Sitting of 22 May 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely;
Cleethorpes Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Lewes Water Bill [Lords].
Poole Corporation Bill [Lords].
Sandown Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
PROVISIONAL ORDER Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Chesterfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Accrington Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, 6th June.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Bradford Corporation Act, 1910, relating to Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel Ashley; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of outward bound British nationals who embarked for any of the British Colonies or Possessions for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, distinguishing the principal countries for which the passengers embarked?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I would refer the hon. Member to the issue of the "Board of Trade Journal" for 10th May, in which the information in question is published.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIAN MOTOR SPIRIT (IMPORTS).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the imports in gallons of motor spirit into Great Britain and Northern Ireland from Russia for the first three months of the years 1926, 1927 and 1928?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The imports of motor spirit into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from Russia during the first three months of 1926, 1927 and 1928 amounted to 7,520,000 gallons, 7,514,000 gallons and 8,113,000 gallons, respectively.

    EMPIRE COTTON.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion of the total raw cotton consumption of Great Britain which is supplied from the British Empire; at what rate British Empire cotton production is increasing yearly; and if any standard of compara-

    1655
    tive values is now recognised in cotton produced in various parts of the Empire?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will circulate in the

    I

    According to data compiled by the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Associations, the proportion of the total weight of raw cotton consumed in Great Britain during the year ended 31st January, 1928, which was supplied from the British Empire, amounted to about 8 per cent.

    II.

    The following TABLE shows the annual production of cotton in British India and other parts of the Empire, and indicates for each calendar year the variation in output as compared with the previous year's production in respect of the Empire as a whole, and the Empire excepting India.

    Year.

    British India.

    Other parts of British Empire.

    Total for British Empire.

    Production Bales of 400 lbs.

    Production Bales of 400 lbs.

    Percentage Increase (+) or Decrease (-).

    Production Bales of 400 lbs.

    Percentage Increase (+) or Decrease (-).

    1921–22

    …

    4,485,000

    110,922

    —

    4,596,000

    —

    1922–23

    …

    5,073,000

    164,247

    +48·1

    5,237,000

    +14·0

    1923–24

    …

    5,161,000

    251,318

    +53·0

    5,412,000

    +3·3

    1924–25

    …

    6,088,000

    361,873

    +14·0

    6,450,000

    +19·2

    1925–26

    …

    6,250,000'

    444,628

    +22·9

    6,695,000

    +3·8

    1926–27*

    …

    4,960,000

    368,948

    -17·0

    5,329,000

    -20·4

    * The figures relating to the year 1927 are provisional.

    III.
    In the following STATEMENT, the average values per lb. of the imports of raw cotton into Great Britain and Northern Ireland (during the years 1924–27) which were consigned from the principal sources of supply within the Empire are compared with the corresponding values of the imports from the United States and Egypt.

    —

    United States of America.

    Egypt.

    Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

    British East Indies.

    Uganda Protectorate.

    Pence per lb.

    Pence per lb.

    Pence per lb.

    Pence per lb.

    Pence per lb.

    1924

    …

    …

    17·0

    22·0

    22·7

    14·7

    18·2

    1925

    …

    …

    14·0

    22·5

    27·7

    12·5

    17·7

    1926

    …

    …

    10·2

    15·5

    17·3

    9·6

    13·2

    1927

    …

    …

    8·7

    13·5

    15·5

    8·4

    12·4

    SOUTH AFRICA (ENGLISH AND FOREIGN RAILS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has any figures showing what were the amounts of English and foreign rails used on the South African railways in each of the eight years 1920 to 1927?
    OFFICIAL REPORT a statement, with tables of figures, giving the information for which he asks.
    Following are the statement and tables:
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have had a statement prepared showing the value of imports of heavy rails into the Union of South Africa during the years 1920 to 1926. Figures for 1927 are not yet available. During the seven years 1920 to 1926, the total imports of heavy rails into the Union on both Govern-

    1657
    ment and private account were valued at £2,351,228, of which £1,146,302 came from the United Kingdom. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission,
    STATEMENT showing the value of the Imports of Heavy Rails for Railways into the Union of South Africa during each year from 1920 to 1926, distinguishing the Principal Countries of Origin.

    Union of South Africa.

    Year.

    Total Imports.

    Imports from

    United Kingdom.

    United States.

    Belgium.

    Germany.

    Other Countries.

    On Government Account—

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1920

    …

    710,726

    421,330

    264,151

    —

    —

    25,245*

    1921

    …

    119,420

    118,500

    920

    —

    —

    —

    1922

    …

    106,120

    30,575

    75,545

    —

    —

    —

    1923

    …

    203,815

    203,270

    545

    —

    —

    —

    1924

    …

    385,565

    91,247

    23,831

    74,542

    183,897

    12,048

    1925

    …

    322,969

    78,958

    199,761

    —

    36,594

    7,656

    1926

    …

    298,029

    114,697

    —

    50,458

    96,887

    35,987

    on Private Account—

    1920

    …

    47,377

    28,632

    18,745

    —

    —

    —

    1921

    …

    28,089

    18,793

    9,017

    65

    194

    20

    1922

    …

    28,012

    14,802

    5,483

    102

    7,384

    241

    1923

    …

    13,139

    4,537

    1,852

    1,974

    4,115

    661

    1924

    …

    38,333

    16,776

    1,096

    1,334

    17,808

    1,319

    1925

    …

    34,589

    3,598

    3,529

    5,758

    15,608

    6,096

    1926

    …

    15,045

    587

    —

    3,273

    6,898

    4,287

    *FROM Australia

  CHINA.

    ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is granting licences for the export of arms and munitions to China other than to Hong Kong or for the direct supply of His Majesty's Forces in China; how many such licences for other parts of China or for other uses have been applied for during the last three years; how many have been granted; and will he state the reasons for granting such licences?
    Mr. HACKING: Having regard to the China Arms Embargo Agreement, no licences are issued for the export to China of any arms or ammunition likely to reach the contending factions in China. A certain number of licences have, however, been issued, in respect of one or two revolver and very small consignments of sporting rifles and ammunition, for private use. In addition, a few
    I will have the detailed statement, which is rather long, circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    licences have been issued from time to time for the supply of material to such bodies as the Shanghai Volunteer Corps and the Chinese Customs Authorities. If the hon. and gallant Member so desires, I will send him particulars of these licences.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very satisfied with the answer.

    SITUATION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement about the military and political position in China?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): On the 18th of May the Japanese Government addressed to the Northern and Southern Chinese authorities a communication warning them that Japan, while maintaining an attitude of strict, neutrality, would not permit the spread of the civil war to

    1659
    Manchuria. The text of this declaration has already appeared in the Press, so I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. So far as I know, neither party has as yet replied officially to this communication. No great progress has been made by the Southern forces in their advance on Peking and Tientsin, and the latest reports show that the Northern forces are offering resistance South of Paotingfu. Recently a battalion, less two companies, of the Shanghai Defence Force has been despatched from Shanghai to Wei-hai-wei, where for some time past there has been one company. This movement has been undertaken primarily for training purposes and in order to give the troops the benefit of a more congenial climate, but they would be available for the defence of British lives and property at Tientsin if necessary and are only about a day away.
    Following is the text of the Japanese communication:
    "The life of the population in China is characterised by extreme unrest and distress owing to constant disturbances there which have now extended over many years; and foreign residents enjoy there no assurance of safety in the pursuit of their occupations.
    It is accordingly the earnest desire of Chinese and foreigners alike that the disturbances should terminate as soon as possible in such a manner as may lead to the emergence of a united and peaceful China. Especially is this keenly hoped for by Japan, whose interests are specially and deeply involved on account of her being China's nearest neighbour.
    The disturbances, however, now threaten to spread to the Peking and Tientsin district, and it is feared that Manchuria may also be affected.
    The Japanese Government attach the utmost importance to the maintenance of peace and order in Manchuria, and are prepared to do all they can in order to prevent the occurrence of any such state of affairs as may disturb that peace and order or constitute a probability of causing such disturbance.
    In these circumstances, should disturbances develop further in the direction of Peking and Tientsin and the situation become so menacing as to threaten the peace and order of Manchuria, the Japanese Government, on their part, may possibly be constrained to take appropriate and effective steps for the maintenance of peace and order in Manchuria.
    It must be noted, however, that the policy of the Japanese Government, which consists in maintaining an attitude of strict neutrality towards the contending forces,
    1660
    remains unchanged in every respect, and that should the course of events be such as to render the above-mentioned measures imperative the Japanese Government will, in respect of the time and method of their adoption, exercise due care to provide against any unfair consequences arising to either of the two opposed parties."

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any action is being taken, under Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to settle the dispute between Japan and China arising out of the fighting between Japanese and Chinese troops at Tsinanfu; and what part His Majesty's Government is taking, or has taken, in the deliberations of the Council of the League on this question?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am unable to state what, if any, action is being taken in connection with the telegram addressed to the Secretariat-General of the League of Nations, under paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Covenant. No deliberations of the Council on the question are in progress.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have not the Government taken any action to have a meeting of the Council to deal with this matter?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It has nothing whatever to do with His Majesty's Government. It lies entirely with the Acting Chairman, who I believe is the Chinese representative, and the Secretary-General to call a meeting.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Covenant that, in the case of hostilities threatening between two States members of the League, His Majesty's Government has no locus stanch?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No hostilities threaten at the moment. Fighting at Shangtung has come to an end.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation has been most serious, and have we done nothing to act at all?

    TSINANFU.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange for the circulation, as a White

    1661
    Paper, of the original despatches containing the Japanese and Chinese versions of recent occurrences at Tsinanfu?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, in his statement on the 14th of May, gave a summary of the telegraphic report of the Japanese version, and both the Chinese and Japanese versions have received full publicity in the Press. It would be contrary to usual practice to lay as a White Paper documents of this character.
    Sir F. HALL: Surely this is a matter of the utmost importance, in view of the terrible atrocities of which we have heard, and cannot the hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, make an alteration from the general course of events, and issue a White Paper, so that we may know exactly what has transpired?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed it, but a full Japanese version was given in this House, and printed in the papers next day; and a full version of the Chinese case, as sent to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, was also published in the Press on May 12th. Therefore, the public have had the whole of the ease before them.
    Sir F. HALL: May we assume that the notices that we have seen in the Press, as regards the Chinese version and the Japanese version, are substantially correct?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: They are the cases as sent in by the respective countries.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that the full Chinese version is published in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that it has been fully published.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I mean in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SOCKS (EX-SERVICE DISABLED MEN).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he
    1662
    will arrange for orders of a portion of the War Department's requirements of socks for the troops to be regularly allocated through branches of the Red Cross Society for disabled ex-service men who have been trained for knitting and who possess the necessary machines, but are unable to obtain orders?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I will carefully consider any practicable scheme on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend that may be laid before me by the Red Cross Society; but I fear there is little prospect of the society being able to compete in price, for socks produced in the manner suggested, with trade firms manufacturing in large quantities by modern factory methods.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is price the only consideration, having regard to the fact that these men have been specially trained for this work and have been supplied with the machines and are at present, in many cases, receiving unemployment pay?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. Price is not the only consideration, but the War Department cannot make large reductions in favour of these men as against private firms, which can produce them very much more cheaply.
    Mr. DAY: Has the society ever been given an opportunity of tendering for these articles?
    Mr. COOPER: I must have notice of that question.
    Sir F. HALL: Will my hon. Friend bring the matter closely before his right hon. Friend. With reference to the question of price, does he recognise that these men have to he kept one way or another, and is it not better to give them work even at a higher price?

    OFFICERS (FLYING).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether young officers entering the Army are made aware of Army Order 304 of 1924, under which they may be called upon to fly; and whether he will consider the desirability of relaxing this rule, so that those officers who feel that they are con-

    1663
    stitutionally unfitted for flying may be released from doing so?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir; their attention is not specifically drawn to this Regulation, which forms part of the standing orders of the Army. As regards the second part of the question, no Army officer is called upon to fly as a pilot unless he volunteers for such duty. Officers who are called upon to fly as passengers or for reconnaissance purposes and who prove themselves unfitted for this work would be released from the duty.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that officers in the Army who did not want to fly have not been compelled to fly?
    Mr. COOPER: Not as pilots. As passengers, certainly.
    Sir R. THOMAS: But even as passengers. May I ask the hon. Gentleman why Army officers should be compelled to fly even as passengers?
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
    Mr. COOPER: I can hardly believe that any Army officer would be afraid to go up in an aeroplane.
    Mr. HANNON: Has my hon. Friend had one single complaint from any officer serving in the Army on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Navy only volunteers are taken for flying service with the very excellent result that they get all the men they want, and that the men are very willing?
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lieut. Scott, of the Essex Regiment, who recently lost his life, objected to flying and was compelled to do so as a passenger?
    Mr. COOPER: I was not aware of that fact.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Well, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State has had information from the deceased gallant officer's mother on the subject.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers and men of the Army who may be required to fly in aeroplanes have any option as to whether or not they undertake such duty?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

    ABSENTEES (WAR PERIOD).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to Case No. 110/M/480, who was informed from the War Office, Hounslow, on 8th May, that he was liable to court-martial for absence from the Army for the period 19th June, 1917, to 21st August, 1917; and whether, in view of the general pardon to absentees issued by His Majesty, it is proposed in any case to submit men to court-martial who were absentees during a period of the War?
    Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that a general amnesty has been granted to those who deserted during the Great War, and I am not prepared to dispense altogether with the right to try and punish men, in special and serious cases, for the grave military offence of desertion. But the normal practice is to discharge the deserter without resorting to trial and without withdrawing him from his civil employment; and in the particular case referred to in this question I know of no reason to prevent the normal practice being followed if the man voluntarily signs the form of confession which has been sent to him.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposed scheme for small holdings on the Shiel estate was for ground occupied by the proprietor or leased to the tenant of the shootings?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The land comprised in the scheme which was pro jetted is in the occupation of the proprietor, but I understand that, while retaining the grazings, he has let the shootings. These shootings, I may add, are amongst those referred to in my answer to the hon. Member's question of 14th May, as being occupied by the proprietor. I was not then aware that they were let.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman now inform me of the name of the individual who has rented the shooting and which was asked for a fortnight ago?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that it is Colonel Hardcastle.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the shootings were rented by Colonel Hardcastle after the applications for small holdings on this piece of ground had been received by the Board of Agriculture?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and find out?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know that it will have any bearing on the matter.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Has it no bearing on the matter that these men have been applying for small holdings for 11 years?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Mr. Speaker, it has been down on the Paper for the last three weeks.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is hiding behind you.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated cost of the proposed scheme of establishing small holdings in Glenshiel deer forest; whether the estimate was more costly than other schemes of a similar nature; and, if so, whether he can state the excess sum?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, it is not expedient that I should state the estimated cost of a scheme of land settlement which I do not propose to carry into execution; I am satisfied, however, that it would be unduly costly. Certain peculiarities attach themselves to a scheme in this area which make it impossible to offer a comparison with any other scheme carried into effect by the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not proper for these claims to be submitted to this House, as we have to vote the money
    1666
    to be spent on these matters, and should not this House be the determining body as to whether a scheme is going to be expensive or not?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The responsibility for the present scheme rests with the Minister in charge of the Department.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Then are we to take it that it is your veto with regard to this particular matter which has stopped the small holdings that are now required?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In so far as this particular scheme is concerned, certainly.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications for small holdings in Wales and Monmouthshire every year since 1st January, 1919; the number granted; the number who were granted holdings and subsequently surrendered them; and the number who still await holdings?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply contains a number of figures and is necessarily long, I propose, with the hon. Baronet's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The total number of applications for small holdings received annually by county councils and county borough councils in Wales and Monmouthshire under the Land Settlement Scheme for ex-service men, which terminated on the 31st March, 1926, is as follows:

    Year.

    No. of applications received.

    1919

    2,889

    1920

    3,266

    1921

    511

    1922

    365

    1923

    308

    1924

    178

    1925 31s and three months to t March, 1926

    273

    7,790

    Of these 7,790 applicants, 1,719 were provided with holdings, of whom 303 had vacated prior to the 31st March, 1926. At that date 1,140 approved applicants were awaiting holdings and there were 634 applicants whose cases were being further investigated, a total of 1,774.
    Returns recently received as to applications for small holdings and cottage holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, show that the above-mentioned councils had 1,562 applicants on their lists at the 31st December, 1927, of whom 1,242 were applicants who had applied for holdings under the Land Settlement Scheme for ex-service men and were still regarded as effective when the new Act came into operation. Of the 1,562 applicants previously referred to, 46 have been provided with holdings either on the councils' existing estates or on new land acquired under the Act of 1926. At the 31st December, 1927, 593 approved applicants were awaiting holdings, and there were 681 applicants whose cases were being further investigated.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    RESTRICTIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines how many men without previous experience have secured employment down the coal mines of Yorkshire since the coalowners entered into an agreement not to employ any person for underground work who was over 18 years of age and who had no previous experience of underground work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. I am having inquiries made and will inform the hon. Member of the results in due course.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply that they have no figures relating to the number of non-miners who descended the pits since the agreement was entered into?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is a matter I am inquiring into, and I can assure the hon. Member that we are just as anxious as he is to see that these agreements are carried out, and any information that he can give to me I shall naturally only be too glad to receive.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that two inexperienced men were recently em-
    1668
    ployed at the Hemsworth Colliery, West Yorkshire; that this is a violation of the coalowners' agreement not to employ inexperienced men for underground work who were over 18 years of age; and will he state what steps, if any, he is taking to see that the agreement is carried out?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I have no evidence that ineligible persons have been engaged at the Hemsworth Colliery, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the colliery companies are not in any way informing the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Mines as to when they break away from the agreement which they entered into, and, if that be the case, may I ask of what earthly use is this alleged agreement to the mining community?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman's premises are wrong. The colliery companies are informing us, and we are kept informed. I am most anxious to make sure of the accuracy of the returns, and, on that matter, I invite the co-operation of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If the colliery companies are supplying the necessary information, how is it that they have not supplied the hon. Gentleman with the knowledge that these two men at this particular colliery have been employed??
    Mr. BETTERTON: That, again, is a point on which I am making further inquiries. We have received no information at present, I understand, from this colliery, such as the hon. Gentleman thinks we ought to have received, and I shall make inquiries on this very point.
    Mr. PALING: How are we to get information. We have either to get it from the men concerned or from the colliery company, and does that imply that the inspectors have no responsibility in the matter?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, the hon. Member must not assume that. We are getting information, and we are most anxious to do so. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are getting returns which

    1669
    are not accurate, I will at once inquire into any case and do my best to clear it up.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this same colliery at this moment, although they have 1,200 men who have been unemployed for several months, are advertising in Lancashire for miners to go to Yorkshire?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact.

    MARKETING SCHEMES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary for Mines the total tonnage of coal exported from Immingham each month from August, 1927; if he is watching the effect of the five-counties scheme on unemployment in this port; and if he has any statement to make as to the working of this scheme?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As the reply includes a, table of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. and gallant Member give us the answer to the second part of the question?
    Commodore KING: The scheme has not been in operation long enough for me to form an opinion.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that only 20 per cent. of the men working at the coal at Immingham are in regular employment?
    Commodore KING: Yes, but I think that is due to the state of the markets and not to the marketing scheme.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Member making any inquiries as to whether the five counties scheme is a good scheme, or not?
    Commodore KING: I am keeping in close touch, but it has not been in operation long enough for me to form an opinion.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that a Northumberland paper says that Northumberland has
    1670
    more to fear from this five county scheme than from the competition of Germany?
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that it is stated that in the past month there was a definite number of tons short. Can he say whether that matter has been attended to and whether there has been any shortage since?
    Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member is referring to last month, but the scheme had then only been in operation for three weeks of that month.
    Following is the reply:
    The monthly coal exports from Immingham since August, 1927, were as follow:—

    1927:

    Month.

    Tons.

    August

    …

    …

    …

    61,474

    September

    …

    …

    …

    49,419

    October

    …

    …

    …

    55,516

    November

    …

    …

    …

    48,839

    December

    …

    …

    …

    80,901

    1928:

    January

    …

    …

    …

    39,276

    February

    …

    …

    …

    51,998

    March

    …

    …

    …

    54,649

    April

    …

    …

    …

    56,452

    The scheme has not been in operation long enough to enable me to make any statement on its working or to judge its effect on employment in the port.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines at what figure the quota percentage to basic tonnage has been fixed in the Midland Counties Coal Marketing Scheme; and what is the penalty for raising coal in excess of the quota and the amount of tonnage levy on all coal raised?
    Commodore KING: I understand that the quota percentage for April was 65 and for May is 67½ that the penalty for exceeding the quota in any month by more than I per cent, is a fine of 3s. per ton; and that the levy is 3d. per ton.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the Government taking any steps to remunerate the men who are compulsorily unemployed for 33 per cent. of their time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the various coal marketing schemes recently adopted by coalowners, most of which embody proposals for restriction of output; and whether, in view of the large amount of unemployment and underemployment consequent upon the adoption of such proposals, he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Commodore KING: I have considered the schemes referred to. As I stated on 16th instant in reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I cannot accept the statement that these schemes have caused unemployment. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in the Doncaster district alone the number of unemployed people is larger than ever it has been in the history of the coalfield, and that since this scheme came into operation under-employment has been more rife than ever before?
    Commodore KING: Yes, but the unemployment is due to the fact that there is not the demand for the coal.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in the first month of the scheme the coal was 30,000 tons short?
    Commodore KING: I realise that there was a shortage, and I answered a question on that point some weeks ago.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that, apart from the miners unemployed, there is also unemployment amongst the stevedores and the coal trimmers in the various ports?
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that it is because we have lost a lot of our export trade, owing to strikes?

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether any experiments are being conducted in this country other than the Bergius process and, if so, how many; and whether any Government money has been spent on such experiments?
    Commodore KING: As regards commercial investigations, I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave
    1672
    to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) on 17th May. In reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) on 24th April I gave details of an arrangement between the Government and the Gas Light and Coke Company. Reports of other Government experiments in low-temperature carbonisation will be found in the annual Reports of the Fuel Research Board and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he can give the largest quantity of oil taken from British coal by any British plant since 1918;
    (2) whether he can give the average oil content of British coal per ton and the greatest amount of such content that has been extracted per ton of coal?
    Commodore KING: Oil, as such, does not exist in coal, but the coal substance can be partially converted into oil by a variety of carbonisation and hydrogenation processes. The average amount of oil that can be produced from British coals by low-temperature carbonisation is usually taken at 15 gallons per ton. This figure is considerably exceeded when coal of special quality is used; for instance, over 50 gallons per ton have been obtained from a cannel coal of which, however, there are only small quantities available. By the addition of hydrogen to the coal, under the Bergius process, the yield from a suitable coal may even amount to 130 gallons per ton.

    MINERS' ALLOWANCES, RUHR AND DURHAM.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary for Mines if he will give comparative figures showing the allowances in kind which obtain in the Ruhr and Durham coalfields, respectively; and what is the weekly value of each item per mine worker employed?
    Commodore KING: Practically the only allowance in kind to coal workers in the Ruhr is in respect of domestic coal, which is valued at about 5d. per week per person employed. In Durham the coal allowance is a ton every four weeks for householders. Valuing it at 10s. per ton this is about Is. 6d. per week per person employed. In addition, there are free houses or allowances in lieu thereof, the value of which amounts to about ed. per week per person employed.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that these allowances in Durham only apply to married men and not to single men?
    Commodore KING: Yes. That is why I have carefully prepared the answer. I have given, as the hon. Member asked, the average per person employed.

    UNEMPLOYED MINERS (AFFORESTATION WORK).
    Mr. PALINGasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the suggestions of the Industrial Transference Board to the Forestry Commissioners as to the provision of additional forest-workers' holdings for unemployed miners have been considered by the Forestry Commissioners; and, if so, with what result?
    Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): As I informed the hon. Member on 15th instant the Forestry Commissioners have submitted to the Industrial Transference Board their views as to the provision of additional forest-workers' holdings for unemployed miners. The additional programme is under discussion with the Board, and no further information can be given pending the issue of their Report, but meanwhile the Commissioners have arranged with the Board to provide from their normal programme for 50 miners to be transferred with their families from the distressed areas.

    TIN MINES, CORNWALL.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of the increased demand for tin, the progress made in opening up the tin mines of Cornwall is slow as compared with other countries; and will he institute an inquiry into the question as to how far this is due to the difficulty experienced in obtaining grants of mining leases by those prepared to work the mines?
    Commodore KING:I do not consider that an inquiry of this kind is necessary. As I informed the hon. Member on 19th April, I have not heard of any difficulties of the character indicated, and I have no doubt that if there are any they will be brought to my notice.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware of any cases in Cornwall where these mines are being held from working by those who own the land, because they desire to sell the land and, therefore, they refuse to give mining leases?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. I am not aware of any. If there are any such cases, I am sure that they will be brought to my notice.
    Mr. KELLY: If I bring them to the notice of the hon. and gallant Member, will he inquire into them?
    Commodore KING: Certainly, but I think they would be brought to my notice by those wishing to produce the minerals.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR DRIVERS' LICENCES (TEST).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the constant accidents due to dangerous driving, he intends to propose a test before granting any new drivers' licences?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): So far as I am aware, there is no evidence to show that any substantial proportion of accidents re-suiting from the dangerous driving of motor vehcles are due to any want of capacity on the part of drivers such as would be disclosed by a driving test. My proposals with regard to the conditions with which applicants for driving licences should comply are contained in Clauses 14 and 15 of the Draft Road Traffic Bill which I caused to be published and circulated some time ago.
    Sir B. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that experience has shown that people driving on the wrong side of the road and accelerating round blind corners has been the cause of these disasters?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That would be a matter for police action.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot make any statement at present.

    UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, LONDON (CONGESTION).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the congestion on the underground lines is becoming chronic, and that discontent prevails about this; and what are the recommendations of the London Traffic Advisory Committee in this matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: With regard to the first part of this question, I have no reason to suppose that the railway companies are not doing all they can to prevent undue congestion occurring on underground railways. As regards the latter part of his question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the published reports of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.

    ROADS EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).
    Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport what were the total sums expended, exclusive of grants received out of the Road Fund, by local authorities in Scotland during 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively, on road construction, maintenance, and repair, showing in each case the expenditure on Class 1, Class 2, and unclassified roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer involves the preparation of a table including a number of figures and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    GLAMORGAN INTER-VALLEY ROAD.
    Mr. JENKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his decision and proceed without delay with the section of the Glamorgan intervalley road between Abergwynfi and Hirwain, in order to find employment for the large number of workers still unemployed in this area; and is he aware that the survey has been completed by the county council?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to his question on the 21st February last, the financial situation of the Inter-Valley Road Scheme as a whole cannot be reviewed until July. In the meantime, it is not possible to say what balances, if any, may be available for extensions such as the hon. Member suggests.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (PARKING).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLEasked the Minister of Transport under what conditions motor vehicles may be parked without lights in parking places?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The conditions under which motor vehicles may be parked without lights in parking places are laid down in Regulation 6 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1928, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    BY-PASS ROAD, BARKING.
    Mr. MARCHasked the Minister of Transport if he can give the date when the new by-pass road from Beckton Road to Ripple Road, Barking, Essex, was first commenced; what has been the cause of the delay in opening it; and when will it be opened to vehicular traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The work of road construction was begun in 1921 for the relief of unemployment, but the bridge over the River Roding which forms part of the scheme could not be put in hand until Parliamentary powers had been obtained in 1923. This bridge having recently been completed, it is anticipated that the entire road will be opened to traffic in a few days time.

    CAMBRIDGE ARTERIAL ROAD.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents, fatal and other, have occurred on the Cambridge arterial road during the last year; how many have occurred at night; whether his attention has been drawn to the use of excessively brilliant headlights and high speeds by private car drivers on this road; and whether he is prepared to take any steps in this matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed that during the year ended 31st December, 1927, there were five fatal accidents on this road during the day and none at night, the corresponding figures for non-fatal accidents being 124 and 68. My attention has not been specially drawn to the use of excessively brilliant headlights on this particular road. The enforcement of the law relating to the speed of motor vehicles is a matter for the police.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the rapidly growing density of traffic on the Cambridge arterial road and on the northern circular road between Green Lanes and Hertford, and when he intends to proceed with the construction of the return tracks on these roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: These roads are under the control of the responsible highway authorities and when they consider it desirable to provide a second carriageway I will give careful consideration to any application they may submit for assistance from the Road Fund.

    OMNIBUSES, LONDON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Transport the respective lengths of Class I and Class II roads in the County of London; what proportions of such lengths are restricted for omnibus traffic under the London Traffic Act, 1924; what was the number of omnibuses plying for hire in London in 1924; what reduction has been made in that number under orders or regulations made by his Department; and whether he has under consideration any proposals for increase in the present number of omnibuses in the central area?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the inevitable length of the reply, I will with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The respective lengths of Class I and Class II roads in the County of London (including the City) are 262 miles and 128 miles. Information as to the length of such roads which have been restricted under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, is not available, but it may be assumed that nearly all Class I and Class II roads in the county area and in the City are restricted, either directly or indirectly by reason of the restriction of other streets giving access to them. The number of omnibuses plying for hire in London at the end of 1924 was approximately 4,500. No reduction has been made in the aggregate number of omnibuses thus plying for hire, but owing to Regulations made in respect of certain tramway routes, 57 omnibuses have been withdrawn from service on those routes. The proprietors have been permitted to
    1678
    place these vehicles into service again on other routes which are not congested. No proposals are under consideration for increasing the aggregate number of omnibuses in service in the central area.

    ELECTRICITY CHARGES, WANDSWORTH.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport the date when the inquiry asked for by the Wandsworth Borough Council will be held with reference to the revision of the maximum prices that may be charged for electricity under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922; and the terms of reference of this inquiry and the names of those nominated to conduct it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As I explained in answer to a question asked on this subject on the 26th April by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Han-bury), the Inquiry which I have directed to be held is into the application of the Wandsworth Borough Council and certain consumers for a revision of the maximum prices which may be charged for electricity in that borough. The Inquiry is to be held by Sir Harry Haward and Mr. W. W. Lackie, who propose to open it on Thursday next.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the cause of the delay before the Inquiry started?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It has not been undue delay. There have been certain conversations between the borough councils on other matters. Any delay that has occurred has been in consequence of the discussions with the borough councils.

    BEAM WIRELESS SYSTEM.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General if any negotiations are taking place between the Government and any cable companies for the purpose of handing over the beam wireless system from the control of the Government.
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I can add nothing to the statement made on behalf of the Government in the Debate yesterday.

  BROADCASTING.

    SCOTLAND.
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now make any further statement about the possibility of furnishing a high-power broadcasting station in Scotland, preferably in the midlands, which could supply transmission to the more remote and distant parts of Scotland?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation have a scheme under which the existing broadcasting stations would be replaced by a small number of regional high-power stations. As the first stage in this scheme, a high-power station will be erected near Potters Bar, but as the scheme is still in the experimental stage I cannot give any forecast of its future development in Scotland or elsewhere.

    TELEVISION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has been kept informed of the progress made in the development of television; and whether, seeing that this invention must necessarily function in conjunction with the national broadcasting services, he proposes to amend the licence and agreement under which the British Broadcasting Corporation now functions so as to permit that body to employ television?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am advised that television is still in the experimental stage, and I do not consider that the time has yet come to make arrangements for the provision of a public service.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of unpaid arrears of Excess Profits Duty on the 5th April, 1922, and on the 5th April, 1928, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The approximate gross amount of Excess Profits Duty (including Muni-
    1680
    tions Levy) in assessment but unpaid at the 31st March, 1922, was £292,000,000, and at the 31st March, 1928, £77,500,000. The figure of £77,500,000 as the gross arrear at the 31st March last must not, however, be taken as representing the amount of Excess Profits Duty outstanding that will ultimately be collected. The amount which will ultimately be collected will fall far short of the duty in assessment, by reason of reductions and discharges due to be made.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum was received as Excess Profits Duty in the year ending 5th April, 1928, on account of principal and on account of interest, respectively; and what was the cost of collection in that year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    Approximate Receipt of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) in the year ended 31st March, 1928.

    —

    Duty.

    Interest.

    Total.

    £000.

    £000.

    £000.

    Gross Receipts

    …

    5,137

    529

    5,666

    Repayments

    …

    6,002

    69

    6,071

    Net Receipt

    …

    -865

    460

    -405

    I regret that it is not possible to isolate the cost of clearing up the arrears of this duty from the general expenditure of the Inland Revenue Department.

    SUGAR DUTY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the reduction in the price of sugar promised by the British sugar refiners is to continue for any specified period; and, if so, whether he proposes to make the reduction in the duty on raw sugar terminate at the same time?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the undertakings by the sugar refiners which I read to the House in the course of the Debate on the Sugar Duty on the 2nd May. He will see that the refiners undertook that the normal

    1681
    difference between the prices of raw sugar and the prices of their refined sugar would be reduced by the full equivalent of the reduction in duty, namely, 2s. 4d. per cwt., and that no time limit was set to this undertaking. In addition they undertook for a period of three months not to raise the price of their refined sugar even if the price of raw sugar should rise in that period.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Member aware that one firm controls 80 per cent. of British refined sugar; that that firm turns out 15,000 tons of sugar per week, and that this reduction of 2s., when the farthing has disappeared, will mean no less than £30,000 extra profit per week to that firm?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is he aware that one firm controls 80 per cent. of British refined sugar?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware of that fact, and if I was I do not know why it would affect my answer.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a very good thing for the British sugar industry that one firm does control 80 per cent.?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Member aware that, although there has been a reduction in the price of refined sugar, it was first put up by 2s. per cwt.?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If I supply the hon. Member with figures justifying my supplementary question, will he make full inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will make any inquiry the hon. Member wants me to make.

    OILS IMPORT DUTY (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the services rendered to the trade of the country by commercial travellers, he will consider making some rebate to them under the proposed new Petrol Tax for petrol used for the cars employed by them solely for their business?
    Mr. SAMUEL: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
    1682
    of the Exchequer in the House on 1st May in which he said that he could not admit any inroads into the integrity and sanctity of the Petrol Tax.

    DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give, for the financial years 1926–27 and 1927–28, figures relating direct and indirect taxation to special incomes, in continuation of the table on pages 94 and 95 of the Report of the Committee on National Debt and Taxation [Cmd. 2800]?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am making inquiries in order to see whether without undue labour it is possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. HASLAM: Will the Financial Secretary circulate the figures when he gets them?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I must first see whether it is possible to do what my hon. Friend suggests.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of frequent complaints respecting the nature of the questions asked by inspectors of the Income Tax Department, he will cause to be compiled and issued to the payers of Income Tax a memorandum stating the information inspectors are entitled to demand?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Inquiries which are made by His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes are restricted to matters which are relevant to the determination of the liability to tax in each particular case. In view of the immense diversity of the cases which have to be handled in the course of the administration of the Income Tax, it would be impracticable to compile a memorandum on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. If, however, he has in mind any case in which it is alleged that an inspector has sought irrelevant information and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will have the matter investigated and communicate the result to him in due course.

    FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT SUPPLIES).
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approxi-

    1683
    mate extra cost to the State for the year ending 31st March, 1929, of supplying the Fighting Services with home-produced meat; and will he recommend the submission to a free vote of the House of the question as to whether this extra expenditure would be justified, having regard to the encouragement it would give to the British farming industry?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The extra cost for the current year of supplying the Fighting Services with home-produced meat would be approximately £640,000. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    CURRENCY NOTES.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in transferring the currency note issue to the Bank of England, any agreement will be made as to the designer to whom the designing of the new £1 and 10s. notes will be entrusted; and whether the Members of this House will have the opportunity of inspecting and criticising the designs before they are approved?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the preparation of a note issue on a large scale including machinery, paper, and design is a matter of time, and the preliminary arrangements to which he refers have accordingly already been completed.
    Sir C. OMAN: Am I to understand that the matter has been settled already and that there is no opportunity for offering any criticism or advice on the subject?
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask if the Financial Secretary will supply each Member of the House with so many samples?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, provided the hon. Member will supply me with the value printed upon them.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Cannot the Bank of England be trusted not to perpetrate such ghastly atrocities as the Treasury notes?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it certain that the House of Commons would do anything when it comes to artistic matters?
    Sir C. OMAN: Am I to take it that the matter has been settled?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, the preliminary arrangements to which the hon. Member refers have been completed.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: - May I ask whether the signature on these notes will be legible?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will make inquiries about that.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not much more important that they should be acceptable?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: And much more important that there should be enough of them.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Bank of England is to be permitted to issue 10s. notes, a similar privilege is to be accorded to the Scottish banks; and, if not, the reason for the discrimination?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Currency and Bank Notes Bill introduces no substantial change. Bank of England notes for 10s. will circulate in the same way and on the same footing as 10s. Treasury currency notes have hitherto, and the profits will continue to belong to the Exchequer.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the hon. Gentleman oblige me by giving me an answer to my question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have done my best.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In my question I specifically asked why there has been a discrimination against the Scottish banks in favour of the Bank of England?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not recall that the Scottish banks ever issued 10s. notes.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the Bank of England is now being permitted to issue 10s. notes and that the Scottish banks are being forbidden to issue them?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: And we want to know the reason why.
    Mr. SAMUEL: It has not been considered advisable in the interests of the State to create a new privilege by allowing 10s. Scottish bank notes to be issued.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bank of England has only now been given the power to issue 10s. notes, and that the precedent is a fresh one; and why should we not make the same arrangement in Scotland?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the Bank of England now being permitted to issue these notes and to circulate them in Scotland, and why should not the Scottish banks be allowed the privilege of circulating 10s. notes in their own country?

