sentative might act as a sort of liaison officer between those who were financing the scheme, on the one hand, and those who were the borrowers, on the other hand. Therefore, I suggest that there should be added to the representation of the Board of the Corporation, in addition to the nominees of the banks themselves, a representative of the farming community.
  8.0 p.m.
  The success of the long-term scheme will depend, I think, on several very clear points, most of which have been mentioned in the Debate. The financial cost must be kept as low as possible. The fees for registration must be kept low. In Clause 8, there is express provision made that the agricultural charges shall be exempt from Stamp Duty, and I should like that privilege to be extended to long-term credits. As regards mortgages which will come into force with the long-term credits, there should be no Stamp Duty, or, if it is necessary that there should be a Stamp Duty, it should be specially reduced to meet this case. The low rate to be charged for interest and sinking fund is a matter of vital importance. As it has been already alluded to by several hon. Members, I will say nothing further about it except that, in view of the fact that the corporation will have this capital sum behind it, which will form the reserve fund or the beginning of the reserve fund, and that the corporation has the assistance of the Government towards meeting its administrative expenses, it is not unreasonable to suggest that when the bonds are issued to the public they will take them up at something under 5 per cent., in which case it would be possible for the corporation to lend at something like 5½ per cent. to include the sinking fund. I hope that that is not too optimistic a view to take of the operation of the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) mentioned two other important points, namely, that the terms in the event of default should be reasonable, and that sales in the event of default should not take place immediately, but that there should be a reasonable lapse of time and power to redeem at the option of the borrower. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept in Committee an Amendment in

  323
  that sense. It does seem a hardship that the mortgagor who has found it necessary to borrow money to finance his operations of farming, if the wheel of fortune should turn, or if he has had a series of successful years, should not be able to reduce the capital charges against him. The last point which I would bring before the House has been mentioned several times, but it is almost the most important one in connection with the long-term part of the scheme. It concerns the limit to which the corporation may lend, that is to say, to two-thirds of the value of the land on which the mortgage is to be placed. I am aware that I shall be met with the argument that the Trustee Act, 1925, Section 8, clearly lays it down that trustees may not lend trust funds to a greater limit than two-thirds of the value of the land, and that they have to have that value certified by an independent and responsible valuer or surveyor. But that difficulty might very easily be overcome. If, in the ordinary way, it was possible for a trustee under the Act of 1925 and under previous Acts to invest the funds up to to that limit, surely it is not unreasonable to say that, under the special advantages attaching to mortgages issued by the corporation, it will be perfectly safe to permit the corporation to lend money up to a greater limit than two-thirds of the value of the land. The corporation is to be launched under Government auspices. It is true that the Government are not actually guaranteeing the bonds, but they are doing something more valuable: they are actually providing cash to form the nucleus of a sinking fund at once. That being so, it does seem reasonable to say that it would be safe for the corporation to advance to a higher limit than that of two-thirds of the value of the land.
  Land, in legal phraseology, is known as real property, and there is a deep significance in that expression. Land cannot run away: it is a tangible security; it is something which stands almost in a class by itself as compared with almost all other forms of security. There is this also in connection with land as a security that, in spite of recurrent periods of depression, almost invariably, in due course, the wheel comes round full cycle and the value of land is restored again to something like its former level.
  324
  It is only natural that land values should move in cycles, just as ordinary trade moves in cycles. Therefore, when we are setting up this machinery at a time of acute depression, when our land values are almost at their very lowest, surely that is an argument why it should be safe to permit the corporation to lend money to a higher level than two-thirds. I have no doubt there are hon. Members who have acted as trustees and who have had an opportunity of looking into the trust funds which come within their purview. If they will look into the funds of some trusts, perhaps family trusts, which were created, say, in the middle of last century, they will find that the trustees of that time very often divided trust funds in two, and placed one half in mortgages on land and the other half in trustee securities. They will find that there has been no greater loss in connection with the money advanced on land, in spite of the two terrible periods of depression during the last half century, than there has been in connection with the funds invested in ordinary trustee securities.
  The rise in the rate of interest during the last half century brought down even the most gilt-edged securities to one-third in value, whereas land has nearly always in due course managed to recover its value. Therefore, I put that forward as another argument why it is not unreasonable to think that it would be perfectly safe to permit a wider extension of advances than is allowed for in the Bill. I will not detain the House any further except to say, in connection with this Bill, that, although I think there will be a sense of disappointment in the minds of a not inconsiderable section of agriculturists throughout the country, I feel that all farmers, even though they are embarrassed—and unfortunately some of them are deeply embarrassed at this moment—will have to take the long view as they usually have to do. I feel that they will welcome the Bill, limited even as it is in scope, as giving a sign that a prospect is opening up in the future of what has been far too much lacking in the past, namely, a steady flow of capital into agriculture from the financial resources of the country.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I approach this Bill in the same spirit of candid, critical, perhaps even rather

  325
  frigid friendship which was shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). We on this side cannot initiate legislation and we are not responsible for its details. The Government bring it before the House, and we have to accept it or do our best to reject it. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said, some farmers may benefit from this Measure and none need find themselves in a worse position than they are at present; but I am not at all sure that some eventually will not find themselves in a worse position than they are in at present. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said, it is very difficult to form a judgment on this very intricate Measure, which involves so many intricate questions of finance and law, in such a very short time as we have had to consider it. The general impression which I gather from the Debate seems to be that this is regarded as a real, but not a very hopeful, effort to deal with a very difficult problem. Still, it is a real effort, and I think the Bill ought to go to a Committee to be examined there, and, possibly, as a result of our discussions it will emerge in a more hopeful and helpful form.
  My first criticism of it is that sufficient help is not given to the man who needs it most. Take the case of the occupying owner. It is particularly sought to assist him under the Bill. As has been shown, the first thing that will happen to him is that when he wants credit his assets will be revalued. At the present time he is borrowing from a bank. Probably he is known to the banker as a hard-working man who is doing his best, and the banker allows his loan to run on, but when he comes before this new Corporation, the banker will then be bound to act according to certain rules laid down by the Corporation. People may say that it will be the same bank manager, but it makes a great difference under whose authority that bank manager acts. I know instances of bank managers who gave very generous terms of credit to their clients, until one day the bank was absorbed into one of the great combinations, and immediately the bank manager was told that his new masters were not content to rely as implicitly as his old masters had been upon the will and knowledge of that local
  326
  bank manager. He was told he had to reduce his loans and draw in his horns, and this he had to do, to the embarrassment of a number of clients. The same kind of thing may well happen to occupying owners when they come before the bank managers asking for loans under this scheme. They will find their assets revalued, and they will be unable to obtain the credit which they need.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea—and the hon. Member speaks with the authority of a man who is prominent in the banking world and has practical experience of these problems—that the Bill does not hold out much prospect of helping the men who need it most, namely those who are at the present time in debt. The tenant farmer only gets an indirect benefit under this Bill, to the extent that his landlord is capable and willing of taking advantage of its terms. He cannot go to this new Corporation and obtain credit. Yet it is vital to agriculture that the progressive tenant farmer, with his knowledge of the requirements of his farm—his sole interest being the prosperity and progress of the industry—should be allowed access to this board and should be able to get long term credits to make the improvements which he wishes to make on his land. The Minister made a very striking speech in December last. I thought it was an excellent speech, and I thoroughly agreed with it, because it said, in far better language than I employed, the things which I have been saying for many months past. The right hon. Gentleman preached the lesson of adaptation. He said that what was needed now was adaptation to the new needs and to the new conditions in which the industry has to function. Who understands adaptation better than the farmers of the country who are up against these new conditions?
  The farmer is the man who wants to make improvements. Sometimes—I do not say always—the landlord is not anxious, but the farmer is always anxious to improve if he can get the money, the credit, the security, and the assurance of compensation for his improvements. He is always anxious to carry forward the industry upon which he depends for his livelihood; but he

  327
  will not, do it unless he can get security of tenure. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister does not intentionally misrepresent our views, but he does not seem to grasp the question of tenure. I, for my part, have never said that a reform of tenure is a panacea for all the ills of agriculture, but unless you have a reform of the system of tenure which will give the farmer security, and under which he will receive compensation for improvements, it is impossible for him to do his part, even if you provide him with credit—and you do not do so under this Bill. You cannot do so under this Bill, because you will not give him the security of tenure which is the foundation of an effective system of credit. If he cannot get that security it is impossible for him to play his part in carrying out that adaptation which, as the right hon. Gentleman sees, is vital to the progress of agriculture.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlord and tenant system was the best system of tenure in the world. I believe that, at its best, it is just about the best system in the world, and at its worst it is just about the worst. There are too many estates in the country where the tenants suffer from conditions in which it is impossible to carry out adaptation, or even to carry on the industry at the comparatively low standard which exists in many parts of the country. If the landlord and tenant system is always the best system, why place this emphasis upon the acquisition of land by the tenants? Why is it necessary to bring in a Credits Bill, one object of which is to facilitate the acquisition of land by the tenants? Is it not the case that this system is breaking down, and that the tenants are suffering from insecurity of tenure and are being affected by the purchases and sales of land which are going on all over the country. Is not that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to bring in a Bill to facilitate the acquisition of land by means of credits? There is a great deal to be said for occupying ownership but the real magic of ownership is not in the ownership of title deeds, but in the ownership of the produce of the soil, the produce which a man has grown on the holding which
  328
  he occupies. I spoke to a young smallholder some time ago and he said when he entered his holding one morning in the spring, saw the crop growing for the first time, he could hardly realise that it actually belonged to him.
  That is the real magic of ownership, the real pride in the things which a man himself has produced; and in order to have it, title deeds are not necessary. But it is necessary that the man should have security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman said that under a system of private enterprise—apparently meaning the present system—improvements could be carried out more cheaply and efficiently than under any other system. In another part of his speech, however, he said that many landlords could not face the burdens and obligations of ownership. That is true, but obviously the tenants on those estates are not in a position to acclaim private ownership as a system under which improvements can be made cheaply and efficiently. We have also to face the fact that very often the landlord who ought to take advantage of Part I of the Bill to carry out that adaptation mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in agriculture. Very often he has paid a high price for his estate, not because he is interested in agriculture but because he is interested in sport. Sport, however, can be carried on without interfering with agriculture. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) delighted and enthralled the House the other day with a speech on the Rabbits Bill. In that speech, speaking of some estates, he showed how sport could be carried on in such a way as to he no hindrance to agriculture, but he alluded to other estates where the reverse conditions obtain. I would refer hon. Members to a striking series of articles which have just begun in "The Nation and Athenaeum" showing how in one case, that of a large estate in the North country, some five or six large farms were being absolutely sacrificed to the interests of sport. Therefore I think the power of carrying out this great policy of adaptation—I appropriate the expression used by the Minister—should he entrusted to the tenant. Of course it should be free to the landlord, if he is interested in agriculture, to take the lead if he wishes.
  Major PRICE: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Bill?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am replying to a reference made by the Minister himself to the subject of tenure, which obviously lies at the root of this question. I am also dealing with Part I of the Bill and pointing out that its advantages should be available to the tenant as well as the owner. I am sorry if I am taking up too much time, but if I may say so the hon. and gallant Member has only prolonged the agony by his intervention. In order to take up what I said, I must repeat myself. The tenant farmer ought to be given, under Part I of the Bill, the opportunity of carrying out the policy of adaptation. Then there is the case of the farm servant, or the owner of a smallholding. The man who is admirably qualified, who has experience and a love of the soil but who lacks capital. It is vital that there should be made available for him commencing credits to enable him to enter on the cultivation of the soil. The Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation appointed by Mr. Sonar Law's Government in 1923 reported that that was one of the directions in which it was important to advance at the present time. In the country thousands of applicants are clamouring for land, and the Ministry of Agriculture has told us that there is an even greater latent demand which is not reflected in the actual figures of the number of applicants, It is important to them that they should have those commencing credits, and I hope that provision will be made for including them in the Bill.
  Then there is the case of the farmers wanting short term credits. I would press a little further the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) in the admirable and lucid speech which he gave us. His argument was that the banks are limited in the amount of facilities which they can extend under Part II, limited by the amount of their deposits. There is no reason to suppose that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, their deposits will be increased, and, therefore, the credit which they can give will be strictly limited. But the banks are the only people who are entitled to this new floating charge. Supposing a farmer has obtained a certain amount of credit under
  330
  this Bill and has given a floating charge. Where else can he get more credit in the future? At the present time he can get a certain amount—perhaps in undesirable ways; but, at any rate, there are fairly elastic methods of getting credit. He can get more when he wants more. Under this proposal, if he gets a fair sized loan from a bank and then wants more, and goes to the bank, the bank will say, "No. We are very sorry. Our facilities are extended to the limit and we cannot give you more." Where can he then get more credit? No one will lend him money so long as the bank has that floating charge upon his assets. Other points, such as the very high interest which the farmer will have to pay, 6 per cent., and the fact that he can only mortgage up to 66 per cent. of the value of his security, have been dealt with by previous speakers, and I will not take up time with them. But it seems to me that in respect of all those limitations to which I have referred, and of the cases particularly of the occupying owner, the improving tenant farmer, the farm servant, the man who is qualified for a small holding and desires commencing credits, and the farmer wanting short term credit, the position is not improved by this Bill.
  My second point of criticism is that there is in this Bill no sign of a really constructive policy on the question of credit I believe the only constructive and hopeful line of advance is along the line of cooperation. I would have liked to see provision made in this Bill for setting up in all parts of the country centres of co-operation under the guidance and direction of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and with, in the early stages, a measure of State assistance. I believe that if you did that now you would effect a great improvement. I do not want to go into the details of the proposals which we have made in another form—[Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants me to, I am quite prepared to do so.
  Major PRICE: I did not ask the hon. and gallant Member to do so. I did not open my mouth.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. It was another hon. and learned Member who tried to lead me on, but for the sake of the hon.

  331
  Member's feelings I will not respond to that invitation.
  Mr. SKELTON: I gave no invitation.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: If a policy of that kind were entered upon now, with a certain amount of State assistance in the early years, you would at the end of five or 10 years be able to kick away the prop of State assistance, and you would find that you would have in the marketing centres of the country valuable centres of co-operation and of credit.
  My last word will be in support of the protest made by the hon. Member for East Perth (Mr. Skelton) against the exclusion of Scotland from these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, in introducing this Measure, said: "The problem of credits does not solve itself and can and ought to be dealt with by Parliamentary action." As the hon. Member for Perth pointed out, Scotland is mentioned in the White Paper, but why is it not being dealt with by Parliamentary action at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman knows, or if he does not know I will tell him, that Members of his party are going up and down Scotland saying that a great credits Measure is going to be introduced to help Scottish farmers. In my constituency one of them said only a few weeks ago that the agricultural policy of the Government has now almost completely been put into effect. A shudder of incredulity ran over the audience, because nobody had noticed it. He went on to say that there was one coping stone to be affixed, and that was the credits scheme. Apparently he is deceived. Why is this credits scheme not ready. This question can be approached from two points. There is no conceivable reason why Part I should not apply to Scotland. It may or may not be good. I am a little doubtful, and I have given my reasons for being doubtful, but I think it ought to go to a Committee and be considered. But if the right hon. Gentleman, after having given months and years of consideration to this Bill, believes it to be so thoroughly sound and helpful to agriculture, why is Scotland denied it? As regards Part II, it is quite true that the law in Scotland is different, but why should not the same kind of consultations as the right hon. Gentleman has been carrying on with the Eng-
  332
  lish banks not have been carried on by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland with the Scottish banks, and why should he even now not be ready with the scheme under Part II? There is no possible reason for not applying Part I to Scotland, and I would like to know why a scheme under Part II is not ready. I can hardly believe the libellous statement of my hon. Friend the Member for East Perth when he tells me that there has been no consultation between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish banks. If so, the right hon. Gentleman has disgracefully neglected and flouted the interests of Scottish farmers. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that if those are the facts there has indeed been gross negligence and slackness on the part of the Government in dealing with the interests of Scottish agriculture.
  Mr. GUINNESS:I do not want the hon. and gallant Member to get excited about nothing. There is no intention of leaving out Scotland. But we had to begin somewhere, and negotiations were difficult enough as it was. If we had had to have three-cornered negotiations covering the entirely different Scottish position at the same time, we should never have got to a conclusion in time to introduce a Bill this session. If this Bill goes through, it is the intention of the Government to found a Bill on suitable terms for Scotland upon the experience of this Bill.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to know why the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here when we are dealing with the position of Scotland?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is in possession of the House.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman only makes the case more extraordinary, because apparently he admits that no effort has been made to carry on between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the banks the same negotiations as he has been carrying on in England. In spite of that Government speakers have been going up and down Scotland saying there was ready on the stocks a Bill for Scotland and that it was going to be drafted exactly the same as for England. There is no reason why these negotiations

  333
  should not have been conducted. There was no need for three-cornered negotiations. You could have had two sets of negotiations, one between the Minister of Agriculture here and the English banks, and another between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish banks. There is no reason why that procedure should not have been followed, and the interests of Scottish agriculture not been flouted by the refusal of the Government to deal with the case of Scotland at the same time as they were dealing with that of England. The people of Scotland have been deceived by Tory speakers, most of them, no doubt, acting with the very best intentions and according to the information with which they were supplied by their headquarters and their own Government. The Government are responsible for the deception. I am not blaming the actual speakers, but the people of Scotland have been grossly deceived. I have approached this Measure in a somewhat critical frame of mind, but I think it should be threshed out in Committee, and I hope it will emerge in a form which will benefit agriculture in this country, and if that be the case, I hope the Government will not delay in bringing forward a similar Measure for Scotland.
  Major PRICE: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) in the abridged statement of the Liberal Green Book. The whole of his speech might have been put into the last few words, which were in praise of the Bill and with the hope that it would be applied to Scotland.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Oh, no.
  Major PRICE: I think we may take it that his real grievance was that Scotland is not included in this Bill, which he thinks is a very excellent Bill, although in parts of his speech he attempted to disguise that view. One of his criticisms was that the Bill did not provide for all those people who want mortgages, especially those who bought their farms at exceedingly high prices. He thought they should receive special favour. I quite agree that they ought to receive special consideration, but no one who has considered the matter has ever disguised from himself the fact that it would be impossible for a Government
  334
  to lend money in excess of the present value of the farm. The Government could not take a few selected people and, at the expense of the rest of the community, get them out of a very bad bargain. In the shipping and other industries men have bought at high prices and have suffered by the decline in values.
  The whole object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to enable a particular fund to be created to which a farmer can apply for a mortgage which he can be quite certain is not going to be called in for a long period of years, and with all the recurrent expenses of mortgage fees, valuation, and the like. One welcomes the Bill, not as being everything that one could wish for, but as an insalment and an earnest of the Government's attempt to meet a very difficult situation. When we look at the Clauses of the Bill and see that a fund is to be set up whereby, through the organisation of a corporation, mortgages can he granted, we are all agreed that that is a very excellent way of doing it, because it enables all the advantages of private enterprise to get to work on this business.
  I think the Government should be represented upon the board of the Corporation. It is very essential that in the working of the Corporation there should be a good deal more decentralisation than we appear to be getting. The Minister said that instead of the farmer having to write to London, in future he would be able to go to his local bank manager. Unfortunately, the big joint stock banks are not in the habit of giving too much latitude to local bank managers. It is essential in carrying out a scheme of this kind that the person who is borrowing as well as the security should be considered, and there should not be merely a formal application sent to the board of the Corporation in London, and they should be the entire judges as to whether they will grant the loan upon this formal application. I wonder whether it would be possible to have working with the directors some local members who know the circumstances of the borrower, and who know whether the borrower could, from his own resources, provide the money which he is asking the Corporation to provide. I think that would be very helpful, and it would be a practical measure to carry out what is at the back of the whole scheme.