    SILVER COINAGE.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the intrinsic value, at the current prices of silver, of the shilling of the 1914 currency, of the shilling of the 1924 currency, and of the shilling of the 1928 currency?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There has been only one change in the fineness of silver coins, namely, that authorised by the Coinage Act, 1920. Taking silver at 27d. a standard ounce, the silver content of shillings coined before 1920 is worth 4.9d., and the silver content of shillings coined after]920 is worth 2.7d.

    NEWFOUNDLAND PAPER MILLS (SALE).
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the sale and transfer of the Newfoundland Paper Mills to an American company has been completed; whether there has been any loss to the Treasury by the provisions of the guarantee under the Trades Facilities Act; and whether there are any outstanding commitments to the Treasury under the deed of transfer?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The sale of the assets of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company, Limited, to the International Power and Paper Company of Newfoundland, Limited, which is a company registered in Newfoundland, has been completed. No loss has been incurred under the guarantee in this case. The Treasury guarantee continues in respect of the Guaranteed Debenture Stock. In accordance with the original arrangements this
    1686
    will be repaid between 1933 and 1948. The Treasury will receive Debenture Stock of the new company corresponding to any payments made under the guarantee to the debenture holders. This stock will be repayable at a premium of 5 per cent. over the years 1948 to 1973.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member inform the House whether before this sale was effected the Treasury were taken into consultation by the company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say when the Treasury were taken into consultation, but I do remember the matter referred to in my reply coming before me, and I gave a good deal of consideration to it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to consider it part of the policy of the Treasury that companies which have received assistance under the Trade Facilities Act can sell their business without placing the whole of their circumstances before the Treasury?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a different question from the one on the Paper.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Treasury is represented on the Board of the new company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Can the hon. Member tell us what profit the Newfoundland Paper Company made out of this deal?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not without notice.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Are not the Treasury interested in the case of a British company subsidised by the Treasury which sells out at a profit to an American company? Is not the Treasury interested?
    Mr. RADFORD: Is it not the case that where these guarantees are given debentures are issued and, therefore, without the consent of the debenture holders, a good title cannot be given to the buyers?
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Seeing that a large amount of Government money is involved, cannot we have a reply from the Treasury?
    Mr. SAMUEL: All these are highly technical questions, and I do not want to mislead the House by replying to them across the Floor without notice.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Government had to come to this House in order to have this money voted, cannot the hon. Gentleman give the House more information as to the way in which the money invested in this company is being thrown away to an American company? Surely we are entitled to some reply.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLERICAL CLASSES (OPEN EXAMINATION).
    Mr. FENBYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of vacancies to be declared from the current open examination of boys and girls for the clerical classes in the Civil Services?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Until the result of the examination has been ascertained, I cannot add anything to my reply on the 1st March last to a similar question from the hon. Member.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour how many temporary ex-service clerks are at present under notice in the Ministry; and what is the rate of discharge?
    Mr. BETTERTON: On the 15th May, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 98 ex-service temporary clerks under notice with a view to discharge. During the period 1st April, 1928, to 15th May, 1928, 334 ex-service temporary clerks in the Employment Exchange service were discharged, and 716 were engaged, these changes being due to fluctuations in the numbers on the registers at particular Exchanges. There were no such clerks discharged or recruited during the period in other Departments of the Ministry.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether overtime is at present being worked in any of his Departments; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. BETTERTON: During April a considerable amount of overtime was necessary at the Employment Exchanges owing to the work arising from the bringing into operation of last year's Unemploy-
    1688
    ment Insurance Act, which could not be handled by inexperienced staff. A certain amount of overtime at the Exchanges is also caused by sudden increases in, the numbers on the registers, though additional temporary staff is engaged in such cases as rapidly as possible. In other Departments of the Ministry the amount of overtime worked is negligible.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether any new entrants for the junior clerical class have been recruited by his Department during the last six months?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Apart from promotions of P Class officers, numbering 25, the only appointments to the clerical class in the Ministry of Labour in the last six months were those of two ex-service men appointed to the Treasury Clerical Class from the Southborough examination, and 24 women, aged 18 and 19 years, recruited for the Departmental Clerical Class by open examination.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (H. W. COFFIN).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received an application from Mr. H. W. Coffin, late lance-sergeant in the Suffolk Regiment, asking that his ease may be reopened; and what action is being taken in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I understand that no application of any kind has been received from the man referred to.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any case of any Coffin filed in the Ministry?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir, I have not seen one.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Assuming the facts to be as stated, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it very desirable to have the case reopened?

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions if the local

    1689
    medical officers of the Ministry have received any instructions recently with regard to treatment allowances; and, if so, will he give particulars?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No instructions have recently been issued to local medical officers of the Ministry on this subject.

    KENYA (NATIVE RESERVES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that it is now several years since it was first proposed to vest the land in Kenya occupied by natives in some form of trust, he is yet in a position to lay before the House the proposed constitution and membership of this trust?
    Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. A Bill to establish a Native Land Trust was published in Kenya on the 26th April, and my right hon. Friend understands that it will be introduced into the Legislative Council during the Session commencing the 12th June. Misconceptions might arise if he attempted to summarise the constitution and membership of the bodies to be set up within the limits of an oral reply; but he hopes very shortly to receive the Bill as published and will then place copies in the Library of the House, together with a note of certain amendments which, he understands, the Government proposes to adopt.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know whether the Colonial Office saw and approved of the Bill before it was introduced, or whether they have not yet seen it?
    Captain MARGESSON: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down that question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Colonial Secretary if he has given instructions that no further land is to be alienated until the Bill has been passed?
    Captain MARGESSON: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to put down a question also.

    FACTORIES (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of children, women, and young persons concerned in the Order, under Section 2 of the Act of 1920, for the working of the two-shift system by the Northern Sabulite Explosives Company, Limited, Haswell, Messrs. Ward and Goldstone, Limited, Salford, and Messrs. Middletons, Limited, Aberdeen?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Only women and young persons of 16 years of age and over may be employed on this system. The numbers proposed to be so employed at the three works mentioned were 34, 10 and 6, respectively.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make known the number of young people employed in these explosive works?
    Viscountess ASTOR: How many hours are these young people employed?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not quite follow the point of the question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I have just given the figures.
    Mr. KELLY: These figures include women as well as young people. The question which I wish to put is how many young people are employed at this explosive works—that is the first firm mentioned in my question—as there is grave anxiety concerning the employment of children, on the two-shift system, in connection with explosives?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member, in the series of questions which are being put down upon this matter, continually refers to children, but no children are allowed to be employed under the two-shift system.
    Mr. KELLY: I mean young persons of 16 to 18.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member wants more information perhaps he will put down another question or communicate with me.
    Viscountess ASTOR: How many hours do these young persons work under the two-shift system?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Eight hours.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    VENEREAL DISEASES.
    Sir B. PETOasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the increase or decrease in the prevalence of syphilis and gonorrhea in the civilian population; and whether he is still of opinion that his policy of treatment only of persons who have contracted these diseases at clinics and denying access to preventives through chemists holds out a prospect of stamping out, these diseases, or either of them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): These diseases are not compulsorily notifiable, and the only information available as to their prevalence in the civilian population is that obtained from the treatment centres pro vided by local authorities. The returns received from these centres show that there has been a considerable reduction since 1920 in the number of persons treated at the centres, although the figures for the last two years show a small increase over those for 1925, which is probably due to recent improvements in the facilities provided at some of the centres and to continued propaganda as to the dangers of these diseases. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware that the present policy in dealing with these diseases involves any denial of access to preventives through chemists. The restrictions imposed by the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917, apply only to written or printed notices or instructions in regard to the use of preventives.
    Sir B. PETO: I asked a question specifically with regard to two venereal diseases, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the diminution and recent increase, to which he referred in his answer, apply equally to both diseases, or only to one?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think that there is a slight difference between the two particular diseases. At any rate, I do not think that the increase is a very large one.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to secure that no other persons administer preventives of this disease than fully qualified people?
    Mr. BRIANT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is highly undesirable to encourage persons to go to chemists, either for the prevention or cure of these diseases, which require the attention of the most skilled medical men?
    Sir K. WOOD: There is a good deal to be said for what the hon. Gentleman has stated. The whole matter was discussed recently by a Departmental Committee, to which I would refer the hon. Gentleman, but, at the moment, the matter is covered by the Act to which I have referred.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even highly skilled medical men are not all qualified to administer preventives of this disease, and will he secure that only those who are fully qualified are allowed to administer them?
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it not a fact that there is no preventive which any chemist can sell as a guaranteed cure of the disease?
    Sir K. WOOD: That may very well be.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members seem to be giving their own opinions.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that great difficulties will be experienced at no very distant date in providing an adequate water supply in England, he will consider the appointment of an expert committee to examine the question and to make suggestions with a view to conserving areas for future supplies?
    Sir K. WOOD: There is no need for any general alarm as to water supplies, though difficulties occur from time to time at particular places, as they have clone in the past. The general position is constantly under review by my right hon. Friend, with the help of an advisory committee representative of the various interests. The most practical procedure in my right hon. Friend's opinion is the formation of regional water committees who will survey the needs of their districts and formulate long-term programmes, and he encourages the formation of such Committees. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think that there is any necessity to appoint another committee as suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HASLAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less an authority than Lord Desborough, Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board, is reported to have said that the supply of water was going to be very serious for England at no very distant period?
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: In view of the difficulties of the situation, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure a reduction of the duty on beer?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since small local authorities find it impossible to get water, except by purchase from a large private company or a huge municipal undertaking, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of insisting upon regional schemes in order to guarantee a reasonable supply of water for small local authorities?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take good care to keep the excessive water away from Lords and the Oval?

    BIRTHS AND DEATHS, HAMPSTEAD, CHELSEA AND SHOREDITCH.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health according to the latest figures available, the birth-rate per 1,000 in the boroughs of Hampstead, Chelsea and Shoreditch, respectively?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th ultimo to a question by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).
    Mr. THURTLE: Was that question similar to my question?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should not like to say that the two questions are exactly similar, but I think the answer will be found to contain the information which the hon. Member desires.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health if he is in a position to give the number of deaths per 1,000 of population which have occurred under the head of maternal mortality during the last available period in the boroughs of Hampstead, Chelsea and Shoreditch, respectively?
    Sir K. WOOD: The provisional numbers of deaths classified as clue to childbirth for the Metropolitan boroughs of Hampstead, Chelsea and Shoreditch in 1927 amounted respectively to rates of
    1694
    .058,.047 and.038 per 1,000 of the population of those boroughs. The corresponding rates, according to the more usual calculation per 1,000 live births, were 4.86, 3.50 and 1.83 respectively.

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission is likely to be in the Vote Office?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend hopes that the Report will be issued this month.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the great increase in cases caused by motor accidents which have to be dealt with by the hospitals, he will take steps to call a conference between representatives of the voluntary hospitals, insurance companies and other organisations concerned, for the purpose of drafting a scheme to cover the expenses of the treatment of cases caused by motor accidents?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend must receive and consider the forthcoming Final Report of the Voluntary Hospitals Commission before deciding whether to take action on the lines which the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year there were more than 100,000 motoring accidents, which cost the voluntary hospitals more than £500,000, and that thousands of people, for whom these hospitals were created, are waiting for treatment who cannot be treated because of these motoring cases, which go into the hospital and pay nothing for their treatment?
    Sir K. WOOD: Those facts may very well be true, and when we receive the Final Report of the Commission I hope we shall be able to give this matter further consideration.

  HOUSING.

    OLDBURY.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health the area and cast of the first group of non-parlour houses sanctioned in 1926 and of the last group sanctioned for erection by the local authority of Oldbury?
    Sir K. WOOD: The first group sanctioned in 1926 comprised 52 houses with an average area of 805 superficial feet and a building cost of £417 per house. The last sanction given covered three groups of 46, 14, and 44 houses. The average areas were respectively 838, 803, and 835 superficial feet, and the building costs £420 10s., £405 11s., and £417 14s., per house.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain these figures in relation to the statement of the Minister of Health, about the price of houses falling £80 in the last two years?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend was taking the average for the whole country, but even in this case there is a very satisfactory reduction.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health how many dwellings have up to the present been reconstructed under the

    STATEMENT showing the progress made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in certain counties up to 31st March, 1928 (the latest date for which figures are available).

    County.

    Number of dwellings in respect of which applications for grants bad been:—

    Total amount of grants promised.

    Number of dwellings on which work had been:—

    Received.

    Refused.

    Allowed.

    Started.

    Completed.

    £

    Berkshire*

    …

    15

    2

    6

    475

    4

    —

    Oxfordshire

    …

    27

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Hampshire

    …

    36

    —

    7

    420

    7

    —

    Buckinghamshire*

    …

    7

    1

    6

    260

    —

    —

    Gloucestershire

    …

    17

    6

    7

    440

    7

    —

    Wiltshire

    …

    51

    32

    12

    1,647

    —

    —

    Totals

    …

    153

    46

    38

    3,242

    18

    —

    * In these counties the District Councils are the authorities and the figures relate to the results recorded by them.

    DONCASTER COLLIERIES ASSOCIATION (RENTS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the average weekly rent, including rates, of the houses erected by the Doncaster Collieries Association, as a public utility society, in the parishes of Rossington, Armthorpe, Stainforth, Dunscroft, Edlington, and Thorne?
    terms of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in the counties of Berkshire, Oxford shire, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire?
    Sir K. WOOD: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the progress made under the Act in question in each of the counties referred to.
    Mr. PALING: Is this progress sufficient in the opinion of the Ministry?
    Sir K. WOOD: We should like to see more progress.
    Mr. PALING: Is the Department taking any steps to speed up the business, and to make these local authorities pay to these landlords in full?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assist us in that direction.
    Following is the statement:
    Sir K. WOOD: Information as to the rents for the particular schemes referred to by the hon. Member is not available, but my right hon. Friend will make inquiries and communicate further with the hon. Member.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health why Michael Cosgrave, of 4, Long-

    1697
    holme, Rochdale, is refused an old age pension, seeing that his unemployment benefit has been stopped, as the Ministry of Labour believe he is 65 years of age?
    Sir K. WOOD: The information available to me in connection with Mr. Cosgrave's claim to old age pension indicates that he has not yet reached pensionable age. I understand that payment of benefit under the Unemployment, Insurance Acts will be resumed.
    Mr. KELLY: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to consult with the Ministry of Labour on these cases, so that men may not be deprived of benefit because the Ministry of Labour may happen to think a man is 65 years of age?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already explained some of the difficulties in certain of these cases, and we are naturally anxious to avoid suspension of benefit of every kind, and we are doing our best to meet the circumstances.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very often this pension represents the total income of the person, and can he take steps at least to assure a person that payment temporarily will be made, in order not to keep him back from payment all this long time?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have just said that.

    HOSIERY INDUSTRY—GREAT BRITAIN.

    Insured Persons recorded as Unemployed.

    Date.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1926—

    22nd March

    …

    …

    426

    13

    1,334

    134

    1,907

    460

    5

    1,746

    170

    2,381

    26th April

    …

    …

    495

    10

    1,649

    189

    2,342

    604

    7

    2,729

    244

    3,564

    1927—

    21st March

    …

    …

    551

    15

    1,882

    171

    2,619

    772

    16

    3,597

    264

    4,649

    25th April

    …

    …

    528

    13

    1,923

    176

    2,640

    684

    8

    3,764

    359

    4,815

    1928—

    26th March

    …

    …

    409

    14

    1,214

    78

    1,715

    313

    9

    1,968

    123

    2,413

    23rd April

    …

    …

    470

    18

    1,400

    115

    2,003

    443

    8

    2,378

    132

    2,961

    The numbers temporarily stopped include persons on short time who were not at work on the date to which the figures relate, but separate statistics of these persons are not available.

    CHESTER-LE-STREET UNION (INQUIRY).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Health if he has received the Report of the public inquiry into the allegations of neglect of a woman in the charge of the Chester-le-Street Union following her confinement in October last; and whether he is now in a position to state the result of that inquiry?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will have the decision?
    Sir K. WOOD: I hope shortly.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will he communicate that decision to us?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, certainly I will.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Labour the number of men unemployed and partly employed in the hosiery industry in March and April, 1926, 1927 and 1928?
    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:

    ASSISTED SCHEMES.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Minister of Labour whether on the coming into operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, any directions were given to Employment Exchanges that the claims of men recently employed on schemes for which a contribution is made by boards of guardians should be subject to special scrutiny and be forwarded to Kew for decision, although the first statutory condition was satisfied; whether claims by men ordinarily engaged by private firms were similarly dealt with; and whether he will circulate to Members of the House copies of any directions issued regarding the position of men recently employed on schemes assisted by-boards of guardians?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No such instructions or directions have been issued.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.
    Sir EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's
    Government are prepared to afford the necessary facilities for a Money Resolution in relation to the Empire Settlement Bill now before the House to deal with Empire migration, and especially with the testing or training of suitable migrants and financial purposes incidental thereto?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The matter will be considered in the light of the report of the Industrial Transference Board, which it is hoped will be in the hands of His Majesty's Government in about three weeks' time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Currency and Bank Notes Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 130.

Division No. 141.]

AYES.

[3.46 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Albery, Irving James

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hacking, Douglas H.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hamilton, Sir George

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Apsley, Lord

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Harrison, G. J. C.

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

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Atholl, Duchess of

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

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

Atkinson, C.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Haslam, Henry C.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

Balniel, Lord

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M,

Dalkeith, Earl of

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hills, Major John Waller

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Drewe, C.

Hilton, Cecil

Berry, Sir George

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

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

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

Brass, Captain W.

Fermoy, Lord

Hurd, Percy A.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fielden, E. B.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Briscoe, Richard George

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Briftain, Sir Harry

Forrest, W.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Iveagh, Countess of

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I

Fraser, Captain Ian

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

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

Frece, Sir Walter de

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Buchan, John

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Gates, Percy

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Bullock, Captain M.

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Burman, J. B.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Goff, Sir Park

Loder, J. de V.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Grace, John

Looker, Herbert William

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Grant, Sir J. A.

Lougher, Lewis

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

Grattan, Doyle, Sir N.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Radford, E. A.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Raine, Sir Walter

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Ramsden, E.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Macintyre, Ian

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

McLean, Major A.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Tinne, J. A.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Malone, Major P. B.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Ropner, Major L.

Waddington, R.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Salmon, Major I.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wells, S. R.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D

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

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Shepperson, E. W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

Skelton, A. N.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Nuttall, Ellis

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Womersley, W. J.

Penny, Frederick George

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Storry-Deans, R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Major Cope and Major Sir George

Preston, William

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hennessy.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

NOES.

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

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Sakiatvala, Shapurji

Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymneour, E.

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hollins, A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shinwell, E.

Baker, Walter

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Barnes, A.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smillie, Robert

Barr, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Bondfield, Margaret

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Briant, Frank

Kennedy, T.

Snell, Harry

Broad, F. A.

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

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromfield, William

Kirkwood, D.

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Bromley, J.

Lansbury, George

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lawrence, Susan

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Lawson, John James

Strauss, E. A.

Cape, Thomas

Lowth, T.

Sullivan, Joseph

Charleton, H. C.

Lunn, William

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

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

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Connolly, M.

Mackinder, W.

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

Cove, W. G.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thurtle, Ernest

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Tinker, John Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Harry

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Maxton, James

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dunnico, H.

Morris, R. H.

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

Fenby, T. D.

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

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gosling, Harry

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Owen, Major G.

Westwood, J.

Greenall, T.

Palin, John Henry

Wiggins, William Martin

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

paling, W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Groves, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Windsor, Walter

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

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

Purcell, A. A.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

Hayday, Arthur

Rose, Frank H.

BILLS REPORTED.

  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GODALMING EXTENSION) BILL,
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Sir Henry Jackson reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 5th June, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTET C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Herbert Cayzer, Countess of Iveagh, Sir Charles Oman and Major Yerburgh; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Christie, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Haslam and Major Alan McLean.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of
  1704
  the Rabbits Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Captain Briscoe, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Hardie, Sir Gerald Hohler, Mr. Lamb, Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone, Sir Basil Peto, Major Price, Mr. Tinker, Mr. David Williams, Sir Charles Wilson and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Amount of Bark of England Note Issue.)
  The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:—
  In page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "the" and to insert instead thereof the word "an."
  In page 2, line 41, to leave out the words "two hundred and sixty," and to insert instead thereof the words "not less than two hundred and fifty million and not more than two hundred and seventy-five."— [Captain Macmillan and Captain Loder.]
  In page 2, line 43, after the word "Section" to insert the words "and may at any time issue an additional amount of fifteen million pounds." [Mr. Lees-Smith and Mr. Gillett.]
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be more convenient to take a general discussion of this question on the first Amendment. The first three Amendments cover much the same ground and we might discuss all points raised in them together and then divide separately on each.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be for the general convenience of the House to follow the course suggested, taking one Division only on the third Amendment.
  Captain LODER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the word "the" and to insert instead thereof the word "an."
  Although we have had a long discussion upon the question of the limits of the fiduciary note issue, we do not scent to have reached agenerally satisfactory conclusion. I hope the Government will see their way either to meet the numerous appeals which were made during the Committee stage for a reconsideration of their attitude on this question, or else satisfy more fully the doubts which still exist on this side of the House as well as on the Opposition side. It is just as important that any impression
  1720
  that this Bill has a deflatory as well as an inflatory bias should be dissipated. I think the Secretary of State for War admitted that the figure of £260,000,000 could not safely be regarded as a permanent or final figure. He suggested that the figure of £275,000,000 put forward from the Opposition side was an attempt at a better shot. He did not claim that the figure of £260,000,000 was more than the best possible shot. It was not denied that that figure was in the nature of a shot. It is because any fixed figure must be in the nature of the best possible estimate at the moment that so much discussion has taken place about the procedure for altering that figure, and especially the procedure mentioned in Clause 8. It is because of doubts as to how that procedure will work that we are suggesting to give the Bank a certain amount of latitude.
  A good deal was said in the Committee about the effect of all this on the profits of the Bank. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that the Bank would put considerations of private profit before its public duty. Nevertheless, there is a widespread feeling that the influences at work on the Bank are on the side of excessive caution and that the Bank will be unwilling to use the procedure under Clause 8, or, at any rate, will not use it as often and as soon as may be desirable. The Secretary of State for War objected to the Labour party Amendment on the Committee stage on the ground that it would give the Bank power to reduce the fiduciary issue to any extent, and it is for this reason that we have put a minimum figure in the Amendment which follows. I think if the Government were to accept the principle of a maximum and a minimum, there would he no desire to ire pernickaty as to the actual figures. The real point is that there should be enough latitude to cover the normal variations and that the special procedure should be kept for special circumstances.
  Mr. GROTRIAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: This Amendment simply repeats the proposals which were contained in the Amendment moved from the Opposition side of the House during the Committee stage, and of course we

  1721
  are very pleased to see our proposal being brought forward as an Amendment in the names of two enlightened Conservative Members. The only difference between this proposal and the one that we made last week is that the lower limit of the fiduciary issue is placed at £250,000,000, whereas we proposed to leave it, as the Bill does, at £260,000,000. On that point we object to the proposal of the Mover of the Amendment. We object because we consider that the chief danger of this Bill is that it may be used for the purpose of deflation, and this Amendment would allow the Bank to have an even greater deflationary power than the Bill at present gives them. I am not going to repeat our objections to the main mechanism of the Bill. The Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary know that we consider that to leave the Bank with a reserve of only between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 will give it a reserve insufficient to meet the contingencies, especially those arising from the external demand for gold which may come upon it. That ground I am not going to cover again, but I want to take this opportunity of putting to the Secretary of State for War, if he is going to reply, a question which was raised last week by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley).
  I think it is essential that we should get this matter cleared up. The Secretary of State for War said that if he were to adopt the proposal we made, by which the fiduciary issue could be increased to £275,000,000, by means of which there would be an elasticity so that it could be placed at a maximum limit of £275,000,000, that would involve a loss to the Bank of £600,000 a year. I understand that the process would be that the Bank would have to take £15,000,000 worth of securities out of its banking department and transfer them to the issue department, which is really the Government Department, so that the Bank would lose the interest on, that £15,000,000, and the Government would obtain a corresponding sum. That seemed to me the process which the Secretary of State for War suggested it would have to go through. If that be so, will not exactly the same results follow if the Bank uses its power under this Bill, and, by the assent of the Treasury, issues a fiduciary issue of an extra £15,000,000? Will it,
  1722
  or will it not, lead to a loss of interest to the Bank of the sum of money stated? That is what I wish cleared up. If, as we suspect, that is so, what does it mean? It means this: We are afraid that the Bank will not utilise this machinery, because it involves a public confession of weakness. But if that be so, we find, in addition, that if the Bank utilises this machinery, it will involve it in a fine of hundreds of thousands of pounds. If that be so—and it appears to me it must be so—this again justifies the hostility which we have shown to the structure upon which this Bill is framed.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Captain Loder) is one which would insert in this Bill, not a fixed fiduciary issue of £260,000,000, but a fluctuating sum varying, at the option of the Bank, between £250,000,000 and £275,000,000. This Amendment, like the Amendment moved by the party opposite, is based upon a fear that the figure we have selected of £260,000,000 is not sufficiently elastic, and that the provisions in Clause 8 are not likely to be used to give the elasticity which, it is feared, does not exist in the £260,000,000. But my hon. and gallant Friend does not seem to have considered the inconvenience of a fluctuating figure. If the Bill were in operation at this moment—and I think it is just as well that we should test it by the conditions of credit as they are to-day—there would be a margin of about £54,250,000 of notes in the reserve of the banking department and in the margin of the unissued currency notes. The unissued currency note margin would be, approximately, £9,000,000 if the Bill were now in operation, and the notes in reserve in the banking department were on 16th May last £45,000,000 and some odd hundreds of thousands. There would, therefore, be a margin of £54,250,000. If the Amendment were passed, the Bank, at its discretion, could make that margin either £44,000,000, if it adopted the lower figure of £250,000,000, or £60,000,000 if it adopted the higher figure. There would therefore be an obligation on the part of the Bank to keep £44,000,000 of non-earning assets, with power to increase the note issue by £25,000,000. On the

  1723
  present credit conditions, that would give a margin of at least £15,000,000 in excess of what is required, and it would be almost impossible to prevent a relaxation of credit and a gradual reduction by anything up to £15,000,000 of the actual gold that we now hold.
  The hon. Member opposite repeated a question which was put to me in Committee, and I thought answered by me in Committee, with regard to the loss of profit to the Bank if the Bank suggested an increase under Clause 8, and my hon. Friend dealt with the same point. But the effect of this Amendment would be that it would enable the Bank to increase its profit. It could increase its profits by the interest on £10,000,000 at the expense of the Treasury, and it could increase its profits by the interest on £15,000,000 at the expense of the gold reserve, because the Amendment proposes that the Bank shall have the power to have a fiduciary issue of anything from £250,000,000 to £275,000,000 without check of any sort, at its entire discretion. The result of that would be that the Bank, as I say, could increase its profits by the interest on £10,000,000 at the expense of the Treasury, that is, by keeping the securities itself, instead of the Treasury having the benefit of the securities, and it could increase them by the interest on £15,000,000 by letting that amount of gold go, and, as I pointed out, it is almost certain that that amount of gold would go if credit were relaxed, as normally it would he, owing to the excessive reserves.
  My hon. Friend argued that, of course, the Bank would not attempt to earn the extra profit if it were against the public interest, and the Bank, indeed, is accused of excessive caution by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But surely it is for Parliament to say, and it ought not to be left to the Bank. If Parliament wants the Bank to keep a gold supply, corresponding to the £260,000,000 of the fiduciary issue—and I would remind hon. Members that that was the figure arrived at from the Cunliffe Committee's advice—surely Parliament ought to say so, and ought to lay it down as was advised by the Cunliffe Committee. And if Parliament wants the Bank to reduce its gold holding by £15,000,000, as would be the
  1724
  natural consequence of accepting this Amendment, it seems to me that it would be quite absurd that Parliament should make a present to the Bank of the interest on that £15,000,000.
  I will now specifically answer that particular question which the hon. Gentleman asked me before I leave the question of profits. If the Bank applied under Clause 8, it would be at a time when gold in their holding was low and when securities were high. It is because gold is low that they come for the increase on the fiduciary issue. What they would, in fact, be then doing would be to forgo the interest upon some of the securities they held, and exchange them for non-interest bearing assets. It is not the same thing as the case with which I was dealing when I said there would be a loss of £600,000 a year. That would be an actual loss of £600,000 a year, but in the case the right hon. Gentleman supposed it is a little different. It would be fortuitous that the Bank should be holding so much of its reserve in interest-bearing securities, and it is because of that that they come to ask for the increase of the fiduciary issue. So that in a sense it would be giving up a profit they ought not to be making, rather than losing a profit which is the legitimate result of their transactions.
  I hesitate to say that it is possible to forecast the result if this Amendment were accepted. A fixed fiduciary issue is understood. It is understood on the Continent, and it is understod in England, and it has prevailed here for the last 80 years. It is not wise in a matter so difficult to depart from an understood principle unless some great advantage is to be gained. I do not know what the effect would be upon the gold reserves if this innovation were tried. I know that if it w ere applied in the circumstances of today, supposing that the Bill were in operation, the most probable effect would be to reduce our gold reserves by anything up to £15,000,000. That is a risk which I think we ought not to take. It would reduce our reserves without giving us any corresponding advantage, and it might, indeed, be one of those things which perhaps would risk the maintenance of the gold standard. I must, therefore, ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In spite of the remarks that have fallen from

  1725
  the Secretary of State for War, I still maintain that it is an advantage to have the opportunity of increasing the fiduciary issue to £275,000,000. I do not think that it would be a good thing to allow a reduction from £260,000,000 to £250,000,000, and, therefore, I do not think, speaking far myself, and, I believe, also for my colleagues, that we could very well support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Captain Loder); but we shall continue to press our Amendment, which I understand will be put separately after the first Amendment has been taken, if it is pressed to a Division. The great object of the two Amendments is to allow a slack in the Issue Department.
  I am a little doubtful in my own mind as to whether the Secretary of State for War is correct in his explanation. It is a very technical and complicated matter, and I should not like to be dogmatic in regard to it, but, personally, I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, because I do not think he has quite clearly separated the position of the Bank in the Issue Department from that in the Banking Department. The object of the option to go to £275,000,000 is to give a measure of slack in the Issue Department. In the United States of America, where they have the Federal Reserve system, no distinction is drawn between the Issue Department and the Banking Department—it is all one; and there we have this phenomenon, that they have a very large measure of slack, and they do not use it as a basis of the credit policy of the banks.
  Suppose that the Bank of England have an option to have an additional £15,000,000 of slack in the Issue Department. If they do not use that option, then there is no change in the position in the Banking Department. If they do use the option, and increase the fiduciary issue by £15,000,000, that goes into the Banking Department, and gives, at first blush, an increase of £15,000,000 in the reserve of the Banking Department. Of course, however, that addition to the reserve of the Banking Department has to be paid for by handing over securities from the Banking Department to the Issue Department. You have £15,000,000 extra in the Banking Department, and what is going to happen to it? If you followed the American principle, it would simply lie as slack in the Banking
  1726
  Department, and it seems to me that, if that could be done, it would be just as available as slack there as it would be in the Issue Department. But the trouble is that the Bank of England, being, naturally, a money-making concern, will use this £15,000,000 as a basis of credit, and, when it comes to use this £15,000,000 as a basis of credit, it will make a profit on it. I do not, however, think that the right hon. Gentleman was right iii supposing that it would make a profit in the aggregate, because, as a set-off against the profit that it makes in the Banking Department by having this additional £15,000,000, it has had to transfer from the Banking Department to the Issue Department £15,000,000 of securities. It seems to me, therefore, that, so far as the Banking Department is concerned, the position is, broadly speaking, all square, and I do not think that a profit arises.
  The real issue seems to me to be whether the Bank will or will not use this as a basis of credit. If the Banking Department had to-day, not only the £9,000,000 extra which, as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, they will possess even under this Bill, but also £15,000,000 extra, I think there might be quite good reason for saying that the use of the whole of that £24,000,000 of additional reserve to form the basis of additional credit might be of the nature of inflation, and, if the Bank is going to have £24,000,000 extra in its Banking Department and is not to be allowed to use it as a basis of credit, or, at any rate, if it is not going to use it as a basis of credit, I think the Bank would suffer, and that is why I say that the slack should be in the Issue Department and not in the Banking Department. Under the Bill as it stands, no slack is provided in the Issue Department, and it is because we feel that there ought to be slack there, where the Government will have to deal with it instead of the Bank, that we support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)—in page 2, line 43, after the word "section," to insert the words "and may at any time issue an additional amount of fifteen million pounds." Our Amendment would not allow the Bank to go below £260,000,000 of fiduciary issue in its Issue Department, and it would give an option of going to £275,000,000. If the contention which I have put

  1727
  forward is correct, it will not make any substantial difference to the profits of the Bank whether the figure in the Issue Department be £260,000,000 or £275,000,000, because the Banking Department will lose on the swings what it makes on the roundabouts. If, however, that option be not given, the Bank will be tied up, and the only means of increasing the issue beyond the figure printed in this Bill will be by the powers under Clause 8. Therefore, although I shall not be able to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I have always understood that it was a very open question whether it was love, or drink, or currency that contributed most to the increase of lunacy, and I am bound to say, after giving very close and continuous attention to these Debates, that I have come deliberately to the conclusion that the last predisposing cause is, if not the most powerful, the most imminent. I must frankly say that, of the two Amendments that we are now considering, I distinctly prefer that which is to be moved from the Opposition benches, and for this reason. I look at this question from the broadest point of view, and I am very much more afraid of the dangers of inflation than I am of the danger of deflation. For that reason, as I have said, I prefer the Amendment which is to be moved from the opposite benches, but, to be perfectly candid, I do not propose to support either of them, because I think that the Government are right in adhering to the Bill. I was very much impressed, and not for the first time, by the statement made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. It seemed to me that his argument was founded on the very safest ground. For myself, I have always adhered very closely to the conclusions which were reached by the Cunliffe Committee. Of all the main inquiries into this question—I mean, of course, since the termination of the War; I am not thinking of the elaborate inquiries which were made 80 or 90 years ago—of all the inquiries made since the War, the conclusions of the Cunliffe Committee seem to me to be very much the soundest and the best.
  1728
  This Bill as presented by the Government is specifically based upon the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee. The Cunliffe Committee, as the Secretary of State for War has already explained to the House this afternoon, suggested two things. In the first place, they insisted on the specific sate of £260,000,000 for the fiduciary issue—
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: No. The Cunliffe Committee merely laid it down that the gold reserve should be maintained at £160,000,000; they said nothing about the amount of the fiduciary issue.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I agree; but the figure which is put into this Bill by the Government is, I think, a perfectly fair, indeed an irresistible deduction from the premises upon which the Cunliffe Committee built their Report. In the first place, then, I propose to vote against both these Amendments on the authority of the Cunliffe Committee, who, as it seems to me, produced reasons of very great weight. I have, however, a second reason, and that is the reason put forward by the Secretary of State for War, namely, that this is a matter not for the Treasury to determine, not for the Bank to determine, but for Parliament to determine. Parliament is to be asked to determine it in this Bill, and for that reason I shall support the proposal of the Government.
  Mr. GILLETT: It seems to me that the main point brought out in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Captain Loder) is the question whether the fiduciary issue should be a fixed amount which cannot be altered except with the consent of the Treasury. I do not see that the Amendment would work on the lines suggested by the Secretary of State for War, because I gather that he surmised that there would be, under the conditions suggested in this Amendment, an almost weekly fluctuation of the figure that would appear as the fiduciary issue. I do not think, however, that there is anything in the Amendment that would necessitate that. I do not see, supposing that the Amendment were carried, that there would be anything to prevent the Bank from starting at £260,000,000, and leaving the figure in the Bank return at £260,000,000 until such time as there was quite a considerable change and it was desired, say, to raise it by £5,000,000,

  1729
  or to reduce it by £5,000,000. Therefore, I cannot see that the objections which the Secretary of State for War has made against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester are quite as strong as he would have us imagine. I quite agree with the Secretary of State, however, that, if the figure were reduced by £10,000,000, it might add to the profits of the Bank.
  With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) in the Debate last week, I am not quite sure whether one point has been sufficiently accentuated. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman always took it for granted that, if it were desired to increase the fiduciary issue, it would be necessary to take securities out of the Banking Department. I should like to suggest to him that, while that probably would be done, it is not needful to do it. We have never heard from the Government any answer to the question why, if more securities were wanted, the Bank should not be in a position to buy the securities that it required to put in as cover. I can tell the House the answer at once on this rather vital point. The answer is that, if it were done in that way, it would result, taking the figure of £15,000,000, in a pure inflation of £15,000,000 if it were done at the present time. When we talk about the sum of £15,000,000, it seems immediately to settle the question when it is said at once that it is obvious that something must be done, and, therefore, in order to counteract that, the Bank will sell some of its own £15,000,000, which brings us to the position which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down.
  I bring out this point because one of the reasons why we have urged that this should be a shifting figure is that, as trade expands, we consider that the note issue ought to expand also, and if you have an expansion in trade, we hold that the increase in the amount of notes keeps step with an increase in trade, and you would not have inflation. Instead of
  talking of £15,000,000, supposing you had arrived at a large expansion of trade and of credit and the Bank was to raise the figure by £5,000,000, in that emergency the securities might be purchased, the amount of credit would be increased, and the other deposits would rise by £5,000,000, but if the factors outside had also expanded, the note issue would only have expanded in proportion to the rest of the credit expansion, and you would have no inflation.
  It was rather unfortunate that the hon. Member for Westmorland jumped to his conclusion without actually bringing out the point that why he said that you have to take the securities from the banking department was because he was naturally trying to avoid any question of inflation. I, personally, find it impossible to support the suggestion of a lower figure. In many ways it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Member is really to be preferred to the proposals of the Government, because I still think that in fixing the figure at £260,000,000 and only allowing the very limited means of expansion that are proposed in this Bill, you are faced with the same difficulty against which we have been arguing in the earlier stages of the Bill. I very much wish that the Government could have seen their way to have accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member, because I cannot help thinking that in future years it would have been for the general benefit of the trade of this country.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, after the word "section," to insert the words:
  "and may at any time issue an additional amount of fifteen million pounds."
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 199.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES.