  335
  With regard to the two-thirds limit, I do not think enough consideration has been given to the fact that the mortgage is gradually being paid off on the annuity principle. Where you have an annuity mortgage, under the annuity system you invariably have a higher initial advance than under an ordinary mortgage system. The ordinary security is two-thirds of the value, but that does not provide for the repayment of the capital. It is a permanent mortgage for a permanent loan which the farmer hopes some day to be able to pay off. In this particular form of loan you have the permanent mortgage repayable by the annuity, and yet the main advance is to be only two-thirds. I do not quite follow the reason for that. It has been suggested that it is because it happens to be a trustee security, but it is the debenture that forms a trustee security. The mortgage is for the portion that secures the debentures, because in addition to the mortgage and a portion of the debenture security there are other assets. There is the whole of the capital of the company and the Government security fund, and that shows that, taking the capital of the company at 2750,000, and the Government guarantee at £750,000, you get £1,500,000. You have to add to that the £10,000 per annum for the first 10 years forming part of the security. To that you must add the whole of the security provided by the £7,500,000, and in that way you get very nearly £9,000,000 security for an advance of £5,000,000. If the Minister of Agriculture will carefully consider that point, I think he will see that it is possible, without in any way endangering the security of the debenture holders, to be a little more generous in his advances.
  Under the Smallholdings Act, which was recently passed, the smallholder is entitled to go to the county council and obtain an advance up to 90 per cent. of the value of his farm, providing it is a small holding under £100. I think the gap between 90 per cent. and 62⅔ per cent. of the value is too great, and I hope the Minister, when he considers this point later on, will be able to make the percentage 75 per cent., because that would still enable the security to be a real gilt-edged one, and the debenture holder will be perfectly safe. The Bill itself does not go very far, but, as far
  336
  as it goes, with the exception of the long-term credit, I quite approve of it. I think the Measure will be exceedingly helpful to the farmer. Undoubtedly it is difficult to-day for the farmer to find money at a low rate of interest on mortgage. There are many reasons for this state of things. The field of investment during the last 20 years has greatly increased, and the increased money earned in investments other than farming is considerable. At one time land was looked upon as a premier form of investment, but, owing to political activities, and the legislation which has been directed against anybody who owns land—the landlord has been treated almost as if he were a criminal—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is a criminal.
  Major PRICE: Hon. Members opposite blame us for the difficulties which they have created themselves. The difficulty now is to get these private mortgages because the cash is required in other and more profitable directions. I hope the Minister will be able to let us see the form of mortgage which he proposes, in order that we may see the terms upon which the borrower will be asked to go to the proposed company. We shall then be able to go through all the points which have been raised by speaker after speaker in this Debate. I hope provision will be made, so that after a period of 10 or 15 years the rate of interest may he reconsidered. I hope we shall be informed about the terms upon which the borrower can redeem. Another point I wish to put is in connection with the costs of the loan. I know that under the Agricultural Credits Act the costs went up enormously. I know cases that took 18 months to settle: lawyers had to be employed, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners had to be consulted, and all sorts of extremely difficult requisitions were put in. The result was much delay and expense, and I hope that will be avoided under this Bill. I trust that the valuers under this Measure will be the ordinary valuers and not Government valuers, who have to consider the whole district and not a particular locality.
  The other point to which I should like to call attention is with regard to the short-term credit. The Minister stated that he had great doubts whether farmers would utilise this part of the Bill at all

  337
  if there were publicity, and I would ask the Minister to give his attention to this point. Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 says:
  "The register kept and the memoranda filed under this Section shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any person on payment…of the prescribed fee, and any person inspecting the register or any such filed memorandum on payment…of the prescribed fee may make copies or extracts therefrom."
  That means that anybody can-inspect the register and make his extracts as long as he pays the fees. As regards the question of publication, Sub-section (1) of Clause 10 says:
  "It shall not be lawful to print for publication or publish any list of agricultural charges or of the names of farmers who have created agricultural changes";
  while Sub-section (4) says:
  "For the purpose of this Section, 'publication' means the issue of copies to the public, and 'publish' has a corresponding meaning."
  We all know that there are trade organisations which issue to their members the names of those who have registered bills of sale, and, so far as I can see, under this Bill as it stands at present, there is nothing whatever to stop any chamber of trade, or chamber of commerce, or any trade organisation whatever, from sending to its members a list containing the name of every person in their locality who has registered a charge; and anyone who has experience of country localities knows that, if one tradesman knows that a charge is registered against John Jones, the whole parish knows it next week or even next day. It seems to me that, if publication is to be avoided, there must be some different type of prevention of publication than is provided by the Bill itself.
  If a farmer has a charge with the bank under the terms of this Bill, I cannot see why the general public should be allowed to go and see that he has such a charge, or, rather, that anybody has got such a charge. I quite understand that it might be impossible to avoid a search being made in the name of a particular farmer, and that particular farmer's entry on the register being handed to the person making the search; but, under the Bill, anyone who wants to make a search has a roving commission over the whole register; he can see everyone who is registered, and not merely the particular
  338
  person in respect of whom he is going to search. If a farmer goes to a tradesman, and if he has registered one of these charges, the tradesman can ask his trade organisation to have a search made for the name of a particular man of a particular address; but, where anyone has a right to go into the registry and search the register, it seems to me that any question of privacy is done away with, and that the very thing that the Minister says would prevent the farmer from utilising this for his own benefit would be in operation.
  9.0 p.m.
  I know that the question of short-term credits is a very difficult one, and I do think, having regard to the fact that under the Bill the banks are to be the only people to grant short-term credits, and that under the Bill the only people who will be interested in operating the long-term credits are also the banks, that it is more essential than ever that a Government representative should be on the Board of the proposed Corporation. As I have said, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. I know that the whole path of agricultural credits is exceedingly thorny. The agriculturists, through their union, have asked for short-term credit, and I believe that they are satisfied that this method, subject to what I have said, is one of the best ways of granting it. Whether it would be possible to extend the right to obtain this charge to others than the banks is a matter which I expect will he explained to us later. If it can be extended to others, I hope it will be, because one does not wish the banks to have an entire monopoly of farming credits. I am exceedingly glad that the Bill has been brought in, and I hope that, before it has passed through all its stages in the two Houses, it will be made a really workable Measure and a benefit to agriculture.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture must be considerably gratified and encouraged by the general approval with which this Bill has been received by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). The right hon. Gentleman never referred to the wonderful Green Book of his Leader, but, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Caith-ness (Sir A. Sinclair) spoke, he took up a rather more hostile attitude. He said

  339
  that he gave the Bill candid, critical and frigid consideration. I think it is hardly to be wondered at that he, who is generally supposed to be the author of the new Tartan Book, should show that his thoughts were running more in that direction than in the direction of the policy of the Government. To-night we are considering a very interesting scheme, and one which I think is a necessary part of the policy of any Government which desires to help agriculture at the present time. Long term credits are almost necessary after the history and experience of the Corn Production Act and its abandonment. By the abandonment of that Measure, many farmers were put in a most unfair position. They bought their land at prices at which they were entitled to expect it to continue, according to the Government's guarantee, and, after the Government broke its word, I think it is only right that those men should now get some little protection in the shape of this Bill.
  Of course, we all want to see the rate of interest and the payment of sinking fund fixed at as low a rate as possible. If the Government issue these debentures at something like 5 per cent., and if the repayment of capital is spread over 50 years, and, accordingly, only comes to something like 5s. 5d. I feel that the total interest and sinking fund payment should not be much more than 5½ per cent. If that be so, we may, perhaps, find that this Measure will be largely taken advantage of, not only by men who bought their farms at high prices, but by others who may come in later as buyers. I think it would certainly be wise, not only that the Government should be represented on the directorate of this corporation, but that the agricultural interest also should be directly represented. We want to see this scheme meet with success, and, the more we keep the connecting link between the industry and the banking authorities, the more likely it will be that the Bill will work successfully. As regards Part II of the Bill, which deals with short term credit, that is a much more difficult problem. Traders and merchants, as has been said, have given, and are giving, an immense amount of credit to the farmers. As the banks can give credit only accord-
  340
  ing to the amount of their deposits a position may be created as a result of which the banks may not be able to help any more than these private traders have been doing. Therefore, I am not so hopeful about the beneficial results of Part II of the Bill as I am about Part I.
  As a Scottish Member, I regret that Part I of the Bill is not made applicable to the Northern Kingdom. We have seven banks in Scotland, and five of these banks act in conjunction with the five big English banks, and, therefore, from the banking point of view I can see no difficulty in the way of this Corporation acting in Scotland as well as in England. The Scottish farmers will certainly think that they have been badly treated if they are left out of this scheme. I only hope, after the general and, I think, unanimous expression of opinion of all the Scottish Members who have spoken, that the Government will look at Scotland in a sympathetic manner and take it into the scheme as far as Part I is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Caith-ness and Sutherland condemned the Bill in one sentence, but in the very next sentence he asked why it was not being given to us in Scotland. I think deeds are generally worth more than words, and when we see the hon. Baronet anxious to get the Bill for Scotland, we do not need to pay so very much attention to his criticism. With these few words I, as a Scottish Member, thank the Government for adding this coping-stone to their agricultural policy, and I only hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and that conjointly they will bring Scotland into the scheme as regards Part I of the Bill.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that the present Session of Parliament will, in one respect at least, go down to history as a most remarkable one. We have a Parliament controlled, I suppose, to the extent of three or four-fifths by the defenders of private enterprise, and during the whole of this Session we have had a constant stream of applicants from private enterprise seeking State assistance in order that they may be able to carry on their various industries. They have been of a most varied assortment. We have had the manufacturers of motor cars looking for tariffs, and getting them. We

  341
  have had the employers in the heavy industries seeking relief from rates, and being promised it. To-day we have agriculture seeking assistance again from the national purse to enable it to escape starvation and ruin. When a member of the working class has to seek relief from public funds, the first thing he is expected to do is to prove his poverty. He is put through a very keen inquisition to show that he is on the verge of destitution, and that it is in the national interest that he and his should have this public relief. On that principle I would have expected this evening that the first evidence in support of the Bill that would have been presented to this House would have been the necessitous condition of the applicants. As far as I am aware, and I have listened to most of the Debate—unfortunately I missed the opening remarks of the Minister of Agriculture—no attempt at all was made to prove that the farmers and those interested in agriculture, financially or otherwise, are in any greater poverty than the general public from whom assistance is sought. Indeed, I thought that agriculture in this country was doing very well under the Conservative Government. I have a clear recollection of a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of last year, in which he made the assuring announcement that agriculture had turned the corner; that agriculture was now on the threshold of prosperity.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I did not say so. I should be very much interested if the right hon. Gentleman can give me the reference of the speech I made last year containing these words.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very sorry that I cannot do so at the moment, and perhaps I should not have used it on that account.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Or is the right hon. Gentleman imagining the speech?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I will undertake to give the right hon. Gentleman the reference which he requests. As I said, we have had no evidence at all submitted that agriculture is in the ruinous condition in which it has been pictured this afternoon. We have evidence to the contrary. I have in my hand a pamphlet issued in April last by the Miners' Federation in South Wales. They quote certain figures which, they state, are taken from
  342
  the reports issued by the income Tax Commissioners. They give us some remarkable figures. For instance, they tell us that the profits of farmers, market gardeners, nurserymen, etc., under Schedule B, amounted to £17,500,000 in 1913, and to £49,000,000 in 1925–26. When you find the profits of an industry rising, even allowing for the difference of values, from £17,000,000 in the last year before the War to £49,000,000 in 1925–26, you are not, at any rate, struck with the impression that that industry is in the ruinous condition of, say, the mining industry. I think there is a remarkable feature about this application for aid which is before us to-day, and it ought to be emphasised. During the past 10 days we have had an announcement from the Government that they intend to abolish rates entirely on agriculture—that the remainder of the local rates is to be abolished under the scheme the Chancellor has submitted. So much for public assistance.
  We are asked to-day again to grant money free of interest and generally to give in various ways assistance from the public purse and the public credit to this same industry, but everyone knows the greatest burden on the farmer to-day is the rent he has to pay to the landlord, and while the public -have to listen to an incessant demand for assistance for the farmer out of their purse, we never hear one word raised from the other side about the farmer being relieved of the burden imposed on him by the landlord. I find in this report that during the same period as stated above the landowners have increased their share by over £80,000,000. Obviously the landlords are doing fairly well. We have no evidence that the farmers are in poverty. Of course, there will always be farmers in poverty. In a competitive system there are always, necessarily, people in poverty in every industry. But even compared with the figures of insolvency for a period of 23 years before the War, the average number of farmers who went into bankruptcy annually is less in 1926. But you must have farmers doing well. On the whole, you must have a condition of prosperity much greater than in pre-War times in view of these figures I have quoted.
  Coming to the Bill itself, I think we ought to have a statement from the

  343
  Minister as to the total amount of capital the farmers have in the agricultural industry. That is very important if you are to judge the probable results which will accrue from the addition to that capital that is being made by these credit proposals. Of course, the idea always behind the proposals of the parry opposite is that if you get a little more capital into the industry, somehow or other the industry will prosper. They always overlook the fact that agriculture is suffering to-day, not so much from the lack of the necessary capital, as from the fact that it is not able to receive a fair price for its produce from the industrial districts. The Liberals ought to be the very last to talk about the condition of agriculture. The Liberal party ruined agriculture during the 19th century. They wanted cheap labour for their big industries, and they got it from agricultural districts by pursuing a policy in the period of their political power that brought about the necessary poverty and drove the people to the industrial districts, where labour was required. And, for the great defenders of free competition to come forward and tell us that what agriculture needs is co-operation with State assistance, is the greatest political humbug that has been preached to the House during recent years.
  I notice that, one after another, speakers on the other side appealed to the Minister to see that there was a Government representative on this board that is to be set up. I wondered for a moment why all this anxiety for a Government representative. For the moment I thought that perhaps the Tories, like the Liberals, were about to change their view with regard to individualist or collectivist control and wanted the first step towards Socialism taken, that they were thinking of inserting the thin end of the wedge and gradually driving it home till you have that complete Government control which we on this side have so long advocated. But if you reflect for a moment you will see that what the party opposite seek in this Government representative on the board is not so much Socialism for the good of the nation, as just that little morsel of Socialism that will ensure the safety of
  344
  the money that is invested in this credit scheme. If you had one Government representative on the board, he would not do much harm. He would be controlled by the vast majority that represent private enterprise and private property. But the very fact of his being there would make the Government to some extent a guarantor, not merely to the extent stated in the Bill, but a guarantor for the whole operation of the Corporation, and if in the future, having put, say, £5,000,00, £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 into the agricultural industry, it was found, as is happening in some parts of Ireland, that the farmers could not pay and that there was a danger of the investment proving unprofitable, indeed proving a complete loss, the very small representation the Government has on that board would put on the Government a moral responsibility to see that the investors did not suffer.
  I said we ought to have had a statement as to how much capital there was in the farming industry at present I do not claim to have any first-hand knowledge of the subject, but I am reliably informed that the amount of the farmers' capital in England and Wales alone is not less than £400,000,000, and, remember, you have to add to that figure all the credits they are receiving at present from traders and banks. The scheme starts with a proposal to add £5,000,000 to the capital. Let us say they added £10,000,000, £20,000,000, £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. Is it to be seriously argued that where you have anything between £400,000,000 and £800,000,000 invested to-day, the addition of another £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, even if it is money the interest on which is guaranteed by the Government, is going to make the industry prosperous? There is really nothing in this scheme for the farmers themselves. Not only this House is being humbugged, but the farmers are being humbugged. If you wanted to relieve the farmer you would come out boldly and say the land that cannot maintain its cultivators and pay rent at the same time should be relieved of the obligation of rent.
  That should be the first test. The first claim on the agriculture of this country should be the labour put into the cultivation of the land. The farmer ought to get a decent return for his labour, and the agricultural labourer should have a

  345
  decent standard of living. That should be guaranteed—and guaranteed by the Government—to these workers as a first charge on land, and only after that and similar legitimate charges have been met should the claim of the landlord be considered at all. All these efforts either to delude the people or to use State money to bolster up an arrangement which is crumbling to the ground in every direction, are bound to end in failure and, willy nilly, the farmers and agriculturists.of this country will be driven to side with those who want to emancipate the industry from the grievous burdens which it is bearing to-day, the burden of the landlord's rents.
  Sir ROBERT THOMAS: My main object in rising is to correct a mistake made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) in regard to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who unfortunately is not able to be here to-day. The hon. Gentleman's statement, I am sure, was made without the necessary investigation, which very frequently happens in regard to statements made by my hon. Friends above the Gangway on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Wheatley) is one of those wealthy Socialists who believes that interest should be obtained from certain industries, but that the landlord should not get any interest. In my part of the country—[An HON. MEMBER: "What does he do?"] If the hon. Member who interrupts knew as much about agriculture in Wales as I do, he would agree that the landlord is one of the poorest members of the community. We are a land of what I might call smallholders. In Wales we have 40,000 farms of under 50 acres, so that we are a nation of smallholders, and the owners of these farms are men who really do not get a bank interest on their money. I know scores who are not making any more than 3 per cent. per annum. That was the reason for the anxiety of so many landlords to clear out during the War, when the price of land, like the price of everything else, went up, and that is one of the reasons why farmers are in distress to-day. They bought their holding because it happened to be their home. They paid, unfortunately, uneconomic prices for their farms, and they got the
  346
  money mostly from the banks at the value obtaining at that time, and to-day they are paying an inflated interest, most of them double the rate which they paid in pre-War times.
  I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. I am going to give my blessing, for I thoroughly approve of the Measure which he has brought forward. I do so because of the dire necessity of many of the farmers in my country. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. I do not quibble so much about the interest, because farmers are already paying 6 per cent., and I do not think many of them could get it at very much less. Under this scheme, will the farmers be able to get loans at the values at which they bought the farms If they do not, they will be placed in a very serious position. If they are to borrow money only at the present values, it will be much lower than the price at which they bought their farms and the money which they borrowed from the banks. Therefore, these smallholders will find a serious gap between what they paid for their holdings and the money they are able to borrow to-day. I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
  In regard to the second part of the Bill, undoubtedly anything that can be done to place the farmers in an independent position is welcome. To-day, under the vicious system they are forced to adopt, of borrowing money from middlemen, they are in a position of dependence which is almost intolerable. They are almost told at what price they may sell their produce. The producer, not merely in agriculture but in all branches of industry, to-day is the one who is suffering. It is the middleman who is making the profit. It is the same in agriculture, and I should welcome this Measure if it were for no other reason than that of placing the farmer in a position of independence and of getting money from some other source than the person to whom he is bound to sell his produce. Having said that much, I should like to deal with the point which brought me to my feet, which was the statement made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. This is what he said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated in a Debate initiated by the Liberal party that he did not object to subsidies."