  [4.34 p.m.

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

  Baker, Walter

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Bromfield, William

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

  Barr, J.

  Bromley, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Batey, Joseph

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Buchanan, G.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Briant, Frank

  Cape, Thomas

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kennedy, T.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Compton, Joseph

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

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Connolly, M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smillie, Robert

  Cove, w. G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawson, John James

  Sneil, Harry

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Day, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Stamford, T. W.

  Dennison, R.

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

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dunnico, H.

  Mackinder, W.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Edge, Sir William

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sullivan, J.

  Fenby, T, D.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

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

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morris, R. H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Murnin, H.

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Groves, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Grundy, T, W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palin, John Henry

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Paling, W.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Hardie, George D.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Westwood, J.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)

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

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hollins, A.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Windsor, Walter

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wright, W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  TELLERS FOK THE AYES.—

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shinwell, E.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Albery, Irving James

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cooe, Major William

  Haslam, Henry C

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

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Apsley, Lord

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

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

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Heneage, Limit.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Atkinson, C.

  Cuiverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hilton, Cecil

  Balniel, Lord

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds. N.)

  Drewe, C.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  England, Colonel A.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

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

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Blundell, F. N.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fermoy, Lord

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Forrest, W.

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Looker, Herbert William

  Buchan, John

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lougher, Lewis

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Burman, J. B.

  Gates, Percy

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Grace, John

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  McLean, Major A.

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

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  1732

  1733

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sailsbury)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

  Sanders, sir Robert A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Nicholson, O (Westminster)

  Sandon, Lord

  Waddington, R.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Shepperson, E, W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Skelton, A. N.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymplre

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Pilcher, G.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Preston, William

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Womersley, W. J.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Ramsden, E.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after the word "period," to insert the words "not exceeding six months."
  Before dealing with this Amendment, I should like to suggest, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that I should discuss this Amendment and the one that follows it at the same time. The second one appears on the Paper as follows: In page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(3) Any direction so given may be renewed or varied from time to time on the like request and in like manner.
  Provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, provision, no such direction shall be renewed so as to remain in force (whether with or without variation) after the expiration of a period of two years from the date on which it was originally given, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
  (4) Any minute of the Treasury authorising an increase of the fiduciary note issue under this Section shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament."
  I must mention that there is a slight mistake in the latter part of the second Amendment, and the words "an increase" should be "a reduction." The principle involved in both Amendments is the same, and, with your permission, we will discuss the two together and then take a Division on each.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that course can be followed and that we can have one Debate and two Divisions.
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The object of these two Amendments is to place precisely the same check upon an
  1734
  unwise reduction of the fiduciary issue as Clause 8 proposes to put upon unwise expansion. In Clause 8, even when the Bank of England and the Treasury are agreed that expansion is desirable, they cannot make it permanent or for any long period of time. At each successive period of six months the matter has to be considered afresh, and if the expansion lasts as long as two years, it has to come before Parliament itself, and a special Statute, or at any rate a Section in some other Statute—I think I am right in saying that—must be put through the House in order to enable the expansion to continue. But in this Bill, on the other hand, contraction can be agreed upon for any period that the Bank and the Treasury may decide, and Parliament is not to be consulted at all. The first of these two Amendments is to limit the time for which the Bank may direct a reduction in the fiduciary issue to six months, and the second Amendment is to enable Parliament to have the right, at the end of two years, to discuss the matter, and unless Parliament otherwise determines, this reduction shall then come to an end.
  The final part of the second Amendment, where the error occurs, is to the effect that a minute of the Treasury authorising a reduction—not an increase, as on the Paper—of the fiduciary note issue tinder this Clause must be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament. The underlying idea in the Bill seems to be that there is something fascinating and wicked about expansion which has

  1735
  therefore to be severely watched and guarded against, whereas contraction is a part of virtue which has to be encouraged and fostered by every possible means. I cannot accept that view of expansion and contraction. I see only one path to rectitude, and that is stability, and, provided the currency is regulated to achieve that, I am satisfied that, whether it involves an increase or a decrease it is a salutary action. If the Bank needs to be watched to see that there is not an unwise expansion, I think it equally needs to be watched to see that there is not an unwise contraction.
  Having regard to the tendency of the Bank and the Treasury in peace-time, I am more fearful that it will contract where it is improper to do so than that it will unduly expand. Therefore, I think it is if anything more important that Parliament should watch the possible undue contraction than that Parliament should be required to authorise a further continuance of expansion. The reason is that Parliament essentially represents the interests of the country as a whole, including the interests of industry and of labour, whereas the Bank and the Treasury represent financial interests. It may well be that the financier may think that deflation is desirable, whereas it might be not in the interest of industry and of employment. In this connection I was rather amused at a remark which was made by an hon. Friend of mine behind me in an earlier Debate on this subject. He said that inflation and deflation of the currency meant nothing to the working man; that what he wanted was employment and good wages. That rather reminds me of a story of a negro preacher who suggested as an explanation of the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites that the Red Sea was then frozen over. One of his congregation said he had studied geography and pointed out that the Red Sea was in the tropics, and that therefore the suggestion of the preacher was not likely to be correct. But the preacher answered in this way. He said: "In the days when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea there was no geography, therefore there were no tropics and therefore that interruption was irrelevant." Of course, it is true that the average man
  1736
  and woman does not understand exactly what is involved in inflation and deflation, but, nevertheless, the effects of it will be felt in their daily lives. It is because I believe that undue deflation has brought about unemployment in the past, and that it is likely to continue to cause unemployment in the future, that I am against an unwise use of contracting the currency. In that connection I would like to make one quotation from a speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War delivered at Genoa. He said:
  "There is general agreement among experts that one of the most prominent causes of depression of trade and of unemployment is the fall of prices which has occurred in the past two years. In the resolutions which have been passed under the head of 'currency' there is embodied the principle of preventing undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold, and therefore equally in the purchasing power of currencies based on gold."
  In my view, if this power to reduce the currency is left without check, and Parliament has no means of guarding against it, I am afraid we are going to see further deflation, even in a currency which is based upon gold, and that in this Bill as it stands we may have a continuance of unemployment and depression of trade. I want, therefore, to introduce the check of Parliament to prevent that.
  Mr. DALTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  My hon. Friend who has just spoken has very clearly stated the case for this Amendment, and I do not propose to add at great length to what he has said. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will be replying, and it would be convenient if he would tell us under what conditions this reduction of the fiduciary issue is likely to take place. For my part, I cannot imagine any conditions within a measurable length of time, under which that reduction would he desirable at all. I can imagine the conditions under which an increase may be brought about, but if we are to look forward to trade expansion, to a demand for currency and to all the general symptoms of trade revival, we cannot contemplate that the fiduciary issue has got to come down. The only conditions under which one could begin to contemplate a reduction in future would be if

  1737
  a much larger part of our notes were to be covered by gold. I will be much obliged, and I am sure the House will be much obliged, if we are given some indications as to the conditions under which this Clause will operate. Even, however, if it is to operate, there surely can be no logical answer to the request that we should make the thing symmetrical as between increase and decrease.
  If it is desirable, as I hold it to be desirable, in Clause 8, that certain conditions should be attached to an increase, what possible argument can be put forward against attaching the same conditions to a reduction in the fiduciary issue if that should ever come about? Having regard to the very serious effect of falling prices on the level of employment and the welfare of the great masses of the population, it is possibly even more desirable, it is certainly not less desirable that we should have a limit of six months imposed and the subsequent safeguard of the Treasury Minute being put before us. If the Bill is left without amendment, it exhibits quite nakedly a deflationary bias. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) the other day quoted a remark of the Prime Minister, with which nearly all of us are able to agree, in which he condemned alike inflation and deflation and proclaimed himself a non-inflationist. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is in agreement with his chief, and, like him, is a non-inflationist, he has, in my view, no possible logical ground for refusing to embody a non-inflationist technique in the Bill by putting deflation and inflation on exactly an identical plane.
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The two hon. Members who have just spoken have put forward an Amendment which seems to me to have comparatively little relation to practice. They appear to suggest that the Bank of England, by printing paper money, could inflate the currency. I suggest that the Bank of England might set up its printing presses and might work day and night and print an infinitude of paper money, but that there would be no inflation until that paper money got into circulation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) spoke about
  1738
  contraction of the currency as if he anticipated a state of affairs when one might go to a bank to draw currency for the payment of wages and when the bank might refuse currency in return for one's cheque. The real point at issue is this. Is it possible to put into currency fiduciary issues beyond what there is a demand for? Everything depends upon the demand existing for currency. The mere fact that the bank is extending the fiduciary issue does not make any practical difference to trade and industry. The currency cannot get into circulation unless someone demands it, and people will not demand it simply because they happen to know that it has been printed. It seems to me, therefore, that the arguments of the two hon. Members are quite irrelevant.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), in supporting this Amendment, asked if we would say under what conceivable conditions it might be desirable to reduce the fiduciary issue. If the Genoa Resolutions are fully carried out, and gold is economised to the fullest extent, it is quite possible that an uncomfortable amount of gold might come into this country, and that, unless the fiduciary issue were at that time reduced, it might have inflationary effects which would be undesirable. It might happen if the Federal Reserve Board entirely changed its policy with regard to gold. I have no inflationary desires nor have I any of the deflationary bias which the hon. Member for Peckham seems to think is inherent in this Clause. Quite on the contrary. The hon. Member should by now have realised that so far as we can we are maintaining existing conditions in this Bill. Generally in other countries there are severe checks against increase, but no checks against reduction in the fiduciary issues of the central banks.
  5.0 p.m.
  But there is also another reason and I think a convincing reason for some discrimination between upward and downward movements. If you increase the fiduciary currency you may risk the gold standard. To increase the fiduciary issue without a contraction of the total note issue, enables gold to leave this country and thus you may, if you increase

  1739
  the fiduciary issue unduly, risk the gold standard. It is because it is essential that checks should be put upon this that the provisions of Clause 8 differ from the provisions of Clause 2. The hon. Member suggested that we think it is wicked to expand the fiduciary issue. It is not a question of vice or virtue. It is practical common sense. We have something definite to protect ourselves against, and we use the provisions of Clause 8 to protect ourselves against it. The evil is not present in the case of a reduction, and therefore we did not put in there any special measures to protect ourselves against that. When it is said it can be done secretly, that is not quite accurate because any reduction is made apparent in the returns of the Bank of England within a week and any further information required can always be obtained by a diligent pursuer of questions. There is no case for the Amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of a man with a wicked past who is always liable to have it thrown up at him. He has my sympathy. He went to Genoa, where he lent himself to certain very respectable resolutions, and here he is back from his tanks and artillery affairs to listen to his past being examined by my hon. Friends. But I am not going to twit him with what happened at Genoa. I was there too, and he might twit me with things that happened there of which we have not heard the last. But he has not brought one single consideration to meet the case put forward by my two hon. Friends. In Clause 8 there are certain safeguards against so-called inflation—increase of the fiduciary issue—the six months' limit and, above all, Parliamentary control. But the Bank can reduce the issue simply by agreement, in secret behind closed doors, with the Treasury, and the next we hear of it is that in the Bank return we are informed that it has been reduced. Parliament knows nothing. The right hon. Gentleman, of all people, suggests that some diligent questioner can raise the matter in Parliament. What an absurd travesty of Parliamentary safeguards from the right hon. Gentleman, who is the most difficult Minister to draw at Question time and the most unsatisfactory to get answers from. A
  1740
  Parliamentary Question is no kind of safeguard here. We are simply delivering ourselves into the hands of a few anonymous Treasury officials and the Court of the Bank of England with no Parliamentary safeguard of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman says we might have too much gold coming into the country. What has that to do with it? We are not using gold as currency any longer. We are on a permanent paper money basis. The small safeguard of gold that the private man had in the old days is taken from him, because he might hoard it. I cannot see how the amount of gold coming into the country can really affect the issue. If I can have that pointed out I should be very glad to be informed.
  The danger undoubtedly is of an over-conservative Court of the Bank of England, out of touch with the needs of business and industry, pursuing deflation to such an extent that unemployment is caused. We had these years of slump started—I do not say it was wrong—by a deflationary policy deliberately pursued by the great banks. Then we had a further setback to employment by the introduction of the gold standard. I was in favour of the gold standard, and still am. I think we had to submit to a surgical operation to get down to stability. But we have seen the effect in the country on the export trade and on unemployment. As things were, with the present system of finance and banking we could do nothing else, but it shows the immense power you are giving to the Bank. I referred to the Bank of England in Committee as the Kremlin of the capitalist system. It is more than that. The Kremlin has changed hands. It is the holy of holies. It must not be touched, and there is to be no Parliamentary control of any kind whatever. The matter is to be left in the hands of a few permanent civil servants at the Treasury, closeted in secret with the Governor and Directors of the Bank, and this House has no kind of control over the matter at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman said action by the Federal Reserve Bank might affect it very much. What does he mean? What are the safeguards he proposes against the Federal Reserve Bank? Does he mean to say the policy of the Federal Reserve Bank can affect us in London? I dare say that is the case, but if that is so, what are the Government considering

  1741
  as a safeguard? Are we absolutely at the mercy of financial manipulation in America? If so, I ask the House to consider what we are doing, because Parliament is going to have no control over what happens, and apparently the Bank of England may have to decide to reduce the note issue as a safeguard against what happens in America, and we are to have no say. If, also in order to meet certain financial manipulations in Paris or elsewhere, the issue of bank notes is to be increased, of course it must be limited to six months and Parliament must be consulted, and in that case we have some control, but why if the issue is reduced are we to have no control?
  There is another matter. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and to a less degree the Minister for War, speak with reverence and awe, they cross themselves figuratively speaking, when they refer to the Governor and the Court of the Bank of England—very great financiers, great public servants, and so on. We accept that. Then why cannot they be trusted not to increase the note issue without the consent of Parliament? Why cannot they be entrusted to increase the note issue without a six-months limit? Why all these safeguards? Why should not these wonderful paragons of financial virtue who are in charge of the Ark of the Covenant of the Financial Secretary and the Holy of Holies of the Minister of War, the standard bearers of financial rectitude, be entrusted with an increase of the note issue, and why the Parliamentary control? Those questions have not been answered and I can only think of two reasons why they have not been answered. One is that the Minister does not know what the answer is and the other is that there is some hidden reason that we are not to be trusted with.
  This Bill is being forced down the throat of Parliament with very little explanation from the Government. Occasionally, they leave the matter of explanation to a back bencher and occasionally they give us a flippant and unsatisfactory and inadequate reply. Anyone after listening to the speeches of my two hon. Friends will say, either that the Government are ignorant, which I cannot accept, or that they have something to hide. There is some hidden reason which has not been disclosed and I hope the House will not go to a division
  1742
  now but will press for some further enlightenment on the matter. I do not pretend to be a financial expert at all but I know there is something very wrong with the present system which is being forced through Parliament in this Bill. I know also that up and down the country business men, producers, the men who are fighting the industrial battles of the country, are gravely dissatisfied with the present position. They are not Socialists or Bolshevists. Most of them are Conservatives. I do not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman moves in these circles, amongst these struggling and hard pressed business men, but let him discuss the banking policy of the Government and the Bank of England—the Governor and this wonderful Court—and see what they have to say. They are frightened of the immense power the Bank of England is being given and this one little check that we ask for, this minor matter of a reduction of the fiduciary issue by Parliament, is denied us by the Minister for War and he gives us no reason.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain one point that was raised just now? He said, in reply to criticism from the other side, that the main reason why the power to contract the fiduciary issue below £260,000,000 might be used was that in the event of financial matters abroad turning in a certain manner, large sums of gold would came to this country and it would be necessary to reduce our fiduciary note issue. Does not the arrangement that was made under what I believe to be the Baldwin return of payment of debt to America, namely that it is at the option of this country always to pay in gold if we so require and not in United States currency or notes, remove any possibility of our being in the position of getting too much gold until the greater part of the debt payment is made? I appreciate the fact that in the United States to-day they have too much gold, and a great deal of it is not used for credit purposes and is not in circulation but is more or less dormant, and therefore a tax on the resources of the whole country. Dormant gold has to be paid for by the country.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I think that this question ought not to be, allowed to pass from this House quite so easily. The

  1743
  Secretary of State for War has given a very specious reply to the proposition that has been put forward. The situation which has been set up is of a very dangerous character. He has not answered at all satisfactorily the charge which has been brought against this Bill, and against this Clause in particular, that it allows deflation practically upon an unlimited scale. I consider that that is a very dangerous position to take up. This Bill is being discussed very largely from the point of view of experts, of those used to handling large sums of money, dealing with large credits and bills of exchange, and of those to be found round the banks and the big financial houses. I look at the matter from rather a different angle. I believe that this Bill is the last piece of work consequent upon the policy of deflation introduced in 1920. This is a point which I put before the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I still hold that opinion. Experience has proved to us beyond doubt that the policy of deflation has caused unemployment, misery and poverty to millions of our people. It has brought about a vast reduction in wages, and the working class have never yet been able to get their wages restored. I am one who believes that this control of currency is one of the means whereby their wages and their power of consumption are kept down. I am not one of those who believe that things happen without a cause. If the cause is a human cause, there is usually a motive.
  The Court of the Bank of England have now become the custodians of the interests and the welfare of the community, and in their control of currency they are as much concerned with maintaining a sufficient supply of domestic servants as they are with anything else. If only they can control the currency, they can, in my opinion, control credit, production, the question of employment, the question of wages and income, and they can ensure that there will always be a sufficient supply of domestic servants. I am not so much concerned with that particular point of view. I am supporting this Amendment because I want to see Parliament getting and maintaining as much control as possible over this much discussed and vexed question of currency. Our experience of the past has not been a very happy one. The
  1744
  Secretary of State for War talks about too much gold coming into the country. There are millions of people in this country who have never seen sufficient gold to enable them to carry on. I frankly say that I am thoroughly convinced, that instead of establishing a possibility whereby there can be deflation on the part of the big financiers who always act in conjunction with the big financiers on the Continent and in New York—I have yet to learn that the Pierpont Morgans, the Vanderbilts and controllers of finance in New York have developed wings of any colour whatever; in fact, they are some of the most evil influences in the world to-day, and I am anxious we should escape them as far as possible—this Bill, instead of giving the power and control to the Bank of England, should vest that power and control in the Government and the State itself. We should keep this agency, for good or for evil, in our hands. I am quite prepared to face all the political evils that are supposed to accrue from the political control of currency.
  As far as we are concerned, representing, as we claim to do, the great masses of people who are starving practically in the midst of plenty, we are not prepared to talk about the evils of political control. We can face those evils when they arrive. I have seen sufficient of the evils that have come from the control of currency by private interest. The capitalist system, private interests and purposes, have to be served through the use of currency as much as through the control of manufacture and industry. It is a question as to whether it suits the purposes and interests they have most at heart. I am in favour of the Amendment, because it will at least give Parliament some control. Parliament has too little control at the present moment. If the Government were really serving the purposes and the interests of the great masses of the people of this country, instead of the relatively few, they would have accepted the Amendment and strengthened their Bill in many directions by taking from the money lords some of the power which they at present possess, and which ought to be transferred.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) asked a question of

  1745
  the Secretary of State for War, and it appeared from this side that he was given a private answer. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to give the House the answer which, apparently, he gave to the hon. Member.
  Mr. WALTER BAKER Mr. WALTER BAKER rose—[Interruption].
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War can only speak again by the leave of the House.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can only speak by leave of the House, and I hesitated to impose myself upon the House. As, however, hon. Members wish these two questions to be answered, first of all, I would remind the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that the effect of the deflationary process to which so many have objected has been that the real value of wages has gone up.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: And wages have gone down.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And the value of wages received has gone up. There can be no doubt about it.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The value of money has gone up, but not the wages.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The danger of surplus gold coming into this country, which this Clause is intended to protect us against, is, that there would be or might be inflation, where prices would go up and the real money value of wages would go down. If the hon. Gentleman is sincere in what he said, he should support the Government in rejecting this Amendment. If I may, I will answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), who says: Is it not true that if we had too much gold in that way we could pay off some more of our debt to America? I believe we have, under the terms of the debt settlement, power to anticipate payments off, but I believe that that is only after notice—considerable notice.
  Mr. DALTON: Six months' notice.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes, six months' notice. We cannot dispose of the surplus week by week, as it
  1746
  were, by shipping it across the Atlantic in payment of the American debt. The intention of this Clause is to give power to make a temporary reduction in the fiduciary note issue in the event of there being surplus gold in this country. It does not only depend, or not even primarily depend, upon the policy of the Federal Reserve Board. It depends much more upon the resolutions of Genoa being completely carried out that the central banks should arrive at conventions—that we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee—and come to terms for economising the use of gold. In such a case as that, it is conceivable—I do not put it any higher than a possibility—that we might have a surplus here which, temporarily at least, we ought to neutralise, and it is for that purpose, and not for any sinister object that this Clause is put in and that this Amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that the French Government have not adopted the policy of deflation to the same extent that we have, and is it not a fact that there is less unemployment in France and that there wages are practically higher than they are here?
  Mr. W. BAKER: I am sure we have been very pleased to have a further opportunity of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, but I am not, at all satisfied that he has dealt with the point which was so clearly submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). This matter was fully discussed during the Committee stage, and I thought that the position taken up by my hon. Friend was perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Even his explanatory speech seemed to emphasise that point of criticism, namely, that there is a bias against deflation. But on this Amendment it is not possible to go over the whole ground as to the method which should have been adopted as an alternative to this Bill. Taking facts as we find them, it is perfectly clear that the Government are prepared to see deflation made more easy than inflation. Having regard to the generally expressed opinion amongst well-informed persons that a shortage of currency is a very much more real evil as far as we are

  1747
  concerned than an excess of currency, I can see no reason at all why the right hon. Gentleman should refrain from meeting the appeal which has been made to him from this side of the House.
  I would like to endeavour to make this point in reply to the last few remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman. Deflation, as I understand it, has been of benefit solely to persons who live on fixed incomes and to persons who are in possession of large quanities of Government stock. I think it is a mistake to suppose that any of the active producing classes in the community can possibly have benefited under the policy which the Government have been pursuing for some years past. Before I sit down I want to say—and I think it is a matter of very great disappointment to every Member in the House no matter on which side he sits—that we have had no opportunity of hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on his Bill. His name appears on the Bill with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, personally, I should have been very glad to hear him on this particular matter. Further, the selection of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to support the Treasury during the passage of this Bill was heralded with such loud praise and such bright anticipations that I have looked forward to hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the very greatest pleasure.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This cannot be gone into on an Amendment.
  Mr BAKER: It seemed to me that if there was anyone on the Government side who could have put a case to my satisfaction it would have been the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that during the discussions on the subsequent Clauses of the Bill we shall hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Mr. GILLETT: Nothing in our Amendment interferes with the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House, because the emergency that he has referred to is a temporary emergency. What we object to in regard to this Clause is that the fiduciary issue can be indefinitely reduced, with the consent of the Treasury. We are trying to bring into it some of the proposals made in Clause 8, in order that the matter may come up constantly for review. The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing in any way to meet that point. He suggests that in order to cover the emergency this Clause is needed, but the emergency would be met just as easily under the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept the same principle.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 249.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES.

  [5.33 p.m.

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

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Lee, F.

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

  Gillett, George M.

  Lindley, F. W.

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

  Gosling, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Ammon, Charles George

  Greenall, T.

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

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Mackinder, W.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Baker, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Barnes. A.

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

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

  Barr, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hardie, George D.

  Maxton, James

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Montague, Frederick

  Broad, F. A.

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Bromfield, William

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Murnin, H.

  Bromley, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Palin, John Henry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hollins, A.

  Paling, W.

  Cluse, W. S

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Compton, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Potts. John S.

  Connolly, M.

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

  Purcell, A. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Ritson, J.

  Day, Harry

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Dennison. R.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Rose, Frank H.

  Dunnico, H.

  Lawson, John James

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Sullivan, J.

  Whiteley, W.

  Shaw, Ht. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Shinwell, E.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Tinker. John Joseph

  Windsor, Walter

  Smillie, Robert

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Wright, W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Snell, Harry

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Stephen, Campbell

  Westwood, J.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Edge, Sir William

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Albery, Irving James

  Edwards. J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  England, Colonel A.

  Macintyre, I.

  Applin, Colonel R. v. K.

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

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fenby, T. D.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Atkinson, C.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Fielden, E. B.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

  Forrest, w.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Bennett, A. J.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Berry, Sir George

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, W. Fool (Saffron walden)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grace, John

  Morris, R. H.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Briant, Frank

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

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Owen, Major G.

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

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Penny, Frederick George

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Buchan, John

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Perring, Sir William George

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Harney, E. A.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Burman, J. B.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

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

  Preston, William

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

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Radford, E. A

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Christie, J. A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ramsden, E.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitkroy

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Cope, Major William

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Salmon, Major I

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

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sandon, Lord

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Savery, S. S.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Loder, J. de V.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Drewe, C.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  1750

  1751

  Smithers, Waldron

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Withers, John James

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Womersley, W. J.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Waddington, R.

  Wood, E. (Chester, Staty'b'ge & Hyde)

  Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wells, S. R.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. sir L.

  Templeton, W. P.

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

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

  Wiggins, William Martin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Major The Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.

  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words
  "(3) Any direction so given may be renewed or varied from time to time on the like request and in like manner.
  Provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing provision, no such direction shall be renewed so as to remain in force (whether with or without variation) after the expiration of a period of two years from the date on which it was originally given, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
  (4) Any minute of the Treasury authorising a reduction of the fiduciary note issue under this Section shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament."
  Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 256.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES.

  [5.42 p.m.

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

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Riley, Ben

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hollins, A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shinwell, E.

  Barr, J.

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

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smillie, Robert

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

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

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Compton, Joseph

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Connolly, M.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, W. G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Day, Harry

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

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

  Dennison, R.

  March, S.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dunnico, H,

  Maxton, James

  Westwood, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Palin, John Henry

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hardie, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Purcell, A. A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyts, Lieut.-Colonel

  Albery, Irving James

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Atkinson, C.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grace, John

  Philipson, Mabel

  Bainiel, Lord

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Pilcher, G.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Pilditch, sir Philip

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

  Preston, William

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

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Price, Major c. W. M.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Ramsden, E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harney, E. A.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Briant, Frank

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sandon, Lord

  Buchan, John

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Savery, S. S.

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Burman, J. B.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Skeiton, A. N.

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

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Smithers, Waldron

  Christie, J. A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cops, Major William

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Templeton, W. P.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lougher, Lewis

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macintyre, Ian

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  McLean, Major A.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Drewe, C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Edge, Sir William

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wells, S. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  England, Colonel A.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Morris, R. H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fenby, T. D.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fermoy, Lord

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Withers, John James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Forrest, W.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Owen, Major G.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the Marquess of Tichfield.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Gates, Percy

  Perring, Sir William George

  CLAUSE 8.—(Power to increase amount of fiduciary note issue.)
  Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "aforesaid" in line 23 to the end of the Subsection.
  If it meets with your approval, Mr. Hope, I propose to speak on this Amendment and also on the following Amendment: to leave out lines 28 to 33 inclusive. We can then take a Division on the two Amendments at the end of the Debate.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that meets with the general wish of the House it can be done.
  Mr. GILLETT: We come now to one of the most debatable Clauses of the Bill. I was a little surprised at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War just now that the gold standard was in some way endangered by inflation, because I have always looked upon the gold standard as being our protection against inflation, and I could not follow the argument when he said that unless we were very careful the whole position of the gold standard must be endangered. If there is inflation there is immediately such an alteration in the standards of value in this country that in a short time we should find that the exchanges were moving against us and the gold leaving this country. As soon as that takes place the procedure connected with the gold standard comes into force, and the Bank of England takes such action as will prevent a further outflow of gold. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly in keeping with the defence which he made.
  The main point about this Clause is that it deals with the relationship between the Bank of England and the Government. There are two aspects of that question, but the larger aspect hardly seems to come within the limits of this Clause. It was referred to by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he moved the Amendment on the Second Reading Debate and outlined his idea of what a national bank ought to be. I do not think we can debate this larger question under this Clause, but at any rate
  1756
  we can debate the question as to how far the Treasury, as the system is organised, are to have a voice in any change that is made if the Bank of England later on decides to alter the fiduciary issue from £260,000,000. We have already settled on the preceding Clause the procedure that is to be followed if the Bank wishes to reduce the amount. This Clause deals with the other aspect of the question, and it is interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman obviously seems to express a fear which is latent in his mind, and which I am certain is behind the whole of this Bill, however much is may be denied publicly—namely, a fear not of deflation but of inflation.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that if inflation took place we may endanger the gold standard. The risk we run in deflation is that we may lose our trade and increase unemployment, and if I had to choose between the two things I look upon deflation, especially in view of the condition of trade at this moment, as a greater evil than inflation. Some people suggest that inflation may have the same effect upon our industries as a tonic has upon an invalid. It is a dangerous argument. With the right hon. Gentleman looking on inflation in the way he does, while ignoring the dangers of deflation, I could not help expressing the view which I know is held on these benches, that we are more frightened of deflation than of inflation. In this Clause the Government., following out the fears of the right hon. Gentleman, have made regulations in regard to inflation. When the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick - Lawrence) moved an Amendment to this Clause in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would cut out the last word by Parliament, and would deprive Parliament and this House of any check on the amount of the increase in the fiduciary issue. I think that is an exaggeration, and I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman will actually stand by those words.
  I am willing to agree that the Amendment I am now proposing, strange though it may seem, does to a certain extent limit the voice of Parliament in this matter. I make no apology for this, and for this reason. If you want to have Parliamentary control I do not think that anything that is included in this Measure

  1757
  is going to be satisfactory, Having turned down the scheme which we put forward these are small points which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes. The first of these two Amendments is obviously quite useless. The House will notice the words:
  "For such period not exceeding six months as the Treasury think proper."
  The Treasury are going to give their consent to the figure being raised, and therefore could impose any time limit they desired without these words being inserted. When you come to the second Amendment which I propose to move, I agree that it does take away from the power of Parliament, and the reason we are proposing it is this. The right hon. Gentleman who will not meet us on the larger questions has now brought in the Parliamentary veto at the very point where it is not needed, and where the only effect is going to be to help to reduce the fiduciary issue. Suppose the figure has been increased, it is going to be excedingly difficult for it to remain at the higher figure for more than two years. Every one knows the difficulty of getting matters before Parliament. This Clause means that the Bank may say to the Government "We have raised the figure for the fiduciary issue for the last 18 months over £260,000,000, it is obvious that it should continue for some time at that rate." Then the Government will have to come to this House to ask for permission for it to remain at that figure. Think of all the trouble this means. The whole idea of the Bill cornea out in this arrangement. Although we are really asking the House to vote for a certain diminution of their powers, we feel that the larger interests of trade and employment should be considered, and that such a Clause as this will impose a handicap because Parliament has not the time to attend to it.
  The outstanding point in this Clause with regard to the relationship of the Bank to the Treasury is this. Hon. Members may say what they like about our views on this question, but we really view with great concern the enormous powers that are being placed in the hands of the Bank of England by this proposal. You are practically placing in the hands of one person the credit policy of the country. Everybody knows that for many years the policy of the Bank of
  1758
  England has been largely dictated by the Governor of the Bank, especially if he is an able man such as the present Governor. He is not like the chairman of a bank. His position is really greater than that of the chairman of any of the five great banks, not because the Bank is more important but on account of the combination of offices which he holds. You have the Governor of the Bank of England to a large extent dictating the policy of the Bank, and you are now asking him to dictate the credit policy of this country. So long as he does not want to move the figure of the fiduciary issue, however much the Government may think it should be altered, there is nothing here which gives them any power to compel him to make any change. They can informally approach the Governor and say that they consider he has made a mistake in not asking for permission to increase the figure, but beyond that they have no means whatever of compelling him to alter his policy.
  6.0 p.m.
  We think that it is an exceedingly serious thing. We know why this Bill is being introduced. We know that many people think that in a very short time there will be a Chancellor of the Exchequer other than the present holder of the office. They think they can foresee a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer may perhaps not be so conservative—if I may so put it—or so orthodox a financier as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). The Government are thinking of the future. They do not know what the policy of a future Chancellor might be and therefore this Bill with this Clause in it is being put through in order to ensure that power shall be taken from the Government and placed in the hands of the Governor and Directors of the Bank of England. Our case is that the proposals in this Clause which in a way seem to defend the position of Parliament are unsatisfactory. The first is quite useless and the only effect of the second will be that if a trade crisis arises the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation may prevent things being done which ought to be done. In order that Parliament may not be troubled the Bank will say, "In the circumstances, we agree to go back to a lower figure." Deflation

  1759
  will follow with its attendant evils, a falling off in trade and an increase in unemployment. The trade advance will be checked because of this Clause. On those grounds we do not see that it is any benefit to have it, and we ask the House to support this Amendment as well as the one which follows it on the Order Paper.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Our position with regard to this Bill is that we desire inflation and deflation to be placed on an equal footing. The Amendment which we moved to Clause 2 has been rejected by the House. Had it been accepted, we would have withdrawn this Amendment in order to make the position equal, but as that Amendment was rejected we, in our pursuit of equality, have moved the present Amendment and we propose to move the Amendment which follows it on the Order Paper. The avowed object of this part of the Clause is to prevent unwise inflation and to check tendencies which might at some time become prevalent, widely to inflate the currency. My hon. Friend the Mover has dealt with one answer to that question, namely, that the existence of the gold standard in itself prevents that unwise action being carried out to any extent. There is another answer which is quite as powerful. It is that these nominal safeguards would prove useless if such a set of circumstances arose as would induce the Bank and the Treasury in consultation to make unwise inflation. I have no doubt that what is in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite is a Socialist bogy. They have the idea that some Socialist Government will come into power who, in order to obtain a little popular support, will carry out some utterly absurd and extensive inflation.
  As has already been said, that is a very wild idea because the financiers on this side of the House are, at least, as alive to the dangers of unwise inflation as hon. Members opposite. But supposing that were not so. Supposing a Socialist Government were returned to power which had wild inflationist ideas, and was supported by a large party sitting on those benches opposite. All these safeguards would then be perfectly
  1760
  worthless, because Parliament would carry through the enactment which is specified in this provision. The fact that this can only go beyond the two years when Parliament agrees to it, would not have any real significance. From that point of view, nominal safeguards do not count at all. But the fact is that the kind of crisis in which inflation takes place arises when you have the kind of thing which happened during the Great War. I would have the House note that many of us on this side, myself in particular, opposed the inflation which then took place, whereas the right hon. Gentleman who is here as the apostle of safeguarding the country against deflation was a member of the Government which practised inflation in the most shameless way. The safeguards which existed before the War were even more rigid against inflation than the provisions which it is now proposed to put into this Bill, but they did not prevent hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite from inflating. They did not prevent those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from swelling the currency and the credit of this country in a way to which sound doctrine is absolutely opposed.
  When you have a crisis of that kind, ordinary safeguards go by the board and this little safeguard that the decision of the Bank and the Treasury is, at the end of two years, to be reviewed by Parliament would have no value at all in checking inflation whether it came from a Socialist Government or from a Government of hon. Members opposite in some such crisis as a national war. It may be said, then, that if these safeguards are of so little importance and if, as a matter of fact, in the teeth of any emergency they would be swept aside, why should we object to them? We may be asked, if they have no effect, why do we not allow them to pass without protest? Our answer is clear and definite. It is that the presence of these provisions, worthless as safeguards, will nevertheless produce a definite effect upon the Bank of England which will be very injurious. They will produce the impression that Clause 8 is only to be used in time of emergency, and that when the temporary emergency has passed away, then, in all probability, the currency will be expected to revert to its former position. Our view is entirely different. Our view

  1761
  is that there should be provision, not for the temporary emergency expansion of the currency, but for such expansion of the currency as may be required to keep prices at a stable level when industry expands.
  The history of the last century in this country makes us realise that there is every reason to suppose that the volume of industry will expand in the years to come. I do not think it would be unduly optimistic prevision, if I suggested that every generation the volume of industry is likely to double. If so, it stands to reason that there will be required not necessarily a doubled currency—I do not go as far as that—but certainly a very considerable increase in the currency as time goes on and as the number of transactions increases.
  Sir FRANK NELSON: Permanent?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, I quite agree with the hon. Member.
  Sir F. NELSON: I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am in favour of what he is saying. I was questioning him.
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The point of view which I am putting for- ward is that if the number of transactions doubles in every generation—and I think that is a low estimate—it is not at all unreasonable to say that the currency will have to expand not necessarily in proportion to that increase but will have to expand permanently and steadily in order to meet the additional requirements. If we go back over the last century we find that currency did expand and it expanded by a great in flow of gold. It expanded also in effect by the great increase in the system of cheques. It has been shown earlier in these Debates that there is little possibility of a wide extension of the currency in the future owing to a large inflow of gold. Equally it is doubtful whether there is likely to be any wide expansion in the cheque system to-day such as there was 70 or 80 years ago. Therefore, it is to the fiduciary issue that we must look for this permanent steady expansion of currency that will be necessary if any revival of industry which occurs is not to be checked by artificial financial restraints imposed by this Bill.
  1762
  That is the reason why we want the impression of Clause 8 to be different from what it is at the present time. The impression of Clause 8 is that it is to provide for a temporary emergency and it is assumed that when the emergency is over the currency will revert to its former figure. We want to make Clause 8 mean that while inflation which would involve a rise in prices and an artificial stimulus to industry may be stopped, a genuine expansion required in order to keep prices at a stable level shall not be prevented. We desire it to be recognised that such a steady expansion of currency is not only a thing which is not to be objected to, but is the natural and proper action which ought to be taken in order to enable industry to advance in the future.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken dealt with the Clause rather than with the Amendment. I do not propose to re-debate the objects which we had in view hi putting Clause 8 into the Bill, nor do I think it necessary to add to what I said on Second Reading as to the sort of occasions on which one might reasonably anticipate that these powers would be used. But I will, if I may, reassure the hon. Member on one point. I am not by any means convinced that there may not be a considerable increase in the use of cheques, and I hope there will be such an increase. I hope the day will come when the working man will have his bank account as well as his motor car. I see no reason why the system of small hank accounts should not increase considerably. As I say, however, I do not want to discuss the Clause generally but rather to deal with the Amendment.
  Mr. GILLETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should take a penny off the cheque?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of debating on another occasion. Clearly it would be out of order at the moment. I was about to say that this Amendment is inconsistent with the policy—as far as one can gather that there is a policy—on the other side, with regard to this Bill. As I understand it, on the back benches opposite—at any rate on the further back benches—the policy is that the Bank of

  1763
  England ought not to be allowed to have any powers but that these powers should be concentrated in a national bank of some sort. When we come further forward on the benches opposite, that policy becomes gradually watered down and on the Front Bench it is denied altogether. But the hon. Gentleman the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment, who sit two benches back, are inconsistent in their policy. They wish to take the power from Parliament altogether, and to give to the Bank of England the uncontrolled and unchecked right to increase the fiduciary issue.
  Mr. GILLETT: They would, even if our Amendments were carried, still have to consult the Treasury.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has been addressing to the House. What this Amendment suggests is that, once an agreement has been come to between the Bank of England and the Treasury, there should be a permanent increase in the fiduciary issue.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understand the Amendment, it is that Parliament should not be consulted, even after two years, but that it is to be open to the Bank of England and to the Treasury to agree to a permament increase in the fiduciary issue, without consulting Parliament at all. That is not our view. Our view is that on any fixed fiduciary issue, you must have some power of extension under some circumstances. We believe we have selected the right method, which is that it is to be at the instance of the Bank of England, and with the assent of the Treasury, and there is to be a strict limit of time during which that increase can subsist without coming back to Parliament, so that Par-
  liament can, if necessary, legislate after knowledge of the facts. We believe our scheme to be by far a better plan than that contained in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) added that he thought that this Clause was so shaped because we feared that some other Chancellor, someone different from the right hon. Gentleman, who held that post with so much honour, would come in, and would enter into inflationary methods. I am not going to deny that there is some ground for that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman himself has heard the two speeches made by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). Suppose, by any chance, his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr were ever in power, and ever in a position to put into effect the speeches which he made in this House; he has been Chairman, I understand, of the Independent Labour party for three years, so that he is not a man in the street; he is a man of considerable position. He has been a pupil, I think, of the hon. Gentleman, because the hon. Gentleman was appointed lecturer to the Independent Labour party, and this is the result of his lectures. So after all, are we wrong in taking some precautions against such results as we have seen of the hon. Gentleman's lectures?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My point was that these precautions would be quite futile.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That seems hardly a reason why we should not try our best.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 269: Noes, 117.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES.