  347
  That is a very serious statement to make and I am sure the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will withdraw it, particularly when I read to him actually what my right hon. Friend did say. The hon. Gentleman did not indicate the occasion of the statement, except in a vague way, but I assume he was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Consolidated Fund Bill in December last. It arose apparently in this way: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture put this question to my right hon. Friend:
  "Do I understand that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is in favour of direct assistance by means of subsidy?"
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "The right hon. Gentleman asks me that question now, but I intend to speak later in the Debate. He asks me whether I am in favour of State assistance of agriculture. I certainly am…"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 20th December, 1927; col. 311, Vol. 212.]
  Then my right hon. Friend made a speech a little later on in the Debate, and from what he said the House will see that it certainly does not mean he believes in subsidies:
  "One of the greatest farmers in the county of Essex said to me the other day, 'When you come to deal with marketing it is no use leaving it to the farmers themselves. It is not that they are incompetent. It is purely because it is very difficult to organise the farmers of the country for a purpose of that kind.' Everybody knows it. In Denmark the Government took the organisation of marketing into its own hands very largely and promoted it. It is a question of transport; it is a question of collection; it is a question of improving the roads and of expending money. You must spend money to start it. I said so in reply to an interruption of the hon. Gentleman. I never though that you can extricate agriculture from its present position unless the Government are prepared in the first instance to spend a considerable sum of money in order make up the deficiencies of the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1927; col. 352, Vol. 212.]
  The hon. Gentleman will see at once, from this statement, that my right hon. Friend did not state that he believed in subsidies. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do my right hon. Friend the justice of withdrawing that imputation. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very sincere effort he has made to help the farming community. There can be no doubt from the eloquent speeches of the
  348
  right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and the hon. and gallant Member for Caithless (Sir A. Sinclair) that the situation is very serious both in England and Scotland, and I can assure the House from my personal knowledge of agricultural conditions in Wales that it is equally serious there. Therefore, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this effort, although it does not go as far as some of us would like.
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander), in moving the Amendment, expressed some difficulty in understanding the provisions of the Bill, owing to its late appearance. Perhaps that difficulty in understanding the provisions of the Bill accounts for the rather turgid character of the Amendment which he has proposed for its rejection, combining, as I shall try to show, several perfectly inconsistent reasons for taking that course. I suggest to the hon. Member and to every hon. Member who has found difficulty in understanding the provisions of the Bill that a very little study of it will show it to be singularly simple and free from complications in comparison, at any rate, with many of the Measures which the House has to consider from time to time. The first part of the Bill is, I think, understood by everybody criticisms have been made upon its particular provisions, but the main purpose of Part I and the way in which the purpose is to be effected are perfectly intelligible to everybody.
  The plan which the Government have deliberately adopted is that the capital which is necessary for providing the long-term credits, with which Part I of the Bill deals, should be provided by the banks and by the Government in the first instance, in partnership, and that the rest of the money should be provided by debentures, which are to be subscribed by the investing public. The Government think that by that expedient they will introduce to the investing public a new form of security which will attract the savings of the nation as they have never yet been attracted into the agricultural industry.
  The first criticism with which I wish to deal relates to the part which the Government plays in providing £650,000 or £750,000. The criticism which the hon.

  349
  Member for Hillsborough made, and it was repeated by the right hon. Member for West Swansea, was that it was desirable or, indeed, essential, that if the Government are to provide some of the money the Government should be represented upon the management of the Corporation. That is a perfectly fair and reasonable criticism. It is a criticism which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had, even considered before it was made in Debate. I do not think I am going too far when I say that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind to the suggestion, but at the same time I am bound to say that our present impression, and I believe my right hon. Friend's present impression, is that the control which it is suggested can be obtained by Government representation on the Board of this Corporation, is capable of being obtained by much more satisfactory methods, that such control is not of a very satisfactory character in so far as it could only be exercised by one member of the Board representing the Government, and that the provision in Clause 2 of the Bill by which the Government have to approve the Articles of Association in all their details, Articles which can only be altered with the consent of the Government, is much more satisfactory and complete than any control to be obtained by the representation of the Government on the Board by an individual member. That method of Government control would have this disadvantage, that it would begin to approach the system of State banks which, at any rate, we are not prepared to contemplate.
  A criticism, which is one of substance, has been made as to the amount and character of the advances which are proposed to be made by the Corporation under Part I of the Bill. Nothing is easier than to say that while it will be of use to the industry that 66 2/3rds should be advanced but that it would be much more useful and attractive that 75 per cent. or even 100 per cent. should be advanced; but the Bill is ambitious enough to claim to be a business proposition. It is a feature of this scheme that a new type of agricultural security should be brought into existence, and I should like to ask any hon. Member to consider for a moment what would be the chance of obtaining public subscriptions to these new securities and what would
  350
  be the chance of maintaining these debentures at a proper figure in the money market if the security for them were mortgages up to 100 per cent. of the value of the farms. The right hon. Member for West Swansea and one or two hon. Members opposite who raised this suggestion cannot have contemplated the result of their proposal.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS MORGAN: Hon. Members behind you also made it.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If any hon. Members behind me made the suggestion it would be met with equal disfavour. Contemplate the result of a suggestion that 100 per cent. of the value of farms based, moreover, upon the value at a time when farms were more valuable than they are to-day, should be advanced. It would lead to a disaster in this enterprise which would be absolutely fatal to it. The proposal that the company must be able to borrow cheaply in the market is really inconsistent with the suggestion which has been made that advances should be made beyond 66⅔ per cent. I was not surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, make that proposal, because I understand that he is not in favour of some of the proposals contained in a book recently published, "Land and the Nation"—the Green Book. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who made himself responsible for the proposal that 66⅔ per cent, is not a sufficient advance to put in Part I of the Bill is, I understand, a supporter of the policy proposed in that Green Book. In that book is the following statement:
  "No wise advisor of investors would encourage a mortgagee to risk an amount greater than two-thirds of the present real value. Mortgages beyond this amount must be regarded as being highly speculative."
  I should be very sorry to think that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness is not to be considered a wise adviser of investors, but really no business man would ever contemplate for a moment that in connection with mortgages upon land anything ought to be considered beyond the limit of 66⅔ per cent. of the value of the property. It is said that this provision will not do anything for almost the most needy class of the agricultural community to-day—the people who bought their farms, say, in the days after the Corn Production Act, and

  351
  people who were compelled to buy their farms at prices then prevailing. It is the habit of some people to spend their time looking back. This Bill does not attempt to restore the lost capital of the agricultural industry. It is not an attempt to bury the dead of the past; it is an attempt to keep alive in the future those who are alive now, and if we were to attempt, by taking the lost values of 1920 or 1921, to help the agricultural industry, we should be in great danger not only of ruining the banks or the corporation which will be brought into existence to give that assistance, but we should be very unlikely to give any real assistance to agriculture. Every industry has been forced to write off the losses suffered at times when prices and values were very different from what they are at the present time. I do not know any reason, except sympathy, which would lead us to set up a financial corporation to lend to people who had really lost their capital in the industry, sums which would be insufficiently secured.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: How much have the landlords written off?
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The landlords have written off almost as much as any industry in the country. The next criticism made, again by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, was that the advantages proposed by Part I of this Bill would fall on the undeserving, as well as on the deserving, that they would be available for the prosperous farmer as well as for the necessitous farmer or landowner. I find it a little difficult to imagine that the man who is not in want of financial assistance will apply to this new corporation for it. It is the needy landowner or farmer who will apply to this corporation for the assistance which the corporation is brought into existence to give. Therefore, I cannot find very much substance in the criticism that, if advantages are given by this Bill, they will be given to persons who do not need them. Suppose that prosperous people do mortgage their land through this new corporation and give 66 per cent. of the value of the land as security. Will not that be an added strength to the corporation, which is to assist needy people? It will have excellent security which it can offer to the public for the debentures in which
  352
  the public will be asked to invest. So far from regarding it as a criticism of the scheme that it will attract persons of substance and prosperity to borrow sums which they will be more certain to repay, I should have thought it was an argument in favour of the scheme.
  A still less justified criticism of the hon. Member for Hillsborough was given when he protested against the addition of new security for the money market. I understand that he objects to the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill, which makes debentures trustee securities. I think that if the House reflects for a moment, it will be seen that there is ample security entitling these debentures to be treated as trustee securities. There will be the mortgages based upon a sound proportion of the properties charged; there will be the land improvement charges behind them; there will be the share capital contributed by the banks; there will be the Government contributions; and there will be the reserves. If ever a security was entitled to be put into the category of trustee securities, I suggest that these debentures are of that character. The hon. Gentleman protested against the suggestion that a new security should be put on the market, suggesting in some way that that would diminish British credit, or make it more difficult to engage in those conversion operations which are the particular anxiety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we are to refrain from creating new securities, we may as well close down our business altogether.
  The burden of the hon. Gentleman's other criticism was that, instead of setting up a new organisation to confer these boons upon agriculture, the Government should have done the work themselves. Hon. Members opposite would have been certain to approve of some method of that sort. It is interesting to observe that the Amendment speaks of the Bill establishing unnecessary machinery, and yet the hon. Member wants a Government Department to be set up! If the necessary steps for the assistance of agriculture could be taken without the creation of a horde of officials I should have thought that that would be congenial to the hon. Member, who does not want to see the creation of any unnecessary machinery. The next suggestion was that we should have adopted the expedient of co-operative

  353
  credit societies, which have been tried with great success in Germany and other countries. I know that the mere use of the word "co-operative" is grateful to the hon. Member for Hillsborough. If only we had called this organisation the "Co-operative Corporation," I almost think that he would have given this Bill his blessing, but nobody knows better than he does that a serious effort was made some years ago to use the system which has been so successful in Germany, and that it failed entirely in this country. It is no more likely to succeed to-day than two or three years ago, for a very good reason; either from habit or prejudice the British farmer will not engage in mutual guarantees. He will not do it, and it is no use attempting to force on agriculture the thing which, it has been proved, it will not accept.
  I think that the plan which we have adopted is better than either of these two proposals—better than a. State bank, better than co-operative societies which the agricultural community is not prepared to have. The banks have their great organisation, with which we are all familiar, all over the country. There is hardly a town of any respectable size that has not two or three banks competing for the custom of the farmers and traders of the district. We have a whole network of organisation right to our hands for the application of the funds which the investing public, the Government and the banks are going to provide for the agricultural industry. Is not the use of that organisation an advantage in itself? Is not this an expedient by which we may find the enormous capital which would cripple such a scheme as hon. Members opposite have in mind? The use of these local branches and the Corporation which it is proposed to set up, coupled with the personal knowledge which the bank managers will have, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) rightly said, of the people for whose assistance it is designed will bring, with the substantial help which the Government is offering, real assistance to the harassed members of the agricultural industry.
  I know that it will not be everybody in the industry who is likely to be able to avail himself of the advantages which Part I of the Bill offers, but there will be, at any rate, one great advantage of the long-term credit which those who can
  354
  use the Bill will enjoy, and that is a freedom from the harassing alteration of mortgages which many people have to suffer—money advanced upon mortgage which the lawyer or the client calls in at times and in ways inconvenient to the borrower. The farmer in future will avoid the repetition of the burden and the cost of changing his mortgagee by enjoying the long-term credit which Part I of this Bill offers to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) asked a question which perhaps I ought to answer. He asked whether the amount of the fees would not be such as to make this boon a very slight one. The bankers, after all, who are going into this great business will be charged in their own interests to make it a success, and I do not suppose that they are likely to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, or that they are likely to charge such fees as to make the organisation which they are offering to the agricultural community a failure. I can say no more about that. It would be obviously quite impossible to put in the Bill any limitation on the fees to be charged for the proper services of the banks, nor could any such limitation be put into a Bill if the expedient of a State bank proposed by hon. Members opposite were adopted.
  Then I pass to Part II of the Bill. This, at first sight, appears to be a little more complicated, but I think that any hon. Member who will look at it will find it not at all difficult to understand. There is a very good reason at the present time why the large amount of credit which the agricultural industry possesses is not employed. It is impossible, as everybody knows, for the farmer to mortgage or charge his live or dead stock without granting a bill of sale. The mere mention of the words "bill of sale" is enough to impair the credit of the man who is giving it. The publicity attending it, the formalities involved, everything connected with a bill of sale is odious, and it is an expedient that is resorted to only when the state of the borrower is desperate.
  There are other difficulties in the way of the farmer charging his property. There are provisions in the Bankruptcy Acts with which lawyers are familiar in connection with reputed ownership which prevent a farmer from charging his assets. This Bill makes an alteration of the law

  355
  so far as to make inapplicable the provisions of the Bills of Sale Act to the transactions which we propose. Similarly, when the farmer has given a charge over his live or his dead stock-in-trade, the doctrine of reputed ownership will not come in to interfere with the security which the lender would enjoy. When one has realised that this Part of the Bill is largely engaged in getting over the legal difficulties which the farmer has up to this time experienced in turning his credit into cash, then I think he will appreciate that the rest of Part II of the Bill is merely intended to promote fair dealing between the lender and the borrower. For instance, it is fair that if a farmer charges his stock to a banker he shall not sell his stock and use the money for some purpose other than paying off the banker.
  10 p.m.
  So you will find, in connection with the Clauses dealing with both fixed charges and floating charges, provisions that the farmer must deal fairly and squarely between the banker and himself. There is nothing rigid or cast-iron about the business. It is provided that they may make such terms as the two parties are prepared to agree upon, that they may make such alterations in the terms of the charge or the application of the money as to result in the realisation of the stock-in-trade as the two parties may determine. Some hon. Member may ask what is the difference between a fixed charge and a floating charge. A fixed charge, if I may put it in simple, layman's language, is a charge upon everything, upon the whole property which the borrower possesses or which is put into the charge at that moment, and if other property takes its place, it will not be included in the fixed charge. A fixed charge applies to the scheduled property which is the subject of the charge. A floating charge, on the other hand—and I realise that this part of Part II is more likely to be used than that dealing with fixed charges—allows the farmer to change the property. That is to say, he may sell his herd, or his flock, or his machine and replace it without more formality, and the floating charge will apply to the substituted flock, herd, or machine, just as it did to the property he originally possessed.
  356
  Part II will appeal to anybody who understands that the whole object of it is to render available for the farmer that enormous reservoir of credit which at present is absolutely idle in his hands. We have simply sought to remove these legal obstacles to the use of this credit, which are familiar to every lawyer who has had to deal with them.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked one or two questions. He asked a question, which is a very technical one, as he will appreciate, as to the application of Section 212 of the Companies Act. That Section is a provision which prevents companies giving a floating charge to secure past or dead debts within three months before going into liquidation. The object of it is to prevent something almost akin to fraud on the part of companies that are shortly going to be wound up. So far as I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer, that provision does not apply. I do not think that the words of Clause 7 would import that provision into this Bill. I should like to say this further, that I think that sentence at the beginning of Clause 7 will require consideration in Committee, and probably amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Is not the operation of Section 212 of the Companies' Act, as a matter of fact, not merely for the prevention of fraud, but for dealing with the bare fact of a debenture having been given; and is it not serious for people who are creditors or people who will be getting, say, the further loan under this Bill, not to have the same protection if a debenture is created under Clause 7 as a person would have under Section 212?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not want to get into a discussion of Section 212. It is shortly, as I have stated, to prevent a company giving a floating charge within three months of going into liquidation, if it has not really got any fresh assets which would be available for the creditors. Whether or not that applies is probably a question on which there might be some difference of opinion, having regard to the present form of Clause 7. All that I say about it is that, as the hon. Member has mentioned it, it reinforces a doubt which I myself had felt as to whether the opening words of Clause 7 are in as satisfactory a form as

  357
  Clause 7 ought to be in. It is exactly a point which the Committee which has to consider this Bill will properly undertake, and I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it will receive the most careful consideration and that any help which he can give will be welcomed. The hon. Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) asked whether companies, and farmers who carry on business in partnership, will be excluded from the facilities given by the Bill. It will be seen that a farmer is stated to mean "any person not being an incorporated company or society." A good reason for not making this part of the Bill applicable to incorporated companies, or to limited liability companies, is that they can borrow now on their assets, and it would be superfluous to make this Bill apply to a company registered under the Companies Act. But there will be no difficulty for farmers carrying on business in partnership receiving assistance under the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea raised a doubt about Clause 12. He said that the Bill would result in tradesmen immediately calling in their debts from farmers. I think the answer is simple. The suggestion is that traders who are creditors of farmers will call in their debts and so ruin the farmers, and I venture to think that anybody who makes that criticism knows very little about the rural community in which farmers live. The traders, who are at present, in many cases, the financiers of the farmers, have in turn received their credit from the banks. They are the middlemen as it were, between the banks and the farmers. What interest would the tradesman have in ruining the farmer upon whom his business largely depends? It is surely better to get 20s. in the £, with the assistance of the bank, than to ruin a debtor and get 10s. in the L. Inasmuch as the trader, in order to give this extended credit to the farmer, has had to resort to the bank to obtain credit, it is not very likely that there will be a conspiracy on the part of the trader and the bank to destroy the business of the people whom both the trader and the bank are anxious to foster and protect. I think that should satisfy anybody that the fears which have been expressed as to the traders calling in their debts are ill-founded.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the hon. and learned Member say that the merchants themselves have not made representations to the Government on exactly the lines which have been stated?
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The merchants have not only been considering this question with the Government, but they have given assurances to the Government that they are not in the least likely to take the extravagant course which have been suggested. We have been reproached for putting the cart before the horse and for not stimulating marketing before we brought in our scheme for giving credit facilities. How are you to revise your marketing system if in too many cases the farmers are bound hand and food to the trader? The first step is to release the farmer from the bondage which he is now in to the people who are giving him credit. This is the first step which will enable him to rearrange his marketing as a result of the relief which he is to be given by the Bill. The hon. Member for Hillsborough complained that this was a bankers' protection bill, and he said that it would not be the bankers who would lose. What a curious conception of finance hon. Members opposite have, if they think that a Bill that did not take care that the bankers would not lose would be of any help to the agricultural community ! Do they realise that no intelligent person would set up a corporation or bank that is meant to help agriculture, without taking care that the help would not be given at the expense of the bank itself? The stability and security of the bank is the justification and the safeguard and the bulwark of the whole system.
  The hon. Gentleman really made a criticism which I welcomed when he said that the banks are not to lose. Of course they are not to lose. The corporation is to be strong enough, we hope, to give assistance to agriculture at the cheap rates that everybody desires. You do not suppose that a, tottering bank that is losing by the Bill would be able to give cheap facilities. The stronger the corporation, the better the credit of the corporation, and the more their position is safeguarded the more likely is it that the corporation will be able to lend money on long term credits at less than 5 per cent. I shall be curious to see how hon. Members

  359
  opposite, should they attain not only to power but to office, are to set up the agricultural industry by devising a bank which shall be the loser by the operation. The Amendment is a composite one. It begins with what I suppose is a gesture to agriculture, when it says that:
  "This House, while sympathetic to all sound schemes for the encouragement of British agriculture…"
  But the sympathy is only skin-deep, as is seen by the next sentence, which says that the House is asked to refuse to give a Second Reading to a Bill which involves further subsidy from the taxpayers without, ascertaining, in terms of ordinary Income Tax returns, the precise economic position of agriculture. So sincere is the sympathy which hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to express, that they suggest that the farmer is an Income Tax dodger, and that, if only his real position could be revealed, he would be found to be not a deserving mendicant for our bounty, but a prosperous Super-tax payer, and that it is not proper to give him assistance under this Bill until he has been forced to disgorge through Income Tax returns. If that is the idea of the hon. Gentleman opposite of the state of agriculture at the present time, I do not wonder that he approaches the Bill in this way. An industry which is in that position would not need the help of this or any other Bill. I should like him to go to the country and tell a meeting of the farmers—
  Mr. BARKER: What about the landlord?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not the landlords I am concerned about, but the farmers. Let the hon. Member go and tell the farmers that they are not to
  obtain help from the Labour party until they make out honest Income Tax returns. The hon. Member seems to be a little conscious of this in the Amendment, because he goes on to say that the Bill
  "enforces conditions which many of the most necessitous applicants would not be able to fulfil."
  The Income Tax dodger disappears, and the beggar then appears, and the Amendment says that the Bill is
  "quite inadequate for the objects which are in view."
  The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind what the facts are before he gives expression to opinions of that sort upon the Bill. The Government have a very simple object in view. Their object is to provide for agriculture that mobilised credit which every other industry possesses. The Government believe that by this Bill they are going to do something to pour into the empty cisterns of agriculture the irrigating water which the industry requires. We shall be quite content if, with the practical sympathy of the farming industry which its provisions justify, the Bill proves a success, not because it is bolstering up a decaying industry, but because it gives that help which is available to every other industry in the country except the agricultural industry. With the help of the House, in amending such provisions as may be found defective, we think it can be made a real contribution to the development of this great industry.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 106.

  Division No. 115.]

  AYES.

  [10.16 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brass, Captain W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Brlttain, Sir Harry

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Broun Lindsay, Malor H.

  Couper, J. B.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon

  Burman, J. B.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)

  Bennett, A. J.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Curzon, Capt. Viscount

  Blrchall, Major J. Dearman

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Crolt

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Drewe, C.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Savery, S. S.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harmar

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lumley, L. R,

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Ellis, R. G.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

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

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Maclntyre, Ian

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

  Falls, Sir Charles F.

  McLean, Major A.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Flelden, E. B.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Forrest, W.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Foxcrft, Captain C. T.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Galbralth, J. F. W.

  Meller, R. J.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Styles, Captain H. W,

  Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Templeton, W. P.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Tomlinson, R. p.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Waddington, R.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

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

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hamilton, Sir George

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Oakley. T.

  Watts. Dr. T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Harland, A.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wiggins, William Martin

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Williams, C P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Wilson, R. R (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Remer, J. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Withers, John James

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Womersley. W. J,

  Hume, sir G. H.

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

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ilifte, Sir Edward M.

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Jephcott. A. R.

  Salmon, Ma|or I.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Captain Margesson and

  Lamb, J. 0.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  NOES.

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

  Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

  Day, Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Dennlson, R.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Duncan, C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

  Glllett, George M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gosling, Harry

  Kirkwood. D.

  Barnes, A.

  Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lansbury, George

  Barr, J.

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

  Lawrence, Susan

  Batey, Joseph

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lee, F.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Grundy, T. w.

  Lowth, T.

  Bromfield, William

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

  Lunn, William

  Bromley, J.

  Hardle, George D.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Maxton, James

  Cape, Thomas

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Montague, Frederick

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Murnin, H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hollins, A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Oliver. George Harold

  Cove, W. G.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Palin, John Henry

  Dalton, Hugh

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Paling, W.

  362

  363

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smillie, Robert

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Purcell, A. A.

  Snell, Harry

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-H-Spring)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Welsh. J. C.

  Rltson, J.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Scurr, John

  Thurtle, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Varley, Frank B.

  Whiteley.

  Shinwell, E,

  Viant, S. P.

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS [MONEY].
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to secure, by means of the formation of a company and the assistance thereof out of public funds, the making of loans for agricultural purposes on favourable terms, and to facilitate the borrowing of money on the security of farming stock and other agricultural assets, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, of such sums not exceeding eight hundred and twelve thousand five hundred pounds as may be required for making advances to the company to be formed under the said Act, and for procuring the underwriting of debentures or debenture stock to be issued by such company as aforesaid for raising sums not exceeding five million pounds;

(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding ten thousand pounds a year for ten years as contributions towards the cost of administration of the said company;

(c) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums paid by the said company by way of repayment of or interest on such advances as aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. Guinness.]

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It must be a matter for regret when we are dealing with a Resolution of this kind that the Treasury are not represented. We are dealing here with a very important financial question, and I think it is the rule that when we go into Committee of Ways and Means the Treasury should be represented. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) put certain
364
questions during his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill in respect of which this Money Resolution is introduced. One of those questions I regard as of some importance, and I think the Government ought now to give the answer which they failed to give on Second Reading. The question put was, "Is there any agreement made or contemplated between the banks and the Government with regard to the share capital of the Corporation in the event of the scheme being wound up?" We understand from the Bill that the Government are going to put up as reserves to the share capital about £650,000 or £700,000, free of interest, for 60 years. It has been made perfectly plain from the speech of the Attorney-General and the earlier speech of the Minister for Agriculture that that is to be not only a reserve fund but for current use.
The Attorney-General has objected to the suggestion we have made that this Bill may well be described as a bankers' protection Bill, and he tried to pour ridicule upon the suggestion that any scheme of this kind could be conducted with any loss to the banking institution. We have not suggested that it would be wise to have a scheme which would specially lead to losses on the part of the banks, but what we have said is that the scheme is so drawn that whoever may lose by its operation the banks will not. That is our contention. We are not saying that you are doing anything to make banks unsound, but I think we are justified in calling it a bankers' protection Bill. There may be other things arranged between the banks and the Government which do not appear in the text of the Measure. If there is going to be an agreement made, or if an agreement is contemplated between the banks and the Government as to what shall he the position in the event of a winding up scheme, then the Committee ought to have full and complete information.
Mr. CRAWFURD: I beg to move, in line 10, after the word "company," to insert the words:
"of which one-third of the directors shall be appointed by the Treasury."
We want to make it clear that the Company or Corporation will be so set up under the auspices of four of the big banks. The Attorney-General gave us to understand that the Minister of Agriculture would not close his mind to a suggestion that there should be some form of control of this kind exercised by the Government, and that is why I am moving this Amendment, although the Attorney-General says that, in the opinion of the Government, the better way to secure what we desire would be to proceed by a suitable drafting of the Articles of Association. I want to point out that whatever else this Bill may do, it does authorise the expenditure of £812,000 of the nation's money, and this expenditure is intended to be for the benefit of the agricultural community of this country. It is not intended for the benefit of the banks. One does not necessarily subscribe to the description of the Bill as a bankers' protection bill, but we are entitled to say that this Measure is primarily not for the benefit of the bankers but for the benefit of the agricultural community, and its provisions should secure that that should be the main object of the Company or Corporation which is to be set up.
I have not had very much time to find out all the details with regard to the precedents which might be considered parallel to this case, but I will quote three instances. In the case of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in which the Government had an interest, it was represented by two directors. In the Suez Canal Company, in which for many years this country has had a large interest, we have been represented by directors; and in the case of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, as long as this country had a financial interest in it, the Government were represented by two directors, and those directors were only withdrawn when the financial interest of this country ceased in that company. Therefore, we have ample and most respectable precedents for urging the course we are urging in this Amendment. Although I am not, of course, alleging that it is likely that this Company will be managed in a way inimical to the interests of the farming
366
community, I find that in the Bill there is no actual safeguard that that will not be so, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he is considering this proposal, that it is possible that the interests of the banks concerned and the interests of the Government and the farming community might at times be at variance, and that, therefore, it is important that the views of the country and of the agricultural community should at any rate be heard on the directorate of the company which is to manage these powers.
It is quite clear, in regard to the issue of money for these purposes, that the security in some cases will be better than in others, and it is possible that the company, which is subsidised by the Government, might be given the cases with the worse security, while the banks might retain for themselves those cases which offered better security. There is also the case of existing overdrafts, some of which, perhaps, are not to-day held under the best possible security. It is possible that, under a quite simple manipulation of repayment and re-lending, those amounts which at present are held under poor security might be transferred to the fund subsidised under this Bill, and in that way, while the agricultural community might not benefit, the banks very conceivably might. I think that in the Bill the governing passage relating to the Amendment which I am moving is to be found in Clause 2, where it says that:
"The memorandum or articles of the company shall make provision—
(e) for regulating the use of the guarantee fund to which the advances made by the Minister are to be carried."
Of course, it does not say anything at all about the principles on which that regulation is to be carried out. That in itself is no safeguard at all, and I think it is certainly a moderate and reasonable proposal that the interests of the agricultural community, which are those of the Government, should be represented, as the Amendment suggests, by the appointment by the Treasury of one-third of the directors.
Mr. ALBERY: As this Amendment was put in at the last moment as a manuscript Amendment, may I ask if I should be in order in moving an Amendment to the proposed Amendment?
Mr. ALBERY: I should like to move an Amendment to insert the words:
"One representative of the Treasury and one representative of the Farmers' Union."
I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the point after the long speech of the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. Crawfurd), but I feel that this would meet his wishes and carry out the idea which he has in view.
Mr. CRAWFURD: I should like to say that with the principle of the hon. Member's suggestion we on these benches are entirely in agreement, and, if a form of words can be drafted—and I think it could be done quite simply, by adding, at the end of the words which I propose to insert, the words, "of whom one shall be representative of the farming community"—I shall be perfectly willing to accept it.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would, perhaps, meet the case if the hon. Member's Amendment were, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words, "of whom one shall be appointed by the National Farmers' Union."
Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words, "of which one shall be a member of the Farmers' Union."
Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words, "and one a representative of the agricultural workers."
We have had representations made by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) and by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) asking for representation for the Treasury and for the Farmers' Union—
Mr. CRAWFURD: No!
Mr. MACLEAN: I understood that the hon. Member for West Walthamstow was quite prepared to accept a form of words which would practically correlate the two Amendments. I cannot for the life of me see why the largest section, and the section that gets the least of the representation at any time, should be shut out in the cold, and a representative
368
of the Farmers' Union put there to help to administer the moneys which are voted, and are partly provided by the agricultural worker.
Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it possible to move a further Amendment?
Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can deal with only one point of Order at a time. We must confine ourselves to making sensible Amendments.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I was thinking of that very old established society called the Frothblowers.
Mr. GUINNESS: Before I come to the rather complex Amendment now before the Committee, perhaps I may answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), as to how it is proposed to deal with the question of winding-up the Corporation, should that ever be necessary. The hon. Member will find the arrangement laid down in Clause 2, Subsection (3), Paragraph (g). In brief it is that the creditors come first, and if there is not enough to pay the Government advances and the paid-up capital in full, they rank pari passu. As to the Amendment, I think that the proposal has really been answered by the various alternatives which have been put forward. It is evident that there is no prospect of the investor entrusting his money at a low rate of interest to this new Corporation unless it is managed on economic and business lines. It would be fatal to go outside the responsibility of the Corporation for the business management of its affairs, and to allow political considerations to creep in. I quite agree that it is essential that we should be sure that the benefit of what the Government propose to do should go to the farmer, but we believe that this can best be ensured by means of the memorandum and articles of association. We have already proposed that the interest on the paid-up capital should be strictly limited. Every incentive will be left to the Corporation to charge the borrowers the lowest possible rate which is consistent with what they have to pay for their money. I am very doubtful whether one or two representatives of the Govern-

369
ment would be found a really effective method of ensuring the proper conduct of the Corporation's business, but I asked the Attorney-General to give an undertaking earlier in the evening that he would consider the point. I will not turn it clown absolutely at this stage but I certainly cannot commit myself in any way to accepting the Amendment.
Sir JOHN SIMON: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying he will keep his mind open on the point. There really is a distinction between the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) and the perhaps rather hastily suggested additions to it. I can quite understand the contention that you would not improve the management of the proposed Corporation by attempting to include in the directorate one individual representing what is avowedly some particular interest and another individual representing another interest. The proposal in the Amendment is that, in view of the fact that very large sums of public money are involved, a portion of the directorate should be appointed by the Treasury. That is not to be described with any approach to accuracy as an attempt to get special interests represented. It is merely an attempt to urge the principle, which in itself is a very good one, that where very large sums of the taxpayers' money are to be made available for the Corporation, the Corporation ought to be managed by a body which includes public representatives.
The Minister has made no reference to the precedents which have been quoted. You could not have a closer precedent than the British Dyestuffs Corporation. As long as it had public money to deal with, it had its directorate partly staffed from Government nominees. The older instances are perfectly good ones which my hon. Friend quoted and, while I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman does not want to commit himself now, especially as the Amendment was not on the Paper, at the same time I would ask him to distinguish between a suggestion that special interests should get their own nominees on the board and a proposal which stands in quite a different position, and with which I think the right hon. Gentleman would to some extent sympathise, based on the principle that when large sums of public
370
money are involved in a new enterprise there should be some Treasury representative on the board. I should be very sorry to think the right hon. Gentleman would say, either for himself or for his colleagues in the Treasury, if that course was followed the company would not be well managed, which is the principal argument he brought forward for resisting the Amendment. We take note, therefore of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter. I am sure he will do it without any preconceived view, because there appears to be very good public reason for making some such arrangement. It is obvious that the suggestion that the memorandum and articles of association will perform the same service is not correct. All the memorandum and articles can do is to arrange as to the constitution and machinery of the company. That has nothing to do with how the company is administered or directed or on what principle it is going to accept or refuse applications. Those things require representation on the directorate, and I hope in due course this will be reconsidered.
Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I just say this one word in support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? I think that the Minister ought to know that there is a good deal of feeling on this side of the House that it would be advisable that there should be a representative of the Treasury on this Board.
Mr. ALBERY: In view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment subsequent to the hon. Member's.
Mr. MACLEAN: I decline to allow it to be withdrawn.
Mr. CRAWFURD: In view of what has been said, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We must dispose of the last Amendment first.
Question, "That the words 'and one a representative of the agricultural workers' be there added to the proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question again proposed, "That the words' of which one shall be a member of the Farmers' Union,' be added at the end of the proposed Amendment."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That the words of which one-third of the directors shall be appointed by the Treasury,' be inserted in line 10, after the word company.'"
The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 212.

Division No. 116.]

AYES.

[10.54 p.m.

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

Hollins, A.

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

Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Scurr, John

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

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barr, J.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shinwell, E.

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bromfield, William

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snell, Harry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kelly, W. T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

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

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lansbury, George

Strauss, E. A.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lawson, John James

Sutton, J. E.

Dalton, Hugh

Lee, F.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lindley, F. W.

Thurtie, Erneet

Dennison, R.

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Duncan, C.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Tomlinson, R. P.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Varley, Frank B.

Gillett, George M.

Maxton, James

Vlant, S. P.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Montague, Frederick

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Murnin, H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Naylor, T. E.

Welsh, J. C.

Groves, T.

Oliver, George Harold

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Grundy. T. W.

Owen, Major G.

Wiggins, William Martin

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Palin, John. Henry

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Hardie, George D.

Paling, W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hayday, Arthur

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Potts, John S.

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Albery, Irving James

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Goff, Sir Park

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

Chapman, Sir S.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Grant, Sir J. A.

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

Christle, J. A.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Atholl, Duchess of

Clarry, Reginald George

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Grotrian, H. Brent

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Cooper, A. Duff

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Couper, J. B.

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

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hamilton, Sir George

Bennett, A. J.

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Betterton, Henry B.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Harland, A.

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harrison, G. J. C.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Hartington, Marquess of

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Dawson Sir Philip

Haslam, Henry C.

Brass, Captain W.

Dixey, A. C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Drewe, C.

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Eden, Captain Anthony

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Briscoe, Richard George

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Ellis, R. G.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Hills, Major John Waller

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

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

Fermoy, Lord

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

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

Fielden, E. B.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Burman, J. B.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Forrest, W.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Caine, Gordon Hall

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Iliffe Sir Edward M.

Carver, Major W. H.

Fremantle, Lieut Colonel Francis E.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Jephcott, A. R.

Penny, Frederick George

Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Prater

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Plicher, G.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Price, Major C. W. M.

Templeton, W. P.

Lamb, J. Q.

Radford, E. A.

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

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

Raine, Sir Walter

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Lougher, Lewis

Ramsden, E.

Tinne, J. A.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lumley, L. R.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Waddington, R.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Remer, J. R.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Rentoui, G. S.

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

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

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Macintyre, Ian

Rice, Sir Frederick

Warrender, Sir Victor

McLean, Major A.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Macmillan, Captain H.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Watts, Dr. T.

Macquisten, F. A.

Rye, F. G.

Wayland, Sir William A.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Salmon, Major I.

Wells, S. R.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

Margesson, Captain D.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Sandon, Lord

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Savery, S. S.

Wolmer, Viscount

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Shepperson, E. W.

Womersley, W. J

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Skelton, A. N.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Murchison. Sir Kenneth

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wragg, Herbert

Nelson, Sir Frank

Smithers, Waldron

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Nuttall, Ellis

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Oakley, T.

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

Captain Viscount Curzon and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

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

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move in line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
"subject to the presentation to parliament of an annual balance sheet of the Corporation."
It is proposed to spend public money for the purposes of administration in respect of the operations of this company, and in such circumstances, it would appear judicious to have presented to Parliament annually a financial statement, which would enable this House to determine whether there had been efficiency in administration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill if he could not accept this Amendment, which is a very logical one and does not run counter to the spirit of the Measure. After all, if public money is to be devoted to this purpose, it would appear reasonable that this corporation should furnish this financial statement. I know of no case where public money is expended, and no opportunity is provided to enable hon. Members to decide whether the administration has been properly conducted. It is not a question merely of guarantee or of credit facilities, but an actual payment of public money, which, in the event of the scheme not proving fruitful, would be lost to the
374
State; and in these circumstances I think the Government might very properly accept the Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that this is not provided for by Act of Parliament already. It would be unusual to insert these words in a Resolution of this kind.
Mr. ALEXANDER: This is a subsidy granted by Parliament, and in the case of the sugar beet subsidy, which was dealt with first by Money Resolution and by Bill, such as we are discussing tonight, we found it necessary to impose the condition that it should be subject to the presentation of a properly prepared statement of accounts. We are only following in this case the precedent adopted in granting the sugar beet subsidy. There are three considerations. First, there is the special Clause providing for a direct payment by the Exchequer of £10,000 for ten years—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member is dealing with the point of Order. I understand, from information that I have received, that the law does not cover this, and, therefore, I will put the Amendment.
Mr. GUINNESS: I really cannot accept this Amendment at this stage. I doubt

375
if there is any precedent of this kind on a Financial Resolution. It is a matter which might well be dealt with in Committee on the Bill, and which should only be dealt with after due consideration as to the form in which accounts, if they are demanded, should be furnished; and though I am quite prepared to consider it before the Committee stage, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment now.
Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid we cannot regard the answer of the Minister as at all satisfactory. I cannot claim to represent the agricultural interests of this country, but when this nation is proposing to go into the bond broking business on a large scale, I want to be satisfied as to how the public money is going to be put into this business, and I want to see that, as a Member of this House, I have an annual opportunity of seeing whether this public money is being prudently handled. We are handing over nearly £1,000,000 to a private Corporation. The Minister has resisted the placing of public representatives on the Board of Directors, and now he tells us that we have to vote the money first, and he will say afterwards whether or not we shall be told how it is being spent.
It is a preposterous proposal to put before the Committee. The Committee will be treating its responsibilities in a very frivolous way if it gives the Minister this Financial Resolution without even a promise from him that he will devise some satisfactory method in which the accounts can be presented. The Conservative party appeals to the country as being the party which is the most prudent in its handling of public money, but the proposal that we are asked to endorse here now is that we shall hand away £800,000 of the public money at once, with more to follow. The Minister is not prepared even to promise us that we shall have an annual statement of how that money is being handled and dealt with. I am not going to allow that to go through this House before at least I have had an opportunity of entering my protest in the Division Lobby.
Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is quite well aware that under the Companies Act it is essential to file a balance sheet at Somerset House and to furnish accounts. I have already undertaken
376
that we shall bring the matter before the House, but, as a matter of procedure, it is not usual to put in a detailed point in a Financial Resolution. I am perfectly prepared to deal with this matter at a later stage.
Mr. ALEXANDER: The promise of the Minister to go into the matter before a further stage of the Bill is, perhaps, better than nothing at all, but to suggest to the Committee that the filing of the annual accounts at Somerset House is really satisfying the request that we are making is to belittle his own knowledge of previous instances of this kind. I started to explain to the Committee just now that we based our claim to-night on the legislation dealing with the sugar-beet subsidy. There you were giving a direct subsidy to an industry. I remember the discussions behind the Chair with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and certain accountants as to the form in which we should require the accounts to be presented to Parliament. The point I raise now is this: that we are actually voting, in this particular part of the Financial Resolution, £10,000 for this year and £10,000 for each subsequent year. The Government are also asking for £62,500 for underwriting debentures, and we are authorising them to pay over in three instalments a sum total of £650,000 of share capital in three years. Surely, we are entitled to ask, before voting the money in Committee of Ways and Means, that the Government shall agree that the House of Commons, as representing the taxpayer, shall be supplied directly with the form of accounts, and not merely be given the information that the accounts shall be filed at Somerset House; that we shall be supplied with a form of accounts showing completely how public money is to be spent. It is the Minister's own Department which has created the precedent that we are putting before the Committee to-night, in the case of the sugar-beet subsidy. I think he ought to say now that he is prepared to give some complete supervision, and that we ought not to wait for the Bill. If he does not, we shall have to go to a Division, and see if we can put some pressure upon him.
Sir N. MOORE: Is this to be a limited liability company? If it is, then under the Companies Act it must submit its balance sheet in the ordinary way?
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 199.