  [6.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bainiel, Lord

  Brass, Captain W.

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Briant, Frank

  Albery, Irving James

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Blundell, F. N.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Buchan, John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Remer, J. R.

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Burman, J. B.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

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

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

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Charterls, Brigadler-Ganeral J.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sandon, Lord

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smithers, Waldron

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lougher, Lewis

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

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

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Drewe, C.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Strauss, E. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Edge, Sir William

  McLean, Major A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Edmondson, Major A J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I

  Templeton, W. P.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  England, Colonel A.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Fenby, T. D.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Forrest, W.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Foster, Sir Harry S,

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

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Waddington, H.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Gates, Percy

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wiggins, William Martin

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

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Grace, John

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Contral)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Perkine, Colonel E. K.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Withers, John James

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Pilcher, G.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

  Hammersley, S. S,

  Preston, William

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Harney, E. A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Ramsden, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  NOES.

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

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

  Attlee, Clement Richard

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  1766

  1767

  Baker, Walter

  Hollins, A.

  Ritson, J.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Bondfield, Margaret

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

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shinwell, E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smillie, Robert

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lawson, John James

  Snell, Harry

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Connolly, M.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Sullivan, J.

  Day, Harry

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dennison, R,

  Mackinder, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gardner, J. P.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

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

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Groves, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hardie, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wright, W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Riley, Ben

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

  Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move to leave out lines 28 to 33.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 120.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Short title, interpretation and repeal.)
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, after the third word "day" to insert the words
  "not being earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."
  One of the objects of the Clause as it stands is to fix the date on which this Bill is to come into operation. It says that it
  "shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day."
  Then I propose we should insert the Amendment which I have just read. Our object in moving this Amendment is to postpone the operation of this Measure for at least seven months. We have not put down this Amendment with the idea of delaying the coming into operation of the Measure, but in order to give time for the international meeting of central banks adumbrated at Genoa. We have not put the date later than 1st January, 1929, as we are aware that in an earlier Clause of this Bill there are financial proposals which depend upon the Measure coming into force before the end of the financial year. We believe seven months will allow time for the conference to be held and for the convention which it was proposed should be arrived at by the central banks. There has been a good deal of discussion about the Genoa Conference in the course of these Debates, and I have no wish to go over ground which has been covered perhaps more than once. But I do suggest that at Genoa there were two very important proposals which ought to be implemented before a Bill of this kind comes into operation. The first deals with the hand-
  1772
  ling of international relationships through the gold exchange standard and, therefore, the husbanding of gold, and the second deals with the attempt to keep a stable level of prices through international banking action. At Genoa the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War used these words:
  "The power to influence prices and the responsibility for using that power belong to the great central banks. In currency policy they are the directing intelligence, and therefore the first practical step to be taken will be the meeting of these central banks which is to he called by the Bank of England. It may be hoped that the result of that meeting will be such co-ordination of credit policy throughout the world as will enable the great banks to make the general level of prices more stable."
  I would ask the House to notice the words:
  "The first practical step."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say his policy presupposed a general return to the gold standard—I want to be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman—but, as a matter of fact, we have for practical purposes a general return to the gold standard. Very few countries are still outside it, and I do not think that affects the issue. Further, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Nevertheless, in the interval before that general return has been completed the co-operation of the central banks can undoubtedly do much to introduce stability and confidence into the business."
  It is our opinion that this conference of central banks ought to have been held long before this. If the coming into operation of this Measure be postponed for some seven months it will allow time for the conference, and for the conference to form a convention which will guide

  1773
  the Bank of England and other banks in the future with regard to their currency policy. We should regard it as unfortunate, to say the least, if this Bill came into operation before there had been such a meeting of the central banks.
  Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do not propose to repeat what I said at an earlier stage, or to repeat what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It would be of great value to the House and to all persons who are interested in this discussion to have from the Secretary of State for War an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to call a conference of the central banks. He may have given that assurance, but it has not been given in my hearing. [Interruption.] No; well, that is what I feared, and if the right hon. Gentleman has not given an assurance I think this Amendment is amply justified, quite apart from the question of time, because it is of the utmost importance that the Government should assure us they are proposing to call that conference. I would ask, also, for a further assurance that they are proposing to have an inquiry into the form of our own system of central banking. I hope that the three Government representatives on the Treasury Bench who are consulting at the moment will be able to give us a most definite assurance on this particular point.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked whether the Government have given an assurance that we would call a convention—such a convention as was contemplated at the Genoa Conference. The Genoa Conference never suggested that the Government should call any such convention; on the contrary, one of its resolutions was that the Government should not interfere with the conduct of the central banks, and we have no intention of interfering with the conduct of the central banks. I have not got by me the actual words, but I think they were "at the opportune time" and they were to be called together by the Bank of England and not by any Government at all. Upon this Amendment a good deal has been said about the Genoa Conference, and certain observa-
  1774
  tions of mine have been quoted. It appears very singular to me how accurately I forecasted the future at that Conference. What did I forecast? I said that in the interval before that formal convention was arrived at there should be co-operation between the heads of the central banks. I see that the Governor of the Bank of England is reported as having only yesterday or the day before met Mr. Strong, the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  Mr. W. THORNE: He did not go for that purpose.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know for what purpose he went, but it is clear that there has been co-ordination between the central banks. I cannot give the undertaking that has been asked for; on the contrary I do not intend to interfere in that matter. This Amendment is to provide that the appointed day shall not be earlier than the end of the year. I cannot forecast what the date will be, but I do not suppose it will be until the autumn because there are printing contracts and other things to wind up, and all that will have to be done. No reason has been given for tying the hands of the Government except this Genoa Convention, and I cannot influence that Convention at all. I cannot call it together, and it was not proposed that any Government should call it together. If that is the only reason for moving this Amendment, then I must ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. GILLETT: On the Second Reading of this Bill, I pointed out that the Genoa Conference referred to a gathering of the central banks and an international convention to be called at a suitable time. We have been given no information on this point, and we have been given no information as to what the Bank of England is doing on this question. I thought the Secretary of State for War might have been able to inform us that the Bank of England were going to forward such a Conference, but evidently we are not going to got any information about it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 264.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES.

  [6.29 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Buchan, John

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Edge, Sir William

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

  England, Colonel A.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Christie, J. A.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Barry, Sir George

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Forrest, W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Cope, Major William

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Brass, Captain W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Briant, Frank

  Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gates, Percy

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Goff, Sir Park

  Grace, John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Greenwood, Ht. Hn. Sir H. (Wth's'w, E)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Skelton, A. N.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Harney, E. A.

  Morris, R. H

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison, H (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

  Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Strauss, E. A.

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

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

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Templeton, W. P.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Penny, Frederick George

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Plicher, G.

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hurd, Percy A.

  pownall, Sir Assheton

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Preston, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Waddington, R

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Ramsden, E.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Wells, S. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Lamb, J. O.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

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

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Loder, J. de v.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lougher, Lewis

  Ropner, Major L.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Withers, John James

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Womersley, W. J.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Macintyre, I.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  McLean, Major A.

  Sandon, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallance.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  NOES.

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

  Connolly, M.

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Day, Harry

  Hollins, A.

  Baker, J, (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Dennison, R.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Baker, Walter

  Dunnico, H.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Barnes, A.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Barr, J.

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bondfield, Margaret

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

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Broad, F. A.

  Greenall, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bromfield, William

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Kennedy, T.

  Bromley, J

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Buchanan, G.

  Groves, T.

  Lansbury, George

  Cape, Thomas

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Lawson, John James

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lee, F.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hardie, George D.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Lowth, T.

  1770

  1771

  Lunn, William

  Riley, Ben

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Ritson, J.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Mackinder, W.

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Rose, Frank H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  March, S.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Maxton, James

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Montague, Frederick

  Shinwell, E.

  Wellock, Wilfred

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

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Westwood, J.

  Murnin, H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smillie, Robert

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Palin, John Henry

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Windsor, Walter

  Paling, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Wright, W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Stephen, Campbell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES.

  [6.52 p.m.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ritson, J.

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

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sakiatvala, Shapurji

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hollins, A.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, Walter

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shinwell, E.

  Barnes, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smillie, Robert

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Bromfield, William

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snell, Harry

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stamford, T. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lowth, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Harry

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

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

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

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S,

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gardner, J. P.

  Maxton, James

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gillett, George M.

  Montague, Frederick

  Westwood, J.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Palin, John Henry

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Paling, W.

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hardie, George D.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Riley, Ben

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burman, J. B.

  England, Colonel A.

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

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

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

  Fenby, T. D.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Fielden, E. B.

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

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

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

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

  Forrest, W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Christie, J. A.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Gates, Percy

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Berry, sir George

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Goff, Sir Park

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cope, Major William

  Grace, John

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

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Blundell, F. N.

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

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Brass, Captain W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Briant, Frank

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Harney, E. A.

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

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Buchan, John

  Edge, Sir William

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Bullock. Captain M.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  1776

  1777

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Smithers, waldron

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

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

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

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

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

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

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Owen, Major G.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Templeton, W. P.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Preston, William

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Radford, E. A.

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Ramsden, E.

  Tomlinson, R. P,

  Loder, J. de V.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Looker, Herbert William

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Lougher, Lewis

  Remer, J. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Waddington, R.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  McLean, Major A.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Withers, John James

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morris, R. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.

  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I feel that the discussions in Committee and on the Report stage have justified the hostility we have shown to this Bill, and I propose to take this opportunity of explaining where we think that these Debates have shown the central weakness of this Bill to be. We can explain it now more easily than over an extended series of Amendments. As the Secretary of State for War has pointed out, the purpose of a gold reserve is two-fold. It is a reserve for the internal note circulation, and it is a reserve against the possibility of a demand for gold from abroad. For the purpose of the reserve against our internal note circulation, the amount we require is legally and logically nothing at all, and, in fact, a comparatively small
  1778
  amount, because the withdrawal of gold in return for notes is forbidden by law; whereas the real and effective demand for gold that may be made is the demand that may come from abroad, and has to be met by the sending of gold abroad. The question is, of this total gold holding of £160,000,000 which we possess, how much have we set aside for these two purposes? The figures, which have been quoted from the Government Bench, enable one to answer that question. The figures broadly are these. The note circulation at any moment is roughly £370,000,000 to £380,000,000. The fiduciary circulation is £260,000,000. That leaves £110,000,000, which the fiduciary circulation does not cover, and against that, of course, there has to be a holding of gold, so that the result is, that out of the total holding of £160,000,000, £110,000,000, or more than two-thirds, is set aside to meet the contingency which will not occur,

  1779
  and only between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 of gold is set aside to meet the demand from abroad which can occur, may occur and inevitably will occur. That is the weakness of the Bill, and it is on account of that weakness that it has shown all the confusions and difficulties which the series of Amendments that have been moved have in vain tried to untangle.
  On the Third Reading, I would like to go for a few moments into those questions where figures are not required, and to ask the attention of the Government about some suggestions which have been made from the other side of the House as frequently as they have been made from this. Practically every speaker who has dealt with the subject at all has agreed that it is not right to give these enormously extended powers to the Bank of England without an inquiry, if not before the passage of the Bill as we have suggested, at any rate after the passage of the Bill as has been suggested from the opposite benches, to determine whether the constitution of the Bank is such as to enable it to carry out these functions with fairness to all sides concerned. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) asked for an inquiry, because he said he thought it would be very unsuitable to have a court merely consisting of a collection of interests, and that the present constitution of the Bank gave us a body which was almost ideally impartial between different interests. It is not a question of interests; it is a question of points of view. I do not very often have to go into the City, but, when I do, I get the impression that I am seeing a point of view of those who seem to live in a world of their own, which is alien—whether you are talking of capital or labour—to the great. productive forces which are active in the creation of our actual wealth. The point of view of finance ought to be represented, but there ought to be an expression of the point of view of industrialists, which, I see, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has come here to express, to whom these decisions will mean the difference between profits and loss, and the point of view of the workers, to whom these decisions will mean the difference between penury and employment. I add what, I believe, will be above all in a few years, the point of
  1780
  view of the State, to whom it is important, when the supply of credit is limited, that that credit should be concentrated on purposes which are a national advantage and not wasted, dissipated and diverted for purposes which are useless or even socially noxious.
  May I take up an observation made by the Secretary of State for War during a discussion on the last Amendment but one? My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that these requisites would be met if the Bank were a public corporation from which every element of private profit would be eliminated, and which would act simply as a trustee for the nation as a whole. The Secretary of State for War attempted to prove that this was a view on which there was a division on this side of the House. He said it was not nationalisation, and that quite other opinions were expressed as you got further up the benches on this side of the House. I really think he does not understand the proposals which we put forward on this side of the House. I am really not very much concerned about what names you call various proposals. To my mind, wherever you have a body owning an industry on behalf of the State, that is what I call nationalisation and, if once that is the case, the question whether that body should be a Department, like the Post Office, or a public corporation, like the British Broadcasting Corporation, is simply a question of adjusting your mechanism to the service you are dealing with at the moment, and it, raises no question on which there is the slightest difference of principle anywhere on the benches on this side of the House.
  There was one further remark which the Secretary of State for War made when he was dealing with the last Amendment. He said that there must be no Government interference, and I deal with that for a moment, because I notice that his statement was received with a good deal of obvious sympathy from the hon. Members who are supporting him. Nobody supposes that, under any scheme, the Government or this House would interfere with the ordinary administration of the Bank of England, but, when it comes to the decision of great issues on which the future of industry depends, obviously the Government and this House are entitled,

  1781
  and must be allowed, to exercise control and supervision. This very Bill acknowledges it. Look at this Bill. What does it propose? If the Bank of England wishes to increase its fiduciary issue, it has gut to obtain the permission of the Treasury represented by a Minister responsible to this House. Government interference! Papers have to be laid on the Table of the House, and can be debated at the instance of any one Member of the House. More Government interference! If the system lasts for two years a Bill in all its Clauses must be carried through all its stages in this House. Government interference to a supreme degree! This slogan about Government interference is answered in the terms of the Bill itself. No, the question which divides us, although it is a deep question, is not a question of Government interference. It is a question which goes practically to the foundations of our political beliefs. We are now beginning to see what people as a whole are beginning to see, that these decisions about national credit are decisions of life and death. They are decisions which affect the fate of industry for years. These decisions made in the parlour of the Bank are more important than the majority of Bills we spend days in carrying through this House. Therefore, our attitude is that these decisions must be in the hands not of this House but of some body which contains some of the elements which this House are here to represent, whereas the attitude which the party opposite insists on maintaining, is that these decisions should be left in the hands of an oligarchy representing merely finance, an oligarchy self-contained, self-renewing, self-satisfied, which refuses to acknowledge that it has anything to learn from the co-operation of the great productive elements on which the wealth of this nation depends.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not want, at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, to detain the House for very long, but I do think that it is important that one of the joint signatories of the resolutions which were passed by the Industrial Committee of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the committee of the employers' group, who are now considering the important question of the relations of labour and capital, should emphasise the memorandum which they submitted to the Chancellor
  1782
  of the Exchequer some time before the Bill was introduced. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) laid great stress on a point which also formed the subject of our concurrence and of our joint resolutions. The resolution at which we arrived was:
  "That under the special conditions in which the gold standard operates at the present time we are not convinced that it is either practicable or desirable that the credit policy of the country should be determined more or less automatically by gold movements as in pre-War days.
  That it is highly undesirable that the Bank of England should be so tied down by the provisions of a gold reserve law as to be unable fully and freely to co-operate in the plans adopted by this country and the rest of Europe at Genoa in 1922, for international co-operation in economising the use of gold, regulating its distribution, and preventing undue fluctuations in its value in terms of wealth.
  That it is therefore essential to hold a full inquiry into the best form of credit policy for this country before steps are taken by the Government."
  The Government in their wisdom have chosen to present this Bill, and it will undoubtedly be passed. All of us are, of course, well aware of the necessity for settling the currency question. The resolution which I have just read represents a very carefully considered opinion, and one which I think is unique, for I think that this is the first time that representatives of employers and workmen have considered a question which used to be regarded as the sole prerogative of financial experts and bankers, and have deliberately laid down their view that it is necessary, having regard to the state of industry, to inquire fully and completely into the whole of our banking system and the operation of the Bank Charter Act, 1844; and I hope that the Government will reconsider the view that they have taken on this matter. I heard it suggested during the Second Reading Debate that, if we began to throw doubts on the operation of the gold standard, we should begin to throw doubts on our financial stability, but I think that that is a very foolish kind of fear for a financially powerful nation like Great Britain to entertain in connection with a matter that is most vital for the solution of our industrial difficulties and social problems.

  1783
  Perhaps only slowly, the realisation has come to those who have had to deal with these difficulties, and with all the questions connected with the expansion of trade, the relief of unemployment, the regaining of markets, and all the operations of commerce, which are inextricably bound up with the financial policy pursued by the central institution, the Bank of England; but it is useless to ask the employer or the technician to reorganise his works and improve his processes, and it is perfectly idle to ask the worker to make sacrifices or to redouble his efforts, if, every time a movement comes along or an improvement is made, there are people who, as the hon. Member for Keighley has just said, visualise the matter from an entirely different angle, who seem to be possessed rather by a terror of improving trade than by a desire to improve it, and you find credits contracted just at the time when they ought to be extended. That renders it almost impossible to conduct a policy with any continuity. I certainly think that an inquiry should be held into the whole question of the constitution of those who control what is, after all, the nerve system of industrial and commercial life.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, did refer to the greater elasticity which this Bill would allow, and I take it that he was then referring to Clause 3 of the Bill, which does allow the holding of securities by the Issue Department to a value sufficient to cover the fiduciary note issue for the time being. I see that in Committee on the Bill some discussion took place as to what the term "securities" meant, and from the Government side the statement was made that mercantile bills would be included among those securities. I think it is extremely important that that statement, which was made in Committee, should be repeated by my right hon. Friend when he speaks on the Third Reading in this Debate in the House. It is an important point which to some extent goes to meet some of the criticisms which have been, not unfairly, lodged against this Bill on the ground of its too narrow measure and its too great exhaustion of our gold reserves,
  1784
  and that statement, which was made by a representative of the Government in Committee, would come with much greater force from my right hon. Friend on the Floor of the House. It has some hearing on the statement made by the hon. Member for Keighley with regard to the question of the future size of our gold reserve. It is obvious that, if an increased fiduciary note issue were covered by securities which were not gold, it would automatically increase our gold reserve.
  During these Debates, as is not infrequently the case when matters are very much interwoven, there has been at times some mental confusion on the question of credit based on gold reserves and on the question of currency restriction. Of course, they are not the same. Currency restriction may be an inconvenience, but it does not necessarily mean restriction of credit. Credit undoubtedly, under our present system, which many of us think is little adapted to our present commercial life, depends upon gold reserves, and the more, therefore, the fiduciary note issue is increased, thereby bringing into play securities in place of gold, the more the gold reserve is increased, and, therefore, the more credit the Bank has at its disposal, and the more easily it is able to withstand any drain of gold. It does seem extraordinary that, with a commerce extending into thousands of millions, we should be discussing in this House to-day the question of £10,000,000 more or less in connection with the note issue. It is out of all proportion to the commercial transactions that we are undertaking.
  I am glad that the Government have not seen their way to accept some of the Amendments which have been put down, particularly those which appear to suggest the limitation of the fiduciary note issue at a point even below what experience has shown to be necessary. We can only hope that the assurance which has been given that the Bank will consider an application for permission to increase the fiduciary issue will not be looked upon as some exceptional and quite extraordinary occurrence, which is only to be used in a time of great crisis. By doing that we are more likely to produce a crisis. We hope that this power will be used in such a manner as

  1785
  to meet the necessary requirements of the banks for currency needs.
  Although this Bill will undoubtedly go on to the Statute Book, it cannot be the end of this great problem, nor can the Government entirely disembarrass itself of responsibility on the matter by handing it over to the Governor of the Banff: of England. I am by no means an advocate of government interference in business matters, but this is not a matter of private concern; it is a matter which really goes to the root of our whole commercial existence, and, although nominally the Bank of England is a private corporation, which makes profits in the ordinary way, and although it is inadvisable for many reasons that the State should be a bank, the relations between the Treasury and the Bank of England are as a matter of fact notoriously so close that it is quite impossible to regard them as in fact two entirely separate entities. I, therefore, hope that, before we part with this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some kind of assurance that this very vital problem is not going to be lost sight of, and that we need not be afraid, as many seem to be, that our financial structure is so weak that anything that may be done in this direction will cause a panic. It is most vital that there should be such elastic conditions as will enable the Bank of England to play its proper part in what we all hope to see coming, namely, revival of prosperity in the industries of Great Britain.
  Mr. W. BAKER: I am sure that the House will welcome the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). His support of the point of view which has been pressed from this side of the House does, I think, constitute the complete case for the inquiry for which we have been asking. During the Committee stage I did endeavour to produce high financial authority for the statement that the figure of £260,000,000 which has been chosen was insufficient for our present purposes. I do not want to go over that ground again to-night, nor do I want to attempt to dogmatise with regard to the figure, but I do once more express the hope that the Government will see the desirability of having the most thorough-going inquiry into our
  1786
  central Bank. The point, however, that I want to submit to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at this moment is with regard to a- matter which, though it may not be of major importance, is one of considerable importance to the poor people with whom I am associated.
  As I understand it, under the existing arrangement which is being discontinued by this Bill, some thousands of Treasury notes are handed in to the Post Office owing to their mutilated condition, and claims in respect of mutilated and lost notes are dealt with by the Accountant-General's Department at the General Post Office. I am assured that many of these claims are dealt with on the basis of an ex gratia payment, and that such ex gratia payments are subsequently made under a Treasury Vote which I believe deals with Inland Revenue matters. It seems to be perfectly clear that most of these cases refer to what might be called losses on the part of very poor persons, who do not hold accounts with the joint stock banks, and whose only contact with the central Bank will be through the local post office. The point that I want to submit to the Financial Secretary is a simple one. In any case in which a poor man or woman is unfortunate enough to mutilate or lose a note in circumstances which to-day would lead to a complete refundment by the Accountant-General of the Post Office, is there any proposal to set up or continue such machinery as will place that poor person in a position of equality with the more fortunately placed man or woman who happens to be a customer of one of the joint stock banks, through which, presumably, future contact with the Bank of England will be made? I know that it does not amount to a large sum of money in the total, but I do think that, having regard to the poverty of the persons concerned, and to the great social advantages of the present arrangement, some steps should be taken to continue such an arrangement.
  It being Half-past Seven of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by the direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  I do not think this Bill should pass its Second Reading without the opportunity being seized to advance for the consideration of its promoters a very legitimate grievance from which the users and consumers of this company's service suffer. The South Essex Waterworks Company has always opposed the extension of the Metropolitan Water Board's service beyond Ilford and Barking, and in the case which the company has submitted to Members of this House, it advances as a reason for passing the Bill that extensive housing developments have taken place in its area. If the company has opposed the extension of the Metropolitan Water Board's service into its area in the past, I think that fact imposes a responsibility upon the company to see that its service and its charges should be equitable and fair and at least equal to those which the Metropolitan Water Board can give to its users and consumers. As a matter of fact, the charges of this company work out very much in excess, and I believe that that is caused by a policy of imposing extras for certain additional services.
  There is one additional charge which I particularly wish to ask the promoters of this Bill to reconsider and. if possible, to modify, and that is the annual charge of 10s. for a fixed bath. That was given to the company in its 1921 Act as an optional charge. As far as I can ascertain, it was not advanced from the standpoint that it would be a compulsory or a universal charge, but in fact this charge is, I understand, universal, and it has the effect of making the water rate of this company work out in a very inequitable way. The smaller the type of property and the lower its rateable value, the higher the water charge becomes; and I should like to quote some figures to
  1788
  demonstrate the point that I desire to make, which I base entirely on the grounds of equity and public convenience. One of the housing developments in the area covered by this company is the London County Council Becontree estate, just beyond Ilford and Barking. On that estate there are houses of different values, and I want to quote four types of house.
  On a cottage erected on the Becontree estate—and this prevails throughout the area of this company—of a rateable value of £8 10s. the total water rate levied, inclusive of the charge of 10s. for a bath, amounts to £1 3s. a year, or 13.5 per cent. on the rateable value; on a cottage, the rateable value of which is £12, the annual inclusive charge for water is £1 6s. 10d., or 11.2 per cent. on the rateable value; on a cottage of £30 rateable value, the total water charge is £2 19s. 6d., or 9.9 per cent.; and on a cottage of £60 rateable value, the total water charge is £5 1s. 6d., or 8.5 per cent. on the rateable value.
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: Is that the case where one bath or two baths are installed?
  Mr. BARNES: I am quoting the figures for one bath, but I think the question of the hon. Member strengthens my case and goes against the custom of this company of charging extra for additional baths and closets. I wish to emphasise that the water rate charged on a cottage of £8 10s. rateable value is 13.5 per cent., and on a cottage of £60 rateable value it works out at only 8.5 per cent. I do not believe that where a company is asking for privileges from this House, it would be the general desire of the House that differences of this description should prevail.
  Let me take another phase of the rateable value of small property. The old type of four-roomed cottages prevailing in the area of this company, which have not, generally speaking, a bath, have a rateable value of from £4 to £7 10s., but the new type of four-roomed cottages that are being erected under the various Housing Acts are all fitted with a fixed bath, and the rateable value runs from between £13 10s. and £17 10s., so that I think we can argue that the increase in the rateable value in itself yields an income which should satisfy the com-

  1789
  pany, without this additional charge. The point that I should like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is that under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, I believe, the installation of a bath is one of the conditions imposed before a subsidy can be obtained. Therefore, we have a recognition by this House that the installation of a bath in a house is now a matter of public policy and conforms with the general desire to improve the standard of health of the community. If Parliament, on the one hand, is imposing an obligation upon both builders and local authorities, before they can get a grant from public funds, to provide a bath, it is, I think, equally incumbent upon Parliament to see that no powers are given to a company like this which tend to retard the development of baths in houses for people whose means are very limited. I think every hon. Member will recognise that the large rents that are necessary in the post-War period impose a strain on the wages of the working-class tenants quite sufficient in itself without the additional charges represented by a water rate.
  In 1908 the Metropolitan Water Board—and I do not quote this as derogatory to the South Essex Company—came to this House and sought to obtain permission to establish a uniform charge for its water service. Under that Bill it abolished the previous facilities that it had had to make additional charges for baths and water closets. On that occasion that Bill met with the unanimous approval of Parliament, and on all sides the policy of a uniform charge to be imposed by a water company, removing these irritating, vexatious, and inequitable impositions, was welcomed as a move in the right direction. I feel that if the policy of a large company like the Metropolitan Water Board in that direction has met with the approval of Parliament, then, in subsequent Bills, the influence of this House should be directed to bring the policy of other companies into line. As this Bill affects large sections of the population contiguous to London. I hope this point will obtain support, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of his connection with the Housing Acts.
  1790
  Let me give a very simple illustration of the additional charges which this company levies in comparison with the Metropolitan Water Board. On a cottage of £12 rateable value, the charges of the Metropolitan Water Board work out at 15s. 8d. a year, whereas the South Essex Waterworks Company charges for the same type of cottage work out at £1 6s. 10d., or 11s. 2d. more. I am quite prepared to admit that possibly the Metropolitan Water Board obtains considerable economies because it serves a densely populated area, but there is a responsibility on the South Essex Company to submit to this House figures and accounts to prove that it is justified in this outrageous increase of 11s. 2d. That is 71 per cent. more than the Metropolitan Water Board charges.
  Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: Are the Metropolitan Water Board prepared to go into this area on better terms?
  Mr. BARNES: I am not authorised to speak for the Metropolitan Water Board, but I understand that some time ago either the London County Council or the Metropolitan Water Board desired to extend the Board's service beyond Ilford and Barking. Possibly there are other hon. Members more familiar than I am with the policy of the London County Council, who could give the facts, but I believe there was a desire to extend its service, and this company opposed the extension of the Metropolitan Water Beard's service. I do not say that with certainty, however. I understand that if we take water companies adjacent to London, and probably serving areas very similar to that of the South Essex Waterworks Company, such as the companies that serve Croydon, Epsom, East Surrey, and Sutton, as far as I can gather neither of these companies is in the habit of imposing this additional charge for a bath. It is the general practice now that companies operating in London and in the areas contiguous to London have been able to abolish this charge and this House ought to require the South Essex Waterworks Company to do the same. The only other company that does impose any additional charge for a bath, which is a part of the ordinary domestic supply—and I contend that it should be laid down by this House that the Water-Works Company should adapt their

  1791
  practice accordingly—is the Colne Valley Water Company that serves Hendon and the surrounding districts, but them charge is only 4s. 3d. as against the 10s. charged by the South Essex Waterworks Company.
  Probably it will be advanced by those who desire to defend the policy of the company in this respect that the profits of the company do not permit them to sacrifice the income that this concession would represent. I do not claim to be completely intimate with the finances of the company, but I understand that for some years now the company has paid maximum dividends on all the stock for which it is liable. It has not only met its liabilities of interest and dividends on all its stock to the maximum extent, but for some years now it has been paying arrears on dividends. If we were to take the profits of the company for the last two years and eliminate all back dividends, the company would be declaring a dividend of 18 per cent. on all the current stock for which it is liable. From time to time in this House we have engaged in controversy as to how far the present generation should be held liable for the responsibilities of posterity, but here, not only are we meeting our liabilities to-day, but we are being asked in the policy of this company to meet all the charges and arrears of debt for the non-payment of dividends that have accumulated on the stock of this company since 1861. That is not desirable at all. If the financial policy of the company in the past has represented nothing, then I think it ought to accept that position and ought not to ask the people who use its service to-day—
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: And let them be without water!
  Mr. BARNES: There is no question of their being without water. The company has met its current liabilities, I but do not think the users of the service to-day should be responsible for any misdirection of the company's policy as far back as 1861. The actual profits of the company in 1927 amounted to £87,000 and the charge which it had to meet on its liability in relation to stock was £55,000, leaving an excess of profits over actual current liabilities of over £31,000. My contention is that out of
  1792
  that surplus of £31,000 the company ought to meet a concession of this description. The revenue of the company will be expanding and not contracting. I assume that the company will have the advantage of the Rating and Valuation Act that was passed in 1925, and, in an area like this, there will be a considerable appreciation of the total value of the property on which the water charges are levied. Therefore, the revenue of the company will be expanding, and that, I submit, should be considered by the promoters.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I would like the hon. Member to clear up one point, if he will. What would be the effect, if this charge were taken away, upon other small tenants who may not have a bath in their cottage? That is the dilemma in which I, as a private Member, find myself.
  Mr. BARNES: My last point was directed to the fact that out of their surplus profits this company should be able to meet any concession of that description. These profits have worked out at 18 per cent. for the last three years. The rateable value on which the income of this company is levied is not a contracting factor, but it is an expanding factor. All these additional houses that have been erected represent an increased rateable value over the type of property to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) has referred. In the early part of my remarks I rather stressed the point that the increased rateable value of the new property erected should yield of itself an income to the company without any additional incidence on the lower type of property. My whole case is that the company levies a water charge which is higher than that of the Metropolitan Water Board.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Can the hon. Member tell the House what would happen if this charge were not made?
  Mr. BARNES: I understand that if this charge were abolished it would represent a loss to the company of, roughly, £20,000. If the company is going to give this concession, which represents a loss to it of £20,000 a year, I think I have proved fairly conclusively

  1793
  that there has been a surplus revenue of £31,000 over current profits which will meet a liability of that description. I wish to submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that the responsibility does not primarily rest on persons like myself who represent the public who have to meet charges of that description, but it rests on the water companies of this country. My case rests on the fact that, of all the water companies serving London and the contiguous areas, five have seen fit to abolish these additional charges and to meet the liabilities for which they are responsible and to derive the necessary income without levying charges in excess of those imposed by the South Essex Waterworks Company. The Metropolitan Water Board has not only abolished its additional charge on the bath, but its total charges on a cottage of £12 rateable value are 71 per cent. lower than those of the South Essex Waterworks Company. It is not my responsibility to prove where the South Essex Waterworks Company is to get its revenue in the future. The responsibility for that lies upon the promoters of this Bill. They have come to Parliament to ask for powers to extend their services. They are coming here to obtain additional powers, and the whole responsibility is purely upon them to prove to Parliament that they are giving the consumers and users of water the best possible service at the most economical price. I have endeavoured to prove that this company is not doing that, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether the time has not come when an intimation should be made to the promoters that they should revise their policy in this respect.
  Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have been approached by a number of people round Dagenham and Rainham in connection with this matter. As my hon. Friend has already said, many of the people who have moved into this area are now being called upon to pay 10s. extra water rate for a fixed bath. I cannot quite understand how it is that they have to pay this sum, when they have been told to get out into the country from the congested areas. I cannot understand why they should have to pay this extra, charge when they have already to pay more to get to and from these places
  1794
  and when they have to suffer a great deal of inconvenience and loss of time. We are told that the company are also desirous of extending their undertaking very considerably. We also notice that the company are asking for powers in another direction. Under this Bill, they will be entitled not only still to continue to charge this 7 per cent. on the rateable value of the property, but they will be able to increase it from time to time until they reach a figure of 9 per cent., so that the present consumers are being asked to pay to the company another 2 per cent. to enable the company to make these developments. The present consumers will receive no extra benefit or advantage by paying that extra sum.
  Of course, it will be said by the promoters that the company must spend money. One naturally expects that they cannot develop unless they do, but is that any reason why the present consumers, who are not to receive any extra benefit, should be called upon to pay that 2 per cent. while that development is going on? It may be said that if this Bill should be rejected we are out for preventing the employment of labour. That is not the case at all. We are very desirous that there should be as much employment as possible, but at the same time we also think that the company should not have a right to make this extra charge upon the people in this way. I further notice in the Bill that, if a bath contains or holds a certain quantity of water, the company can not only charge an amount not exceeding 7 per cent., but in another Clause the Bill says that they may charge what they think fit. Apparently, there is to be no check upon what the company may charge if a bath should contain more than 59 gallons of water. We think that there ought to be something in the Bill to prevent that kind of thing happening. There should be a limit fixed, although the question may not affect a very large percentage of the working men who have spoken to me on this matter.
  8.0 p.m.
  Then, again, there is a question of the second water closet. There are not a very large number of working-class houses which are built with a second water closet, but there are people who have fairly long gardens, and when they get home they like to do a little bit of gardening. It is not always convenient for