Division No. 117.]

AYES.

[11.15 p.m.

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

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Adamson, w. M. (Staff, Cannock)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

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

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Barr, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snell, Harry

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Bromfield, William

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kirkwood, D.

Strauss, E. A.

Buchanan, G.

Lansbury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Lawson, John James

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Compton, Joseph

Lee, F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lindley, F. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Tomlinson, R. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon- C. P.

Dennison, R.

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

Varley, Frank B.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Maxton, James

Viant, S. P.

Gillett, George M.

Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Murnin, H.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Oliver, George Harold

Welsh, J. C.

Groves, T.

Palin, John Henry

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Whiteley, W.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wiggins, William Martin

Hardie, George D.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Potts, John S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

Windsor, Walter

Hirst, G. H.

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

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Hollins, A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shinwell, E.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cooper, A. Duff

Harrison, G. J. C.

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

Couper, J. B.

Kartington, Marquess of

Albery, Irving James

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Crooke, J, Smedley (Derltend)

Haslam, Henry C.

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

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

Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

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

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dalkeith, Earl of

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Bennett, A. J.

Drewe, C.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hume, Sir G. H.

Betterton, Henry B.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Ellis, R. G.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

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

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jephcott, A. R.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Fermoy, Lord

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

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fielden, E. B.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Brass, Captain W.

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Forrest, W.

Lamb, J. Q.

Briggs, J. Harold

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lougher, Lewis

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lumley, L. R.

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Burman, J. B.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Macintyre, Ian

Caine, Gordon Hall

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

McLean, Major A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macmillan, Captain H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Macquisten, F. A.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywosd)

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

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

Margesson, Captain D.

Christle, J. A.

Hamilton, Sir George

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hammersley, S. S.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Clarry, Reginald George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Hariand, A.

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

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

Salmon, Major I.

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Sandon, Lord

Watts, Dr. T.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Savery, S. S.

Wells, S. R.

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

Shepperson, E. W.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

Nuttall, Ellis

Skelton, A. N.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Oakley, T.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Pennefather, Sir John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Penny, Frederick George

Smithers, Waldron

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wolmer, Viscount

Pilcher, G.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Womersley, W. J.

Price, Major C. W. M.

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

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Radford, E. A.

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Raine, Sir Walter

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Ramsden, E.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Wragg, Herbert

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Remer, J. R.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Rentoul, G. S.

Templeton, W. p.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Tinne, J. A.

Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Rye, F. G.

Waddington, R.

Main Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 11.

Division No. 118.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crawlurd. H. E.

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

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Haslam, Henry C.

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

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Albery, Irving James

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

Dalton, Hugh

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Hirst, G. H.

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Hollins, A.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Dawson, Sir Phillip

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Drewe, C.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Edmondson. Major A. J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Illffe, Sir Edward M.

Bennett, A. J.

Ellis, R. G.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Fermoy, Lord

Jephcott, A. R.

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

Fielden, E. B.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Forrest, W.

Kennedy, T.

Brass, Captain W.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fraser, Captain Ian

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Briqgs, J. Harold

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lamb, J. Q.

Briscoe, Richard George

Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

Bromfield, William

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lee, F.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Lougher, Lewis

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

Gillett, George M.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

Goff, Sir Park

Lumley, L. R.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Macintyre, Ian

Burman, J. B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

McLean, Major A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Caine, Gordon Hall

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Carver, Major W. H.

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Grundy, T. W.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Charleton, H. C.

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

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

Christle, J. A.

Hamilton, Sir George

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Clarry, Reginald George

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Harland, A.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Cooper, A. Duff

Harrison, G. J. C.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Couper, J. B.

Hartington, Marquess of

Naylor, T. E.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

Shepperson, E. W.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Oakley, T.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Skelton, A. N.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Oliver, George Harold

Slaney, Major P. Kenyan

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Paling, W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Watts, Dr. T.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Penny, Frederick George

Smithers, Waldron

Wells, S. R.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wiggins, William Martin

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Plicher, G.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Price, Major C. W. M.

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Radford, E. A.

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

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Raine, Sir Walter

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Ramsden, E.

Strauss, E. A.

Windsor, Walter

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Remer, J. R.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wolmer, viscount

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Womersley, W. J

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

Sutton, J. E.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Templeton, W. P.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Salmon, Major I.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wragg, Herbert

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Tinne, J. A.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Tomlinson, R. P.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Sandon, Lord

Varley, Frank B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Viant, S. P.

Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.

Savory, S. S.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

NOES.

Batey, Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Buchanan, G.

Lindley, F. W.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Stephen, Campbell

Mr. Maxton and Mr. Thurtle.

Kelly, W. T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Cockermouth Urban District Council, which was presented on the 2nd April and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Birmingham
382
Corporation, which was presented on the 19th April and published, be approved."—[Mr. H. Williams.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE.
  ARABLE LAND (ACREAGE).
  ARABLE LAND (ACREAGE).
  CATTLE AND SHEEP (ARGENTINE).
  CATTLE AND SHEEP (ARGENTINE).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  RATING RELIEF (DEER FORESTS).
  RATING RELIEF (DEER FORESTS).
  MUNICIPAL AND TRAMWAY UNDER- TAKINGS (EMPLOYES).
  MUNICIPAL AND TRAMWAY UNDER- TAKINGS (EMPLOYES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1927.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1927.
  TAXICABS (FOREIGN LICENSEES).
  TAXICABS (FOREIGN LICENSEES).
  OATH ADMINISTRATION (DOUAI BIBLE).
  OATH ADMINISTRATION (DOUAI BIBLE).
  ROYAL NAVY (FLEET VISITS).
  ROYAL NAVY (FLEET VISITS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
  HOUSING (DECONTROL, BIRMINGHAM).
  HOUSING (DECONTROL, BIRMINGHAM).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES)
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Read 2a.
YORK TOWN AND BLACKWATER GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DARTMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (EALING EX TENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EX TENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BASLE TRADING COMPANY.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government are now prepared to make a statement as to the settlement with the Basle Trading Company; and to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to certain statements recently made in the report of the Commonwealth Trust Company and published in the advertisement columns of The Times of March 29 last, and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps, before the noble Lord replies, I may be permitted to interpolate a few words on my own account with respect to this statement. I will, in the first place, read to your Lordships an extract from the advertisement columns of The Times, to which I am going to refer during the few minutes for which I shall occupy your Lordships' attention. It is as follows:—
"We know that Herr Preiswerk-Imhoff has a spokesman in Parliament, Lord Templetown. Now a member of Parliament who champions a foreign financial interest should be called upon to state the exact nature of his previous connection with its promoters. And this is especially so in the case of a Peer, who, if he fails to do so in the House of Lords, cannot be called to account in any constituency. For his own sake, and also for the sake of that branch of our Legislature to which he belongs, Lord Templetown should be given an opportunity of explaining under cross-examination
1034
the history of his previous relations with Herr Preiswerk-Imhoff. Frankly we do not know what those relations were, but the point we wish to establish is this. When a member of Parliament uses his position as such to press demands of foreign claimants (in this case estimated at over £1,000,000) which can only be met by taxation of His Majesty's subjects, it is for him to explain in advance his previous relations with the claimants. And if he has failed it is for the House to which he belongs to institute inquiry."
This veiled and malicious innuendo, thus conveyed, which would appear to be directed inferentially, if not actually, against other members of your Lordships' House, I treat with the contempt it merits, but the reply to the direct question which I make—and it is simple—is that I had no previous connection, relations or communications with either the Basle Trading Company or its president, Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff.
My connection with the whole affair arose from the fact that the gentleman entrusted by the Basle Mission Trading Company with the task of urging on His Majesty's Government their claims for justice, Mr. Palliser, was an old friend of mine and he appealed to me, among others, to assist him in his mission, just five years ago, and that was the first time I had ever heard of the Basle Mission Trading Company. Some few weeks later I met, for the first time, its president, Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff who, I may say, impressed me very favourably. He handed me certain documents—namely, the "joint opinion" of Sir John Simon, the French official order, the offer of £120,000, and the agreement. When at great length I had studied the whole history of the case, substantiated as it was by many other documents, I came to the definite conclusion that the retention by the British Government of the company's property reflected on the British name for justice and fair play, and I decided to assist in every way I could to obtain justice for a grieviously-wronged concern. My first step in that direction was a communication dated April 28, 1923, to His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, at that time Secretary of State for the Colonieś, and he re-opened the case.
I will quote again here a paragraph from The Times advertisement in order that I may reply to it. It is as follows:—
"When a member of Parliament uses his position as such to press demands of foreign

1035
claimants (in this case estimated at over £1,000,000) which can only be met by taxation of His Majesty's subjects, it is for him to explain in advance his previous relations with the claimants."
How the restitution of property wrongly seized to its lawful owners is equivalent to the taxation of British subjects is difficult to follow. The grain of truth, if any, in such a view as to the present case is unfortunately due to the fact that the concern to whom the British Government confided these properties had during its existence lost some hundreds of thousands of pounds of the properties entrusted to it; but it is again the innuendo against members of this House, including of course myself, that I must leave to your Lordships' appreciation.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House, as I have suggested to the noble Lord who will reply, that I should take this opportunity of moving the Motion standing in my name in order that the statement of the Government may deal both with the points raised by Lord Templetown and by my own Motion. My Notice is in these terms:—
"To call attention to certain statements reflecting on the administration of the Colonial Office, reported in The Times newspaper of the 29th of March last to have been made at a meeting of the shareholders of the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, by Mr. Lionel Curtis, formerly employed in the Dominions Office; also to an accusation of untruthfulness made against the same Office in a statement published by the directors of the Commonwealth Trust; to inquire whether His Majesty's Government acquiesce in these representations; also to call attention to representations made by Mr. Curtis that members of this House are accustomed to act on behalf of a gentleman believed by him to be the agent of the Chairman of the Basle Trading Company; and to move for Papers."
It is very difficult, in addressing this House, to speak quite freely with regard to the statements or accusations made by a private gentleman who is not in a position to answer in the same place, and anything I may have to say respecting the statements made, both about my noble friend and about myself, by Mr. Lionel Curtis, I shall make in the columns of the Press, and shall abstain from making them in this House.
But, for the purposes of this debate, we must take Mr. Lionel Curtis at his own valuation, which he has very frankly
1036
set forth in the statement he made at the Commonwealth Trust meeting. He said:—
"The Chairman has explained to you my own personal position in this matter. I was one of the original directors of the Trust"—
he is therefore well informed of the premisses—
but ceased to act in 1921, and presently resigned when I undertook to act as adviser on Irish affairs in the Colonial Office. On leaving the Colonial Office in 1924 I declined an invitation to rejoin the board. When the invitation was renewed last year, I felt bound to accept it in view of my special knowledge of circumstances from which the present difficulties arise. While I was employed in the Colonial Office from 1921 to 1924, it was in that branch which is now distinguished as a special Department under the name of the Dominions Office. I had nothing whatever to do with the Department now known as the Colonial Office, which handles the affairs of the Crown Colonies, for the simple reason that Irish affairs had less to do with Crown Colonies than with any other branch of the administration. I had much to do with the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Treasury, and, indeed, most other Departments, and formed the opinion that the English Civil Service is the finest instrument of government ever devised by the wit of man.…"
I read these things in order that your Lordships may know that he is a man who speaks with authority. He reminds me of a gentleman whom we used to know at Oxford, Mr. Stephen Spring-Rice, of whom it used to be said that there were few matters on which his advice was not sought by His Majesty's Government, and none on which it was not offered.
He went on to say:—
"I find it difficult to conceive men abler or more devoted to the public service than the colleagues with whom I worked in the Dominions Department. I shall always be grateful for the helpful kindness of these skilled professionals to an amateur like myself. What most impressed me was their absolute loyalty to a political decision when once it was made."
I want to call attention to that phrase, because it is part of his charge that a decision was disloyally departed from. He continued:—
"In fairness to all concerned, I must make it clear at the outset that the office with which we are now in conflict had little or no connection with the office in which I worked, except that it obeyed the same chiefs. As I had to attend a Conference in July on the other side of the world"—

1037
Mr. Curtis being in universal demand—
"I was unable to look into the affairs of the Trust till September last. I then asked the secretary to collect every document in the records bearing on these troubles since the Trust was initiated in 1918. Having read these papers I informed the board that I could find nothing which could not be disclosed to their advantage at a public inquiry.…
"I will now describe to you the impression left on my mind by a study of those papers, as to the cause which has vitiated the relations of the Colonial Office with the Trust in the period under review.…The Colonial Office has failed to grasp that work like this can be done in a spirit of public service, and that men so working are not easily coerced by the kind of threats which might perhaps reduce people trading for their own profit to silence and docility."
That is to say, the Colonial Office are apparently accused of having tried to coerce Mr. Curtis and his friends by threats.
Further, he says:—
"In 1918 it was laid down by the Government in the most absolute manner that the Basle Mission was never again to be tolerated in British Territory."
The question, apparently, was being re-opened then. It was re-opened by the Duke of Devonshire himself. The original decision to sequestrate the property was re-opened on the ground that it was a mistaken decision, and the imputation against the members of the Colonial Office of disloyalty to a previous decision in re-opening that, is the most absurd comment I have ever heard on the permanent public service in my life. It is the bounden and first duty of a public officer, if he finds out that certain facts were unknown to the Government when a previous decision was taken, to bring them to the attention of his chiefs, and to advise them if they are well-founded to bring the matter before the Government for re-consideration. To go back on a previous decision when evidence is put before them that a mistake had been made, as they have now acknowledged, in confiscating the properties, was a perfectly proper action on the part of the Colonial Office. I hope that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovat) is prepared to exonerate the Colonial Office from any kind of disloyalty in seeking to re-open the question which had been erroneously decided.
Further, with regard to the capacity of the Colonial Office, Mr. Lionel Curtis says that on October 13 Sir George Craik
1038
and he met the Acting Secretary of State for the Colonies and some of his advisers, and the proceedings at this interview confirmed certain impressions left on his mind after reading the papers. He continued:—
"At this meeting the exposition of the Departmental view was left in the main to junior officers, who had presumably drafted the letters under discussion. We found ourselves confronted by the legal arguments and financial claims which Herr Preiswerk-Imhoff had advanced in 1919, and these arguments and claims seemed now to be accepted without reserve."
I hope they were; it would be to the credit of the intelligence of the Government if they were.
"No attempt appeared to have been made to check his assertions."
I should like to know whether the Colonial Office actually made no attempt to check his assertions. Mr. Curtis went on:—
"We felt that the whole matter had drifted into a corner of the Department where Mr. Walter Long's over-ruling decision had neither been forgotten nor forgiven."
Mr. Curtis further said:—
"I realise the gravity of what I am saying, but beg you to remember that I have asked to be allowed to say it only where I could be cross-examined in a court of inquiry, with all the correspondence of the last ten years open before it. The interview confirmed the impression given by the papers that delicate negotiations with a powerful foreign interest had been left in hands not competent to handle them, under no effective Ministerial control."
These are the charges which Mr. Curtis, with his immense official experience, makes against the Colonial Office.
He proceeded to say:—
"The words used by Lord Salisbury and Lord Birkenhead in the Lords and the subsequent action of the Government in taking the matter out of the hands of the Department show that this view is now shared by the Cabinet."
Did the Cabinet share that view? The Cabinet have, as a matter of fact, endorsed the view which Lord Templetown and others have been trying to get the Government to accept against the resistance of some person or persons in the Colonial Office. Is it the persons who were resisting the action of Lord Templetown, who were condemned by the words of Lord Birkenhead and Lord Salisbury in the Lords? What is the interpretation? What did Lord Salisbury and Lord

1039
Birkenhead intend by those words which Mr. Lionel Curtis says were a condemnation of the Colonial Office? We are entitled, I think, to an explanation of these extraordinary cross-currents of policy and these imputations against the Government of saying one thing at one time and another thing at another.
The next thing to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention is a statement made and issued by the Commonwealth Trust and headed "An untrue letter." This letter was referred to and discussed in The Times, and it arises out of this paragraph:—
"During these discussions two disturbing incidents occurred. On July 20, 1927, in a debate in the House of Lords, Lord Templetown said that the Government had offered to return the property in West Africa to the Basle Trading Company. Next day the board called the attention of the Colonial Office to this statement, adding that—'this offer was not referred to by the Under-Secretary of State in his speech, and my board cannot believe that it was correctly reported by the speaker referred to, seeing that these properties now belong to this company, without whose consent His Majesty's Government is not entitled to dispose of them.'"
To this the Colonial Office replied, on August 18, very urbanely I think, that—
"the Secretary of State for the Colonies takes no responsibility for statements made in the course of the debate on the 20th of July by Viscount Templetown or Earl Buxton."
The memorandum goes on to say:—
"Later, however, it appeared from Lord Salisbury's statement in the House of Lords on behalf of the Government on February 22, 1928, that the offer in question had in fact been made before the date of the Colonial Office letter of August 18,"—
which is said to be an untrue letter.
Letters appeared in The Times from men of high position in the commercial world, saying that the Government was accused of an untrue statement and that there ought to be a public inquiry. What is the untrue statement? The Department, with methods of evasion with which we are all familiar, perhaps did not intend to answer that question precisely: and meant that, although Lord Templetown might have made the statement, the Colonial Office accepted no responsibility for it and that the time was not ripe for them to make a statement. Nevertheless, when the statement is made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House at a very
1040
opportune time and in very clear and explicit language, and at a time when it was certainly demanded that a statement should be made, this is the comment which the Fellow of All Souls makes upon it. He says:—
"It is only a few weeks since Lord Templetown was asking for inquiry and arbitration. But all this was changed when Lord Salisbury blurted out on February 22 that the Government had offered to return the properties in addition to the value of the shares.…"
These gentlemen are very hard to please. When the Government are not quite prepared to make a statement and say that they will not take responsibility for statements that have been made, they are charged with making an untrue statement. When the time comes and the noble Marquess, with the clearness which always characterises his statements, makes a perfectly clear and proper statement about the matter, he is accused of blurting.
That is the kind of comment on the proceedings of your Lordships' House which I do not think is seemly. The only interpretation of the charge of untruthfulness can be this, that as a matter of fact the Government were responsible for Lord Templetown's statement and had so informed him. That is the only logical meaning which in my mind it can have. I presume the editor of a journal must know the meaning of language and that is the only sense in which the statement referred to can be called untrue—namely, that the Government had the responsibility for it. I should like it cleared up as to whether or not the Government had the responsibility or whether the charge is baseless.
Further, I wish to call attention to the representations made by Mr. Lionel Curtis that members of this House are accustomed to act on behalf of a gentleman believed by him to be the agent of the Chairman of the Basle Trading Company. That statement is made quite precisely in a paragraph of the Report from which Lord Templetown has already quoted. It says this:—
"And now I turn to Herr Preiswerk-Imhoff's activities in the House of Commons and in the British Press. In this case the agent through whom we believe he has worked was a member of Parliament, but is so no longer, one who, from the nature of his public employment, has exceptional knowledge of how to conduct a campaign in Parliament and the Press.…"