  1795
  them to take off their boots and run upstairs, and so they think that they would like to have an extra water closet downstairs as well as one upstairs. Apparently, that cannot be done unless they are charged a further 7s. 6d., and yet, as they have put it to me, and as must be patent to the mind of everyone, it is only the people who occupy the house who use those places, and there would be no more water used than with one, but they have to pay this further 7s. 6d. as well as the extra percentage.
  We have also considered the question of the rateable value of the houses. I am living in one of the new houses that have been built at Rainham. The rateable value, presumably on account of the bath, has been increased in proportion to what is paid for the houses opposite, which have not baths. We are rated at £15 per annum and we have to pay £7 per cent. water rate, and then the extra 10s. for the bath on top of that, whereas the houses with practically the same kind of accommodation except the bath and bathroom are rated at half that amount. One would have thought the company was well compensated for the extra rateable value which we are paying. That is the view of practically all the people with whom I have come in contact who have moved into these houses. Many of them have moved at great sacrifice. They have bought plots of land and built bungalows and got up to date amenities as far as they possibly could, and, having done that, they have this extra charge put upon them because they dare to have a bath fixed in their room. If it came to a question of a portable bath, the company would not be able to make this charge, and there is quite a possibility that people will inconvenience themselves and go back to the old portable bath which they had for so many years. The company and hon. Members must not think that because they are working-class people they do not sometimes have a bath. They have it, though it may be very inconvenient to them. It may be, as I once heard one of our Members say, that after all the others have gone to bed he gets his wife's bucket and puts one leg in and washes one half at a time. Now they get a wash even if they have the bucket or the extra large bath they
  1796
  do their washing in. If these things are allowed to go on without demur there is a possibility that the company will come along and make an extra charge for people who do their washing at home, because perhaps in better class houses they do not do the amount of domestic washing that working-class families do. We protest against the company being allowed to make these charges, for which the consumers receive no extra benefit.
  Mr. RHYS: I am particularly interested in this Bill, because most of the area concerned lies within my constituency. I think the House has rather been led to deal with Committee points, important as they are. I do not think hon. Members have been led to visualise the very large problem which this company has to endeavour to solve. It is clear that their present supplies will be quite inadequate to furnish water to the area to which they are under a statutory obligation. The town of Becontree will contain within the next few years, at the present rate of progress, a new population of 120,000 people. Surely, the waterworks company that is called upon to provide water for these people is entitled to come to the House and ask for certain powers. It has been found that the river Stour, the boundary between Essex and Suffolk, is the only suitable and available supply of water. This Bill has passed the House of Lords and has been before a Committee of that place, before which various points were very carefully thrashed out, and it seems hardly fair to the company that the Bill should be thrown out on Second Reading in this House. We ought to give it a Second Reading, and any defects found by hon. Members opposite can be thrashed out in a Committee of this House. I am not in the least prepared to say that 10s. is necessarily the right charge for a bath, but, if an adequate case can be made out before the Committee for a reduction, they will be entitled and empowered to limit the company's powers. I look with a wide view at this great and growing population which has to have water. If the Bill is thrown out, the provision of the water will be very seriously retarded, and, indeed, may not be available when it is required by this large population. I took the trouble on Friday and Saturday to get into communication with the local

  1797
  authorities in my constituency, some on the telephone and others verbally. I find not one of them is now prepared to oppose the Bill. They are elected to carry out the wishes of the ratepayers, and one of them has a majority of the political persuasion of hon. Members opposite. I have had representations from them as to the charges for baths, but they are not in the least prepared to offer opposition to the passage of the Bill, because the company has very largely met them in the House of Lords Committee.
  Mr. BARNES: Is this authority in favour of a charge of 10s. for a bath?
  Mr. RHYS: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. They are not in favour of 10S. for a bath but they are prepared to have that dealt with in Committee. They are not prepared to oppose the Second Reading. I hope the House will bear in mind the disastrous consequences of rejecting the Bill. There is no alternative, as the Metropolitan Water Board are not prepared to enter the area and supply water. That being so, there is only one course for the House to take, to give the Bill a Second Reading, reserving, as I do, perfect freedom to negotiate with the company on the smaller points with which a Committee is perfectly competent to deal.
  Colonel BURTON: As one of those who have very consistently opposed the Bill every time it has been mentioned, I feel it is up to us who have deserted our fellow opponents on the other side to give some explanation why we have done so. So far hon. Members have spoken of the use of the water from the point of view of those who will reap the ultimate benefit of it. I should like to speak of it from the point of view of the constituency that actually supplies the water. The river Stour is the boundary of my constituency on the South. Its sluggishness is a by-word both in Essex and Suffolk. Indeed, a local comedian has a verse in his song which says:
  "There's a river, the Stour, to Harwich it leads,
  But you never can get there because of the weeds."
  For years we have been praying for someone to come along and take the water out of the Stour. We found that when originally they came and asked us for
  1798
  water they imposed such a tremendous lot of restrictions with regard to its pollution that we could not accept the Bill as it stood, and we have opposed it until now. But the promoters have very generously conceded a large number of the points we desired. They have not given us all we wanted, but I must admit that they have given us a great deal more than we expected. They have conceded that, instead of being under the Water Company or under the despotic influence of the Essex County Council, we shall find ourselves under the paternal guidance of the Ministries of Agriculture and Health, and, in addition, if ever we are to be punished in regard to the pollution of our river we are to have something to say in regard to it in connection with the Suffolk East and West County Council.
  They have agreed to amend Clause 24 so as to provide that the Water Works Company shall not exercise the powers conferred on them by the Clause without in each case obtaining the consent of the Ministry of Health. That is a very great advance. It will be arranged by the inserting, after the word "consent," of the words "of the Ministry of Health," with consequential Amendments. Then there is scheduled an agreement between the Company and the Stour Navigation Trust which is alleged to be ultrâ vires. The Company have agreed that, as regards liquids and matters discharged into the river or its tributaries at points within East or West Suffolk, the provisions of the said Acts shall not be enforced except with the consent of the County Council of East or West Suffolk as the case may be.
  They go on to say that if the Navigation Company will not agree to the deletion of Clause 4 of the Agreement a Clause is to be inserted in the Bill that the Water Company will not request the Navigation Company to exercise their powers unless with the consent of the Drainage Board. A Clause is to be inserted in the Bill, and it constitutes part of the terms of the agreement we made with the Company, that the Water Company will not exercise any powers under any agreement entered into with the Navigation Company under Clauses 21 (4) and 29 of the Bill without the consent of the Drainage Board other than powers con-

  1799
  ferred by Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement. Then a Clause will be inserted in the Bill in order to preserve, and, we hope, to improve the drainage of the area affected above the intake. It is to the following effect:
  "Nothing in the Bill is to prevent the Drainage Board from exercising any powers now vested in them of lowering the level of the water in the River Stour at or above the Mill Weir at Stratford St. Mary to such a level as may he agreed between the Drainage Board and the Water Company, or, failing agreement"—
  and this is the important part so far as we are concerned—
  "determined by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, acting jointly, to be reasonable. Provided that the level of the water at the said Mill Weir shall not be reduced below such level relative to ordnance datum as may be fixed by the said Ministries jointly before 31st December, 1928."
  So we have six months in which to get this level secured, and by that time we hope that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture will have opportunities to look into the matter. Nothing in the Bill, according to the Agreement, shall preclude the Drainage Board from taking over the River Stour navigation interests. We do not think much of the interests of the River Stour Navigation Company. They are more or less a moribund concern. The water company have entered into an agreement with them which is alleged to be ultra vires, and we do not mind provided they do not enforce it. These heads of the agreement are to form the Clauses in the Bill when it is re-drafted in order to go before the Committee. Having regard to the manner in which the company have met us, we feel that there is some apology due to hon. Members opposite who have helped us so vigorously in their opposition in eventually getting the company to agree, but, at the same time, we feel that the Bill is of such importance to us and to everybody concerned that we have withdrawn our opposition, and we shall vote in favour of the Bill if it goes to a Division.
  Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I am afraid that the actual point of the origin of this water supply coming from, I understand, the Stour River, some 40 miles from Ilford, does not much interest me. What does interest me is that this Bill has been
  1800
  passed in another place and considered by a Committee of another place. The evidence given there does not appear to me to be satisfactory as to why the Metropolitan Water Board should repudiate their statutory responsibilities towards this vast estate which the London County Council, who are, after all, first cousins to the Metropolitan Water Board, have dumped upon the county of Essex. Take as a side issue the question raised by an hon. Gentleman opposite, the question of a charge of 10s. a year for a bath. Is it the policy of this House to encourage baths to be put into working men's dwellings or is it not I When I raised this question with representatives of the company they said: "If we take off this charge it means that we have to raise the water rate of all the other cottages which have not baths." If we want to encourage baths, surely the right thing to do is to refuse to allow a charge to be made for a bath when it is in a cottage. Then, if the water rate is increased slightly, you will encourage those in cottages without a bath to get baths put in, as they will not have to pay an increased water rate. It does seem absurd that a charge of 10s. should be made on one side of a street in Ilford if there happens to be baths in the houses, and that on the other side of the street, which is served by the Metropolitan Water Board, no such charge is made, and the water rate is much lower. I am not satisfied with the evidence that was given by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Water Board before the Committee in another place. The question was put to him:
  "I think this must be the Section to which you refer: 'notwithstanding anything in this Act the Board shall not be hound to furnish any supply of water or lay down any pipe for such purpose in any part of the limits of supply which part is for the time being supplied with water by any company or by any body or authority other than the Board?'"
  The Chairman's reply was:
  "Yes, that is the 1907 Act."
  The 1907 Act of the Metropolitan Water Board certainly gives them power where, as I understand it, a satisfactory and equally economic supply of water is available for any part of their area, to say that they are not bound to supply water to that area. I do not think that this House should allow the Metropolitan Water Board to get out of its statutory obligations quite as easily as it would

  1801
  like to do in connection with this huge London County Council Housing Estate at Becontree in Essex. Another question was asked of the Chairman:
  "At the present time it is probably known to you that the water consumers in Ilford and Barking who are supplied by the South Essex Water Company are paying considerably more than if they were being supplied by the Metropolitan Water Board?"
  The chairman of the Metropolitan Water Board said:
  "I live in that area myself. I know all that."
  Probably he is a rich man, and it does not matter to him, but it does matter to the unfortunate tenants on the London County Council Housing Estate who are already rented and rated to such an extent that they do not know where they are. The next question is:
  "Does this represent the policy of the Board? You said: 'It may be that the time will come—I am not seeking for it—when possibly other water undertakers who are in difficulties on the fringe of the Water Board's undertaking will find it better to come in and get their water from the Board. Would you agree that this is a water undertaker on the fringe of the Water Board's undertaking?' — Undoubtedly, it adjoins."
  This area of Ilford and Barking used to be in the statutory boundaries of the Metropolitan Water Board and only by a Section in the 1907 Act can they get rid of us. I feel that if the South Essex Water Company's Bill is to be accepted by this House—I am not going to oppose the Second Reading—I want to make my point so that it may be duly considered in Committee. If we pass this Bill without any protest at all, surely we shall be throwing away any claim which in the future we may have to this area which is outside London and which, if I may remind the House, is the only area where London on the East can extend. There is not a square foot to be built upon until you get to Ilford, where we have 8,500 acres, only half of which is covered with dwellings. The remaining 4,250 acres are all scheduled for building. Special schemes are going on every day outside the London County Council building scheme, but the London County Council are threatening to let a contract almost immediately for an additional 5,000 houses. We are hopeful in Ilford that a little pressure from the Minister
  1802
  of Transport may prevent them building these houses, because the people living there cannot get adequate transport to and from London. What we want to look at in this House is, will this South Essex Water Board in 30 or 40 years' time really be capable of supplying the water necessary for this area which we know will become a huge second London? The water which they get under this Bill is 12,000,000 gallons per day, I understand. That is estimated to be sufficient for a population of 520,000, in addition to their present supply. The present population is 347,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) knows, to his cost, that his Division of Romford is growing even faster than the Ilford Division, and that a large part of the increased population is due to the London County Council dumping their housing estate in his Division.
  If we give this Bill a Second Reading and it goes to a Committee of this House we should insist on finding out more in detail why the Metropolitan Water Board will not take over Barking and Ilford and supply those districts with water and so relieve the South Essex Water Board of those vast areas. Then the South Essex Water Board's present supply of water will be sufficient for their area for many years. My fear, and it is a perfectly honest fear, is that long after I have become an angel Ilford will find itself in a condition of having an insufficient water supply. The Metropolitan Water Board will then say: "The House of Commons, Parliament, did not give us these powers. Parliament handed over the powers to the South Essex Water Board, and we, the Metropolitan Water Board, have no responsibilities whatever." They will repudiate Ilford and throw it on one side.
  We know perfectly well that the available water of the Metropolitan Water Board to-day is not being used even up to 50 per cent. of the water which they can obtain. This scheme is going to cost £1,250,000 to bring water 40 miles from Suffolk to Ilford and Barking. Why should not the Metropolitan Water Board spend something like £1,000,000 and bring water to the London County Council housing estate which has been dumped into the county of Essex? Why should not the Metropolitan Water Board find and spend that money and let the

  1803
  South Essex Water Board carry on with their available supply? If that were done, we in Ilford and Barking would be supplied for ever with as much water as we could possibly require, and we should not have to pay 10s. for a bath.
  Mr. BROAD: I am sure the House must have been very interested to hear the reasons given by the hon. Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) who announced the reason why he was withdrawing the objection which he had previously held in regard to the Bill. His objection was that the area which he represents should not be prevented from polluting the river, but now that they are to be allowed to pollute the river, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health, his objections are withdrawn. That is a very amusing reason to give. I am strongly opposed to the provision in the Bill of a distinct charge for the supply of water for baths. That is putting a penalty on cleanliness. As this time of day we should do nothing to give any inducement to any landlord or to anybody investing in property to build houses not provided with a fixed bath. We have been told that cleanliness is next to godliness. Our health statistics up and down the country show that in degree as the people have a proper water supply and the provision of baths in every little cottage has become the rule, the health of the people and the life of the people has been improved. We ought to work upon the assumption that in the future no house will be built without a fixed bath. If the London County Council or any other local authority build more houses in this area, we may be sure that public opinion will require that each house has a fixed bath.
  Had this been a Bill promoted by a borough council, a city council or a county council to enable them to give a water supply to their areas, and they had asked for this special provision of a charge for baths to be inserted, hon. Members in all quarters of the House and the public Press would have denounced that local authority as a most reactionary body. We must regard the supply of water to day as being just as necessary as a proper sewage provision. The water charges should be fixed on the rateable value of the property, so long as we regard that as the right basis on which to
  1804
  fix local charges. There should be no extra charge because the people in the houses desire to make provision for cleanliness of body, which leads, perhaps, to cleanliness of mind also. I recollect that a few years ago some of us agitated for a compulsory provision that in all houses newly built baths should be provided. When we urged that in my district our opponents regarded us as wild Socialistic, revolutionary people, and scoffed at the idea of baths being put in working-class houses. They used to say that we should keep ducks or coal in the baths. Even in regard to the bigger middle-class houses some years ago there was not a fixed bath; but better habits have come down to us.
  One great feature in the development of these better habits has been that our local education authorities are sending our youngsters to the swimming baths, to learn to swim. When the boys arrive at the baths, if a boy is dirty he is jeered at by his mates and the teacher tells him to go aside and have a wash before entering the swimming bath. When the next, week arrives and the visit to the swimming bath becomes due the boy worries his mother to let him have a bath before going to have a swim. The youngster seems to enjoy it so much that presently mother thinks she will have a bath, and she, too finds it very nice. When father comes home, he says: "How nice you are, Mother," and he, too, thinks he would like a bath. That is how the desire for baths spreads. The provision of a fixed bath allows this very useful and desirable habit of washing the body to develop, and we ought not to allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading containing the Clause for a charge in respect of a bath unless a distinct understanding is given or an instruction is given to the Committee that this provision will be removed in Committee, or that we should have an undertaking from the promoters that they will get the provision removed when it goes before Committee.
  We do not want to hang up a Bill which is to provide a necessary public service. Many of us would have liked to have seen this water supply under the Metropolitan Water Board. We recognise that it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Water Board. A very great injustice has been done to these outer London areas, in many respects.

  1805
  People who have lived in London and have, through their parents, paid for the Metropolitan Water Board supply and for the schools and public services in London, find suddenly that their families are to be thrown out into an area all by themselves, where they have to provide anew all the necessary public services. The burden is going to be an intolerable one in such areas. It should be a responsibility upon those areas who have, perhaps, removed the poorer element of their population as far as they could from their own borders, to take their share in providing public services for them. The Ministry of Health should recognise its responsibility and see that along with houses other necessary services are supplied as well. The Ministry of Health should recognise this, and if the company cannot provide a water supply on a basis which we regard as just and proper then it is for the local authority to provide that service; and it is the business of the Ministry of Health to see that they do.
  Sir K. WOOD: I only desire to make a few observations from the point of view of my Department which, of course, is not concerned in the promotion of this Bill. The House has to decide whether it will give a Second Reading to this Bill or not. The only decision which has to be arrived at is whether the Bill is to go forward or not. That is the sole issue, and it is to that issue that I propose to direct myself. So far as the Ministry are concerned, they see no objection to the main proposals of the Bill. The population in the company's area of supply, which includes the Becontree Estate of the London County Council, is growing very rapidly indeed and it is correct to say that the company's services will not be sufficient to meet the demand by 1930 unless some further provision is made. It is in these circumstances that we have to consider this Bill to-night. This matter was investigated by the Lords' Committee and can be investigated by a Committee of this House. All we have to decide now is whether the Bill shall have a Second Reading and from the point of view of the Department we have come to the conclusion that large additional services will be required in the near future.
  1806
  During the six years ending June, 1927, the population supplied has increased from 219,000 to 327,000, an increase of 50 per cent., and the average consumption has risen from 6,400,000 gallons per day to 9,000,000 gallons per day. We are advised that the undertakings of all the existing companies are being fully developed and, therefore, the conclusion we have arrived at is that it is clear that a large additional supply of water will be needed in the near future. I understand that there is no source within the company's area from which they can obtain a supply adequate for future requirements and they are therefore seeking to obtain further powers in this Measure to be allowed to procure their water supply from the River Stour. The hon. Member has raised an important question in relation to certain charges for baths. Whether what he has said is correct or not, whether his financial scheme would stand the test of examination and re-examination, whether he has given consideration to every matter which a careful and competent administrator of a water supply would give, I cannot say, nor do I suppose can any other hon. Member. It is obviously a matter which we cannot decide on the Second Reading of this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and I cannot see how the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) is going to find the extra money if the price is taken off the baths. I cannot say whether he is correct or not. If he is not correct there is a danger, if you take the charge off these baths, that it might fall on the poorer members of the community. No one can tell; and we cannot rely on his somewhat imperfect information.
  Obviously a matter of this sort must be thrashed out in Committee. That is what a Committee of the House of Commons is for. We cannot debate matters of this kind on Second Reading. I think the view is shared in all parts of the House that baths should he as cheap as possible, and that water should be as cheap as possible. That is not a monopoly of any party. Anyone can say that they would like to see water cheaper and baths cheaper, but what is more important is that there should be a proper and practical way of doing it, and that is the point to which we should turn

  1807
  our attention. That is a matter which can be properly dealt with in Committee. I do not think anyone will suggest that, although the price of baths and the price of water are important considerations, the Bill should not be given a Second Reading and this great area deprived of its water supply and the only means of securing it during the next few years. It would be a monstrous position for the House, on a matter which is, although important, of a minor character, to stop the Second Reading of this Bill on a contention of that kind. Everyone concerned will have an opportunity of putting these matters before the Committee, and I want to say to the House, purely from the point of view of the Ministry of Health and the need of this great area, including the Becontree Estate, where thousands of houses have gone up through the efforts of the various departments concerned, for an adequate supply of water which will be needed in a few years time, that they should give a Second Reading to this Bill. I appreciate the motive of the hon. Member who has moved the rejection of the Measure. Although important, it is a minor point which will have to be considered by the Committee. As to whether we shall go forward with the Bill or not, I have no hesitation in advising the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. BROAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the principle of a distinct charge for water?
  Sir K. WOOD: I could not discuss that matter on the Second Reading of a Private Bill. The question of the relationship between housing on the one hand and water charges and transport on the other is a very interesting and a very difficult one. An hon. Member who has spoken said that some of our housing schemes had few means of transport and that raises some very difficult problems, but I would not care to give a considered judgment on such a question in a Second Reading discussion on a Private Bill of this kind. All we are concerned with here is as to whether we shall or shall not give a Second Reading to a Private Bill.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I rise to deal with quite a small financial point, but I cannot refrain from pausing, at the outset, in
  1808
  order to congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) on the amazing sincerity of his language. It is not often that one hears a Member on the benches opposite speaking so frankly the inmost thoughts of his heart as to describe a great housing scheme as "dumping." I never heard a Member of Parliament before describe his constituents by implication as rubbish. The people who have been "dumped" in Ilford are people with wills of their own, and I cannot think that they will enjoy hearing their representative describe their entry into his territory as a process of "dumping."
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I can assure the hon. Lady that none of them wanted to be dumped there by the London County Council. They would rather be living in the hon. Lady's constituency.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I have letters day by day from people all over London imploring me to find them Becontree houses.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: There are 500 of them to let if the hon. Lady would like one.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I do not see what these arguments have to do with the South Essex Waterworks Bill.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I was led away by the example of the hon. Member opposite and I thought I was in order in complimenting him on the sincerity of his language and hoping that his constituents would listen to it, should he repeat it in his constituency.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I can assure the hon. Lady that it will be published in the local paper.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I am sure it will be, and in thousands of leaflets also.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: Thank you very much.
  Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member expressed anxiety lest the position of the people in the smaller houses should be prejudiced in connection with this matter and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said that nobody could tell whether the position of the houses would be prejudiced by what we did or not. The fact is the company are

  1809
  seeing to it that it will be impossible to prejudice the postion of the people in the smaller houses. It is quite impossible, under the terms of the Bill, to make them any worse off than they are. If you take £4 per house then according to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Clause 58 of the Bill these houses will never get off with less than 13s. a year and reckoning the percentage on £4 of 13s. it works out to 16 per cent. Under no conceivable scheme could the general rate be raised so as to overtake the enormous special minimum which has been fixed for the little houses—the bath-less houses. If you put the general rate up to 9 per cent. you could not get more than 13s. out of the bathless houses which are at £4 to £7 10s. If you raised the basic rate to the full extent that the Act provides, you could not make these little cheap houses pay any more.
  Now I want to turn to the financial position under the Act of 1921. The dividend on ordinary stock was limited to 8 per cent., but the company are repaying the whole of the difference between 8 per cent. and the amount earned in previous years and that, as an hon. Member has already pointed out, goes back to 1861. They are limited by a provision in the Act of 1921 for they cannot repay the amount by which the dividend in any previous year of their history fell short of 8 per cent. if they are charging more than 7½ per cent. for their water. Taking these two facts together if you imposed a considerable extra charge, it, would be met by ceasing the repayment of dividend. It must be so met, because the conditions under which they can repay past losses in dividend depends on the rate charged for water; they cannot repay if they raise the rates too high. There is this very large sum of money which is being repaid every year to persons who lost money in the seventies or the eighties or the nineties and which must either go back to the shareholders or be used for concessions to the ratepayers. It is, of course, impossible to calculate exactly how much it maybe, but I would only point out to the House that there is this amount of money knocking about out of which concessions could be granted to the houses with baths. The minimum rate is fixed so high that it is impossible that any extra charge could be placed upon these very small and bathless houses.
  1810
  I think myself it is a very curious thing, and is really a violation of the spirit in which Parliament, when it grants a monopoly, limits the dividend, that the company should actually be in a position not merely to pay the statutory dividends allowed by the Act but to return to the stock holders a great part of what they would have got had the company been flourishing many years ago. I think we shall have to look very carefully into that matter. It appears to me that there is a very large sum of money which could be diverted from the payment back of dividends and devoted to the improvement of the condition of the houses with baths. It appears almost impossible, having regard to the high minimum which I have already mentioned, that, whatever we did, anything extra could be taken from the bathless houses because they are already fully rated. Taking all these circumstances together I think it is rather too much at this time of day that the South Essex Water Company should impose these special rates. Again I wish to emphasise that the enormous development of the Becontree Estate and the erection of these 13,000 new houses, must inevitably increase the revenue of the company. It will afford them a great deal of custom and they will take every year a considerable amount of money in this respect; and it is contrary to the public interest that a company charged with the duty of providing for a model estate of this kind should put into its Bill such antiquated and oppressive conditions as those in the present Bill.
  Mr. LOOKER: As the representative of a constituency which includes a population many of whom are in poor and straitened circumstances and who have to depend entirely on the operation of this company for their water supply, I should like to support the Second Reading. It must be remembered that the area which is served by the company is an area of 150 square miles stretching from Ilford and Barking to Thames-haven and embracing such large and populous districts as Gravesend and Tilbury. It is increasing yearly in population, and is undergoing large and rapid development. Over 140,000 extra people have come into the district to reside since 1921, and in the first quarter of this year 2,300 additional houses were built, quite apart from the Becontree

  1811
  estate. The proposals in connection with that estate will mean another 130,000 additional houses in the next few years. The present source of supply of water to this district is quite inadequate for the company's area, or will be in a few years, and the company is obliged to seek for other sources of supply; that is why it is seeking permission for the powers which are included in this Bill. All the objections that have been put forward to-night are largely points that can be dealt with in Committee. If this Bill is not given a Second Reading, it is impossible to say where in a few years the large and poor section in this area will be able to get the water supply which it will badly need. Is it right or reasonable to refuse the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature, purely on various minor points which can be perfectly well put forward and dealt with in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) has voiced his anxiety as to what would be the position after he is translated to a sphere, which I am sure he will adorn when he gets there. I can only assure him that the Metropolitan Water Board are under a statutory obligation to supply this area, if it is needed, and that the South Essex Water Company are also under a statutory obligation to supply water to this particular area. I am informed by them that they have no doubt whatever that they will be able to supply all the water which may be necessary in the future by the powers given in this Bill.
  There is no doubt a great deal in what has been said about baths, and it may need consideration, but there is another point of view. There are an enormous number of houses in this area, a very large number of which are in my constituency, which have no baths, and, if a uniform charge to include baths were imposed, it inevitably follows that a much bigger rate would have to be made than would otherwise be necessary. The South Essex Water Company have very humanely and properly taken this fact into consideration, and have thought that it is not right to impose on houses which have not a bath a higher rate than would otherwise be necessary to provide water to houses with baths. It is surely a right and sound principle that a dis-
  1812
  tinction should be made in some districts-between houses of this description. If a uniform rate is to be charged for a bath, it would mean that the poorer districts, where there are no baths, would have to pay 9 per cent, instead of 7 per cent.
  Miss LAWRENCE: Has the hon. Gentleman considered Sub-section (9) of Clause 58, where there is a minimum rate?
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. LOOKER: I have not yet considered many Clauses of this extremely voluminous Bill, but I will give it my consideration when an opportunity allows me adequate time to do so. I suggest that, if the hon. Lady has any representations to make on that point, she should make them to me, or to the promoters of the Bill, so that they can be given consideration when the Bill goes to Committee. If the rates which are proposed in the Bill are thought by any section of the community served, either now or hereafter, to be excessive, and of such a nature that they should be reduced, there is ample provision in the Bill for applying to the requisite authority to have the rates reduced. It seems to me that the interests of everybody under this Bill are amply protected. The hon. Lady has made a great point of the question of paying back dividends. It was the provision by the original members of this company of the capital which they put up, which enabled Essex to enjoy the water facilities that exist to-day. They were for many years without any interest on their money, and it is only right and equitable that, now that the Company is on a basis on which it can pay a dividend, these shareholders should get some reward for the capital which they supplied, without which capital it would not have been possible to have this water at all. The return to the shareholders is actually only 51 per cent. However, that is not a point which should operate to deprive the inhabitants of this area of all possibility in future of an adequate water supply of which they are in need. I would ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and allow these points to be dealt with in Committee. They have already been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee in another place, and they can, if necessary, be

  1813
  thrashed out again. If the Bill is refused a Second Reading, it will mean that a large section of the population might be denied, in a very few years time, the benefits of a water supply, which otherwise they will not be able to get.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I must admit that I have not read this Bill very carefully, but as I understand it, the real crux of the position is that the company, when they get these powers, are going to charge 10s. for baths in small houses. I do not know who is the responsible person promoting the Bill, and who is championing the cause of this company, but whoever is in charge of the Bill will be well advised to see that, when it gets into Committee, Amendments are moved, so that that part of the Bill which gives the company power to charge 10s. for a bath, shall be removed. If they are not prepared to do that, perhaps they will give an undertaking to have a compromise, so that the lower rated houses shall not be charged. There is a certain class of house in the area supplied by this company which is well able to pay for a bath, but there are a large number of people in the area who cannot afford to pay this extra charge. Although this company is applying for extensive powers, I am more than convinced, in view of what I know of that area, that if it develops beyond Barking, Dagenham and Laindon, and in that direction, the present plant will not supply the people who require water. I used to live at Laindon, and hon. Members will be surprised to know that there are hundreds of bungalows there which have no water supply at all. They have to rely upon the rainwater they get from the roofs of their bungalows. Sometimes they put down a well, but that is an expensive business. If any of the people who own these bungalows apply to the company to lay on water the excuse is made that building has not been sufficiently developed, and therefore they cannot see their way to put down the water mains, though some of them are exceedingly small mains. They say a water supply cannot be provided unless the owner is prepared to put down a certain sum of money. It is strange that the health of the community is made dependent upon whether a firm or a company can pay dividends. That is an absurd position for any com-
  1814
  munity to be placed in, whether they live in Essex or anywhere else.
  The point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) is a very important one, though the Metropolitan Water Board incurred very heavy expenditure and were not in a position to pay their way for a good long time, and, in order to get rid of their difficulties, had to put another 1 per cent. on the charge per house. But the Metropolitan Water Board are restricted to certain areas and cannot supply water where they like. At any rate, I suggest you will not persuade the Metropolitan Water Board to put down extra mains somewhere, else because if they did you would have this other company opposing them, and it would be a very expensive business for the Metropolitan Water Board. Therefore, I say, we cannot blame them. So far as I am concerned, I have got the will but I have not got the power, or I would make the Metropolitan Water Board extend their mains a long way down, so that people out there could have a better water supply. And there is another point. If the train facilities in that district were better than they are there would be a greater development of building down there. I should like to compel this company to strike out the Clause giving them power to charge 10s. for a particular bath, and if they are not prepared to do that, at any rate I think that houses of a certain rateable value ought to be exempted from the charge. I am not sure whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have made up their minds to divide against the Bill, but if they do I shall go into the Division Lobby with them, but, assuming that the Second Reading were defeated, this water company would still find ways and means of getting out of the difficulty.
  Mr. LOOKER: May I point out that the defeat of the Bill would entail great delay and a great deal of hardship on these people?
  Mr. THORNE: I know it means delay, but, as a matter of fact, sometimes you have to cause delay to get what you want, and why should these people have this monetary infliction put upon them? Ten shillings may not seem very much of a sum to us, but there you have a large number of people, living from hand to mouth, as it were, who cannot pay their

  1815
  way at all. As a matter of fact, they are in debt from week to week, and this extra 10s. would be a big thing.
  Mr. RHYS: It is 10s. a year, not 10s. a month.
  Mr. THORNE: Of course. I know it is 10s. a year. That means 3d. a week, but you ought to know that if you have not got the means to pay 3d., even 3d. means a good deal. If you are getting only 30s. a week, and it costs 35s. to live you cannot pay even an extra 3d.
  Mr. RHYS: I understood the hon. Member to say "this monthly charge of 10s.," but it is an annual charge. It was only for the purpose of accuracy that I intervened.
  Mr. THORNE: If I said that it was a slip of the tongue. I have made many a slip of the tongue, as I dare say you have in your time. I understand it is 10s. per annum. Is that plain enough? That means a few coppers a week. Is that plain enough? As a matter of fact, people have not got the coppers with which to pay, and cannot pay. These people, who are running into debt every week, cannot afford to pay this charge, even if it is only 3d. a week. I say it is a heavy infliction, and I want the promoters to give this House an understanding that if the Bill goes to Committee they will be willing to strike out that particular Clause.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and have listened to some of it with a great deal of astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is not now in his place, challenged us to say what ought to have been done and what could have been done. It seems to be forgotten that the London County Council and the Ministry of Health between them are responsible for the situation which the hon. Members opposite have been complaining about to-night. This is not something which has come upon us all of a sudden. The Becontree estate, under the wise guidance of the Tory London County Council, assisted in the main by Tory Ministers of Health, has been growing up for some years past, and all kinds of questions concerning the social amenities,
  1816
  of that estate have arisen. Again and again we have tried our best, both inside and outside this House, to get those questions effectually dealt with. Now comes the question of the water supply. As has been pointed out to-night, the Government insist that if they give a subsidy towards the building of a house, a bath shall be put in. Everyone knows that the bulk of the people who live on the Becontree estate can scarcely afford to pay the rents already charged. Many of them cannot pay rent at all, and the arrears are enormous. Others take in lodgers, although according to their agreement they are not allowed to do so; and all kinds of arrangements have to be made in order to enable the people to bear the tremendously heavy—relatively heavy—charges put upon them. Now the Parliamentary Secretary comes forward and puts the responsibility upon us of saying what the alternative should be.
  The alternative is quite simple and the hon Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) put it to the House. I am only sorry we really cannot submit it to the House to-night as an alternative and carry it, because I believe the ordinary common sense of the House would carry it. This district, indeed the whole of these new districts, ought to be linked up with the Metropolitan Water Board's system. If the Ministry of Health and the London County Council had done their duty they would long ago have seen that this was done. Things ought not to have been left to get into the chaotic condition in which they are to-day, so that Members are getting up one after another to tell us that unless this Bill is passed certain serious consequences will follow. This Bill will impose a great injustice upon a large number of people already bearing burdens which are too heavy for them to bear, because of the neglect of the Ministry of Health and the London County Council to do their duty. I do not believe we should allow any local authority to do what we are going to allow the company to do, and that is to impose heavy charges in order to pay for something which ought to have been paid long ago, namely, the dividends over a certain number of past years. Those dividends were not paid at the time, and now these poor people who have moved out there from London are to be penalised in order to make up those

  1817
  dividends. It is perfectly disgraceful, and the House ought not to allow the Bill to go through with such provisions in it. If dividends could not be earned in the past they ought to be wiped out, as any ordinary business has to wipe them out. The people who are to be supplied with water ought to be allowed to start more or less clear.
  We object to this Bill as it stands, first of all, because you are taking the wrong course to deal with the situation which has arisen, and which in our judgment ought never to have arisen; and, secondly, because the course you are adopting is placing burdens on the shoulders of people who cannot bear them. I do not believe hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite understand the kind of people who are being dumped into this district. To hear some people talk it would appear that the poor people who go out to Becontree are people who are committing some crime against the people of Essex, because the people out there seem to think that all those large open spaces should be left uninhabited, and that the poor people have no right to go there. We hear a good deal of talk about the responsibility of the London County Council and this person and that person, as if the poor people have no right to live at Becontree at all, and as if the people living in the slums had no right to go to a place where there are no slums. It is absurd to talk about the burdens put upon Essex by the poor people going to live there.
  Mr. LOOKER: We were talking about the burdens which fall upon some of the poorest people in Essex, and it is only right that we should make some reference to them in this House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I want to point out that every person who goes to live in that district increases the value of the land on which the houses are built, and every house adds to the value of the land and property in the county where they are living. These people buy and consume food and purchase furniture, and in that way add to the trade and business done in that particular neighbourhood. There are many of ray own personal friends living at Becontree, and to hear them talked about as being dumped down in that district as so much rubbish is sheer nonsense. We might say the same
  1818
  about the Cranwell Estate and the top hat brigade which has been dumped there.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not seem to be relevant to the question before the House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) introduced this question. He said people had been dumped down there from the East End of London; and I am resenting the accusation that these people are, as it were, superfluous rubbish that has been dumped down there. I know these people are of no value to the ladies and gentlemen living on the Cranwell Estate, or those who belong to the top hat brigade who ride up to the City every morning with second-class season tickets. On this question, I agree that we are in a kind of cleft stick, and, if we were to defeat the Bill, a long period would probably elapse before the work that is necessary could be carried out, but we do not propose to divide against the Second Reading of this Measure. At the same time, we do intend to tell the Government plainly that we shall most certainly do our best to fight as hard as we can against the Third Reading of this Measure unless there are some very drastic amendments made in the Clauses to which I will allude. Under the heading Miscellaneous Provisions, Clause 58 of the Bill provides, in Sub-section (6), that:
  "In addition to the rates and minimum sum authorised by the foregoing provisions of this section the Company may charge in respect of water closets and baths on any premises supplied with water the following sums:
  (i) in respect of every such water closet beyond the first (for which no additional charge shall be made) a sum not exceeding 7s. 6d. per annum."
  I want to point out that the discussion has very largely ranged round baths, but I wish to call attention to the sanitary arrangements as being something of equal importance. The people who live under the circumstances which I myself live under have not much conception of the sort of conditions under which many working-class families are obliged to live owing to the lack of proper sanitary conditions where two families are concerned. My view is that where there are two families living in one house which is not divided into tenements there should be separate sanitary conveniences