1041
That means Mr. J. H. Harris, the Secretary of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, of which my friend Mr. Charles Roberts is Chairman, while I am a member of the Committee. Mr. Harris also happens to be one of the original promoters of the Commonwealth Trust. I myself was an original subscriber to that Trust. My holding is now in the hands of a member of my family and so I am kept in touch with what is going on. Later on he said:—
"The persons other than Lord Templetown who championed Herr Preiswerk-Imhoff's claim in Parliament were mostly members through whom Mr. Harris was accustomed to act in movements backed by the Aborigines Protection Society, Lord Olivier, Lord Buxton, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, Lord Beauchamp.…"
I did not know that Mr. Harris was accustomed to act through Lord Beauchamp.
I myself am not accustomed to be dictated to by Mr. Harris. When I intend bringing a matter to the attention of your Lordships dealing with the matters as to which the Anti-Slavery Society can give me information, I go to Mr. Harris and get from him a good deal of information. But I can assure your Lordships that the impulse for anything that I do in your Lordships' House is my own. I only wanted to refer to that because on the face of it the statement is an absurd one. Lord Templetown has pointed out how absurd it is in his case and I desire to point out how absurd it is in my own case. It seems to reflect upon the Anti-Slavery Society the charge of having occupied itself with things with which it had no concern whatever. So far as the Anti-Slavery Society is concerned I want to deny—and I have Mr. Charles Roberts's letter here equally denying—that the society as a whole has ever concerned itself in this matter. It was not their business and they have not moved in it. Mr. Harris, their secretary, did not move in it in any degree as a member of the society, but as a shareholder in the Commonwealth Trust and as a private gentleman having his own opinion. I think that is all I need say upon that point, but I wished to place on record the repudiation by Mr. Charles Roberts that he has, in any suggestion regarding this matter, acted on behalf of Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff or at the instigation of Mr. J. H. Harris.
One final question I desire to ask is this: Who is going to pay for this business?
1042
We have been told that a settlement has been made; and I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having made a settlement. So far as the settlement has been made public there is nothing in it that calls, so far as I can see, for hostile criticism at all. I understand that the Government have made a settlement under terms which, so far as they have been financial, have been arbitrated by gentlemen whom we all highly respect. They have also made a settlement, I understand, with the Commonwealth Trust on payment of a sum to be paid by the Government which, we are informed, is £55,000. There are two cases. First of all there is the case of the Basle Trading Company. I want to know if the noble Lord can tell us what is the financial settlement made with the Basle Trading Co. When the Commonwealth Trust took over the assets of the Basle Trading Co. they had surplus assets amounting to £505,000. The Commonwealth Trust has now surplus assets of £143,000, showing a diminution of assets of £362,000. Some of that, no doubt, is trading loss, which would have been incurred in any case and which I suppose could not equitably be reclaimed by the Basle Trading Co. But are they or are they not to have any consideration whatever for their surplus of assets which at that time amounted to £505,000? If they are, who is going to pay?
The same question applies in the case of the settlement with the Commonwealth Trust. That Trust was endowed by His Majesty's Government with all the properties of the Basle Trading Co. At one time it was suggested that the settlement with the Commonwealth Trust was that they should be paid out the £50,000 which they had subscribed for the shares and that the whole of the properties should be handed over to the Basle Trading Co. Instead of that I understand the Government are going to retain all the business and hand over the premises and compensate the Commonwealth Trust by paying them £55,000, more or less. Payment of that sum would involve in any case a payment out of the Exchequer or out of the funds of the Gold Coast. So far as the Commonwealth Trust is concerned, I think the shareholders have had an enormous fund given to them and they are now to have an extra bonus of £55,000 given to them for their business which, they say, is a

1043
paying concern, a business which pays the not unhandsome dividend of 5 per cent. free of Income Tax, guaranteed, as it appears, by the Government, who are prepared to come to their assistance on every possible occasion. I suggest it should be made a trustee stock. It is an extraordinary transaction.
On what pretext is this done? It is done upon the pretext that it is for the benefit of the natives that the Commonwealth Trust should continue its beneficent operations. Ever since the Commonwealth Trust took up the matter the natives of the Gold Coast have not had a penny piece of benefit from the Commonwealth Trust. It is on the faith of the fact that the natives are to have some benefit that the Government are going to endow the Commonwealth Trust with a gift of £55,000, besides paying compensation to the Basle Trading Company for the property they took away from that company. When has such philanthropic work ever been done by a Government on this principle in the history of the world? If you want to provide education for the natives of the Gold Coast, if you want to assist missions, is this the way you should do it? Is that the way—endowing a company by paying for the assets of another company and giving them £55,000 besides new premises? Was such a thing ever done in this country? Talk about State Socialism, I would very much rather take over the whole education of the natives of Cape Colony and the Gold Coast than I would give a fund or an endowment to a commercial company, in order that they might make profits out of which they can provide for the education of the natives. It is a shocking principle.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord if he will tell us what is the total amount involved and who is to pay? Is the British Parliament going to pay? I should be very much interested to hear the comments in another place if a proposal is made to pay £300,000—I presume the bill will come to that—to carry out this proposal solely for the benefit of a company to enable it to provide some kind of education for the natives of the Gold Coast out of their profits when they exceed 6½ per cent. on the capital. That is an extraordinary transaction and I should like to hear the comments in another place upon it. I should like to
1044
hear also the comments made in the Gold Coast Legislature when you submit a proposal to them to carry out such an extraordinary policy at their expense. All who have had experience of Colonial history can apprehend the trouble you will have out there if you carry out this transaction, which was engineered in Downing Street, carried out at Downing Street and imposed on the Colony by the Secretary of State. You say in effect: "Because we made a mistake in doing this we shall impose the cost on the Colony and you will have to pay."
My noble friend Lord Chalmers will remember the case in Jamaica when action was taken on behalf of His Majesty's Government by a Governor of Jamaica, who confiscated a ship under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The Treasury said: "This is the act of the Governor; it is not the act of the Government; but as an act of grace we will pay half for what the Governor has done on behalf of the British Government." Nevertheless there was a small revolution in the Island of Jamaica. All the elected members of the Council resigned and the trouble was such that the provisions of the Constitution had to be modified in order to placate public opinion. You may have something of that kind in the Gold Coast. The only further point I have to mention is this. I do not think it is a point which will need much pressing. I will move that the Papers consist of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Basle Trading Company or the Swiss Government on their behalf. We in this House and the public generally are entitled to know something of the extraordinary history of this business that has dragged on wearily for the unprecedented period of about ten years. I beg to move.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, it may be convenient if I say the few words that I desire to say, before the noble Lord speaks on behalf of the Government. I should like to associate myself fully with the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Templetown and Lord Olivier, in regard to the attacks made on the integrity of members of both Houses. I think it is very unfortunate that this trouble should have been allowed to continue for so long a time. The directors made an accusation without any evidence

1045
whatever to support it, and I think it is quite sufficient for this purpose that the two noble Lords who have spoken before me have repudiated that attack and the insinuation that they were in any way actuated by improper motives in moving in this matter. I am sure they have done so only as a public duty and in the public interest, with a view of obtaining justice for both sides. I am glad my noble friend Lord Olivier also drew attention to the attacks which have been made on civil servants in the directors' report. The permanent officials of the Civil Service and the Colonial Office have been attacked in various ways and they are said to have been overridden by their chief on one occasion. It is said that these matters got into the hands of junior officers and so on, and these civil servants are practically accused of behaving badly in regard to that public service.
I consider it is very regrettable that such an attack should be made on our civil servants. I have had the honour of serving in three great public administrative Departments and I can say with absolute sincerity that all our civil servants do their duty loyally to their chiefs and never in these matters introduce personal feeling. They are loyal in every sense of the word to those above them. To say it is the junior officers in a Department who are responsible for the kind of position that has arisen is, of course, absurd. The only person who can be held responsible in any public Department is the head of that Department. There are, of course, differences of opinion when a question is before a Department, but when a decision is come to it is not the civil servant who is held responsible for that decision: it is the head of the Department. To suggest anything to the contrary seems to me to be diametrically opposed to our system of State administration so far as civil servants are concerned.
I rise to congratulate the Government on having at long last arrived at a solution of this question which has now covered seven or eight years, and the only comment I would make regarding the Colonial Office is that they certainly have been dilatory in this matter. However, they have now arrived at the conclusion that the original sequestration was wrong, although at the time in perfectly good faith it was believed to be perfectly legal. They are now proposing
1046
to hand back the land and buildings to the original proprietors of it, the Basle Trading Company. I regret only that the affair has given a bad impression and certainly did not improve the relations between Great Britain and Switzerland. I would like to convey my congratulations to Lord Templetown for his Job-like patience, and the persistence with which he has pursued this matter for the last seven years. I hope he will feel at the end of it that he has got a Rachael and not a Leah as the result of his seven years waiting.
There are two interests concerned in connection with this matter, the interest of the Basle Trading Co. and the interest of the Commonwealth Trust, which have come somewhat into conflict, and I really rise for the purpose of asking my noble friend who represents the Colonial Office to give us in his reply a little further information with regard to the position than is contained in the letter from the Colonial Office and in the answer of the Secretary of State in the House of Commons the other day. I understand the Basle Trading Co. will have handed to them the houses and land of which they were dispossessed when the property was sequestrated, and in addition to that they will get back their £120,000 capital, with arrears of dividend, amounting to something like £40,000. Besides that they will receive a sum of £250,000 in respect of liquid assets the value of which it is difficult to estimate, and for which I understand they themselves would naturally have been anxious to get a larger sum.
It is a very great relief to me to note what the Secretary of State said the other day with regard to the future of the Basle Trading Company, because in the first instance it seemed the whole of the money, the land and the buildings taken were to be handed back to them without any conditions at all, although originally there was to be only 5 per cent. paid on capital and the whole of any surplus trading profit was to go to the benefit of the natives, so that the trading spirit should be absolutely prohibited. It did appear in the first announcement made as if the whole of the capital and the liquid assets and the arrears of interest on capital were to go back to the Basle Trading Company

1047
without any conditions of that sort. They were to have handed to them property of far greater value than that of which they were dispossessed, although when they were dispossessed of the property only 5 per cent. was to be paid on the capital of £120,000, and the rest must go to the benefit of the Mission station and the natives. However, that, I understand from the Secretary of State, is not true, and he has agreed with the Basle Trading Company—I will not say he has made it a condition, because I think they rather object to that word—that they shall carry out the general principle on which they previously worked—namely, that they will limit their interest and that any surplus will continue to go to the natives. That, I think, is very satisfactory.
Then we have the other party, that is, the Commonwealth Trust, and I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Olivier in what he said in regard to them. He seems to think the Government ought not to treat them liberally and generously. I think he forgets that after all—
LORD OLIVIER: No, I did not say that. I think they have been treated quite fairly and rightly. What I said was objectionable was to finance a public company in order to provide education for the natives.
EARL BUXTON: The Commonwealth Company, after all, came in at a very difficult moment. The property had been sequestrated and put up to public auction. They came forward with great patriotism to meet a national difficulty. They were actuated by no possible sense of profit, because their dividend was limited to 5 per cent. Therefore I think that on the basis of that, when it comes to dealing with the present position, they should be treated with considerable generosity. There were two alternatives really, and I think the Government have come to a wise decision to let them go on. I have had my attention called by the Commonwealth Trust to a statement I made that they had lost a considerable sum of money by their trading operations. I was told that that was so, but I did not give them credit for having more or less met their deficits during recent years. I make that allowance now with pleasure. As I understand it, the proposal is that they are to be paid their capital of
1048
£55,000, and that they are to be paid for stores which are valued at between £200,000 and £300,000. They are to trade in the same way as before—namely, that profits above 5 per cent. should go to the benefit of the natives. These are very large sums, and as these are the matters on which I want a little more information, I should like the noble Lord who will reply for the Government to see if the figures I am giving are correct. I have only been able to take them from what appeared in the Press. As regards the Basle Trading Company, they are to receive £120,000, and they are to receive arrears of interest which roughly work out at £40,000, that is £160,000. In addition they are to receive £250,000 in lieu of various liquid assets. They will receive £410,000.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): The £120,000 has already been paid. I will give the figures later.
EARL BUXTON: I am not asking for the figures now. I am only asking that the noble Lord shall say whether they are correct.
LORD LOVAT: No, they are not correct. The £120,000 has already been paid.
EARL BUXTON: I am not speaking of whether it has been paid before, but of the total they are to get at the end. The £120,000 is included in the £410,000. The Commonwealth Trust, I understand, receives £55,000 capital, and they are left with stores and so on to the amount of between £200,000 and £300,000. The whole sum, including the £120,000, will amount to about £700,000. What I want to know is, how is that money, whatever it may be, going to be paid? The Secretary of State has already said that £250,000 of liquid assets is to come from the Colonial Office, but who is to meet the capital of the Commonwealth Trust and the £200,000 or £300,000 worth of stores left in their possession? These facts do not appear from the particulars that we have before us in the Press. I should like to know if that balance also is to be paid by the Colony or whether it is to come from the Exchequer. I think it is very improbable that it is coming from the Exchequer.
I should also like to know—and this is my main question—how far, before this

1049
agreement was come to, the Governor of the Gold Coast, the traders, the natives and other representative people were consulted in regard to the matter, and whether the affair is so far in train that, supposing the Legislative Council object to it on behalf of the inhabitants of the Gold Coast, their objection will affect this bargain, and what will then be the position. I do urge that, in any case, it is highly important, for the reasons given by my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench, that the Colony should be fully consulted in this matter before they are absolutely committed to the payment of £250,000, or whatever the sum may be. I would ask whether the Legislative Council will have an opportunity of considering the matter. The people of the Colony will be very much affected by this transaction, and notably the traders, because they will have to pay the money both to the Basle Trading Company and to the Commonwealth Trust and they will be saddled with two rival traders whom they will be subsidising out of their own pockets. That is a point that ought to be considered.
I would ask whether the Colony has been consulted, whether it will be consulted and whether the Legislative Council will have an opportunity of considering the matter without official pressure being brought on the official members, so that they may judge it on its merits apart from any instructions from this country. I assure the Government that I raise these points in no hostile spirit. I congratulate the Government on having come to a settlement, but we have a very small amount of information and these questions are germane to the conclusions to which the Government have come. I put them in an entirely friendly spirit.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships to grant me your indulgence while I say a few words, although I can assure the House that I have no personal interest whatever in the Commonwealth Trust or in the Basle Mission, or in those who are trying to get back their properties from the British Government, at great expense, so far as I can see, to the inhabitants of the Gold Coast. I do not know how far your Lordships have been told fully what this whole question is about. You need to
1050
know the first principles concerned in it before you can see the action of the Government in its true proportion. I am interested in this matter only because I happen to know certain members of the Commonwealth Trust, who are all patriotic men who have given their time without any consideration whatever to a duty which was thrust upon them by the public policy of the Government of the day.
When I hear an attack upon Mr. Lionel Curtis in the terms used here to-day, when he is treated with contempt by my noble friend Lord Templetown and with jocular observations by the noble Lord opposite, I can only say that, whilst I have disagreed with Mr. Curtis in almost everything that he has ever done in relation to politics and especially to relation to Ireland, in regard to the action that he took over the so-called Treaty with that country, and in relation to other matters in which he was employed by the Government with regard to Ireland, nevertheless I will say for Mr. Curtis that I never met, a more single-minded man, a man who, whatever he does, does it with a more real sense of absolute patriotism and devotion to his country, and who is more incapable of doing or saying anything without in the fullest degree considering whether what he is doing is right. He has been employed by the Government, I understand, in the Dominion Office. I remember when he was employed in the Irish Office, where I thoroughly hated him, but that does not prevent me from appreciating that he is one of those men who is always trying, in accordance with his ideals, with which I do not agree, to do good in any of the public concerns in which he is interested.
What was the origin of all this? I think your Lordships will see in a few moments that the whole of this difficulty and the saddling of this payment on the Gold Coast arose through the utter incompetence of the Colonial Office. Like Mr. Curtis, I like to be perfectly frank in what I have to say. I will show you what happened. Nine years ago there was a mission at the Gold Coast called, I think, the Basle Mission. In addition to that there was the Basle Mission Trading Company. The mission was a purely philanthropic concern. They were there for the purpose of philanthropic work amongst the natives and, after pay

1051
ing a small dividend upon the money subscribed, they devoted the rest of their funds to the benefit of the people of the Gold Coast. I believe some money was also devoted to certain work in India. The first thing to remember is that the Basle Mission Trading Company, which has been treated by the Colonial Office as if it were purely a trading company, was not so. In the Basle Mission Trading Company the Basle Mission held a large proportion of shares—if I am right it was one-fifth—and they were bound to get dividends which were applied to patriotic purposes. In addition, the mission had the right at any time to buy out the shareholders in the Basle Mission Trading Company, so that the whole assets of the company might be devoted to bettering the condition of the natives of the Gold Coast.
In 1918 the British Government—I have not seen their papers or their reasons—decided that this foreign company, acting in their territory, was hostile to this country, and they thought that it would be better to take its affairs out of its hands and put them under their own guidance. They took away, under certain conditions into which I need not enter, the assets of the Basle Mission and the Basle Mission Trading Company, and they formed a company in this country under a Gold Coast Ordinance. This was the Commonwealth Welfare and Education Trust, and they asked a number of men, whose names are well known to everyone, to undertake the task of carrying out this mission for the benefit of the natives. Amongst others was the gentleman who has been so severely handled to-day, Mr. Lionel Curtis, and there was a board, and they went on trading there for the benefit of the natives, having subscribed some £50,000 or £60,000 of their own money. This went on from 1918 up to 1924. It is quite true that they did not trade with profit. Trade was bad everywhere, and there is no doubt they felt the effects of bad trade, just as it was felt in other places.
For some reason or other, in 1924—the reason has never been given—the Colonial Office said: We have changed our old policy and are going to give up all the old assets (which had now reached over £1,000,000) to the Basle Mission Trading Company—apparently without any terms, or without any trust, because
1052
the Basle Mission Trading Company had no trust, whereas the Commonwealth Trust was exclusively for philanthropic purposes, and is so to-day. The excuse which they made for taking the assets away at that time—and it is really worth while following out the mentality of the Colonial Office—was this. They suddenly said: Now, you gentlemen turn out—I ought to mention that the Secretary of State was himself a party to the articles constituting the Commonwealth Trust—and then they said:—
"The reason why it is desired to take the properties in question back from the Commonwealth Trust is that the assets seem to be disappearing"—
I do not think they meant that the Trust was making away with the assets—
"and there also seems to be no prospect of philanthropic purposes benefiting from the arrangement, which was the object for which the property was given over to the Trust.…The reason why it is proposed to transfer the property back to the Basle Mission Trading Co. is that it is the only organisation which seems likely to carry on the property successfully and also subject to the condition that no spirits should be sold at the depots."
There is nothing there about any trust. It is purely as a trading company.
Your Lordships will notice that in that letter they do not say a word about the Basle Trading Company, or any injustice to them. It was not put upon that ground, but solely on the ground of the losses which the Commonwealth Trust has sustained. Trade, however, revived, and with the revival of trade the position of the Commonwealth Trust improved, and there was a great prospect of philanthropic purposes benefiting. Then the Colonial Office altered their position, and in September, 1925, wrote this:—
"The Secretary of State does not desire to call in question the management of the affairs of the Trust in any way, but has come to the conclusion that, for reasons of State, into which it is hardly necessary to enter, it will be desirable that the Trust shall cease to operate in the Gold Coast, and that the former properties of the Basle Mission Trading Society, now held by the Trust, shall be returned to the local board of trustees constituted under the Gold Coast Ordinance, No. 40, of 1918.…This proposal, it will be observed, leaves the Trust's Indian business in its present position."
From that day to this, in spite of repeated demands by the Commonwealth Trust—which had been taken up by these gentlemen of eminence solely at the request of

1053
the Government—not one particle of information has been given to them as to why this was desired to be done.
What is more, they knew that this trading company was getting back this million pounds of assets, which had been accumulated, not for philanthropic purposes, but in order that it might be used for ordinary trading purposes—that it was diverting these assets from the very purpose for which the Commonwealth Trust had been formed, the Secretary of State himself being a party to the formation. It is all very well to say that great public Departments can do these things. True it is, the Colonial Office say, we formed you in 1918, and you took over this for us: it was very good of you, but we now tell you to turn out and hand over these assets. I do not wonder that under those conditions there was some heat on the board of the Commonwealth Trust. I have no doubt that some heated things were said—so far as I am concerned I need not say that I am not throwing any doubt upon the perfect honesty of my noble friend in this matter—but when business is managed in that kind of way it is utterly impossible that there should not be some heated statements. After all, all that the Trust had ever asked is that they should be informed of the true state of affairs.
Then what happened? In July, 1927, there was a debate in this House, and my noble friend Lord Templetown said that the Government had "offered to return the property in West Africa" to the Basle Trading Company. Thereupon the Commonwealth Trust wrote and asked: What do you mean by this? We have not been told anything about this lately. They added that
"this offer was not referred to by the Under-Secretary of State in his speech, and my Board cannot believe that it was correctly reported by the speakers referred to, seeing that these properties now belong to this company, without whose consent His Majesty's Government is not entitled to dispose of them."
That was in July, 1927, and I ask noble Lords' attention to what was said in reply to that. On August 18, 1927, the Colonial Office replied:—
"The Secretary of State for the Colonies takes no responsibility for statements made in the course of the debate on the 20th of July by Viscount Templetown or Earl Buxton."
1054
Yet all the time that the Colonial Office were making that statement to the Colonial Trust, they were really, behind their backs, negotiating to hand over these very assets while disputing the statements of noble Lords who were making allegations which turned out to be perfectly true. I suppose that that is what is called diplomacy, but it does not lead to anything but friction. The Commonwealth Trust went on doing the work, and then the board were suddenly told that the whole thing must be handed over. The board said, in effect: "At all events let us be sure that you are handing it over, not to private individuals, but to somebody who will carry out the philanthropic trust for which this money was originally got together, and has been accumulated by us." No such undertaking was given, and no such undertaking is given now, because I have here the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in the House of Commons two days ago.
He gives an account of the arrangement come to, and the most remarkable thing is that the whole of these assets are being handed back to this Trading Company, and all the Government have is a promise that they will apply a certain percentage—which they do not even mention—to philanthropic purposes. That is all the undertaking that is given. How is it to be enforced on a foreign company? The one struggle of Mr. Lionel Curtis and of the Commonwealth Trust was to see that if the undertaking were taken out of their hands, it would go for philanthropic purposes. I see that when Mr. Amery was asked in another place about having some conditions binding on the company, he said:—
"As the company are not a trust, and have never been bound to any fixed figure, it would be impossible to secure their agreement to such a fixed figure, but I have every confidence that the undertaking which they have given will be honoured both in the spirit and in the letter."
He was asked if they would agree to any fixed percentage, so that it would not be entirely nugatory, and he said that a matter he could not get them to carry out. That is where the matter stands. But in the meantime the Commonwealth Trust at all events gained this by their persistent action, that they have not been wiped out, they are to be handed

1055
over in the settlement a certain sum of money, and certain concessions which will enable them to go on doing their philanthropic work. So much was gained entirely by the persistence of Mr. Lionel Curtis and his board. Therefore, before you censure him here, let us at all events look at the realities of the situation. You cannot deal with companies set up for these purposes by your own Government without creating considerable feeling.
There is one other thing which was referred to by the noble Earl opposite, and which I think requires a good deal of consideration. Who is to pay for all this? You are going to hand over a lot of money to the Basle Mission Trading Company; you are going to try to put the Commonwealth Trust upon their feet—who is going to pay for all this? Will the unfortunate inhabitants pay? I do not know how rich or how poor they are—they live on the Gold Coast, so I suppose there is a certain amount of wealth there. Are they to pay for all these changes of policy, and for all this dispute, which need never have arisen? If that is so, I think it is a very poor result of negotiations continuing over long years. So far as the Commonwealth Trust and Mr. Lionel Curtis are concerned, they deeply regret that the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, has not persisted in the Motion he had on the Paper the other day, when he demanded an Inquiry into the whole matter. They have asked for that over and over again. They have written saying they would support it. They have demanded it, I believe they demand it now, and nothing would be more helpful to clear up a transaction of this kind than to have the whole thing gone into from beginning to end. I would ask the Government even now whether it is not possible to grant this Inquiry, or to lay all the Papers connected with the negotiations, and then it will be seen whether the claims put forward on behalf of the Commonwealth Trust were not only well founded but strictly in accordance with the trust which this Government have put upon them.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I would like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the fact that he has rather misunderstood what I said about the gentleman referred to. I want to make
1056
it quite clear that I did not say I had any contempt for Mr. Lionel Curtis. The words I used were these:—
"The veiled and malicious innuendo thus conveyed would appear to be directed inferentially, if not actually, against other members of your Lordships' House."
It is the innuendo against other members of your Lordships' House that I treat with contempt.
LORD CARSON: I have already said that so far as I was concerned I did not associate myself with that language, but I tried to explain the condition under which language of that kind was used, and I think I showed that it was a case in which, through the action of the Government, a good deal of feeling was aroused. I am sure my noble friend does not imagine for a moment that I suggested it as regards him; he would be the last man in the world against whom I should say a word.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Here is a copy of the correspondence I had with the Colonial Office for four years—the last year is not in print—and I would defy anybody to find a single word that I ever said against the Commonwealth Trust, or against their claim for justice. I have asked for justice for the Basle Mission Trading Company, and therefore I was perfectly willing to yield it to the Commonwealth Trust.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, after the settlement announced by the Secretary of State in another place a few evenings ago, one might have hoped that this controversy would be allowed to come to a natural end, but, inasmuch as the two Motions on the Paper this evening have revived matters which go right to the root of the original scheme, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence to lay before you another aspect of the case—a view which is held by a body which hitherto has taken no part in the public controversy—I refer to the trustees. We are not the directors of the company, we have no pecuniary or personal interest whatsoever in the company, and very little to do with its administration. We are a body of eleven or twelve men on whom has been imposed the duty—and there is no duty on us except this—of seeing that the surplus profits of the Trading Company are duly and properly employed for the well-being and the ad

1057
vancement of the inhabitants of the areas in which the Trading Company operates. The trustees, as I have said, have no pecuniary or personal interest whatsoever in the business and no part in its administration. They naturally satisfy themselves, and they have satisfied themselves by meetings with the directors, that the business is being so conducted as not to imperil the prospect of reasonable profits being made available for the purposes of the Trust.
They are, if I may say so, reasonably respectable and responsible persons. They include, besides myself, another member of your Lordships' House, who holds high judicial office and feels himself debarred thereby from taking part in this discussion, Lord Blanesburgh. They include a member of His Majesty's Government, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, the eminent head of a great college in Oxford, Sir Michael Sadler, and a number of representatives of missionary organisations and the like, whose names command very general respect. They include also, no doubt for the purpose of a link between the trusteeship and the administration, certain directors of the company. The trustees, as I have said, have hitherto taken no part whatever in the public discussion. We have no desire whatever to attack the discretion of His Majesty's Government. We have no wish to re-open the settlement that has been arrived at. We have nothing but appreciation for the courtesy we received from His Majesty's Secretary of State when we personally approached him informally. It is just possible, I think, that had we been taken into the confidence of His Majesty's Government at an earlier stage we might have been of some service in enabling them to get out of what was obviously a very embarrassing situation. If we regret that we were not called in earlier it is not because of any sense of wounded dignity, but simply from a feeling of disappointment that we have not been able to render service.
As trustees we were, with the full concurrence of His Majesty's Government at the time, definitely invested with certain duties relating to the well-being of the residents in India and on the Gold Coast. Let me say at once that I will not say a word about the Indian part of the question, because I have sufficient confidence
1058
in the Government of India and in the Indian Legislature to feel sure that they will not fall into, shall I say, the same mistakes as have befallen the Colonial Office. Speaking as a trustee I will confine myself, therefore, entirely to the Gold Coast side of the question. The Trust had certain duties towards the inhabitants of the Gold Coast Colony and I think we appreciated fully the responsibility of discharging those duties. That involved at least a maintenance of the arrangements which His Majesty's Government had made for the administration of this property during, or immediately after, the War. That arrangement, as the noble Lord who spoke last has reminded your Lordships, made it compulsorily for the surplus profits, after the payment of an extremely moderate dividend on the shares, to be utilised under the direction of the trustees for the educational and other advantages of the people of the Colony.
It was with considerable surprise that we learned from the public Press that His Majesty's Government were engaged in negotiations which would completely destroy the trust which had been imposed upon us. It was with still greater surprise that, again indirectly, we learned that the negotiations contemplated at least the possibility of the property which produced the Trust funds being transferred to foreign owners, with no assurance whatsoever that the surplus profits would continue to be employed for the well-being of the people of the Colony. I do not know that even the arrangement which has now been described effectively guarantees any diversion to local interests of the profits which the foreign company may succeed in obtaining. His Majesty's Secretary of State expressed the hope that the newcomers would not be forgetful of certain offers, or pledges as he called them, that had been made; but I do not gather that these offers or pledges are in any sense part of a contract which is binding upon the new owners or are enforceable either in this country or in the Gold Coast Colony.
Do not let us forget that the past history of the negotiations and the records of the Swiss Trading Company have made it perfectly clear that the new owners, who expressed sentiments of benevolence and even of piety, have determined to reserve to themselves

1059
entire discretion as to the utilisation of their funds. No such discretion rested upon us, and we could not view without great alarm the fundamental change which was apparently in contemplation. This was the position. A trading company of foreign origin and ownership had been established in a British Colony and had been impressed with a Trust which required that the surplus profits should be utilised for the welfare of the inhabitants of the Colony. We were told that for reasons of State that company had been confiscated by the British Government during the War, and that the property had been handed over to a British Company which remained impressed with the same trust. Relying on that, the British Company in all good faith administered the property and we the trustees in all good faith exercised our vigilance in seeing that the purposes of the trust were capable of being fulfilled.
Then suddenly, or at least without any consultation with the trustees, the public were made aware that His Majesty's Government were engaged in negotiations to restore the property to the original foreign company. To what extent those negotiations were necessary is a question between the Government, presumably, and its Law Officers, and in what terms the restoration should be made is a question between the Government and its own conscience. But that the restoration should be made in such a way as to destroy the Trust and thereby to remove the special opportunities which it afforded of helping the inhabitants of the Colony, was a matter in which public opinion would naturally and properly have some voice. Am I going too far in suggesting that public opinion might never have been informed about the position and that the destruction of the Trust might have been carried through without comment or protest, had it not been for the action of certain of the directors of the British company?
I can understand that noble Lords take exception to certain words that were used in the course of the presentation of the case by the directors. It is true that the language they used was strong and that their action was vigorous. But let us ask ourselves this question: Had their language not been strong, leaving apart individual expressions which we do
1060
not support if they were made, and had their action not been vigorous where should we have been to-day? Would His Majesty's Government have been fully awakened to the gravity of the situation, would the Trust have been preserved in any shape or form, would the indigenes of the Colony have retained the benefits which His Majesty's Government had originally intended to preserve for them if that vigorous action had not been taken? I appreciate, as we all do, the remarks that fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, when he opened this discussion and I quite understand his resentment at the suggestion that he should be regarded as the representative of a foreign company. But is that altogether the fault of those who used that term? Looking back on the actual words used by the noble Lord in this House on February 22, he said:—
"We say the Government have taken this thing from us and we are entitled to its return. We are only asking to be given back what belongs to us."
In the Courts of Law one is familiar with the practice by which advocates use the words "we" and "us" without reference to themselves personally but in reference to their clients. I do not think we are quite so familiar with that convention in your Lordships' House and when a noble Lord says: "We say the Government have" and "We are entitled" to something, then the natural presumption is that he is talking about himself and others who are associated with him. I would, however, ask noble Lords who are aggrieved at the course this controversy has taken, two questions. When they undertook the championship of the company, when they presented the case, did they know that the company in question was in fact demanding to be put in a position where it would no longer be bound to let its surplus profits go to the welfare of the natives?
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: The noble Lord refers to me. I am afraid I do not hear very well, but I will answer. I do not think he would wish me to reopen this case and if I go into all the details of what has been said in this House this afternoon nothing short of reopening the whole case could possibly deal with the situation. I have not the smallest intention of doing that, but I will say this, that everything I knew about the

1061
Basle Trading Company and Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff or anything else was all communicated in writing to the Colonial Office. Beyond saying that I do not propose to go into it further.
LORD OLIVIER: When you have taken away a man's property unjustly you are not entitled to make stipulations as to the terms on which you will return it.
LORD MESTON: I do not think the last answer relevant to my question, but I am prepared to leave the matter as it now stands in your Lordships' hands. I would only like to say that the trustees have never had any public opportunity of expressing their point of view. They are certainly not anxious now to take any acute part in the controversy, which they would gladly see expire. They have never had an opportunity of pointing out how grave an injustice, or at all events how unmerited a hardship, to the people of a British Colony was very near being perpetrated. They have endeavoured recently to put their case before the Colonial Office, and I would ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovat) whether it is possible when publishing Papers to allow the letters of the trustees and the replies to the trustees to be included among any collection of Papers which he is good enough to issue.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I might be allowed to put one or two supplementary questions. I should like also to associate myself with what has been said by the last two speakers in defence of a gentleman who has been attacked here to-day and who cannot speak for himself. I would also say about Mr. Lionel Curtis and his fellow directors that all who know him and who know them know absolutely that in everything which they do and have done they have been disinterested, selfless, unselfish, patriotic and, I may say, courageous. I am not surprised that the noble Lord opposite should have been annoyed by some of the things which have been said. I do not propose to go into that. I think it would be a pity to revive anything like that, but I am sure, in view of the leading part which he has played very frequently in championing the interests of the natives in our Colonies and Dominions, he will probably later on, when this controversy belongs to the past and not to the present, be
1062
glad that the intervention of Mr. Curtis and the other directors has done something now to safeguard and protect the interests of the natives which would, in fact, not have been done if the transfer had been made in February, as was then proposed by the Government.
I do not propose to go into the legal question as to the ownership and the transfer of property, nor do I think it would be advisable to deal with all the various arguments and charges which have been made at different times, but in view of one of the observations which has been made to-day I think it is only fair to Mr. Curtis to say that he has not charged any member of either House of Parliament with being under the undue influence of outside persons. As I understand it, the real charge which he has made is contained in this sentence which will be found in a letter published in The Times over his name:—
"the transferring of properties now held in trust for native welfare to the uncontrolled disposal of certain traders."
As I understand it, the reason that he has taken the prominent and, I think, by no means unsuccessful part in this controversy is that he did want something to be done, which was not proposed in February, to safeguard the interests of the natives, and I feel certain that many of your Lordships, who may perhaps at the present moment be feeling displeased with some of the things he has said, will later on be glad that the transfer has been made under different conditions and on different terms than were contemplated and proposed in February. I understand that in February the Government proposed to abolish the Commonwealth Trust and to return the whole of the property to the Basle Trading Company. I am not raising the legal aspect as to whether or not that was the right thing to do as regards the property. What I do say is that as the result of reconsideration, of further negotiations and further effort and discussion, different terms have now been agreed upon and the interest of the natives in the future will be protected and looked after in a way which was not then contemplated.
The Secretary of State for the Dominions, speaking the day before yesterday in another place, dealt briefly with the terms of the settlement and rejoiced and claimed credit for the fact that

1063
the ten years' work of the Commonwealth Trust would not be wasted. He hoped, and His Majesty's Government hoped, that they would be enabled to earn profits in the future which would result in substantial benefactions to missionary and educational work in the Gold Coast. He claimed it as a merit that they would not have been able to do that had the transfer taken place in February. He also claimed credit—but let me use his own words—
"Eventually, however, they [the Basle Trading Company] gave an undertaking that they will not deal in liquor or firearms, and that, 'in the future, as in the past, they will adhere to their established practice of devoting a substantial portion of their distributable profits to missionary and other philanthropic purposes in all parts of the world, including the British Empire.…'"
Lastly—there is only one other quotation I should like to make—the right hon. gentleman said that in negotiating for a settlement the Government attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of the philanthropic character of the Trading Company. If that is the case—I am speaking so that the noble Lord should be able to deal with the misgivings felt by many people outside—they have now been able to obtain terms and conditions which would not have been granted to them, and which I understand they were not even asking for, in February. However much exception may be taken to the charges or statements made outside by Mr. Curtis, I think it is very largely due to his intervention and activity that there has been this modification.
LORD LOVAT: There are many questions I shall have to answer, but I may perhaps answer this point in one word. The solution which has now been arrived at was put before the Government, as I shall tell your Lordships later, as early as the summer of last year, and was by the Government at that time passed on in the course of negotiations to the Basle Trading Company.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: What the noble Lord has just said makes me wonder more than ever why it was that His Majesty's Government did not ask the trustees and the directors of the Basle Trading Company to meet them and have a conference with them. They may have seen individual directors, but, as I understand it, they did not ask the directors and trustees to meet them. They did not
1064
explain to them the legal difficulties. One of the reasons that I put forward the statement I did was that Mr. Preiswerk-Imhoff never challenged the point made by Mr. Curtis, that it was proposed to transfer the property from the Trust to the Trading Company without guaranteeing that the interests of the natives would be safeguarded. I think it was Lord Carson who said just now that he hoped that even now an Inquiry would be held, and I cannot help thinking that in view of the great misunderstandings which have arisen, in view of the public discussions and the interest taken in the matter, that even now it might be desirable to have a full Inquiry. I understand that when this matter was debated in your Lordships' House in February, the Commonwealth Trust then asked that your Lordships' House should be informed that they desired an Inquiry.
May I put two matters to the noble Lord before he replies? The Secretary of State for the Dominions dealt with two points. One was the distribution of profits, and the other was the restriction on the sale of intoxicants. Let me take the last point first. Does this restriction apply to the sale of intoxicants to natives only, or to persons of mixed descent as well? As I understand it, the Commonwealth Trust have not sold liquor to any one. Does this same restriction apply to the Basle Trading Company under the agreement? As regards the distribution of profits, reference has been made in your Lordships' House to-day to the fact that £55,000, roughly, is to be given to the Commonwealth Trust, and that a somewhat larger sum, some £400,000, or it may be a little more, I did not catch the exact total, is to be given to the Basle Trading Company. As I understand it, the whole of the profits over five per cent. which will be made by the Commonwealth Trust will be used for the advantage of the natives on the Gold Coast. That money will be distributed by British trustees in the future.
But as regards the Basle Trading Company the matter is entirely vague. There is no guarantee that any specific proportion or percentage of the profits they make will be distributed on the Gold Coast. There is a vague undertaking that some of the profits may be distributed within the British Empire or without it. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to-day to give us some in