  1819
  for each family, and to lump on an additional charge for such conveniences is in my opinion quite an iniquity. That is a provision to which we very strongly object, and it is something which does not apply in London and which should not apply outside London. Consequently, under this Bill the people of the East End of London will be called upon to pay for a convenience which in London they would get in the ordinary way included in their rent. The next provision I will quote from the same Clause is as follows:
  (ii) in respect of every fixed bath capable of containing not more than 50 gallons and of every bath having an emptying aperture, and capable of containing more than 25 gallons but not more than 50 gallons a sum not exceeding les. per annum;
  (iii) in respect of every such bath capable of containing more than 50 gallons such sum as the Company may think fit."
  We propose that when this Bill comes hack to the House, unless there has been some drastic change in its provisions, we shall do our best to fight it during its final stages. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House know the advantage and the convenience of baths in their homes or in the places where they reside. The working classes at one time used to be spoken of as "the great unwashed." I want to say that unless people have the necessary conveniences with which to keep themselves clean you have no right to expect them to be clean. What I assert is that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, or myself or my wife and children, had to put up with the conditions with which tens and hundreds of thousands of working-class people have to put up with in relation to bathing, the bathing of children, and the washing business generally, we should be exactly in the same condition as these poor people are at the present time. It is no use minimising this business, and these people should have the same facilities for bathing as we have ourselves. I can scarcely describe to this House the difference it made in my home where we had a big family of children when we turned over from having to bath in a tub in front of the kitchen fire to having a proper bath with hot and cold
  1820
  water taps which is now quite an everyday occurrence in my home.
  It is because I know the convenience and, on the other hand, the slavery it is to a woman who has to bath her children in the old-fasioned way, that I think the House and those who represent the House on the Committee which will deal with the Bill, ought to consider it, not from the point of view of paying the back dividends of this company, but from the point of view of supplying the people concerned in these districts with the thing which you yourselves and I myself need, and without which we can scarcely live. So, although we would prefer, if we had the power, to throw out this Bill and bring in a better Bill compelling the Metropolitan Water Board and the county council between them to deal with this matter in a thorough and effective manner, in the circumstances we shall allow the Bill to get a Second Reading, reserving to ourselves the right if these Amendments are not made, to object to it and fight it when it comes back for Third Reading.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Question again proposed.
Sir CHARLES OMAN: Before this Bill goes through, I want to point out a serious lacuna in Clause 13, where it is explained that the expression "Bank" means the Bank of England and the expression "issue department" means the issue department of the Bank. It has been forgotten to say that where the word "silver" is used in the Bill it means, not silver, but the present alloy. I notice that part of the reserve provided for by the Bill may be in silver. Now silver is no longer currency in this realm, except, in small and dwindling proportions, for the Victorian coins which have not yet been got back. What we have at present cannot be called silver. Supposing a grocer mixed 50 per cent. of sand with 50 per cent. of sugar you could not call the mixture sugar. Supposing he

1821
has a bottle of oil, and 50 per cent, of water is infused, you cannot call it oil. So it seems to me that as we have no longer silver currency, or only silver currency of which a bare half is of precious metal, this phrase should have been inserted in the last stage of this Bill and where the word "silver" occurs it should be read,
"The present debased currency, partly consisting of silver, current in the United Kingdom."
Surely that should be definitely stated, for otherwise we might be believing that the silver spoken of in the Bill represented something definite in the form of value. Supposing it had been the old Victorian silver, it would have had a certain value, though infinitely less than 27 pence per ounce, but still an appreciable value of some sort. Now that the currency has been debased with 50 per cent. alloy, this so-called reference reserve is only half what it was in value when the original arrangement was made by the Bank many years back. Therefore, since this so-called silver no longer represents more than one-half in value of what it did 20 years back, it would have been an excellent thing to say that where the word "silver" occurs it should mean the present debased currency of the United Kingdom.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have now come to the last stage of this Currency Bill, which has occupied the attention of this House for some time. I do not propose to follow the last speaker on the small but perhaps important point to which he has drawn attention, but wish to address myself to the larger issues involved in the Bill. I fear it is useless to expect that this House will reject this Measure, but I am bound to say that the Debates we have had from time to time in the House and in Committee and the defence or lack of defence which the Government have put up for its provisions, have convinced me more firmly than ever of the injurious character of this Bill for the future conditions of this country.
This Bill, on the face of it, is purely financial, but, as a matter of fact, it most intimately concerns industry and labour, jeopardises the recovery of industry from its long depression and jeopardises the absorption of the great army of unemployed. I fear that large
1822
numbers of people do not appreciate the importance of this Measure. Nevertheless, it will affect the lives and fortune of the greater part of the people in this country. I cannot help drawing attention to the very sorry figure that the industrialists have cut in these Debates and Divisions. I know that large numbers of men and women engaged in industry all over the country realise the injurious nature of these proposals. I know that quite a considerable number of Members of this House sitting on benches other than these, do not agree with all the provisions of the Bill, but what has been their contribution? We have had one very short speech at a late hour in our proceedings from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), and we have had one very brief interjection from the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney).
With the exception of those two short speeches, we have had no real force put into anything in the way of opposition, or even questions, by the captains of industry in this House. The fact is that the captains of industry have entirely failed in their duty. Like the man with the muck-rake, their eyes have been cast down to their feet to the things that they find there, and they have never lifted them up to the larger issues which were above their gaze. It has been left to the representatives of Labour, and to them alone to put up a fight against this Bill. Had hon. Members on the other side of the House not supported those things they do not agree with, but supported those Amendments with which they were really in sympathy—had they done that alone—they might have obtained considerable improvements in the Bill. They have failed to do so, but their convictions have been on one side and their votes have been given on the other. As we have been quite unaided, the Government have steamrollered our opposition and are carrying through the Bill in substantially its original form, and all the Amendments that we have put forward have been defeated.
In the first place, this Bill hands over to the Bank of England very wide powers. They are not exactly new powers; it is a resumption of powers that it had before the War. These powers are given

1823
back to the Bank under almost entirely new conditions. No one, I think, can seriously deny that the powers which this Bill gives to the Bank are very extensive—so extensive that it is hardly too much to say that they enable the Bank to make or mar the destinies of this country. Nor can anyone deny, I think, that these powers are being given back to the Bank under conditions totally different from those obtaining when it had them before the War; and I think no one can deny, either, that occasions may arise when the private interests of the shareholders of the Bank may be in direct conflict with the public interest in matters which the Bank is called upon to decide. We proposed, in our Amendment to the Second Reading and by our criticism of the Bill, that there should be an inquiry into the constitution and policy of the Bank, and into the powers that it was proposed to give to it, before this Bill was passed into law. That proposition of ours, in spite of the support which I am sure it has among many Members, was contemptuously rejected.
In the second place, we demanded that, before this Bill should be brought into operation, the proposals put forward at Genoa should be implemented. The Government, and least of all the Secretary of State for War, who has been the chief spokesman for the Government in these Debates, cannot afford to ridicule what was done at Genoa. One of the principal proposals made at Genoa was that there should be a conference of central banks, and that that conference should be convened by the Bank of England. The right hon. Gentleman tried to ride off from the demand for the fulfilment of that proposal by saying that it was not the Government, but the Bank of England, which was expected to call that conference. That is, of course, in the letter, strictly true, but there would be nothing in the least unreasonable in saying that, before all these great powers are entrusted to the Bank of England, it should at least carry out this suggestion of the conference at Genoa. It might be undesirable, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view at any rate, and possibly from the point of view of Genoa, that the Government should intervene and interfere in the methods by which the Bank conducts its operations, but there was nothing at Genoa to suggest
1824
that the Government should not prompt and push forward the Bank in holding the conference adumbrated at Genoa. As a matter of fact, the authors of the Genoa resolutions, which were passed by the representatives of the central banks and by the representatives of the Government, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, did impose upon the central banks this obligation of holding such a conference, and there would be nothing in the least inconsistent with the freedom suggested at Genoa if that had been made a condition precedent to the handing over of the wide powers which this Bill proceeds to give to the Bank.
One of the other essential features of Genoa was that the controllers of currency should steer a middle course between inflation and deflation, and thereby obtain stability in the level of prices. Stability of the level of prices is the only sound course for Governments and banks to pursue. Without stability of prices, the whole basis of industry is uncertain. No industrialist can judge how to proceed with his business unless he knows that prices are going to remain stable, and, whether prices are rising or whether they are falling, it is equally injurious to the proper conduct of business. A rise in prices leads to the folly of the years 1916 to 1920, and a fall in prices leads to the disasters which have taken place in this country since 1921. There is no doubt whatever—the right hon. Gentleman admitted it himself when he was at Genoa—that a fall in prices, that is to say, deflation, was responsible for the grave industrial depression and the grave unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman, who has supported this Bill, and who, in fact, is its only serious defender, was a, violent inflationist between 1916 and 1920, and, like a poacher turned gamekeeper, he is the man now who defends all these provisions against expansion of the currency in the future. In the first place, I think that he mistakes expansion for inflation; and, in the second place, the safeguards which are erected in this Bill would, in my opinion, be entirely valueless if anything like the same crisis were to occur in the future which brought about inflation in the past. Our objection, however, is that they are entirely unilateral. The safeguards, such as they are, against expansion in the currency, which are

1825
contained in this Bill do not figure equally when it is a case of contraction in the currency; and undue deflation is, in our opinion, at least as dangerous, as inimical to the welfare of the State, and as injurious to industry and employment, as undue expansion can be. Therefore. we hold that still more rigid safeguards ought to have been imposed in this Bill to prevent the Bank of England and the Treasury from conniving at indefinite contraction.
The right hon. Gentleman defended himself against our Amendments by arguing that temporary circumstances might arise in which deflation would be justified, but the Amendments that we endeavoured to get grafted on to this Measure did not in any way prevent a purely temporary contraction if such should prove desirable. What we aimed at was to secure that alterations in the nature of contraction of the currency which might temporarily be decided upon should not degenerate into permanent contractions which would gravely injure industry and bring about increased unemployment. No reason whatever, no real argument of any kind, was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman or by anyone else—for no one else has defended the Bill—against the Amendments to Clause 2 which we proposed.
But, after all, our main criticism of the Bill, the main objective of our attacks, was to show that this Bill would injure the prospects of trade in the future. Expansion of trade requires expansion of currency, the re-absorption of the unemployed requires more cash to pay their wages, and, if this Bill allows of further deflation, and prevents expansion when expansion is necessary in order to meet the requirements of industry, then the Bill will have inflicted a severe blow upon trade, and will have prevented the men who are without work from obtaining anything to do again. In fact, when the spring of industry begins to show itself, the bankers' frost will nip industry in the bud, and the fiat of the bankers will prevent men from obtaining re-employment.
In the course of these Debates one hon. Member attempted to throw cold water upon our point of view by saying that it was entirely illusory to imagine that an increase in the currency necessarily meant further oil for the wheels
1826
of industry. He argued that, unless the currency were taken up, it did nothing to promote industry. He forgot, I think, the fact, which has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, that further currency means a further basis for credit, and that you cannot define and limit the effect of currency by neglecting the increased credit which an expansion of the currency involves. Credit and currency go together, and, like peas in a pod, you cannot say which of them is dependent on the position of the other. I am aware that large numbers of traders, manufacturers, and industrialists, and the great bulk of the workmen of this country will never realise, when their prospects are low, that their evil genius has been the provisions of this Bill. It will be possible for right hon. Gentlemen who have carried this Bill to put their hand upon their heart and say that they have done nothing to injure industry or to prevent the recovery of trade, but the fact will be that they will bear a very severe responsibility for their action in promoting this Measure, and that responsibility will be shared by all those Members on the opposite benches who, knowing better, have gone into the Lobby in defence of this scheme. When industry fails to recover and when the unemployed are not absorbed, I should not like to be in the shoes of those who, in carrying out this measure of finance, have prevented the recovery of this country.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Bill is really rather a simple Bill. It is to vest the management of the currency notes, in law as well as in practice, in the Bank of England. Of course, it does raise some important questions, but in itself it is reasonably simple. The first important question is whether that power should be vested in the Bank of England as now constituted, or whether it should be confided to a public corporation such as was sketched, but not fully described, by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and afterwards referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I am not going to repeat the quotations that I made on the Second Reading from the authoritative books issued by the party opposite, showing what is, or at least was, their policy, that is, the nationalisation of banks. The hon.

1827
Member for Keighley, with great skill and much charm, exercised his soothing grace and tried to reconcile the two statements—the nationalisation of banks and the public corporation referred to by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. He did his best, and according to him there was nothing in it. It was all the same. Everybody on that side, though not quite so much on the Front Bench as on the back benches, was agreed that it did not matter. Whether it was a Government Department or whether it was a public corporation, it really meant the same thing. I am much indebted to the hon. Member, because he really does establish this, upon which I had been in doubt since it was denied earlier in the Debate, that the Labour party mean the nationalisation of banks. Not only is there no difference between them, but they are all agreed, notwithstanding the denial of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. That is one question, and we answer that question by this Bill, in which we say that we intend to entrust these powers to the Bank of England and not to either a nationalised bank or a public corporation.
The next question that has been asked in these Debates, and has been the subject of a good deal of discussion on various Amendments, was what cover there should be to the bank note issue and what amount should be fixed for the fiduciary issue. This Bill follows the advice that was given by the Cunliffe Committee, advice which, after a very patient investigation at Genoa, was repeated by the Bradbury Committee, which sat some two years after the Genoa Resolutions. Those Committees, after full investigation, came to the conclusion that there should be a fixed fiduciary issue and that it should be fixed at such an amount as would be expected to leave at least £150,000,000 of gold as support for any other notes that were to be issued. While the Cunliffe Committee did not actually fix the amount of the fiduciary issue, they laid down the principles upon which it was to be fixed, and in effect, therefore, they settled that the fiduciary issue should be £260,000,000. There is now a gold holding in this country of £160,000,000, as against the £150,000,000 recommended by the Cunliffe Committee, and so the total note
1828
issue, fiduciary issue, and issue covered by gold can be £420,000,000.
We think, on the advice of those Committees, that we are right in fixing £260,000,000 and that on the experience that we have had in the last few years the fixing of it at that sum will enable a gold holding of £150,000,000 at least to be kept; but, of course, I do not pretend to be a prophet, I do not pretend to know what is going to happen. All that I can say is that there is no automatic method of fixing a currency, that there is no method so automatic that we can fix it and leave it to take its chance. There never has been. It was thought that there was in 1844, and under the Bank Charter Act there was no provision for extension whatever, but it broke down, in the sense that, there being no provision, the common sense of the people had to find a provision, and they did find a provision in the Crisis Letters which were extra-legal, extra-statutory, and only used because of the great emergencies which would otherwise have shattered the financial system of the country. We are benefiting by the experienc1e gained under the Bank Charter Act. We know that when we fix the fiduciary issue we must not fix it in an immovable fashion, because otherwise we should risk that same breakdown.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, not unnaturally—I do not blame them in the least—painted the horrors of so rigid a restriction of credit that trade would be interfered with and employment harmed. It is because we realise that any fixed issue might have such an effect that Clause 8 is put into the Bill. Clause 8 is the safety valve. Should the pressure be too great, Clause 8 will relieve it. I will deal with the circumstances in which it can be used.
Mr. BROAD: We object to the people who are going to sit on the safety valve.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand. The hon. Member no doubt would like a national bank to sit on the safety valve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) could sit on the safety valve. What a picture! [Interruption.]
Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is as handsome as you are!
Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Much more. But perhaps hon. Members will allow me to proceed. If hon. Members opposite do not really believe that Clause 8, which I call the safety valve, will operate, then I can understand their objection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley obviously, in his speech on the Second Reading, did not understand the operation of Clause 8, because he said that the fiduciary issue could only be increased if more gold were obtained as cover for that issue, and he pictured, on an increase, a scramble for gold. Of course, if that were really the case, then Clause 8 is no safety valve at all. The increase would merely mean a further competition for gold and that gold would be restrictive of credit. I was so surprised when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement that, when I was replying to it, I asked him if it was correct. He told me it was, but I might not have understood him clearly in the first instance, and so he said that he thought the fiduciary issue would have to be supported by notes covered by gold. That is precisely the same thing.
Even now I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) when he was speaking, was quite clear that the fiduciary issue was not to be covered by gold, because he made an observation which seemed to suggest that at least mercantile bills or foreign bills in lieu of gold would have to be used as cover for the fiduciary issue. That is not the case. If the Bank of England apply under Clause 8 and ask for an addition to the fiduciary issue and the Treasury agree, the increase can take place against security and not against gold. There is no competition for gold excited by the increased fiduciary issue. Not only is that so, but gold to the extent of the increase in the fiduciary issue which otherwise would be locked up is set free, and so, in fact, the exact reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think is the case.
10.0 p.m.
Let me repeat again that Clause 8 is not intended to be used as a substitute for the Crisis Letters. The Crisis Letters were used only at the time of crisis to save a crash. The intention is quite otherwise. It is to use Clause 8 to enable any demands not induced by undue speculation to be met. Speaking on the Second Reading, I gave some possible
1830
contingencies in which that Clause could be used. Not unnaturally, commentators outside this House and, I think, some hon. Members inside this House said to this effect: "It is all very well for the Secretary of State for War to say that that Clause will be used in that way, but who is the Secretary of State for War? He is neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Governor of the Bank, and this use of Clause 8 depends, first, on the initiative of the Bank, and, secondly, upon the assent of the Treasury." I am authorised to say that the Governor of the Bank has read what I said on Second Reading. For fear that I should pledge him too much, and to be more specific, he has read what I said in columns 744 to 746 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he has authorised me to say that that does represent the general intentions of the Bank. That, then, is the policy of the Bank. I think on that that hon. Members can be satisfied that this Clause is in the Bill not for the purpose of being used in a crisis but to prevent a crisis arising.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That does not bind future Courts.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member for Keighley put very forcibly before the House the proposition that we had £160,000,000 of gold and that under this Bill £110,000,000 was being locked up to support an internal currency, for which purpose it never would be used or never would be wanted, and £50,000,000 of it only was being earmarked and set aside for the purpose of meeting foreign obligations, for which it certainly would be required. He asked, "Why lock up so much as £110,000,000 for internal purposes; why not put it all for the purposes for which it could best be used—for internal purposes?" I think that was broadly the argument which the hon. Gentleman addressed to the House, following Mr. Keynes. Does the hon. Gentleman really understand Clause 8, because, although that £110,000,000 is locked up, it is not inaccessible. The Governor of the Bank has a key to that safe, and the Treasury has another key, and, when they both turn those keys, that £110,000,000, or so much of it as may be necessary, can be released by increasing the fiduciary issue so that it can be released for external

1831
purposes. While it is true to say that it is locked up, it is not inaccessible, as it is there for the very purpose for which the hon. Member says that it should be used. This Bill, notwithstanding the very friendly criticisms which have been made against it, does seem to me to have received general acceptance by the House.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for one moment? The right hon. Gentleman has explained very carefully two reasons for Clause 8. One was for a crisis and the other was a possibility of a foreign demand for gold. I should be very much obliged if he could explain also exactly how he regards this Clause 8 in the possibility of a persisting and permanent expansion of British trade.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So long as gold is wanted, not, for speculative purposes or for inflatory purposes, but so long as it is wanted for, and if a case is made for, an increase of currency owing to better trade and better conditions of living, then that is one of the occasions in which, if currency is to be increased, Clause 8 is available. A case could be tentatively made for six months and for another six months, and, should it prove to be necessary permanently to increase the currency, as indeed currency would have had to be increased under the Bank Charter Act if cheques had not come in to take off the strain—if such a thing as that occurs, this Clause would open the way to it being permanently increased. I am not sure still that the use of cheques among the wage-earners will not increase in the course of years almost as greatly as it has increased among other classes.
The Bill really has received a considerable amount of acceptance generally. It has been curious to me to listen to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) telling the House that really Government supporters, especially the industrialists, have been very slack. They ought to have moved Amendments. They ought to have supported him. He lectured the supporters of the Government and seemed to assume that he could speak for them. Curiously enough, they are very competent people. They can speak for themselves. Surely the
1832
fact that they have not supported his Amendments, and have not moved Amendments of their own, supports my contention that the Bill has received general acceptance. Of course, there are those who believe in a managed currency unrelated to gold. I cannot convince them now. We have definitely and deliberately rejected that form of currency. We have deliberately followed the advice of the highly important Committee which considered the matter. We have adopted the method of a fiduciary issue with an additional currency fully covered by gold, and although we have a fixed fiduciary issue we have provided the elasticity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget speech by enabling that fiduciary currency to be increased upon a proper case being shown by the custodians of the keys of the gold to which I have referred.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman is always a great delight to listen to. He was particularly delightful and particularly adroit just now. He always shows himself very quick at answering questions or interruptions, and he is particularly prudent in avoiding those for which he has no answer. When he was speaking I took it upon myself—a thing I very rarely do—to make a slight interruption which I thought was relevant. He read out an extract from a letter from Mr. Norman, the present Governor, saying that what he had said on the Second Reading was the policy of the Bank.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In case there should be any misunderstanding, I not only did not say I read a letter but I did not in fact read a letter.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is of no importance. There is no quarrel between us. The right hon. Gentleman drew a piece of paper from his pocket. He does everything so precisely that I thought it must be a letter. I thought he had fortified himself with it for greater accuracy. The point is that the Governor had authorised the Minister to say that represented the policy of the Bank. The present Governor will one day retire. New directors will be in their place. We may have a Labour Government in power. [Interruption.]

1833
I make the hon. Baronet a present of that — a Socialist Government. It strengthens my argument. How do we know what the policy of a future court of the Bank of England will be? That is the interruption to which the right hon. Gentleman, though he heard it very clearly, was careful not to reply, because he had no answer. There is no reply, and that is the crux of our opposition to the Bill. Here you have a Bank of Issue which under the Bill is given a monopoly of the issue of the present-day currency which has taken the place of the old coin of the realm, the 10s. and the £1 notes. You also so arrange that the Bank can force purchases of gold. You sweep away all property rights in bullion. You give a monopoly to the Bank to create an artificial trade boom according to the considered opinion, supported, I admit, by the best financial experts available in the City, of the court. You give all this power to this private company governed by its shareholders, its Governor and its directors, elected by a handful of people who happen to hold shares of the Bank of England.
This is the Bank which is having also the monopoly of issuing 10s. notes north of the border. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is looking extremely comfortable on that bench. Would he be so comfortable if he were defending in his own constituency the denial to the Bank of Scotland to issue 10s. notes? The Bank of England is a private company, an anachronism, a survival of the days of 1844, when it was created and given this monopoly, and when the Bank of Scotland had the power to issue £1 notes, and that power has been undermined first by the Treasury issue and secondly by the issue of the 10s. notes which only the Bank of England can issue in Scotland under the terms of this Bill.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has invited me to reply. I should warn him not to trespass in the sacred realm of Scottish banking unless he has much greater knowledge than he has yet been able to display.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Mere adverse reflection is not argument. Knowledge is not exclusively held by the
1834
hon. and gallant Gentleman. How does he know what I know of Scottish banking? I had a Scottish grandmother, and the first banknote I held in my hand was a note of the Scottish Bank. I have some knowledge of the matter and I have reinforced my knowledge from full-blooded Scotsmen. There are no finer bankers in the world. The Scottish representatives on the Conservative side are losing their patriotism. The Irish Members have been satisfied. They have their own separate 13111. The real problem is that Parliament has no control over this private company. It is true that, under Clause 8, if the fiduciary issue is to be increased Parliamentary consent ought to be sought. That is what the right hon. Friend describes as a safety valve. He describes me as sitting on the safety valve. He pictures me at the Treasury, which God forbid, sitting on the safety valve and forbidding the elected Governor, elected by the shareholders from increasing the fiduciary issue to meet the needs of the country. That is his picture. But my picture is this. I have a picture of the Bank of England, through its Governor, pulling up trade and letting out the fiduciary issue under Clause 2, because under Clause 2, after some secret conclave, some secret meeting with some unknown official of the Treasury, the Bank can reduce the fiduciary issue.
Look what may happen. We will suppose that a Conservative Government are in power. They are tottering to their inevitable fall. They always do fall. They always totter to their fall also. They are hanging on, but they know that their time is up. They are about to be defeated. Their time has run out. There is about to be an election. The Treasury without the leave of this House—Parliament has no control in the matter at all under Clause 2—can reduce the fiduciary issue in order that there shall not be much currency and that money can be made tight for an incoming Labour Government, which Government will mean, as it has meant in the past—I do not want to prophesy—we are hoping, greater employment, greater prosperity, a wise dispersal of spending power, and command over more money. But the fiduciary issue has been reduced. I am not exaggerating. This is in the Bill. The Chancellor of

1835
the Exchequer—my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) will be with us—
An HON. MEMBER: Will he? Not with the I.L.P.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: He goes to the Bank and says we have not a sufficient note issue, the cheques do not cover it; and we have the Treasury officials instructed by him pointing out that there should be an increased note issue. "Oh," say the Court, "not at all. The initiative rests with the Bank. The Bank must come to the Treasury first before the fiduciary issue of notes can be increased." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is a successful industrialist. He does not come here for doles and subsidies. This is what he calls the lifeblood of industry—the currency issued under the fiduciary powers under this Bill. I say that a hostile Court of the Bank can sabotage a future Labour Government or even a Liberal Government, if they ever have one. What are the Liberals doing in this matter. What is the answer? It is that in the great national bank of issue, which, of course, must be the property of private shareholders, there shall be no politics. Keep politics out. Keep the dirty hands of Members of Parliament out of this sacrosanct institution, this Holy of Holies. When I hear men who come to speak for Employers' Associations, Chambers of Shipping, Chambers of Commerce and Federations of British Industries that are non-political, I know what it means. It means only one thing. It means that they are in favour of the continuance of the existing order of things, only a little more so. They are in favour of monopoly, and they are in favour of this immense financial power of manipulating the Bank rate, of refusing credits, being in the hands of their friends. That is what politics mean to them, and that is what no politics mean to them. But politics to us means anything which concerns the livelihood and welfare of the people and the good of the nation. Nothing is more critical than the control of the central bank of issue, the greatest financial stronghold in the world, and we say that
1836
Parliament should have properly-guarded constitutional powers over a body which has such immense powers for good or evil. That is our case.
I am going to quote one case of maladministration on the part of the Bank of England in very recent times. Before the break of relations with Russia it was difficult for firms wishing to sell British Goods to Russia on credit, to obtain bank credits. The actual reason was that an attempt was being made on behalf of an association of foreign bondholders and the City generally and all those whose god is mammon—[Interruption]. If I use picturesque language, so did the Secretary of State for War, once or twice. Let us have a little give and take, and keep our tempers. Hon. Members opposite have had their way with Russia. I am talking about the recent past. At that time, it was extraordinarily difficult to obtain credits from the banks for perfectly good business with Russia, although there was no question of the Russian trading corporation defaulting. The common knowledge, the common talk, and I can bring witnesses of repute to prove this, was that the banks, especially the smaller banks, dared not give credits to reputable British manufacturers to enable them to sell their goods of British manufacture on short term or long term to the Russian Government trading organisation, because of the veto of the Bank of England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] It is not nonsense. It cannot be denied; it is common knowledge, and hon. Members opposite who deny it are either ignorant of City knowledge or else they are deceived.
There we had the Bank of England acting against the declared policy of successive Governments—the original Government of the present Prime Minister, the Government of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and the present Government. At that time it was the officially declared policy of the Government to encourage trade with Russia. It is true that the trade facilities scheme was not accepted, but there was this deliberate hampering of a growing trade and, as the figures showed, a very important growing trade, by the Bank of England. When two of the big five banks did arrange very large credits for British

1837
manufacturers to provide very large quantities of machinery and engineerng products for Russia, the others came in.
Mr. ROY WILSON: Did the Bank of England veto that arrangement?
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No, but the Government broke off relations with Russia. There is a power in the City that is exercised by certain men in their circle who are connected with the Court of the Bank of England, and while I agree with the right hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Snowden) that the present Governor of the Bank of England is respected throughout the world as one of the great financiers of the world and a man of the greatest integrity and honour, and while his Court are undoubtedly men well fitted to do their work, you will have political bias so long as they are elected by shareholders of the Bank of England and so long as their election to the Court is not under the control of this House.
If in the future we are to have Governments of the Left—I use the word in the broad sense—who are not to be hampered by the use of this secret unconstitutional money power, it is necessary that this House should take control of the great national bank of issue of the country, and when we are amalgamating the two currencies this is the opportunity, or this should have been the opportunity that Mr. McKenna and the late Mr. Leith and others expected, to overhaul the whole constitution of the Bank of England. Hon. Members opposite who have been content to support the Government in losing this opportunity, may one day rue it. They may be sorry that they did not ask for a thorough re-drafting of the whole constitution of the Bank. They may regret that they did not give a Conservative complexion to the reconstitution of the Bank, and for some reasons we may be glad that they have not done so, because we shall be able to bring about a different system of control. We have certain things which we feel this country will have to go through. They are to be accomplished in a constitutional, orderly and scientific way, and the Bank of England might just as well try and hold back these necessary changes in the economic system as try to hold back the tide in the North Sea.
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down will perhaps forgive me if I do not follow him in his knowledge of the Bank of England, which appears to be equal and approximate to the great knowledge he claims of Scottish banks. I have risen, and I make no apologies to the House, in order to make an appeal to the Financial Secretary on a matter which is perhaps a side issue, but which is one of some importance in connection with this Bill. So far it has not been referred to at all. The simple effect of this Bill is to transfer the creation and management of certain paper currency from the Treasury to the Bank of England. An incident of that is that the beautiful and charming pieces of paper which we find so useful at times will have to be produced under arrangements made by the Bank of England instead of under arrangements made by the Treasury. I am going to suggest that here is an opportunity for the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the country saves, or at any rate avoids an extra expenditure of, something like £500,000 a year; and £500,000 a year is no small matter as it is equivalent to interest on something like £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year of the National Debt.
The Treasury notes which we have known in the past have been produced in my Division, and for that reason I claim to speak with some knowledge of the subject, at a cost approximately of 5s. 6d. per 1,000. I do not claim to know with certainty what are going to be the arrangements on the part of the Bank of England, but if what is generally supposed to be the case has any foundation whatever, and I think there is good reason for supposing it has, the cost of the manufacture of these notes in future by the Bank of England will be nearer £1 per 1,000 than 5s. 6d. That is where the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can persuade the Bank of England to make some use of the existing arrangements in order to produce these notes in the same way as Treasury notes have been produced in the past, and so save the Exchequer a matter of £500,000 a year. For my part, as regards the Bill generally, I am so persuaded of the necessity for this change over of the control of this paper currency from the Treasury to the Bank

1839
of England that I would not for one moment bring up a question of this kind as one which ought to affect any vote on this Bill.
This is a matter in which some money could be saved without great difficulty and I think it ought to be done. There is no question here of any benefit to anybody by reason of the new notes being printed by a more expensive process than that by which the Treasury notes are at present printed. The expense falls on the Government, and any profit or any saving which arises as a result of these currency arrangements goes to the Exchequer. If these notes are going to cost about a sovereign instead of 5s. 6d. for 100,000 the revenue of the country is going to be the loser. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not 100,000!"] I am sorry, I should have said 5s. 6d. a thousand. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has mentioned that there is some danger in listening to these discussions on currency, and I think he suggested that it might have something to do with lunacy. At any rate, there is the difference between 5s. 6d. and a sum approximating to a sovereign, and the total difference during the year is a matter of £500,000. The record with regard to Treasury notes in the past has been so good that I do not think anyone will suggest that there is any need to attempt to improve upon it, even if the more expensive procedure were likely to be an improvement—which I very much doubt. The loss through successful forgeries or theft has been practically negligible during all the years that these Treasury notes have thus been produced, and I hope the Financial Secretary will give some attention to this appeal and will see whether he cannot, with the help of the officials of the Bank of England, make some arrangement under which that magnificent business which has been carried out so successfully for so many years past may still be made use of for the good of this country and the revenue of the Exchequer.
Mr. GILLETT: There is one point which has come out in the Debates on this Bill and which has been left rather uncertain. On that point I desire to address a question to the Financial Secretary. In certain eminent quarters reference has been made to the use of com-
1840
mercial bills, and that is a matter which has excited considerable interest in this connection. I moved an Amendment in Committee interpreting the word "securities" as including commercial bills and also bills on foreign firms, by which I meant bills payable in New York in dollars or in some other country in the currency of that country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in reply said both these classes of bills were covered by the word "securities." The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) afterwards rather questioned the statement and asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was quite satisfied that, in the legal sense, the word covered the two classes of securities indicated in my Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) was also rather doubtful on the point, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War then said:
"I am advised, and quite definitely advised, that 'securities' does cover bills of exchange, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has raised the question, I will certainly endeavour to be fortified in that matter, I will not say before the Report stage, but there is always another stage when it is possible to make any Amendment that may be required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1928; col. 1348, Vol. 217.]
This is the last stage of this Bill, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether any inquiry has been made upon the point according to the promise made to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) or whether we may be satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to him still holds good, and that he is quite satisfied upon that point. I think the House is letting this Bill go with a good deal of uncertainty, and a good deal of hesitation in many quarters, where opinions have not been very strongly expressed in public. Many of those doubts and hesitations are also held in quarters which the hon. Gentleman may think are quite satisfied with his policy. There are those who are absolutely opposed to any idea of the nationalisation of banks, who think that the policy of handing over of this power into the hands of probably one, or at best two or three, men, who dominate the policy of the Bank of England, is a policy which they look upon with a good deal of hesitation. That is an opinion held by men who in

1841
no way sympathise with the views which we hold about a State bank, or the nationalisation of banking, or anything of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is a simple matter. It has been a simple matter for him, because the general impression given of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, from whom, I regret, we have not heard more, is that they have hardly considered the ideas of modern banking and have not gone very deeply into them. If they had, we might have had a larger scheme, which would have met some of the ideas in connection with the problem in a more satisfactory way.
One of the outstanding objections to this proposal is the fact that everything is kept in secret. In the City, to-day, no statement is ever issued of the policy of the Bank of England, although at times other State banks issue statements in regard to the policy that they are following up. I listened with much interest when, for the first time, we had something from the Governor of the Bank of England in a definite form, stating what he proposes to do in future; but in years to come, how is this House to know what is being done in any matter of this kind? The answer from the Treasury Bench will be that they are not responsible, and technically that is correct. Why I view this with an additional anxiety is because of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). A good many people in this country are hoping for something important to come out of the movement that the right hon. Gentleman has inaugurated with Mr. Turner. The fact remains that those who represent industry in that combination, and those who represent the trade union movement, are concerned about this question which has been before this House, and that is why it is all the more to be deplored that in future it will be almost impossible to know anything about the policy that is governing this matter of currency. That is one of the outstanding objections to the Measure, because you are never going to get industrial peace unless the cards are placed upon the table by both sides. Here you are holding back some of the most important cards, which, the trade union movement believe—though they may
1842
be quite mistaken — will have a profound effect upon industry. And yet the Government, this Government, any future Government, will never be in a position to meet any argument raised against the Treasury on that question. I attach very great importance to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen, because he was expressing not only the views of the trade union movement but of some of the great industrialists connected with him. This is a fundamental mistake in the whole Measure.
The question of elasticity has been brought before us. Take the matter I have mentioned with regard to bills. If it is absolutely correct that the Bank of England can hold bills on foreign firms payable in other cities, it is an exceedingly important event in our banking history. It will lend itself to enormous possibilities in helping the bank to adjust the exchange movements between this and other countries; but only by accident, almost, have we got the information from the Government. Nothing of this kind was known to the general public. It is an illustration of the secrecy which will enshroud this matter in future years, until some new scheme is introduced. In spite of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, we still view with hesitation the provision made to deal with the elasticity of the fiduciary issue; but we have made our protest, and the future alone will show which policy is the correct one. If the Government have made a mistake, the effect of it will be borne not by themselves but by the great industrialists and by the workers. They will be the victims of any mistakes arising from this question, which though so vital and so important is yet so extraordinarily complicated that the great mass of men and women hardly appreciate how intimately it is connected with their lives and with their well-being.
Mr. BROAD: I view this Measure with much distrust, not because I mistrust the honesty, the integrity or the ability of the Governors of the Bank of England, but because of the purpose which they must have in view having regard to their position and the manner in which they are selected. One has no need to be an expert in surgery to have a right to select the surgeon who shall operate upon him,

1843
and that is what I feel about this particular matter. In view of our experiences since the War, we cannot feel very confident about the purpose in view. There was a powerful influence in this country in the beginning and in the middle part of the last century which had as its ideal that we should become the workshop of the world. In pursuing that purpose, those people claimed to be entirely unrestrained, and those who know the black page of that period of our industrial history will know what the absence of restraint meant—slavery for the children, long hours, miserable wages. There were to be no restraints, because they had their purpose in view!
To-day the most powerful interests in this country are not composed of the industrialists or the workers, but the financiers, and it seems to me that their ideal is not that England should become the workshop of the world, but the ignoble ideal that England should become the pawnshop of the world. The manipulation of currency, combined with the inflation of credit, meant that the Great War Debt was, in the main, piled up in pounds which were only worth 13s. and the financiers, in their greed and rapacity, and desiring to see these pounds worth 13s. made pounds worth 20s. brought about that great deflation, beginning in 1920, which meant 2,500,000 people unemployed in this country in a few months. That was not because of the Great War or an act of God, but because of the cold-blooded deliberate policy of creating unemployment in order to force down the wages of the workers. By that process the employers were able to take £12,000,000 a week from the workers' wages, or £600,000,000 a year, at a time when the figures relating to bank balances showed that the value of those balances had increased 50 per cent. That is what has caused so much suffering in the coal industry and in the engineering and the cotton industry.
We dare not trust a matter of this importance in the hands of those whose
only idea is to add more and more to the millions which they have already manipulated. These proposals are framed with the idea of maintaining the power of those who manipulate these things from the point of view of the banker and the financial side in order that this thing which we call money should not be used for the welfare of the people. That is why I do not think this House should pass a Measure giving back to this particular authority, which has proved so incompetent in the past, the management of the financial and industrial affairs of this country. I hope the House will think seriously before placing into the hands of that authority a power which they are incapable of using properly.
The Secretary of State for War has said that we must have a body like the Governors of the Bank of England which will act impartially, quite apart from any considerations of politics, and who will be able to come to their decisions in an impartial way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] I can quite understand the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to listen to something which is unpleasantly true. The Secretary of State for War, as a financial expert, has said that the body to determine the amount of the currency should be an impartial body, and he puts the Governors of the Bank of England on a plane with those who administer justice. We cannot do that on this side of the House because we believe that the body proposed will not be an impartial body. If the Government really desire to have an impartial body they should make it representative of all interests, including industrial and workers' interests as well as financial interests. We could have some confidence in such a body, but we are not justified in placing such a great responsibility in the hands of the body which is proposed by the Government.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 101.