1065
formation and satisfy many people who are interested in the Commonwealth Trust and in the welfare of the natives on the Gold Coast, that there is a definite guarantee that a definite proportion of the profits made by the Basle Trading Company, money which is to be provided from the Gold Coast or by ourselves, will be used for the advantage of the natives. If they are able to do that, and whether they are able to do it or not, I am sure that all who have the interest of the natives at heart will feel grateful for the intervention of the directors of the Trust in a very difficult task, and that when the heat of the present moment is past we shall probably all be glad of what I think is a successful intervention on their part.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than three minutes. I do not propose to discuss the political aspects of the question, though I hope a settlement has been reached which will prove workable. Still less do I propose to discuss the speech made by Mr. Lionel Curtis to which so many references have been made. I cannot help feeling that that speech has been given an undue amount of importance. What I am most anxious to say is that I hope that your Lordships' House will not allow the really valuable and patriotic work of the Commonwealth Trust to be obscured or forgotten in view of the recent controversy which has arisen in connection with it. I knew nothing whatever about the Trust until a few months ago, but all those who know of its work—and I have made myself familiar with it—will recognise that the Trust was formed at a time of great difficulty in 1918 to carry on work of undoubted public utility to the natives, which was in danger of complete abolition. Since that time, in face of very great difficulties, this work has been carried on with real benefit to the native population. I hope the noble Lord who will reply to this debate will be able to tell us that the Government appreciate the public-spirited action which was taken by those who formed this Trust and that they will see that opportunity is given for continuance of its work.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I am sure you will agree with me that I have a somewhat difficult task to fufil, as I have not only to answer a very large number
1066
of questions, but I have also to deal with a great many statements of fact, which have been made and contradicted across the House. I think, perhaps, the simplest way to deal with the matter, if your Lordships will allow me, will be to run through in the first place the statement of the settlement which has been made, and to answer the questions raised by Lord Templetown. I can then correct, if I may, certain figures stated by Earl Buxton, and this may give your Lordships a more exact appreciation of how the matter stands to-day.
The settlement that has been reached with the Basle Trading Society is that the lands and buildings formerly held by them on the Gold Coast will be returned plus the sum of £250,000. The £120,000 to which Lord Buxton has referred is money that has already been returned and which was lying at interest here, and therefore there is no question of any further interest being paid. That money has been lying in the bank for them and was paid something like a year ago. Accordingly the sum at issue that will have to be found is £250,000 plus £55,000, making £305,000 in all. This settlement with the Basle Trading Society is, I think, a fair settlement on both sides. I thank your Lordships have seen what the Secretary of State said in another place on the subject of the Basle Mission having met His Majesty's Government over the matter, and I think that, if you turn back to the correspondence that has passed and the statements that have been made here, you will see that the sum is very much less than the figure that was at one time discussed and does not represent the claims made either at simple or compound interest.
Perhaps I had better finish first with the Trading Society. The society has given a formal pledge that it will continue to devote its surplus profits to missionary and philanthropic purposes. It must be remembered that with changes of the constitution of that society—and there were several—it was not a trust in its latter stages. Perhaps I had better refer to what the Secretary of State said in another place, in a passage which I noticed that Lord Carson did not read when he read the right hon. gentleman's reply to a question by Mr. Garro-Jones. He said:—
"As the company are not a trust, and have never been bound to any fixed figure,

1067
it would be impossible to secure their agreement to such a fixed figure, but I have every confidence that the undertaking which they have given will be honoured both in the spirit and in the letter. If it were obviously violated, the Government of the Gold Coast would have the means of dealing with the matter."
I turn to the settlement with the Commonwealth Trust. The Trust is to receive a sum of £55,000 and is to retain the stores that they have in the country at the present time. The £55,000 is given so that they will have money with which to acquire other premises and to carry on the work they have been attempting to do up to date. We hope that with better trading conditions there will be better results to the natives and in the propagation of the work that they have every wish to put through. As I am dealing with this body, perhaps I had better answer the question raised by Lord Olivier as to whether they should be paid any sum at all. Surely this can be answered by going back to the original agreement, which was made in 1918. You have a body that came forward at a time when traders might have taken up the assets of the Basle Trading Company and have sold liquor, ammunition and gunpowder to the natives, and who, for a very low rate of remuneration, carried on its work. It is true that they lost very considerable sums in so doing but, having given them these assets and got them to put in £55,000, you surely could not turn round and say that you would take away their profits and their assets because you found that you had to give the Basle Trading Company that which belonged to them. You would have had to compensate them for their capital and possibly for the interest on their capital, and certainly something would have had to be done for the employees, a considerable number of whom are ex-Service men. Looking at it simply from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, the £55,000 that will have to be paid is certainly less than might have been expected.
LORD OLIVIER: Since the noble Lord says that I raised this question, I should like to say I never raised any question that it was proper that they should be paid something.
LORD LOVAT: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. As to the question of who pays this amount, the total will be £305,000,
1068
and it is argued in the first place that the benefit of these two trading societies will be for the natives of the Gold Coast. It is argued, further, that the decision arrived at in 1918 was one in arriving at which the Gold Coast had a considerable share, and that it is right that the Gold Coast, since the money is to be spent there, should foot the bill. Lord Buxton raised a point as to whether the Legislature had been consulted in the matter. I can only inform the noble Earl that the Gold Coast Government has been informed of the decision of His Majesty's Government and that the matter will be brought before the Legislature in the usual way.
In regard to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I would inform him that in the agreement with the Basle Trading Society the prohibition against the sale of liquor has been made for natives only. I think that on reflection the noble Viscount, however much devoted he may be to the cause of temperance, will see that it would be almost impossible to ask a man what is his exact mixture of white blood before you could serve him with liquor across the counter. All noble Lords who travel in South Africa or South America will know how extremely difficult it is to draw a colour line, and I think the definition of native is the only one which could possibly be considered practical. As to the question of distribution of profits I think that point has already been answered by the Secretary of State in another place. I am glad to have the opportunity of dealing with one or two of the questions of criticism which were raised by Lord Olivier, and as to which he asked me to say what foundation they had in fact. As to the statements made by Mr. Lionel Curtis about individuals, one must, of course, leave the individuals to deal with them, and may I congratulate Lord Templetown upon the very full and final way in which he has dealt with the aspersions on his own character, and in a sense on the character of members of this House.
The Colonial Office may be thought to have been slow in answering some of the criticisms which have been made. I think we have been wise in not answering them before. In the first place, when you have such excellent fighters, both in debate and in the papers, a good many

1069
of the accusations which are levelled at the Colonial Office are answered by the contending parties in their attacks upon each other. The second point, and one which is even more important, is that the more statements are made by individuals who have not the advantage of possessing the records of the Government Departments, the more easy it is to get hold of inaccuracies and compare them with the actual facts. Public Departments suffer under a considerable number of disabilities. They are generally overworked, they are unable to answer questions, they have, before decisions are made, to consult a considerable number of other Departments; but their one strong point is that a steady record of work goes on from day to day. Whether the individual is important, or whether he is of less note, notes are taken of interviews and there is a complete record of correspondence, and when criticisms are finally levelled it is not difficult, in the majority of cases, to answer charges, because you have the actual cold facts recorded.
The criticisms which have been levelled at the Colonial Office—and I noted with no surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Carson, joined in them—referred in the first place to what I may call the criticism of August 18, to what was called "An untrue letter." It was stated in the circular of the Commonwealth Trust that the letter written to the Commonwealth Trust, saying that the Secretary of State took no responsibility for the views expressed by certain noble Lords, was untrue. The expressions were used by Lord Templetown and Earl Buxton, and were to the effect that the Government had recognised the moral obligation to the Basle Trading Company and offered to return the property in West Africa. I need hardly say that no communication was ever made to Lord Buxton or Lord Templetown on the subject. Negotiations were undoubtedly in progress at the time, but (this is the amusing point) the negotiations had just got to a stage when an actual offer made by Sir George Craik one day was put before the Basle Mission on the following day, and that suggestion is very nearly the same one which is now the basis of the agreement which has been arrived at. It is surely straining the truth to say, as Lord Carson has said, that you may call this diplomacy but we call it acting behind someone
1070
else's back. This was the actual suggestion made by a director of the Commonwealth Trust himself, which in the ordinary course of negotiations had been passed on to the other side.
Again, when Mr. Curtis talks about Lord Salisbury "blurting out" the truth here, I think it is hardly a term which we should apply to Lord Salisbury. I have heard him on a great many occasions—I am very sorry that a slight indisposition prevents him from being here to-day—but I think the term "blurting out" is not exactly a phrase which one would apply to his usual kindly method of expression. I pass from this criticism, which I submit has nothing in it, to the second criticism made against the Colonial Office, and it is a criticism made in The Times and which describes the methods used at the Colonial Office as byzantine. It is a reference made to the statement "for reasons of state." Here again it is indeed fortunate, as I will show, that them is a complete record of everything which happens in a Government Office. In the second volume of the records of this matter the actual phrase "for reasons of state" is mentioned by Mr. Maclennan, a director, and appears in the minutes of the meeting held on October 28, 1924. Mr. Maclennan gave it as his opinion that if the Government announced that, for reasons of state, it was desirable that the Commonwealth Trust should relinquish the Gold Coast properties, the directors would not oppose. This is the origin of the phrase of which, according to several speakers to-day, it was quite impossible for any of the directors or trustees to find out the meaning.
I can only say that if they had had correspondence amongst themselves they should have had no difficulty in finding out this matter because, in addition to the members who sat in Lord Arnold's room, there were Sir George Craik, and Messrs. Jackson, Holt, Maclennan, Cookson, and Dove, who were, I believe, all directors or members of the Commonwealth Trust present at that meeting. Now that an arrangement has been come to it is quite obvious what those reasons of state were. This was a very difficult question, which involved two Government Departments, which involved action turning on questions which were very debatable as to the extent to which

1071
the Swiss association was really German, as to what they had done during the War, and as to the statements made by Sir Hugh Clifford and other eminent people about their actual operations, and it was not a matter which at that time, when the world was settling down to peace, we wished to bring to arbitration.
A second point that was even more cogent was the point that the other body which had taken their place, the Commonwealth Trust, had up to date not paid a penny to the natives for the prosecution of the work as the Basle Company had done. In fact, if one turns back to the figures which I have here it will be found that while they made a profit of £6,000 in the first year after they took over, in the second year they made a loss of £191,000, the next year a loss of £91,000 and the next year a loss of £54,000, and, as you see by the letter here and by their report of December 4, 1923, they were in a position in which they did not see how their losses were to be made good. Five months later they were still not in very strenuous opposition to being taken over. I call these very excellent reasons of state, which were fully explained. Do not let me be led away into any expression of opinion that the Commonwealth Trust was not well managed. On that I do not express an opinion one way or the other, but I wish to make the point, which has been lost sight of by a good many speakers, that the action of the Commonwealth Trust was not one of continuous success. But through their misfortune they struck very bad times. I will give them the credit of saying that they did the best they could, but the fact remains that the distributions of surplus assets for carrying out the work of education among the indigent native peasantry, and the other work for which the eminent trustees had been appointed, had not been possible.
But, to return to the question of this "byzantine" method of the Dominions Office, from which I have strayed for the moment, there is still something further which I must add. On September 25, 1925, Sir George, then Mr., Craik had an interview, and the whole of the reasons were further explained once again. That is nine months later, and in a communication which was made by the Commonwealth Trust on October 2, in answer to the letter of September 9,
1072
to which Lord Carson and others have referred, there seemed to be no difficulty in understanding what "reasons of state" meant. That is a controversial matter which has arisen at a later date. The point I wish to make is that "reasons of state" was a term used originally by one of their own directors, sitting with other directors, and that, as far as any record goes at the Dominions Office, there is no evidence of Mr. Lionel Curtis having asked at any time for an exact definition of what the term meant.
The third criticism is one which I think has been dealt with fully by Lord Olivier, and that is that delicate negotiations with powerful foreign interests had been left in hands not competent to handle them under effective Ministerial control. Lord Buxton, I think, also made that point. It is unknown at any Government office that any question of negotiation can in any way approach finality, exceping through the head of the Department, or the acting head of the Department. I have spent two or three weeks in reading the Papers, and I cannot trace any negotiations except the mere first talks on the subject, at which a Minister was not present. At the meeting on October 13, 1927, from which Mr. Curtis drew his conclusions, I see that there were present not only Mr. Ormsby-Gore, who was then Acting Secretary of State, but the Permanent Under-Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, and a legal adviser. I think that, apart from putting down a red baize carpet, that was almost a full dress reception for any one at the Dominions Office. Many equally notable people have gone there without having anything like so much attention paid to them. It has nothing to do with my side of the Office, but I can assure your Lordships that I think there are very few people, even on the Dominions side of the Office, who are more fully cognisant of and take more interest in the Basle affair—an interest perhaps greater than that to which its importance really entitled it. I do not, however, wish to be led away into criticism of what I think was not a fair speech made by Mr. Curtis on this occasion. I am second to no one in my appreciation of the admirable work he has attempted to do for the Empire, and for his single-mindedness. I would join in every word that has been said by my noble friend

1073
behind me, but if an attack on a Department is made it is only fair that a reply should be given with equal directness.
There have been some minor criticisms which I need hardly bother your Lordships with. It is stated that a letter of October 21, 1927, was merely acknowledged, and not replied to, but that letter was answered on November 1, after a delay of only a few days. Considering the time it takes for letters to go to those who have to see them, as your Lordships know, before a reply can be made, that is not at all a long time for a Government Department to take in answering a letter. The Department replied on November 1, that the Board would no doubt appreciate that some time would necessarily be involved in making the necessary Departments conversant with the present position of the matter, and that until that had been achieved no object could be met by holding the proposed discussion. That was a suggestion that the Commonwealth Board should co-operate with a view to arriving at some settlement. In regard to that Mr. Ormsby-Gore stated that he shared the view of the Commonwealth Trust that it was most desirable to arrive at a definite and early conclusion in the matter. But, at that time, it was not only the Gold Coast that was concerned. There was also a question of securing the view of the India Office and of the Indian Government, and those were matters which any one with any experience of Departmental affairs would know were not arrived at in a day or even in a week. I do not think it can be said that it was fair to say that that was merely an acknowledgment of the letter and not really an attempt to help matters forward.
The next criticism I have is personal to myself. The criticism was made that notice was given that Sir George Craik wanted a statement read in a debate, that the board wished for a public inquiry. I take any blame there is absolutely on my own shoulders. I arrived here expecting that my noble friend Lord Templetown would make one of his usual onslaughts on the Government, which I should have been the unfortunate person to answer. But I found on arrival here that it was a question which was dealt with by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the Leaders of the
1074
Labour Party and the Liberal Party. With only one exception, I think, no other Front Bench member took any part in that discussion and the debate was adjourned. I was prepared to make, and should most certainly have made, the statement which Sir George Craik, who is a great persona] friend of mine, wished me to make; only, when the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who I believe was associated with the movement, stated that he hoped a joint inquiry would be made, I thought the matter had already been presented and I did not think it was necessary to say anything more. Might I point out that if a humble Under-Secretary takes part in a discussion in which the great and good on the Front Benches also speak, it is highly probable that in the majority of the newspapers his remarks will not be noticed at all. If Sir George Craik had so much anxiety that there should be publicity it would have been much easier for him to write a five-line letter to The Times the next morning, and he would have received far more publicity than would have been the case had I read a five-line statement and sat down. May I take this opportunity of saying that had I had an opportunity of speaking I should certainly have done so.
The next and final criticism which has been made against the Colonial Office is in regard to delay. Here I would rather like to take the attack into the enemy's camp. I would submit that the present Government is the only Government which has done anything at all in settling this matter. This matter began about 1919 as a Foreign Office matter, and remained so until about 1921, during the time of the Coalition. It then had about two years' rest. Then Lord Templetown came on the scene, whether heavily subsidised or not by foreign parties I do not know. During the whole of the Labour Government the result, by the books, is practically nil. It was only when Mr. Amery, the present Secretary of State, came into power in 1924 that something was really done. And while I admit that it is a serious matter that it should take four years to settle such a question as this, I think it is only fair to recall to your Lordships that the matter was always approached, certainly in this House, from the point of view that it was the great country of Great Britain oppressing the poor little country of

1075
Switzerland rather than that it was the unfortunate Gold Coast having to find the money for a comparatively affluent body of commercialists who, from their own origin, were by way of aiding a country which would have to produce the money to compensate them.
Then again, in 1924, and even at the later date, there was still a certain war bias and a great deal was made in a great many debates, possibly correctly, possibly incorrectly, about the actions of various officials and missionaries. It must be remembered also that it was not a simple question of a single Department dealing with the two bodies, the Basle Mission and the Commonwealth Trust. It was a question of both the India Office and the Colonial Office dealing with those two bodies. Arrangements of that sort, as everyone knows, are particularly difficult to put through. I cannot say that one can state absolutely that the Government was entirely without blame in the matter, but I think that every effort that reasonably could be made was made to come to a conclusion. I think that even my noble friend Lord Temple-town will admit that originally the demands were remarkably high, and we, at the Colonial Office, felt bound to defend the position of the Crown Colony which would have to pay them. I do not say that they were any higher than those who made them thought was just. There the matter remained. The correspondence was great and I think the industry was very great. It is unfortunate that an agreement was not come to sooner; but I think that those concerned did everything they really could to put this matter through.
I would only like to say in conclusion that I do hope the House will now consider this matter as ended in the best way which, in the circumstances, it could be. It has given very great concern to all those who have had to deal with it. To regard in their proper bearing all the interests concerned has been a very difficult matter, and I think the settlement which has been made will gain the object that is in view, which is the advancement of the interests of the natives in the Gold Coast.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words with reference to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He said I should
1076
agree that in the old days the demands of the Basle Trading Company were very high. Incidentally the question originally was rather one of a big nation pressing upon a little nation in the interests of the natives. When I took this matter up, what did I say the Basle people wanted? I said they wanted to be given back that which was taken from them. The figures were to be arrived at from the figures in the books of the Custodian of Alien Property. That is what they asked for. I do not wish to endorse the idea that the figures were necessarily big. As regards the question of the natives, and the drink question and the subsidies which have been given to the natives, may I remind your Lordships that for sixty years before the existence of the Commonwealth Trust the Basle Trading Company did voluntarily what the Government now ask the Trust to undertake to do. To my certain knowledge—and I have especial reasons for knowing it—they undertook to devote their net profits to the natives. I do not want to reopen this question. I wish only to make those remarks upon those two matters and, as I have already said, I leave the question in your Lordships' hands.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will have heard with great pleasure and appreciation the statement that has been made by the noble Lord on the Benches opposite (Lord Lovat). Indeed so persuasive was he, and so gratifying was it to me as an old Colonial Office man to hear the testimonial that he gave to that Department, that he has almost made me forget that we still have reason to complain of the dilatory manner in which this matter has been dealt with. There is another point I think I might take up. The noble Lord confirmed my disbelief in the view that matters were irregularly handled in the Colonial Office and subordinates were disloyal to their chief. That is one of the points that I specially raised. In those circumstances I have nothing more to say except to congratulate the Government on having come to a satisfactory decision, a decision which appears to have satisfied the Basle Trading Company and the Commonwealth Trust jointly.
Lord Meston seemed to attempt to repeat some questions in the curious attitude of mind which Mr. Lionel Curtis

1077
has been showing, and tried to cross-question me as to whether certain people knew this or that. We, of course, knew perfectly well, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has said, that we could not make it a stipulation that the thing should not be given back to them unless under a trust: but if you take away a man's property you have to give it back to him or compensate him. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and others, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has pointed out, rather over-estimated the enormous amount of philanthropic work that has been done for the natives of the Gold Coast by this Trust. As one interested in the shares of the Trust, I can only hope that their prospects for the future are as good as Mr. Amery expected and that, after they have paid the five years' arrears of dividends, which are now due, the natives will begin to receive some small driblet in return for their payment of so many thousands of pounds. I agree with Lord Lovat that Papers would not
1078
much further enlighten the public and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, before the adjournment it may be convenient to your Lordships' House that I should mention that the Franchise Bill was down for Tuesday next and that representations have bean made by some members of your Lordships' House that that is earlier than they would desire to deal with the Bill. Accordingly the Franchise Bill will not be taken on Tuesday next. Your Lordships will not be asked to deal with it till Tuesday week, the 22nd.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

CAERPHILLY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ILFORD AND BARKING DRAINAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday) and read 1a.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
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:—

E. Powis,

L. Castlemaine,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman),

L. Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine),

L. Howard of Glossop:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, 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.