Division No. 148.]

AYES.

[10.51 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Atkinson, C.

Bennett, A. J.

Alexander, Sir Wm, (Glasgow, Cent't)

Ballour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Raine, Sir Walter

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hacking, Douglas H.

Remer, J. R.

Briggs, J. Harold

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

Rentoul, G. S.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hamilton, Sir George

Rice, Sir Frederick

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Rye, F. G.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hatlam, Henry C.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Burman, J. B.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cassels, J. D.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Sandon, Lord

Christie, J. A.

Hilton, Cecil

Savery, S. S.

Clarry, Reginald George

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

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Shepperson, E. W.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Skelton, A. N.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

Crawford, H. E.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Smithers, Waldron

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Lamb, J. Q.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Dalkeith, Earl of

Locker-Lampton, G. (Wood Green)

Strauss, E. A.

Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Loder, J. de V.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Looker, Herbert William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lougher, Lewis

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Dixey, A. C.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmon

Templeton, W. P.

Drewe, C.

Lynn, Sir R, J.

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

Edge, Sir William

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Macintyre, Ian

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Elliot, Major Walter E.

McLean, Major A.

Tomlinson, R. P.

England, Colonel A.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Waddington, R.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Fenshawe, Captain G. D.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Warrender, Sir Victor

Fenby, T. D.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Femoy, Lord

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Fielden, E. B.

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

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Forrest, W.

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Wiggins, William Martin

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Nuttall, Ellis

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Gates, Percy

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Owen, Major G.

Womersley, W. J.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Penny, Frederick George

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Goff, Sir Park

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Grace, John

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Philipson, Mabel

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Pilcher, G.

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

Power, sir John Cecil

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Price, Major C. W. M.

Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

NOES.

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

Cape, Thomas

Grundy, T. W.

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

Charleton, H. C.

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

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

Compton, Joseph

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ammon, Charles George

Connolly, M.

Hardie, George D.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Cove, W. G.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Dalton, Hugh

Hayday, Arthur

Baker, Walter

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Barnes, A.

Day, Harry

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Batey, Joseph

Duncan, C.

Hirst, G. H.

Broad, F. A.

Dunnico, H.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Bromfield, William

Gillett, George M.

Hollins, A.

Bromley, J.

Greenall, T.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Buchanan, G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

1846

1847

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Palin, John Henry

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Paling, W.

Stamford, T. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Stephen, Campbell

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.

Sullivan, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Potts, John S.

Sutton, J. E.

Kennedy, T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Thurtle, Ernest

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

Riley, Ben

Tinker, John Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Ritson, J.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Lansbury, George

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

Viant, S. P.

Lawrence, Susan

Scrymgeour, E.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Lawson, John James

Scurr, John

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

Lee, F.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wellock, Wilfred

Lindley, F. W.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Westwood, J.

Lowth, T.

Shinwell, E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Mackinder, W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Windsor, Walter

Maxton, James

Smillie, Robert

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Montague, Frederick

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Murnin, H.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Mr Charles Edwards and Mr.

Oliver, George Harold

Snell, Harry

Whiteley.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL, [Lords.]
Order for Second reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think that at this late hour it is rather too much to expect the House to embark on a serious discussion of this Bill. [Interruption.] I see that the Attorney-General has now returned to the House, but it seems to me that he would require at least another day to listen to the arguments if we intended to deal with the Bill. I may say that, like most other Members, I have been unable to give that minute attention to the various Clauses of this Bill which would enable me to make any intelligent contribution—[Interruption]—on its detailed Clauses and Subsections, and it seems to me, in view of that, that some other day might be taken for it.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

BRITISH LEGION POPPIES BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
HON. MEMBERS: Object.
Mr. SPEAKER: What day? [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill should rise in his place. I cannot distinguish when several Members call different days for the same Bill.
Mr. EVERARD: June 5th.
Second Reading deferred until Tuesday, 5th June.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINES.
  MINES.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, PECKLETON.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, PECKLETON.
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (NIGHT CALLS).
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (NIGHT CALLS).
  WAR PENSIONS (INSTRUCTIONS).
  WAR PENSIONS (INSTRUCTIONS).
  SUNDAY COLLECTIONS, LONDON.
  SUNDAY COLLECTIONS, LONDON.
  HOUSING (RECONDITIONING).
  HOUSING (RECONDITIONING).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COAL INDUSTRY, LANARKSHIRE.
  COAL INDUSTRY, LANARKSHIRE.
  ROAD AND QUARRY WORK.
  ROAD AND QUARRY WORK.
  CANCER.
  CANCER.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  PIT PONIES.
  PIT PONIES.
  BRICK-MAKING.
  BRICK-MAKING.
  OIL FUEL.
  OIL FUEL.
  COLLIERY COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  COLLIERY COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.
  TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.
  LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).
  LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).
  MERCANTILE MARINE VESSELS (FOREIGN PURCHASERS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE VESSELS (FOREIGN PURCHASERS).
  BRITISH ARMY (GYMNASIUM, TIDWORTH).
  BRITISH ARMY (GYMNASIUM, TIDWORTH).
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES.
SCOTLAND.
  FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL BRIDGE.
  FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL BRIDGE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  ABLE-BODIED UNEMPLOYED (RELIEF).
  ABLE-BODIED UNEMPLOYED (RELIEF).
  INCOME TAX (BOOKMAKERS).
  INCOME TAX (BOOKMAKERS).
  BETTING DUTY.
  BETTING DUTY.
  INDIAN TEXTILES (CREDITS).
  INDIAN TEXTILES (CREDITS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

COPYRIGHT ORDER CONFIRMA TION (MECHANICAL INSTRU MENTS: ROYALTIES) BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Board of Trade relating to royalties on mechanical contrivances for the performance of musical works; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BRIDPORT AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.

  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELEC TRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders to which the Motion on the Paper in my name refers, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 26th of April last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am going to ask you to give a Second Reading to a Bill which I think I can rightly describe as non-controversial. It has the approval of employers and employed in the cotton trade, and it has the approval
212
of His Majesty's Government. It passed through all its stages in one day in the House of Commons, which, I think, in the present Parliament probably constitutes a record. I have very few words to say in urging your Lordships' acceptance of this Bill. There is, however, one point which I should like to make. There are two bodies, if I may so call them, concerned with the better growing of cotton within His Majesty's Dominions, and I want to prevent there being any question of the two being considered together, for they are perfectly separate, although both have the same object and many of the same people are, no doubt, on the governing bodies of each. The British Cotton Growing Association, the older of the two societies that I have mentioned, is a body whose funds consist of moneys subscribed by employers and employed alike, and I want distinction to be made between the two because this British Cotton Growing Association is one which, although it makes no profits in the way of dividends, at the same time does the marketing of cotton and has made a very considerable sum of money which has gone in its turn to help the cotton trade.
The other, the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, is quite a different body. It is one entirely for research and the money for that purpose is found by a dual grant. There was a grant from His Majesty's Government of, roughly speaking, a million pounds, which was made with the stipulation that money should be found equally by the cotton trade. This was done by a levy of sixpence on every 500 lb. bale of cotton. At first it was voluntary, but it was found that a certain number of firms stood out and therefore by Act of Parliament it was made a compulsory levy for five years. The Act which made the levy compulsory has now expired and in order to retain the residue of the million pounds granted by His Majesty's Government, it is necessary that we should renew the measure. After due consideration and consultation with His Majesty's Government and others, it has been decided that instead of sixpence per bale threepence per bale would be sufficient. The object of this Bill is to carry on the old work and to give effect to the compulsory levying of this money on the cotton industry. It is agreed to by the vast majority of cotton spinners, and I venture to think that the good work that

213
the Corporation is doing is recognised by them as I know it is by His Majesty's Government. I therefore ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Derby.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I wish to say one word on behalf of the Government. My noble friend has justly said that this Bill has the approval of His Majesty's Government. The general effect is to extend the provisions of the Cotton Industry Act of 1923, which imposed, as he said, a levy of sixpence per 500 lb. bale of cotton. That levy is now to be reduced to threepence, but I think you will feel that under the conditions now prevailing threepence will be quite enough to levy. Everybody knows the admirable work in research and cotton growing which has been done by this Corporation and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading unanimously.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment, moved yesterday by Lord Banbury of Southam, to the Motion for the Second Reading—namely, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I think most of your Lordships, who listened to the whole of the discussion last night, will have felt that in the trenchant speeches delivered by several members of this House points were made that even the lucid statement of the Lord Chancellor does not entirely cover. Certainly attention was drawn to the very peculiar position in which this Bill stands, and I think we have a right to ask what are the credentials under which the Bill is brought before us. The Prime Minister some time ago delivered an obiter dictum as to the desirability of equalising the franchise of the two sexes—an obiter dictum to which members of this House, who were impressed by the way in which women discharged their duties under the franchise obtained in 1918, were quite willing to subscribe—but
214
the Prime Minister coupled that pledge with a distinct undertaking that the question should be examined as a whole by a Conference, which Conference, he suggested, would be best presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
It was pointed out last night by, among others, Lord de Clifford, who spoke for the first time, with great force, that the fact that the Speaker in his peculiar position did not find it possible to preside over a Conference, did not in any way cut away the necessity for some consideration before taking this extraordinary plunge. Look back to the Reform Bills. Surely, when the Prime Minister gave that pledge he must have had in his mind, not merely the immense excitement which attended the Reform Bills of 1832, 1567 and 1884, but the fact that in 1918 the existing franchise was given in great haste after the War, mainly on the argument that it was not fair that the men who had fought in the War, and the women who had co-operated with them, should have no share in the discussions affecting the re-instatement of the country after peace. But I do not think anybody can maintain that the Bill of 1918 was marked by any considerable previous discussion, and it is unknown in our history that within ten years a further step should be taken without the least attempt made to weigh the effect of the last advance. Honestly I cannot think that the unanimity of opinion which is claimed for the introduction of the present Bill has any justification in fact.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack alluded somewhat humorously to the ten just men, or rather just ten men, who had gone into the Lobby against the Bill in the House of Commons. I would ask him whether in his experience or anybody else's he can remember any measure of first-class magnitude, not to speak of a Franchise Bill, on which in the two chief Divisions nearly 250 Members of Parliament failed to record their votes. The thing is unprecedented in our history and is eloquent of the state of opinion. I would also ask my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead, who I think is going to speak later in this debate, to tell us what was the curious indisposition which caused many of his colleagues, including men of such standing as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary for the Dominions and others,

215
to be absent from the Division—a Division on a Government Bill. Again I say with some experience that there is no precedent for such an abstention on the part of Ministers.
We are told that the women insist on these votes being given, not merely on an equality, but on an equality based on the precise terms of the Act of 1918. There was a great meeting at the Albert Hall addressed by the Prime Minister. There were, I understand, 8,000 or 9,000 women present. The Prime Minister went out of his way to use words to this effect: There is in some quarters a strong feeling, which is shared by many associations, that the franchise for both sexes should be given at 25; and that was followed by the loudest cheers given during the evening, which resounded round the Hall for several minutes. Therefore I think it is remarkable that it should be claimed that the terms of this Bill have the assent of the Whips. Has any public meeting been held in this country in favour of the Bill? If so, it has not been reported. I asked the Clerk at the Table the other day if any Petitions had been presented to this House in favour of the Bill. I remember on previous Reform Bills deluges of Petitions. I remember people coming to the House of Lords, with two messengers behind them staggering under the Petitions. I understand that not one single Petition has been presented in favour of this Bill. I think we must therefore modify this talk about unanimity, and we must admit that with regard to this Bill the House of Commons is apathetic, Ministers are divided, the women are frankly doubtful of the desirability of going as far as the Bill goes, and the country has given no indication whatever of its views up to the present moment.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, raised another very important point last night with regard to this rapid evolution of the franchise. He pointed out that the two Houses have to act together. He reminded your Lordships that in June last year by a very great majority this House decided that it was willing in order to facilitate the reform of the personnel of the House to give up its undoubted hereditary rights and to co-operate with the Government in modernising the personnel of this House.
216
The Prime Minister has in terms accepted the responsibility for acting within this Parliament on the question of reform. But I have noticed in the speeches of several of his leading supporters, including members of the Government, a statement that they had no mandate from the country to proceed in this Parliament with the reform of the House of Lords. Have they any mandate to proceed with the reform of the House of Commons? I know that in quiet times the questions which have arisen in the past between the two Houses are unfortunately obscured, but I am speaking within the recollection of, I should say, the majority of members who are now present here, when I say that both in 1885 and again in 1910, a condition of the utmost tension was caused owing to the constitution of this House, that pledges were given by those who sit with the Party opposite, and especially by the late Lord Oxford, to deal simultaneously, or as soon as possible after the Parliament Act, with the reform of this House, and I will venture to say that there is not one Conservative member who stood at the Election in 1910, who did not pledge himself to the reform of this House. Therefore, if there is any question of a balance of mandates, that balance, I submit, is in favour of the reform of the House of Lords, and is not in favour of the reform of the House of Commons.
I attach the greatest importance to asking your Lordships to consider how unwise it is to proceed with the one without the other. You cannot shut from your minds the fact that there is a divergence between the constitution of the House of Commons and the constitution of this House. We cannot conceal from ourselves that it is quite a possibility that in the very near future the Labour Party may be in a majority; and who can argue that a state of things in which there is a majority in one House of Parliament, while in the other House out of 700 members, there are only about 10 avowed supporters of that majority, is one which can permanently continue? I make bold to say that the reform of this House, considering this anomaly, is infinitely more important, infinitely more pressing, and that the absence of it is infinitely more dangerous than any lack of equality in the composition of the

217
electorate of the House of Commons. And I cannot help hoping that at all events one result of this debate will be that the Government will realise that, having carried out what they regard as one pledge, they are bound by the other.
I said just now that in quiet times the question does not arise. Under this Bill I feel that in the very near future the question of a collision on important questions between the two Houses must arise. I do not wish to be understood to mean that the mentality of this House differs from the mentality of the elected representatives of the people or their conception of the treatment of social problems is different. Taking a long view of it in the past, in all matters that were held to be matters of social advancement, whether it be education or housing or sanitation or the standard of life, the members of this House were just as urgent in pressing those measures forward as any of the members of another place. But a whole series of new questions has arisen since the War. There is the question of public economy, which was never brought forward before from the point of view that the more you could take from one set of people the more you could spend on someone else. There is the question of Imperial obligations, and the question, above all, of the public control of trade as against private endeavour. Those are questions which, there is not the slightest use in denying, are viewed differently by a large portion of the electorate than they are viewed in this House, where there are far more men of responsibility who know the real conditions of trade and are leaders of industry than will be found in the Lower House.
I could not find it possible to go into the Lobby against any question of equalising the franchise if it could be done on reasonable terms; but I submit to the Government that there is a question which could have been considered by the Speaker's Conference and which still could be taken up and considered before we go into Committee; I refer to the question of age and as to whether it would not be better to substitute "twenty-four" for "twenty-one" and so reduce the present age of thirty by six years. There is also the question of Poor Law relief; but that is ruled out by the Preamble of the Bill. I should like to ask your Lordships to permit me to deal
218
for one moment with two questions. The Lord Chancellor said last night that a woman who had married, who had domestic work to do and perhaps a child or two to look after, could hardly be considered unfit to give a vote for a Member of Parliament. I should have been inclined to turn the question round and ask whether a young woman who was just married and was engaged entirely in domestic work and cares, would have much time in which to study the problems upon which she has to vote for a, Member of Parliament. It has been said that a man who is of an age to fight for his country is also of an age to vote. It is true that in the last War you could teach a man sufficient in three months to enable him to fight. I wish I could think that the majority of the electors of that age could learn in three months, or could have three months in which to learn, something about politics in order to enable them to vote. But everybody must be aware, I think, that these very young people have been brought up under different conditions altogether since 1918.
Turning to the question of public economy, the state of our industries and the undoubted distress of a large body of workmen has made it necessary, and we have all agreed upon it, to provide special means of meeting their difficulties. Nobody grudges the "dole," nobody grudges Poor Law relief to those who, from no fault of their own, are absolutely forced to come under it. But everybody in your Lordships' House knows—it is an open secret—that a very large number of young women who could work, who could go into domestic service, are either idle altogether or go into three or four situations and throw each of them up on the shortest notice and come back on to the "dole," which is always there for them. The abuse of public relief both from the "dole" and the Poor Law, are matters which are absolutely well known to every member of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, it is the younger people (who have been brought up to believe that this is a proper and reasonable manner in which to meet their difficulties) who have been reported in many cases as guilty of the non-observance of the old strong desire not to come upon the Poor Law.

219
That is not all. I said just now that 8,000 or 9,000 women at the Albert Hall seemed to be afraid of the incursion of a number of these young persons into the franchise. I am not surprised at that. The other day I took up a Labour journal in which the editor boasted that the great majority of those to whom the Lord Chancellor alluded last night as being in employment were also in trade unions. And he added that they would, accordingly, vote in a mass at the next Election. I believe that most members of your Lordships' House are very willing to give the vote to the masses; but I do not believe that there are ten members of your Lordships' House who would justify the voting in masses which is the result of these enormous bodies of electors. I was reading the other day some words of Lord Bryce, whom nobody could accuse of being a Conservative. He wrote on democracy from this standpoint. He said that the present evil of democracy, of these great electorates, was that the larger they were the more they were at the mercy of the machine. With the machine you have an expression not of the wisdom of the people but, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, said last night, of the prejudices and views of the few who govern the machine. I do not believe that anybody who knows the effect of the influence of the "bosses" in America will regard it as a fortunate precedent.
If you look throughout Europe, I think you will see that these enormous masses voting together are controlled by organisations. You will see the Fascist movement controlling the democracy in Italy. You will see the utter breakdown of democracy in Russia. And can anybody say that in this country we have had a favourable experience since 1918? The noble Duke behind me called attention last night to the great development of huge Party funds, used by organisations of every description to influence elections and to run candidates. That is a difficulty which has arisen and increased, not on one side alone, since 1918. Again—and here I think that many of your Lordships who spent long years in the House of Commons will join with me—can anybody say that he thinks the House of Commons has not changed as a House since 1918? Look at the attendance in that House. Look at the constant
220
challenge in Labour circles to the influence of that House. Look at the debates in that House, which are hardly referred to by the Press in many cases. I say that is because to so large an extent the work of politics has been transferred from Parliament to the country.
I think that that for which we have fought for hundreds of years—namely, that Parliament should be a microcosm of the country—ought to make us hesitate and consider before we increase the electorate by this large number of voters. I know that since the War we have had to take steps which were never considered desirable before. I think we shall all appreciate the fact that the Government are wishing to move in the right direction, but what I put to them is this, that we are in a period of transition and that this is not the time to bring forward a crude Bill of this kind. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, two or three nights ago, that no doubt a certain proposal was revolutionary and it naturally came from the Tory side of the House. I do not wish to characterise this Bill as revolutionary, but I do think in its present condition it is specially dangerous. I ask the Government, is this a time without examination, without qualification, without consideration of the effect of so large an extension of the franchise, to pass this measure in deference to a demand which has apparently not been made by the country? I should hesitate to go into the Lobby against the measure, with the principle of which I agree. I do earnestly hope the Government will consider the question of the age—whether it be 24 or 21—and the position of those permanently on outdoor relief and will have regard to the effect of giving them the vote and to the circumstance that while their immense majorities in both Houses enables the Government to carry anything they desire, that very fact lays on them an immeasurable responsibility.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, having seen the Motion for the rejection of this Bill on the Paper I came down to your Lordships' House yesterday filled with interest to learn what arguments were going to be put forward against the Bill, bearing in mind that the principle of this Bill is simply to give votes to women on the same terms as

221
men, and I have waited with some interest to hear what arguments either of logic or of justice would be advanced against that principle. The course of the debate so far has convinced me of what I strongly thought before, that is that there are no such arguments. We have listened to a number of speeches, for instance that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, and to some extent that of the noble Earl who has just sat down, which might equally well have been directed against any form of democratic government. We all know that the noble Duke is quite convinced that democracy is a bad form of government. It may be so; I am not concerned to argue it. It may be that the noble Duke would prefer an oligarchy to a democracy. That is not the point. The point is that we are living in a democracy and it is quite impossible to put back the hands of the clock.
The fact of the matter is that this Bill became a certainty when you made education compulsory and free, for it is obviously perfectly impossible to educate all your men and women and then refuse to give them any part in the government of the country. I think the noble Duke was a little wrong also, if I may say so, in saying that women were given the vote as a result of what they did in the War. I do not think that is so at all. I think it was part of an inevitable procedure which was going on. It is true that the War hastened the advent of the woman's vote, but I think really what happened was that the War gave a very good excuse to a large number of excellent people, who had up to that time been on the wrong side, to change their minds. Another line of attack against the Bill has been that it has been neither preceded nor accompanied by the reform of your Lordships' House. I frankly say that that is a line of argument with which I find myself in very much greater agreement, but surely it is notorious that the only reason we have not had reform of this House is that we have been quite unable to agree among ourselves as to what form that reform should take. I do not think it is fair to blame the Government for that. Perhaps it is not too late to suggest that yet one more effort might be made and possibly, weighed down by the fear of the perils which the noble Duke foresees, he may be a little more willing to make some
222
concessions in what he requires in reform of this House; and, if other noble Lords are equally complaisant, it may still be that we shall have some scheme of reform which will command universal consent, or at all events a majority of your Lordship's House.
The argument has also been used that there is apathy in the country on this matter. That is an argument with which I venture absolutely to disagree. I quite agree that there is no great political excitement, but when you have a measure which has been adopted as a plank in the programme of all three Parties it is obvious that the end is a foregone conclusion. I venture to say that the only remaining question of interest is to see how many of your Lordships will follow into the Division. Lobby the ancient Britons, if I may so describe them without disrespect, who have put down the Motion for rejection of the Bill. Should your Lordships take what I think is extremely bad advice and throw the Bill out and delay the matter, I think you would find that the feeling in the country is very far from being one of apathy; in fact, if your Lordships were so ill-advised as to take that course, there would be such a storm in the country that when the duet had settled I think you would wake up to find, not that your Lordships' House was reformed and strengthened, as the noble Duke seems to think, but that your Lordships' House was no longer in existence.
One other very strange argument was put forward against the Bill. That was that yesterday's debate was of a somewhat gloomy character. I entirely agree. I think it was one of the most depressing debates to which I have ever listened. I frankly say that I do not think the atmosphere of your Lordships' House is ever exhilarating, but, with a succession of jeremiads such as we had yesterday and prognostications of disasters, I do not think it is surprising that your Lordships found it to be more gloomy than usual. One draws some consolation from the fact that the same lamentations have always rent the air whenever any extension of the franchise has been proposed, yet somehow we seem to survive and the world still goes round. We may console ourselves by thinking, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, remarked, that this is the last occasion on which your Lordships will be

223
troubled with a Franchise Bill. I say frankly that I do not share that gloom in the least. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and I welcome it as a great stage in the long struggle for the emancipation of women.
I regret, and I think all your Lordships will regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is not with us to-day. His absence, I am certain, has deprived your Lordships of one of those speeches to which we all listen with such pleasure. The noble and learned Lord let fall one sentence last week which is very much to the point to-day. I am going to read it to your Lordships. The noble and learned Lord said:—
"My idea is that men and women should be socially and economically equal, free and independent, that it should be no more a matter of surprise that a woman should set out to earn her living than that a man should do so."
That is the whole matter in a nutshell. It is just because it is a stage towards the accomplishment of that ideal that I, for one, welcome this Bill. I want to see men and women treated alike as human beings possessed, as they are, of the same qualities of heart and mind. I want to see more women in every sphere of life, and I include that last stronghold of undiluted masculinity, which is your Lordships' House. I think it is right to say that public opinion is getting younger every day, and public opinion is the opinion of women as well as of men, and of young women as well as of young men. I say quite frankly that I think the world has been exclusively governed by the old for much too long. I think the younger generation has a store of enthusiasm and idealism the application of which to the complex problems which beset us to-day can be productive of nothing but good.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, as a humble Back Bench member, not to say backwoodsman, of your Lordships' House, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to say a few words in support of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam to reject this Bill. The noble Lord who has just sat down seemed rather surprised that he had heard no argument why women should not be considered as equal with men. I do not think that he will hear any arguments in this debate as to why they should be denied
224
the vote on the same terms as men. The reason I intend to support my noble friend in front of me is that I consider that this Bill, this extension of the franchise, is a very serious constitutional question. It is the chief Government measure, we are told, to be brought before Parliament this Session. It has been described by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, as a crude measure. It has been described by the noble Viscount, Lord Sumner, who spoke yesterday, as hasty and ill-considered legislation. I think those were the words he used. The question has already been asked—and I think we are entitled to ask it—as to what authority we have from the people of this country for the introduction of this extension of the franchise at the present time.
This is an experiment, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack described the Bill of last year when he was Attorney-General. My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam may like to know exactly what he said. As I have always looked upon the Lord Chancellor as one of the most trusty leaders of my Party, I took very good care to preserve the words he used on that occasion. This is what he said:—
"Equal franchise is an experiment; probably there has never been an experiment on quite such an immense scale … If the elector in the future regards the vote as a means of getting some selfish advantage for himself or herself, then indeed the State will be in grave danger."
Those are the words which Sir Douglas Hogg, the Attorney-General, is reported to have used at Bedford College on November 4 last year, and I have, I may say, far greater faith in thinking that Sir Douglas Hogg spoke the words that he really meant on that occasion than did the Lord Chancellor in what he told your Lordships' House yesterday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): If I may be permitted to intervene for one moment I think, if my noble friend continues the quotation, he will find nothing inconsistent in what I said last year with what I said this year.
LORD FORESTER: I think—one does not want to go over this question a second time—that it is a fact that the leaders of the Conservative Party, neither in their speeches nor in their

225
programmes before the last General Election, said one single word to justify them in bringing in this Bill for the extension of the franchise in this Parliament. On the other hand the manifesto of the Labour Party contained the words: "Votes for women at 21 on the same terms as men." I fail, therefore, to see why we are committed, or how we are committed, by our own leaders to this Bill for the extension of the franchise. Lord de Clifford, whose speech I am afraid many of your Lordships did not hear last night—the Earl of Midleton has already alluded to it, and I hope most of you have read it in your OFFICIAL REPORT this morning—said that the Government are making life extraordinarily hard for their supporters by this action and others, to say nothing of the precedent that they are creating by passing this Bill without a mandate from the people. We heard yesterday all about the pledges of the Unionist leaders from my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, and I think the noble Duke who sits on this Bench fairly disposed of the question as to why the Conference was not summoned. He advanced very good reasons why, although Mr. Speaker refused to preside, the Conference should have been summoned all the same.
The Bill, I humbly submit, evades all the questions that have been raised. First of all there is the most important question alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Sumner, yesterday, and by the noble Earl. Lord Midleton, to-day—the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister, when speaking at the meeting at the Albert Hall, to which the Earl of Midleton alluded, used these words:
"I am proud to think that it has been given to the Unionist Party to secure the triumph of this cause"—
that is the cause of equal franchise—
"I believe in years to come it will not be reckoned the least achievement of our great Party."
The Prime Minister seems to think that the Bill is passed and over. He is either ignoring your Lordships' House altogether, or he thinks he has you in his pocket. Personally I think that is a great mistake whichever way it happens to be. The electorate was already
226
swollen by 13 million voters in 1918, and it is to be further increased by another 5¼ million voters when this Bill passes. Nothing has been done at all to strengthen the power of the Second Chamber in any way, in view of the great gamble that this Bill, when it is passed, will doubtless be. The Prime Minister the other day told the members of the other House that there was still a small remnant left to remind him of—
"Old unhappy far-off things
And battles long ago."
The noble Lord who preceded me talked about ancient Britons. I am proud to consider myself an ancient Briton, and also to belong to that small remnant of which the Prime Minister spoke.
I venture to remind your Lordships of one battle that took place about seventeen years ago in this House. I refer to the battle of the Parliament Act. I would also remind you of the name of one noble Earl who figured prominently in that fight. I speak of the late Lord Halsbury. Is it not a coincidence that Lord Halsbary's son is going to take a leading part in this fight to-day? I have no doubt on which side the late Lord Halsbury would be found were he with us to-day. Some members of your Lordships' House on that occasion ran away, and not a few of them afterwards bitterly regretted the part that they had taken. As a consequence your Lordships' House is now greatly weakened and crippled, and you have one hand tied behind your back. But you have still power to strike a blow and to reject this Bill, for this Parliament at any rate. By all means let those of your Lordships who think that this Bill is right and just vote for it, but I appeal to those of your Lordships who think that the Bill is neither right nor just, who do not like the Bill, not to say that you will not go into the Lobby against it merely because it is a Conservative Government that brings it in. That, I think, would be a great mistake. I appeal to those noble Lords to strike one blow with all their power, to show their self-respect and to follow my noble friend Lord Banbury into the Lobby against the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken nor the noble Earl who

227
opened the debate this afternoon into the consideration of the relative merits of the reform of the House of Lords and the extension of the franchise proposed in this Bill. I noticed with interest and pleasure that, although both noble Lords were speaking in opposition to this Bill, they both expressed no objection to the extension of the franchise to women on equal terms with men, which, I would venture to point out, is the only purpose and principle of the Bill we are discussing. I have no wish to prolong the debate, and I shall detain your Lordships for a few moments only, but, having taken a prominent part in the movement for the political enfranchisement of women in its early stages, I do not feel disposed to give a merely silent vote in support of this Bill.
In listening to the debate that has taken place yesterday and to-day, my mind went back to those days before the War when this subject was so acutely controversial, and to the women who fought the battle for their rights in those far-off and difficult days, some of whom did not live to see the fruits of their labours. I feel that by passing this Bill to-day we are, as it were, placing a wreath on the tomb of those early champions. At least we shall, by passing the Bill, be placing a crown of victory and a seal of finality upon their efforts. I have noticed during the discussion that, as Lord Sumner pointed out to us last night, a great change has come over the character of this controversy. In the days of which I have spoken feeling ran so high that this question divided not merely Parties but families, and separated friends. All this, I am happy to find, has gone, and all bitterness has gone out of the discussion. I do not suggest that we have reached unanimity on the question. So long as we have Lord Banbury with us he will, I am sure, save us, as he always saved the House of Commons, from the reproach of treating any Bill as non-contentious. But, if we are not unanimous, there is at least a changed character in our controversy. We who support the Bill no longer regard its opponents as the enemies of an almost sacred cause. On the contrary we respect them, and we even admire them as the remnants of a defeated army, the Old Guard, as it were, still fighting manfully in support of a lost cause; and they, I hope, do not regard
228
us quite as the dangerous lunatics that we were considered in the days when we defended this cause before the War.
I doubt if those who were the stoutest opponents of women's franchise in those days and who used to express the gloomiest fears of the consequences of their enfranchisement, both to women and to the State, would now claim that they were justified in the fears that they entertained or that the evils that they prophesied have come to pass. On the contrary, the placing of the two sexes on an equal basis has come to be regarded as so natural and reasonable that, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh very truly said, this is the explanation of the comparative indifference with which this subject is now discussed. Indeed, it is extremely difficult for those who have grown up since the War to believe that the arguments that were used and the fears that were expressed could have been seriously entertained. And now we are invited to carry this movement to its final and logical conclusion.
I have either read or listened to all the speeches which have been made in this debate. I have heard a great deal about the merits and faults of democracy; I have heard opinions expressed with regard to the political sagacity of women; but I have really failed to hear a single argument directed against the Bill which we are discussing. Democracy may be good or bad, but that is not the subject which we are discussing, and I submit it is irrelevant to consider the merits of that system of government. Again, the opinions of your Lordships upon the political sagacity of women may be good or bad, but they are no more relevant to the consideration of this Bill than the opinions of your Lordships on the question whether women should have long hair or short hair, which I have noticed with interest you are expressing very freely in the evening Press. At least the opponents of this measure, if they are defeated in the Lobby of this House, may console themselves with the consideration that they are said to possess a majority of three to one in favour of long hair, in the newspaper debate.
From the speeches that I have listened to I have gathered only two arguments which seem to me to be directed relevantly against the principle of this Bill. The first is whether twenty-one is a

229
proper qualifying age for the responsibility of the franchise, and the second is whether it is expedient or justifiable to create an electorate in which women will be in the majority, for admittedly that will be one of the consequences of passing this Bill. Let me deal first of all with the question of the age of enfranchisement for both men and women. I cannot help thinking that the critics of this Bill are apt to exaggerate both the importance and the nature of the responsibility involved in the possession of the vote. Whether you describe it as a responsibility, or a privilege, or a duty, or merely, as one noble Lord said yesterday, as a function, from whatever point of view it is regarded, I believe that the critics of this measure attach exaggerated importance to the nature of that duty, responsibility, privilege or function. They speak as if the choice of a Member of Parliament involved qualities so exceptional, experience so great, intellect so trained, discrimination so pronounced, that all these qualities are not to be expected in persons so young as twenty-one.
If we consider the question dispassionately, no one I think can fail to admit that this function, the choice of a Member to represent you in Parliament, is certainly not more difficult, nor is it more serious in its consequences, than any of the other duties, responsibilities and functions of manhood and womanhood, to which men and women become legally entitled on attaining their majority, and not more difficult, certainly, than the selection of a companion for life by marriage. Yet, we are asked to say that although the age of twenty-one is selected in every other country which has a representative system of Government, in this country alone we are to place the age at a higher level. If we consider that it is at that age, the age of twenty-one, that a man and a woman are considered fit to exercise every other duty, obligation and privilege of life which devolves upon them on attaining their majority—the management and disposal of property, responsibility as trustees for the property of others, and innumerable legal obligations—it cannot be seriously contended that the selection of a Member of Parliament is the one function, the one duty of a citizen, which cannot be fulfilled adequately by a person of twenty-one.
230
Then let me say a word about the second question, the so-called government by women argument. I am not surprised that those whose opinion of the political sagacity of the whole female sex is so low that they were not prepared to concede a vote to a single woman, and who have had so short an experience of the consequences of what they at the time considered to be a rash act, should hesitate to accept a Bill which would place women in an actual majority on the electorate; but here again I think that those who use this argument are inclined to exaggerate both the effect and the nature of the passing of this Bill. I remember that in the days when we used to discuss the merits of woman suffrage up and down the country those who advocated woman suffrage were at pains to explain that women did not and would not vote as a body, and now, in addition to the argument which we used hypothetically, we have had the experience of the enfranchisement of women since 1918, and to common sense we may add the argument of experience. I believe that the addition of women to the electorate has had one effect. I believe that it has added to the uncertainty of elections which have taken place, and that it has been responsible for a very large turnover in votes which has been noticeable in certain constituencies in recent by-elections. The pendulum is now longer than it used to be, and it swings therefore with greater momentum.
We are going by this Bill to add still further to the length of the pendulum, and, it may be, add still further to the momentum with which it will swing and to the uncertainty, consequently, of the result of various elections. However undesirable that may be, and I think it is regrettable, it is certainly no justification for withholding a measure which is in effect a measure of justice long overdue, and it is on that point that I will conclude. If it be a fact, and it is not disputed by the advocates of the Bill, that women are more numerous than men, that certainly is no argument for refusing them equal representation. I noticed that the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, yesterday, said that two things essentially different could not be equal. That may very well be, but how is that relevant to a discussion of this Bill? This Bill is not a Bill for

231
making men and women equal; it is a Bill for giving them equal representation. The noble Duke, I am sure, will not deny that bodies which may be essentially different may still have equal characteristics, whether those characteristics are good or bad. Nothing could be more essentially different from the noble Duke than a lump of lead, yet he would not deny that both may have an equal weight. Men and women may be essentially different, but that, I am sure he would agree, is no argument for denying them equality of justice, and I submit it is no argument for denying them equality of representation in a Constitution based upon the representative principle.
Again, the noble Duke concluded his speech by saying that the only question before your Lordships was the question whether the country would be better and more wisely governed as a consequence of the passing of this Bill. That would have been a very legitimate way of presenting the case if this had been a Bill for the better government of the country, but it is nothing of the kind. This is a Representation of the People Bill, and I submit that the only question for your Lordships is whether this Bill will give, or will not give, a better representation in Parliament of the people of this country. Believing, then, as I do, that this Bill can have no evil effect for the State, that it is, in fact, necessary in order to make the representation of the people more complete, and believing, too, that it is required and called for in the interests of justice, I have no hesitation in voting for the Bill myself, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading with a majority at least equal to that which it received in the House of Commons.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down says that the only question before you is whether women shall have an equal vote with men, and of course literally that statement is true, but the Bill involves many other important considerations which lead some of us, at all events, to object to it. So far as the political capacity of women is concerned, if it were a bad thing to give women the vote, the men did it, and they therefore have shown political incapacity. It is not on the ground of political
232
capacity in the least that the objections are raised on this side of the House; which would account for the fact—of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, complained—that we have not addressed ourselves to that point. The first objection that I at least have to the Bill is that I regard it as quite unnecessary when there are very many necessary Bills which should come before your Lordships, and one especially with regard to the reform of this House. The next objection which I have to it is that, taking the figures of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, this Bill will diminish the value of the vote of the present electors by about 25 per cent. That in itself I am not objecting to, but what must happen as a result is that the sense of responsibility of the individual elector must also be diminished. I should have thought that the preoccupations of statesmen would be directed towards increasing that sense of responsibility, not of diminishing it, and especially in the difficult and even dangerous times through which the country is now passing.
I also consider that, as an enormous extension of the franchise was made less than ten years ago, this Bill is at variance with the cautious traditional usage of this country. Before the new electorate have had time to find their feet, before the country has had an opportunity of observing the real effect of that great extension of the franchise, we plunge again into another great extension in exactly the same sense. The reason why I should reject this Bill, if it rested with me, is that in my judgment we have no certain guidance as to the opinion of the electorate. Therefore, as it seems to me, it ought to be placed before the electorate before it is passed into law. My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh made a very pertinent remark on that point last evening. He asked how the electors are to express their opinion at the next Election when all three Parties will go to the poll as supporting this Bill. There is only one way, and it is, I suggest, the right one to follow, and that is to submit this Bill to the country by means of a referendum. If the House of Commons accepted that idea, or even if it refused it, or if your Lordships at all events brought in a Bill to submit this measure to the country by means of a referendum,

233
it would be made clear to the country that your Lordships only desired in rejecting it to get the opinion of the electorate on it before a great constitutional change was made, to the detriment of their voting power. I think if that were done, even my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh would be of opinion that possibly we might still continue as a Second Chamber.
The suggestion which I make is precisely the same, if my recollection serves me, as was made, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when the Parliament Act was being discussed, and though, of course, the matters dealt with in the Parliament Act are of more importance than those dealt with by this Franchise Bill, still both are great constitutional questions. I think I am right in saying that publicists who discuss the referendum are agreed that constitutional questions are, above all others, those which are most fitted to be decided by a recourse to it. Your Lordships know perfectly well, of course, that the objection to the referendum, at least in this country, is that it would interfere with or even upset Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. But that objection would not hold in this particular case. If in the ordinary way a Government submitted a Bill to the country and it was rejected, that would be a vote of want of confidence in the Government. But in this case all three Parties of the State are putting this Bill forward, and the only inference that could be drawn from its rejection by the country would be that the country had no particular confidence in any of the three Parties, and the people of this country might be grateful to your Lordships for giving them an opportunity of expressing their views upon the matter.
Therefore, I would suggest, with all respect, that instead of discussing whether the measure is just, whether it is good government or whether it is logical, we should consider whether the electorate are in its favour or not and whether it would be right to pass such a measure without their consent. When you talk about justice to women, I suggest that it would be unjust to the present electorate to take away 25 per cent. of the value of their votes, without their consent. I hope very much, therefore, that your Lordships will reject the
234
Bill and so cause it to be submitted to the considered judgment of the country, which, as I understand it, is what we are here to do.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I fear I shall have difficulty in making myself heard owing to a cold, but I feel it my duty to endeavour to do so and I hope your Lordships will help me to make my weak voice audible. It has been urged that there is a public demand for this Bill. With that I cannot agree. It has also been stated that if this Bill were to go through there would never be a reform of the House of Lords. With that I agree conditionally. So far as I can gather, the general opinion outside is that this Bill is not desired at all. Therefore, it seems to me that the people ought to be allowed to express their views upon the question at a General Election. I think your Lordships ought not to carry a measure of this sort until that has been done. If you have not the courage to lead the nation when the nation apparently looks to you to do so, but pass such unconsidered legislation as this, it will mean not your reform but your abolition.
I have always been against large extensions of the franchise. When the first large extension of the franchise took place in New Zealand, the Conservative Party there were afraid that they would lose their majority at the coming Election. Therefore, they carried a measure of one man one vote, which the whole Party considered was only a stupid election cry. The result was that the first Labour Government that ever existed came into power. If your Lordships allow this Bill to go forward you will be doing a great deal to bring about the same result in this country. Therefore, I hope you will have the courage to throw the Bill out. I am against large extensions of the franchise on the ground that the aim and object of every Government is to represent the wisdom of the community. I know that the ladies are far cleverer than the men in certain relations of life; but the Government does not require cleverness: it requires wisdom and judgment, and we do not so much expect wisdom and judgment from the ladies as enthusiasm in the pursuit of what they consider right. The best thing for a stupid wise man (because most wise men are always more

235
or less stupid) is to have a clever wife to guide him, and he is a fool if he does not take her advice. But women do not excel in direction or government. Therefore, I have always been opposed to women having a vote.
It has been said that we cannot undo what has been done. Personally, I consider that all men and women below thirty years of age should be disfranchised as well as all those who are in receipt of Government relief. The fact that we have made one mistake is no reason why we should make a second. We have ability, cleverness and talent, which is not a matter of birth, in the young as well as in the old. But wisdom and judgment are the result of experience, and youth cannot possibly have much experience. I beg your Lordships to have the courage to stand by the country. I should like to make several suggestions, but they could not be carried out in this Bill. They would require a short Bill to deal with them separately, as they would not be amendments to this Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long, but, as one who took part in the House of Commons debate in 1919 in connection with this subject, I feel that I should not like to give an absolutely silent vote to-day. As a matter of fact I am placed in considerable difficulty because when the Women's Emancipation Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 1919 by the Labour Party I actually moved its rejection. Although it passed its Second Reading in the House it went upstairs and was subsequently killed in Committee. But that Bill was introduced within one year of the passage of the Enfranchisement Act of 1918 and it was quite obvious that too little time had elapsed between the passing of that Bill and the introduction of this Private Bill in 1919. How was it that women received their enfranchisement in 1918? It was by dint of pressure, by agitation and by forming public opinion until the time came that women were granted what they regarded as their rights. The War had intervened also and they had proved by their actions during the War that they were worthy of receiving the franchise.
236
Since 1919 much has happened to alter the political chart and the political barometer in this respect. I believe, notwithstanding the statements which have been made by various noble Lords in this House, that the country as a whole is in favour of this Bill and, furthermore, that if this Bill is rejected there will be set up a great deal of discontent and agitation. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack suggested three possible ways in which this subject might be settled. He told us yesterday that the method provided in this Bill was the method eventually selected. I think there is one other way which he did not mention. It might have been possible to create out of this Bill a really equal franchise and not an unequal franchise. I mean that by so fixing the age of women who will be entitled to receive the vote as to make the number of women voters approximately the same as the number of men voters, it would have been possible to create an equal franchise and not an unequal franchise, which we see presented to us to-day in this Bill. I do not, however, think that point is of sufficient importance for your Lordships' House to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe that we ought to be guided in this House largely by what the country requires and, in this particular case, that we ought to be guided largely by what the House of Commons asks and what the House of Commons has demanded in this Bill not only through the Party to which I have the honour to belong, the Conservative Party, but also through the other two Parties in that House.
As an old House of Commons man, in contradistinction to some of my noble friends I believe that the House of Commons ought to have a very large measure of freedom in respect of the franchise upon which the members are elected. I do not think that this question is one upon which the House of Lords should join issue with the House of Commons. I go further and suggest that, similarly, this House ought to have a larger measure of freedom in connection with its constitution than has been accorded it in the past. Only last year proposals were put forward by the Government which were accepted in principle by a very large majority in this House, yet when those proposals went down to the House of Commons they were

237
rejected incontinently, in a hurry almost and largely owing to the action of members of the Conservative Party. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, in his speech last night suggested that in return for the passage of this Bill through this House we ought to receive some quid pro quo from the other House. I entirely agree with that and hope that the question of the reform of this House will once more be raised, and not at too late a date. I hope that the Government will include that question in their General Election programme next year. For the reasons I have stated I propose to go into the Lobby to support the Government.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Midleton expressed surprise that 250 members absented themselves from the Division in the other place. He would not have been so surprised had he been present at the conversation I had with an hon. member before the Bill was introduced into the other House. When I asked him what was thought of the Bill he said: "Many of us do not like it, but the word has been passed round that we are not even to criticise it." In other words the Conservative Party in the Commons were "bounced" by the Conservative hierarchy into passing this Bill. I would ask the noble Earl to say, when he replies for the Government, whether the consent of the Cabinet was received before the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister first gave their pledge that legislation would be introduced.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): The noble Viscount has surely far too much experience of the methods of Government to be ignorant of the fact that it is quite impossible for a Cabinet Minister to reveal expressions of opinion made by particular members of the Cabinet at Cabinet meetings.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Your Lordships will draw your own conclusions. I was only asking—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Yes, but do not ask me. It is not necessary to ask me.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am quite sure in my own mind that consent was not obtained.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Then why ask?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: To get my opinion confirmed. I hope your Lordships will reject this Bill because the Conservative Party have been "bounced."
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I shall occupy very little of your Lordships' time, but I desire to say a few words in regard to the vote which I shall give. Some weeks ago, in view of this Bill and of the terrible state of representation in the House of Commons, where twenty per cent. of the members are minority members, I put a Question to His Majesty's Government. The Question was:—
"Whether in view of the great number of members of the House of Commons now elected who do not represent a majority of the votes polled, the Government will be willing to introduce, and pass this Session, a Bill which would abolish that great evil, by directing a second ballot to be hell without cost to the candidate and with as small a cost as possible to the State, or any other authority or person."
I said on that occasion:—
"My special reason for pressing this question upon the Government at the present time are these:—that the majority, and not the minority, shall represent the constituency, that the Act shall be in force before the next General Election, and further, that it shall be in operation before an extended franchise is voted to women."
I do not intend now to go into details as to how this 20 per cent. is made up, but you may take it from me that the statement I made is correct. It is easily avoided. Before I put that Question there was a discussion as to what was done in other countries in regard to this sort of thing, and the question was raised whether there should be a Royal Commission to enquire into what other countries did. I only heard the end of that debate, but I said that I thought it was a very simple matter and that if nobody else made a practical suggestion I would make one myself. What I suggest is that there should be a second ballot.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, may I say that as I shall have the responsibility of replying to the debate, I should be glad if he could bring his suggestion into some kind of direct relation to the particular discussion.
LORD SOUTHWARK: That is what I am going to do, but I thought I had

239
better let your Lordships know where I am starting from. It is very simple, and it affects the line I propose to take in the Division. I see my noble friend Lord Desborough here. I shall refer to him in a moment. There is a feeling that we want a second ballot. That is what I showed the other day. I think, and it can be done expeditiously, with very little cost, and to the great advantage of the country. The returning officer at an election receives a list of the votes recorded at that election. He finds the man at the head of the poll, when there are perhaps five or six candidates, has not a majority of votes. He says immediately, "second ballot." Now I come to the second ballot as quickly as possible. I say it is expeditious and cheap. I am doing this hurriedly but I have no doubt noble Lords will follow me. We are to have a second ballot. The second ballot would have to be taken in as few days as possible after the General Election. That would have to be put in the Bill. The second ballot is simply this, that the ballot boxes at the General Election have been retained, the staff have been warned that there may be a second ballot in a few days, and all the returning officer has to do is to strike off the names of all the defeated candidates except the two with the highest votes at the poll. You would have the greatest simplicity at the second ballot. There would only be two men, and one or other of the two must be elected, so there must be a majority unless the re turning officer has to give a casting vote. The only printing that would be wanted would be a new poll card. That could be printed for a very small sum of money in a very short time. The only names on it would be those of the two men fortunate enough to be at the top of the first poll.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I do hope the noble Lord will forgive me, and that the House will forgive me, for interrupting again. I think it may possibly have escaped his observation that we are discussing the subject of female enfranchisement.
LORD SOUTHWARK: If I may answer that, I would say that we are discussing now a very large increase in the number of voters in this country, and I do not want to see the Election take place so carelessly.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It will take place in the same form, even if we admit these women, whether it is wise or unwise. The noble Lord's speech is not directly relevant to the subject. I am sure your Lordships will feel that.
LORD SOUTHWARK: The suggestion I want to make is that we ought not to give this vote until we find better regulations for Elections, to avoid what I consider, and what I think noble Lords must feel, is a very great evil, that 20 per cent. of the members of the House of Commons should be elected by minority votes. I will only say a few more words. I would not have asked His Majesty's Government to do this if I had thought it was a very elaborate scheme or something that was going to take up a lot of time in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House. It is a very simple matter, and it will be very sound policy. I asked the other day, if the noble Lord thought to the contrary, if he would tell me what was the objection, because it seems to me the only answer you can give, if you object to it, is that you prefer a minority vote. I am not speaking for the Liberal Party or the Tory Party, or anybody else. I am only talking about a position which is very unsatisfactory. Perhaps I may say that I know Lord Desborough had to answer my question without knowledge of what the question was going to be. I apologise for that. Had I thought of telling him beforehand I would have done so. He gave me an answer relating to something twelve months ago. I was obliged to tell him this was something different altogether.
I would like the noble Earl, when he replies to the debate, to say whether he himself prefers the present system and prefers the minority vote. I do not think he will say that. At the same time I throw out the suggestion. I was a member of the Speaker's Electoral Reform Conference, and I voted for a previous extension of the franchise, and I am not going to vote against this Bill to-day, but I want to give His Majesty's Government time to reflect between now and the Committee stage as to whether they cannot add something to this Bill. I believe they could do that, but the noble Earl will soon come to a conclusion whether it can be done. I apologise for taking up the time of your Lordships. I am much obliged for the attention you

241
have given me and I hope I have made some suggestions that will be useful.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not expect me to follow the last speaker in detail, but I felt that I could not give a silent vote to-night, as I think that of all your Lordships I have probably fought more contested elections for the other place in the last twenty years than anybody else. I can count nine occasions for myself and one for my wife, and I have not found that the growing electorate is more difficult than the earlier ones, which were much smaller. For my part I feel that the evils spoken of by Lord Banbury and Lord Sumner are not confirmed by my personal experience. After all, the great increase of the younger electorate has eventually given us the largest Conservative majority that we have had in recent years. From the point of view of opponents of this measure it may be that a most dangerous and revolutionary Government has been produced thereby, but for my part I think that it is a great deal better than the Governments that went before, and accordingly I must support this Bill.
If your Lordships were to reject this measure to-night it would not only do this House harm but it would do our Party harm. The passing of this Bill will not necessarily advantage any of the three Parties in the State, because, in my opinion, women do not vote separately from the men. Like the men, they give a reflection of that strange thing, public opinion. If your Lordships were to throw out this measure it would no doubt be said that it was the Tory Peers who had thrown it out, and members of other Parties would go into the Lobby in order to prove that it was the Tory Peers who had thrown it out and to do our Party harm at the next Election. I merely put that point for the consideration of those of your Lordships who propose to go into the Lobby against the Government, because it is a point of very great practical importance. My experience has been that women do not necessarily feel very intensely as women. I have never at any of my contests found them bringing forward any point of view that was essentially different from that of men. They seem to me to have joined the electorate in an absolutely natural manner, and I have found myself addressing very much the same people after the increased franchise
242
as before it. I like to think that yet more women voters will be absorbed in the electorate in the same way, and that I shall not find arty great difference at election time.
There is one reason more than any other why I want to support this Bill, and that is that I believe it is best to begin your education when you are young. I do not believe that you begin educating yourself politically until you have some political responsibility, and if you defer the right to vote until a later age you defer the first consideration of politics to a later age. Accordingly I want to see more young women begin to take an interest in politics. In my opinion they are able more quietly to appreciate a new and complicated issue than the older people. I know that one always considers one's own age the best age. I suppose that I am now half-way down the road of life, but, when I have a complicated issue before me, I look to a young mind to try to discover a remedy quickly. I can understand noble Lords thinking that old men have greater experience, but experience begins when you first begin to educate yourself along a certain line. If you defer thinking of politics until you are an old man, you will still be young in politics. Accordingly I welcome the Bill and I shall support the Government in the Lobby when it comes to a Division, because I believe that it is good for the State that the youth of the country should begin to think of politics as early as they can and to study these problems. I am sure that this is good for our country.
LORD FORRES: My Lords, before the House goes to a Division I venture to trouble your Lordships with a few words, because my position is rather different from that of some of my colleagues on these Benches. I have gone through three elections in the poor part of a great city and five in country constituencies, and accordingly I have had some experience of the interest that voters take in politics. I am bound to say that the interest felt by young people, both men and women, but particularly young women, is very slight. When they receive letters with the addresses of candidates and other election matter they very frequently throw them aside as having something to do with the collection of taxes. That being my experience,

243
I hesitate very much to extend the franchise still further in the direction of including this large number of young women. Whether my views will be modified in time I cannot say, but in any case I feel that this measure has not been thoroughly put before the country. It was not one of the foremost planks at the last General Election, though it is true that it was mentioned by some of the leaders of the Conservative Party in an emphatic way. I doubt very much, however, whether the opinions then expressed are shared by the bulk of the Party which supports the Government. My own feeling is that, if it were possible, it would be an interesting speculation to ascertain the real view of members of your Lordships' House or of the other House who support the Government on this question. I doubt whether it would be found that more than 80 per cent. of members really support this Bill.
I would hesitate, very much, therefore, to vote for this measure. Being a Liberal, I hold the view that the majority of the country must decide, and I do not think that the majority of the country has decided. For that reason I think it would be unwise to pass this measure at this time. Another question that has been raised is whether your Lordships' House has any proper right to intervene and to decide questions of franchise over the head of the other House. I have to put that question to myself in a practical way. I cannot act altogether on precedents, but here I am, as a member of this House, asked to decide by my vote one way or the other on the proposal that is before us. We have a duty to decide whether we believe that proposal to be the best way in the interests of the country. For my part I believe that the best way at the present time, until the country has decided, is to reject this measure, and for that reason I shall vote against the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I am totally in disagreement with the last speaker but one. The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, suggested that one question that we might consider here is the effect of this Bill on the fortunes of Parties. It is an idle speculation, for nobody knows which way it will go, and it is not the way in which the Bill should be
244
approached. The Bill should be approached with the question whether it is a good Bill or a bad Bill, no matter which Party happens to gain by it.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: I tried to make my view clear that it was not to be approached in that way.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I must apologise to the noble Earl. I certainly thought that this was one of the points that he made. I listened with great interest to the speech in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introduced this Bill. I do not think that any of your Lordships could say that he was carried away by wild enthusiasm for the Bill. When I call your Lordships' attention in a little further detail to a speech which he made not even in another place but outside both this House and the other House, untrammelled by any Government Whip, I think you will see that then he was even less enthusiastic than at the present time. The noble and learned Lord started by expounding to us in a number of exceedingly well-phrased marginal notes what the particular clauses of the Bill did and, certainly to my astonishment, he based himself partly for the general principle of the Bill—namely, that there should be equal suffrage between men and women—upon the fact that this Bill was, after all, only implementing the philosophy of Plato and the philosophy of another person with whom I will deal in a moment.
When I heard that, a sort of feeling came into my mind that it had been rather unlikely that Socrates would have suggested giving votes to women and so I took the trouble of referring to Plato and, if I may, I will read to your Lordships the following passages:—
"Come now, and we will ask you a question:—when you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty; a little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal; whereas the other; after much study and application, no sooner learns than he forgets; or again, did you mean that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a hindrance to him?—Would not these be the sort of differences which distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?
"No one will deny that.
"And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex has not all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree than the female? Need I waste time in

245
speaking of the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear to be great, and in which for her to be beaten by a man is of all things the most absurd?
"You are quite right, he replied, in mantaining the general inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true."
That is the philosopher to whom the Lord Chancellor appeals for the principle on which this Bill is to be founded, and I need not remind him that that passage goes on to point out that the status of women in the republic is to be as follows: those of the poorer classes are to be trained as fighting soldiers, in order to take the burden of war off the shoulders of the men, and those of the better class are to be held in common. One is inclined to say: "Plato, thou arguest well."
I happen to know my Montaigne rather better than my Plato, and when I first heard the observations of the Lord Chancellor, knowing the views of Montaigne as to women, and that he was inclined to be rather outspoken, I was doubtful whether I would be able to find a passage fit for the ears of your Lordships, but I have succeeded in finding the following passage. Having talked about women, and in no particularly kindly words, he ended up as follows:—
"When I see them medling with rhetoricke, with law, and with logicke, and such like trash, so vaine and unprofitable for their use: I enter into feare that those who advise them to such things, doe it, that they may have more law to governe them under that pretence."
That was one of his mildest expressions. After citing these illustrious authorities, the noble and learned Lord made a remark which perhaps he had not quite considered. He said that in another place there were, he could not say ten just men but only just ten men. Now, had he considered it he might have reflected as to the circumstance in which the demand for ten just men arose. If he will remember it was this, that there was a definite promise that if ten just men could be found the imminent peril hanging over the Cities of the Plain would be postponed, or possibly averted altogether. That was the inspiring speech with which this Bill was introduced to the House.
We have, however, to consider a little further, and I think it is only fair to
246
investigate a matter which the Lord Chancellor suggested—namely, one ought to be able to explain, if the country is against this Bill, why it was that so many members of the House of Commons went into the Government Lobby. I do not pretend to explain. I only know it to be the fact that sheep, even when led astray still continue to be gregarious. What I do know is that some members of the Cabinet, and still more of the under Ministers, were not to be found in the Government Lobby. That is a matter which it seems to me requires still more explanation. Then we may ask how this Bill came into existence. It is said by the Prime Minister that he gave a personal pledge that this Bill was to be brought in, but my objection is to the way that he did it. He did not do it in a way that brought it home to the whole country that this was part of the Conservative programme. Are we going to be governed by a stray pledge at a small meeting, we will say in a school-room, and is it to be said afterwards that the Prime Minister gave a pledge there, and therefore the whole Party, never having been consulted, is to be bound by it? The pledge was that there was to be a Committee to discuss this. It is said now: "Oh, but it was said that the Speaker was to be president of that Committee, and the Speaker was of opinion that it was undesirable that he should preside." I should like to know this: Was any inquiry made of the Speaker before the pledge of that Committee was given, as to whether he was willing to preside or not? If not, why not? You do not get out of the fact that any pledge which was given was given conditional on a Committee of some kind discussing the matter, and the Party having an opportunity of saying whether they agreed to it or not. No such opportunity has been given, and no such opportunity has been offered.
Now let us see how this Bill has been dealt with. First of all let us see what the Prime Minister has done about it. The Bill having, as Lord Bertie put it, been "bounced" through the Party, "Mr. Baldwin, amid ringing cheers, appealed to the delegates: Infuse your spirit into the five millions of women of all ages who are now enfranchised." Is that treating your Lordships quite with respect? Before the matter has ever come before you the Prime Minister

247
announces to the country that these women are now enfranchised. I cannot help feeling that that rather dots the i's and crosses the t's of the people who have been saying for some time to your Lordships' House that the present Government does not treat you with the slightest regard whatsoever.
Now we will go into another matter. Let us see what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said. This was at a meeting at Bedford College. He is reported as saying—
"Equal franchise was an experiment; probably there had never been an experiment on quite such an immense scale."
When was there any pledge to go in and make an experiment with our Constitution?
"Whether or not it would be a success depended upon the spirit in which the vote was exercised. If the elector in the future regarded the vote as a means of getting some selfish advantage for himself or herself, then indeed the State would be in grave danger."
Were we ever told that you might imperil the State by putting it into grave danger? Are we to be pledged as a Party to something that was never brought before us at all—never put before us in a way that we could understand it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Earl is quoting me, I think it would be fair if he completed the quotation, because, as he left it, it gives an entirely false impression of what I was saying. The next sentence will show.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I will certainly do so. I was quoting from a rather badly written copy of a report in The Times. This is what the noble and learned Lord said:—
"But if the vote was regarded as a responsibility, if the voter trained himself or herself to study political problems with a single eye to the welfare of the State, then the extension of the franchise would raise the whole standard of the people."
My Lords, if—if—if! otherwise a grave danger. If everybody voted wisely, then we should be all right; if everybody educated himself or herself to vote rightly, we should be all right—if! I am reminded by that of a very great scene in "L'Aiglon," in which L'Aiglon is saying: "I am not a prisoner," and Metternich says: "No, you are not a prisoner, but—," and L'Aiglon replies: "Je ne suis prisonnier, mais …." What is the good of putting in an "if."
248
I turn to another member of the Cabinet, the noble and learned Earl, the Secretary of State for India. All I can say is that, having read two speeches of his, I do not find any wild enthusiasm on his part for this Bill. I do not like to overstate my case, and therefore I will leave it at that. Now this Bill seems to have been introduced in this way. First of all there was a pledge by someone; nobody had heard anything about it, but it was supposed to bind the Party by those who had made it. The next thing that happened historically, as far as I know, was that the Home Secretary rushed in where a lot of us thought that the ground had been quite sufficiently trodden—at the moment, perhaps even overtrodden—and gradually a sort of general idea grew up: "Oh, but this has been accepted, and therefore nobody can do anything. Before, it was too soon to make any protest, but now, for goodness' sake, it is too late, you must not do anything." Why not, if you disagree? Why should you vote for this Bill merely because the Government have thought proper to allow themselves gradually to be pushed on from one stage to another, until at last they said: "Now it is too late, you are bound to vote for it." I have no doubt they will carry with them their stalwart followers in the Socialist and Liberal Parties; they will certainly pass the Bill, but to suggest that this is a Tory measure, or that it ought to be passed by the Tory Party, is, in my submission, absolutely wrong.
Then I think the Liberal Party and the Labour Party have also a certain amount of just cause of annoyance with the Government. It must have happened to you over and over again that just as you have been going to do a thing that you wanted to do, some officious fellow has come in and done it before you, and probably not done it quite in the way you wanted. It is a most annoying thing. By this measure you will get the Liberal and Labour votes, but you will not get their gratitude. And it is left to us here on the Tory Benches, brought up, I venture to think, on Tory principles, to object to a measure which is clearly against every Tory principle, and we object to it with the usual official sneer that we are Die-hards. Personally, knowing that that expression came into use in 1911 I am not afraid of being called a Die-hard. Whether it is as Die-

249
hards, or whether it is not, surely it is our duty in this House to vote according to our consciences, and it is not our duty to say: "Oh, well, we do not approve of this Bill, but we cannot vote against the Government, it is a Government measure."
Might I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that this habit of telling us which way we have to vote, and taking it for granted that we are bound to vote that way, cannot last for ever. And if I may venture to suggest to him that he might add to his library some of the works of Balzac, he will find in those works that Balzac hiss definitely said that in his view the most terrifying thing that you could possibly imagine on this earth was a rebellious sheep. I do not desire at this hour to detain your Lordships any longer. I have not dealt with, and I do not intend to deal with, the question of the pauper vote and of the second ballot; this is the Second Reading, and those questions could well be dealt with when your Lordships have passed the Second Reading. If, as I hope, you do not pass it, they do not arise.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, my first duty must be to express regret that I missed twenty-five minutes of this afternoon's debate, having many weeks ago promised to make a speech on behalf of a charity in which I was deeply interested. I particularly regret that I missed the speech of my noble friend Lord Midleton, but a note was taken of it for me, and in reply to the principal question which he addressed to me I will make this observation at once. The same question was repeated, perhaps with a little more asperity, by the noble Earl Who has just sat down and who has once more addressed the House with that air of quiet reticence which endears him to us all without, perhaps, making him more persuasive. The question put, if I apprehended it aright, was why three Cabinet Ministers and 200 members of the House of Commons absented themselves from the debate. The noble Earl who put that question ought to know far better. He was a Cabinet Minister himself, a most distinguished member of the House of Commons, and it is surprising that he should really put it forward as if it were a serious or insoluble conundrum as to why 200 members of the House of
250
Commons stayed away when there was not one of them who did not know that the matter was not in practical issue. If he will allow me to say so, the question would be a very proper one on the part of a member of your Lordships' House who had never had the good fortune to sit in the House of Commons, but to anyone who has had the experience of sitting there for any length of time it ought not to be a difficult problem at all.
As to why three Cabinet Ministers stayed away, the answer, I should have thought, was even more obvious. One of them was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is not expected, amid his many preoccupations, to attend debates when it is known that there is no serious division of opinion in the Party, that no real clash is to take place and no crisis to be settled by the Division. The second case was that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as everybody knew at that time, was very gravely engaged with the problem of his Budget. Who the other Minister was I do not know. My own comment upon the figures that have been given is that I think they form a very remarkable tribute to the industry of Cabinet Ministers, that only three of them were absent on an occasion so unreal and so meaningless.
Now I address myself to one or two other casual criticisms that have been made. It has been said that there was a conflict of argument between my noble friend who sits on the Woolsack and the Home Secretary. It is said that the noble Lord on the Woolsack claimed with evident sincerity that it would be wrong for us to consider this question from the point of view as to whether or no it would benefit our Party. It was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Banbury, I thought not altogether without force, that my right honourable colleague the Home Secretary had upon the public platform claimed with exultation that this measure must react in the most favourable way upon the fortunes of the Conservative Party. I am not surprised at this disparity. It was said long ago by a philosopher, "Unus homo multas agit partes." If that is true of an individual, in the complex organisation of a Party how much truer must it be when different arguments and

251
different considerations strike different minds in a different manner. I prefer to see in this alleged discrepancy a, proof of the fundamental harmony which underlies the work of this Cabinet rather than a proof of any superficial inconsistency.
It was further suggested that some members of this Cabinet were not as enthusiastically in favour of this proposal as others. I should have thought that was probably true. I have been a member of a Cabinet, with a very slight interruption, for thirteen years, and I can hardly recall a single measure of first-class importance on which all members of the Cabinet had precisely the fame views. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, who sits opposite me, no doubt has a different experience, but it would surprise me if he were to make the claim very audibly.
It is worth while going into the history of this matter. Through my own attitude in relation to it there runs a golden vein of consistency which, inasmuch as it has been much misunderstood, I take the opportunity of making once again very plain. I was against the extension of the franchise to women. I am against the extension of the franchise to women. I always shall be against the extension of the franchise to women. There is not the slightest inconsistency in my career in regard to it, nor is there the slightest inconsistency in my standing at this Box to-night and recommending this measure. And if your Lordships will be patient with me I will make this matter of history—and history when political is very easily forgotten—indisputably plain. It was in the year 1918, after the War, that the disaster took place. Had it not been for the War in my judgment we should have continued successfully to resist this measure for an indefinite period of time. But what happened? In that year, in which nearly everybody went mad, when the phrases of President Wilson and his predictions were translated into logical and mathematical conclusions, and we talked of self-determination when we made the Peace Treaty—it was in that year that a discussion arose as to the extension of the franchise. I believe equally without inconsistency, I was the Minister in charge of that Bill as Attorney-General in another place.
Let me describe to your Lordships how gradually, yet how inevitably, we descen-
252
ded the slippery slope. First of all, it was not proposed that women should be included. Then a member of the House of Commons, and an important one, said that whoever was included or was not included, it was quite impossible to exclude from the franchise the brave men who had supported our cause in the field. Although it is not a political or a philosophic certainty that a man who has supported your cause in the field is necessarily equally qualified to support your cause at the polls, that argument in the spirit of the moment was accepted with facile enthusiasm, and accordingly the soldiers were admitted, subject to the qualification of age and without reference to any other very rigorous examination Then another member of the House arose and said: "If you are extending the franchise to our brave soldiers in recognition of their valour on the field how about our brave munition workers, many of whom would greatly have desired to serve in the field, but who were not allowed to do so because of the immensely greater services which they were rendering to the nation by their work in relation to munitions?" That argument, too, was difficult to resist when once you had yielded to the first. Then an insidious and subtle member of the House said: "How about our brave women munition workers?" and, having once on principle yielded to the first argument, it was absolutely impossible to resist the second. It is certainly true that had you challenged a Division in the House of Commons of that day upon this subject the minority would have been negligible against the proposal to enfranchise the women, after the Conference and discussion which, as noble Lords will remember, took place.
In those circumstances—preserving, as I made it plain to the House of Commons of that day in not opposing that Bill that I did preserve, all my old objections and prejudices—was I to say: "I will leave this Government because I am in a small minority in the House of Commons"? I have spent nearly the whole of my political life in giving wise advice to my fellow countrymen, which they have almost invariably disregarded, and if I had resigned every time that my wise and advantageous advice was rejected I should seldom, indeed, during that critical period have been in office. I,

253
therefore, reasonably took the view, making a frank explanation to the House of Commons of the position in which I found myself, that it was my duty as Attorney-General to carry out the wishes of the Government; but I expressly made my advocacy of that Bill conditional upon my complete freedom to explain the circumstances in which I found myself at the moment as its paradoxical champion. I claim the same freedom to-night.
Let me for a moment discuss the real issue which is before this House. Nearly all the arguments that have been addressed to your Lordships have been arguments that would have been valuable, timely and relevant in the year 1919. I have not heard one argument in the course of debate which has the slightest value in the period which we have reached. What is the use of saying that we ought to wait until after the next General Election—that we ought to give the people a chance at the next General Election to give an opinion which it is said they have never yet expressed? I do not know whether they have expressed an opinion or not. I do not argue it, because the argument is in my judgment irrelevant. Suppose your Lordships took the grave and most unwise responsibility of rejecting this Bill to-night, what would happen at the next General Election? The Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party would all go to the country and say: "We profoundly resent the attitude of the House of Lords and we all of us pledge ourselves to re-introduce this Bill at once the moment the Election has taken place." I picture Lord Banbury taking the field and informing the country that if he is returned to power it is his purpose to refuse to carry this Bill into law. These things are not done by members of this House without organisation, or Parties, or followings.
When you are to attempt a prognosis of that which the country will do you must address yourselves to it in the spirit of practical politicians. Once you know that the Leaders of all the Parties and the organisations of all the Parties are deeply pledged to this change it is folly to make a recommendation to your Lordships which, if adopted, would cover this House with ridicule. We know that such a course could never be taken by an Assembly which, upon so many grave and critical occasions, has given evidence of prudence and sanity.
We have to-day to meet a new situation. I have made it plain that I did and do contemplate the results with anxiety, but let us realise that when once both Houses have affirmed as a matter of principle in the Preamble to the 1919 Act, as the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack reminded us, that men and women were to be equal, there was indeed a kind of hypocrisy an insincerity in relation to which we had little defence, when we put it off year after year and said that women of twenty-one are not as mature and not as sophisticated as men of twenty-one. Everyone of us in our hearts knows that a woman of twenty-one is far more mature and far more sophisticated than a man of twenty-one. The moment, therefore, you had settled the principle that women were to have votes at all it became a lost cause to argue that there should be differentiation between people of the same ages. Victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni? This House has never consisted of Catos. My recommendation to your Lordships is to go into the Lobby in favour of this Bill, if without enthusiasm yet in a spirit of resolute resignation.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 114: Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Eldon, E.

Airlie, E.

Harrowby, E.

Bedford, D.

Ancaster, E.

Howe, E.

Devonshire, D.

Beauchamp, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sutherland, D.

Birkenhead, E.

Iveagh, E.

Wellington, D.

Bradford, E.

Lovelace, E.

Buxton, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Abergavenny, M.

Cranbrook, E.

Lytton, E.

Reading, M.

De La Warr, E.

Onslow, E.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Heneage, L.

Powis, E.

Cawley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandwich, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Jessel, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Spencer, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clinton, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Stradbroke, E.

Clwyd, L.

Kylsant, L.

Strange, E.(D. Atholl.)

Colwyn, L.

Latymer, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cranworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Yarborough, E.

Cushendun, L.

Loch, L.

Danesfort, L.

Merrivale, L.

Allendale, V.

Darling, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Astor, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Burnham, V.

Denman, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Desborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Dynevor, L.

Olivier, L.

Cobham, V.

Doverdale, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Devonport, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Dunedin, V.

Ernle, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Elibank, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Farrer, L.

Sandys, L.

Haldane, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sinclair, L.

Peel, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gorell, L.

Suffield, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Hanworth, L.

Thomson, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wargrave, L.

Annaly, L.

Harlech, L.

Wavertree, L.

Arnold, L.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Askwith, L.

Hawke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wraxall, L.

Barnby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Novar, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Joicey, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ampthill, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lawrence, L.

Harewood, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Mereworth, L. (L. Oranmore and
Browne.)

Lindsey, E.

Morton, E.

Charnwood, L.

Mowbray, L.

Munster, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Newton, L.

Westmeath, E.

de Clifford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Saltoun, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Forester, L.

Strathspey, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Forres, L.

Wharton, L.

Falkland, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wittenham, L.

Ystwyth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.

LANCASHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Confirmation,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gillingham Extension) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No.3),
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension),
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Peterborough Extension),
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage Provisional Order.
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water,
Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Warwick Canals Purchase),
Zoological Society of London,
Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund),
South West Suburban Water.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GRASSINGTON, THRESHFIELD AND LINTON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Skipton, in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HINCKLEY GAS ORDER, 1928.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Hinckley Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.